DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, line 3 recites “one gas inlet.” It is unclear if this is the same “one gas inlet” recited in line 14 of parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, line 2 recites “1-4 gas inlets.” It is unclear if these include the “one gas inlet” recited in line 14 of parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, line 4 recites “a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets.” It is unclear if these include the “one gas inlet” recited in line 14 of parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, line 3 recites “evenly distributed gas inlets.” It is unclear if these include the “one gas inlet” recited in line 14 of parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 13 line 2 recites “an electric motor.” It is unclear if this is the same as the “rim drive” recited in line 2 of parent claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, line 2 recites “a mechanical rim drive.” It is unclear if this is the same “rim drive” recited in line 2 of parent claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, lines 3-4 recited “a hull of a vessel” twice. It is unclear if this is the same hull of the same vessel.
Regarding claim 20, line 4 recites “a nozzle duct.” It is unclear if this is the same duct” recited in line 5 of parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 are rejected as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scott-Scott US 4,343,611.
Regarding claim 1, Scott-Scott discloses a propulsion assembly 12 for a marine vessel, comprising;
a body including a duct 24 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft 26 at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 30, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades 34 and a boss which is supported to the shaft, and a circular rim 38, 36 to which radial ends of the propeller blades are attached; wherein:
a circumferential slot 44 is provided, opening inside the duct between the first end and the second end, into which slot the circular rim is arranged to extend radially; and
at least one gas inlet 42 arranged to open into the slot.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
397
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Scott-Scott Figure 2
If applicant does not agree that there are three rotor blades, then It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have three or however many rotor blades are desired in order to obtain the desired flow and power ratio, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches a space is arranged radially between a bottom of the slot 44 and outer surface of the rim 38, and (the at least one gas inlet 42 is arranged to open into the space.
Regarding claim 3, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches that one gas inlet 20 is arranged to open into the space at its lowermost position. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the inlets at the bottom or any/all points in order to eliminate the most cavitation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches that the slot 44 is formed to the body by a radially inwardly extending circumferential projection (the portion of the duct around the slot) forming the side walls of the circumferential slot.
Regarding claim 5, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Scott-Scott also teaches that the projection comprises: a first fairing at a first side of the propeller 30 and a second fairing at a second side of the propeller having the slot 44 between the fairings. In this case, any transitional feature of the slot, or the stators 40 can be considered the fairing.
Regarding claim 7, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches at least one gas inlet 42 arranged to open into the slot.
Regarding claim 9, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches that the assembly comprises: a circumferentially extending gas plenum (ducting 20 leading to inlets 42) in connection with the body provided with a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets 42 arranged to open into the slot 44.
Regarding claim 11, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Scott-Scott also teaches that the gas plenum (ducting 20 leading to inlets 42) circumscribes the duct.
Regarding claim 12, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches that the propeller 30 is provided with a rim drive.
Regarding claim 14, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Scott-Scott also teaches that the propeller 30 is provided with a mechanical rim drive.
Regarding claim 16, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches that the propeller shaft 26 is a non-driven shaft.
Regarding claim 17, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches that the slot 44 is formed to the duct 24 as an indent from a level of the inner wall of the duct.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott-Scott US 4,343,611.
Regarding claim 6, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Scott-Scott does not teach the particular recited shape, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the protrusion/duct slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 8, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott does not explicitly teach more than four gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott-Scott US 4,343,611 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584.
Regarding claim 18, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott does not teach that the propulsion assembly is a transverse tunnel thruster, wherein the duct of the propulsion assembly is a straight tube. Jensen teaches a propulsion assembly which is a transverse tunnel thruster, wherein the duct 2 of the propulsion assembly is a straight tube (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Cho by using it as a lateral thruster as taught by Jensen in order to increase maneuverability of the vessel to which it is attached.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott-Scott US 4,343,611 in view of Taylor US 4,831,297.
Regarding claim 20, Scott-Scott discloses/teaches the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Scott-Scott also teaches a nozzle duct 24 and the boss of the propeller 30 is connected to the shaft 26 in a support structure. Scott-Scott does not teach that the propulsion assembly is a steerable azimuthing thruster wherein the support structure extends radially from the shaft for coupling the azimuthing thruster to a vessel in a rotatable manner. Taylor teaches a propulsion assembly which is a steerable azimuthing thruster, wherein a support structure 80 extends radially from the shaft for coupling the azimuthing thruster to a vessel B in a rotatable manner (column 5, lines 32-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Scott-Scott by rotatably attaching it to the vessel as taught by Taylor in order to increase maneuverability of the vessel.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 5,607,329 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584.
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a propulsion assembly 25 for a marine vessel, comprising;
a body including a duct 100 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft 104 at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 400, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades 406 and a boss 404 which is supported to the shaft, and a circular rim 410 to which radial ends of the propeller blades are attached; wherein:
a circumferential slot 130 is provided, opening inside the duct between the first end and the second end, into which slot the circular rim is arranged to extend radially.
PNG
media_image2.png
418
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Cho Figure 3
Cho does not teach that the assembly further includes at least one gas inlet arranged to open into the slot. Jensen teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vessel, comprising;
a body including a duct 2 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 4, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades 40 and a boss 5 which is supported to the shaft, and a circular rim 42 to which radial ends of the propeller blades are attached; wherein:
at least one gas inlet 21 is arranged to open onto the edges of the rim.
PNG
media_image3.png
476
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Jensen Figures 2 and 3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Cho with the gas inlets (with or without rim extensions 43, 431) discharging onto the propeller rim as taught by Jensen in order to reduce cavitation and noise effects off the propeller. As modified, the gas inlets are arranged to open into the slot.
Regarding claim 2, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cho also teaches that a space is arranged radially between a bottom of the slot and outer surface of the rim, and (as modified) the at least one gas inlet is arranged to open into the space.
Regarding claim 3, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen also teaches that one gas inlet 21 is arranged to open into the space at its lowermost position. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the inlets at the bottom or any/all points in order to eliminate the most cavitation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cho also teaches that the slot 130 is formed to the body by a radially inwardly extending circumferential projection (the portion of the duct around the slot) forming the side walls of the circumferential slot.
Regarding claim 5, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Cho also teaches that the projection comprises: a first fairing at a first side of the propeller 400 and a second fairing at a second side of the propeller having the slot 130 between the fairings. In this case, any transitional feature of the slot can be considered the fairing.
Regarding claim 6, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Cho also teaches that the projection comprises: a first axial end and a second axial end, and an inner diameter of the projection is substantially equal to inner diameter of the duct at the first axial end, and an outer diameter of the projection is substantially equal to inner diameter of the duct at its first and second ends, and the inner diameter of the projection at its second axial end is less than outer diameter of the circular rim. See Cho figure 3- as the projection is considered part of the duct that surrounds the slot, it can be interpreted to meet the claim as written. Alternatively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the protrusion/duct slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 7, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen also teaches at least one gas inlet arranged to open into the slot. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not explicitly teach more than four gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not explicitly teach more than 12 gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Jensen does not teach that the gas inlets are evenly distributed having an angle of 5-30 degrees between the gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the inlets at an even spacing of 5-30 degrees, or whatever the number of inlets dictates, in order to obtain a consistent effect, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cho also teaches that the propeller 400 is provided with a rim drive.
Regarding claim 13, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Cho also teaches that the propeller is provided with an electric motor wherein the rim 410 comprises: a rotor part of the motor and the body of the duct 100 is provided with a stator part 304 of the motor.
Regarding claim 16, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Cho also teaches that the propeller shaft 104 is a non-driven shaft.
Regarding claim 17, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cho also teaches that the slot 130 is formed to the duct 100 as an indent from a level of the inner wall 126 of the duct.
Regarding claim 18, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cho does not teach that the propulsion assembly is a transverse tunnel thruster, wherein the duct of the propulsion assembly is a straight tube. Jensen teaches that the propulsion assembly is a transverse tunnel thruster, wherein the duct 2 of the propulsion assembly is a straight tube (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Cho by using it as a lateral thruster as taught by Jensen in order to increase maneuverability of the vessel to which it is attached.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 5,607,329 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584 and Angel US 7,575,490.
Regarding claim 9, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not teach a circumferentially extending gas plenum in connection with the body provided with a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets arranged to open into the slot. Angel teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vehicle comprising:
a body including a duct 16 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 18, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades and a boss which is supported to the shaft; wherein:
at least one gas inlet 12d is arranged to open onto the edges of the rim; and
a circumferentially extending gas plenum 12 in connection with the body provided with a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets 12d.
PNG
media_image4.png
296
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Angel Figure 2
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Cho and Jensen by with a gas distribution plenum as taught by Angel in order to evenly distribute gas around the duct and increase effectiveness of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Cho, Jensen and Angel teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. As taught, the gas plenum 12 circumscribes the duct.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 5,607,329 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584 and Taylor US 4,831,297.
Regarding claim 20, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Cho also teaches a nozzle duct 100 and the boss of the propeller is connected to the shaft 104 in a support structure. Cho does not teach that the propulsion assembly is a steerable azimuthing thruster wherein the support structure extends radially from the shaft for coupling the azimuthing thruster to a vessel in a rotatable manner. Taylor teaches a propulsion assembly which is a steerable azimuthing thruster, wherein a support structure 80 extends radially from the shaft for coupling the azimuthing thruster to a vessel B in a rotatable manner (column 5, lines 32-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Cho and Jensen by rotatably attaching it to the vessel as taught by Taylor in order to increase maneuverability of the vessel.
Claims 1-8, 10, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois US 6,109,985 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584.
Regarding claim 1, Dubois teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vessel, comprising;
a body including a duct 20 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft 24 at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 10, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades 12 and a boss 14 which is supported to the shaft, and a circular rim 16 to which radial ends of the propeller blades are attached; wherein:
a circumferential slot (within 28) is provided, opening inside the duct between the first end and the second end, into which slot the circular rim is arranged to extend radially.
PNG
media_image5.png
403
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
355
387
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 5- Dubois Figures 4 and 5
Dubois does not teach that the assembly further includes at least one gas inlet arranged to open into the slot. Jensen teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vessel, comprising;
a body including a duct 2 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 4, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades 40 and a boss 5 which is supported to the shaft, and a circular rim 42 to which radial ends of the propeller blades are attached; wherein:
at least one gas inlet 21 is arranged to open onto the edges of the rim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Dubois with the gas inlets (with or without rim extensions 43, 431) discharging onto the propeller rim as taught by Jensen in order to reduce cavitation and noise effects off the propeller. As modified, the gas inlets are arranged to open into the slot.
Regarding claim 2, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Dubois also teaches that a space is arranged radially between a bottom of the slot and outer surface of the rim, and (as modified) the at least one gas inlet is arranged to open into the space.
Regarding claim 3, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen also teaches that one gas inlet 21 is arranged to open into the space at its lowermost position. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the inlets at the bottom or any/all points in order to eliminate the most cavitation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Dubois also teaches that the slot (within 28) is formed to the body by a radially inwardly extending circumferential projection 30 forming the side walls of the circumferential slot.
Regarding claim 5, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Dubois also teaches that the projection comprises: a first fairing 32 at a first side of the propeller 10 and a second fairing 30 at a second side of the propeller having the slot (within 28) between the fairings.
Regarding claim 6, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Dubois does not teach the particular recited shape, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the protrusion/duct slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 7, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen also teaches at least one gas inlet arranged to open into the slot. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not explicitly teach more than four gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not explicitly teach more than 12 gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Jensen does not teach that the gas inlets are evenly distributed having an angle of 5-30 degrees between the gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the inlets at an even spacing of 5-30 degrees, or whatever the number of inlets dictates, in order to obtain a consistent effect, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Dubois also teaches that the propeller shaft 24 is a driven shaft.
Regarding claim 19, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Dubois also teaches that the propulsion assembly is a shaft line propulsion system, wherein the body of the duct 20 of the propulsion assembly is rigidly attached to a hull 26 of a vessel and the shaft 24 extends via a stern tube (the portion of the hull surrounding the shaft) through the hull of the vessel.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubois US 6,109,985 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584 and Angel US 7,575,490.
Regarding claim 9, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not teach a circumferentially extending gas plenum in connection with the body provided with a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets arranged to open into the slot. Angel teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vehicle comprising:
a body including a duct 16 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 18, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades and a boss which is supported to the shaft; wherein:
at least one gas inlet 12d is arranged to open onto the edges of the rim; and
a circumferentially extending gas plenum 12 in connection with the body provided with a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets 12d.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Dubois and Jensen by with a gas distribution plenum as taught by Angel in order to evenly distribute gas around the duct and increase effectiveness of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Dubois, Jensen and Angel teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. As taught, the gas plenum 12 circumscribes the duct.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber US 3,361,107 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584.
Regarding claim 1, Weber teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vessel, comprising;
a body including a duct 24 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft 38 at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 20, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades and a boss which is supported to the shaft, and a circular rim 22 to which radial ends of the propeller blades are attached; wherein:
a circumferential slot (between 36 and 34) is provided, opening inside the duct between the first end and the second end, into which slot the circular rim is arranged to extend radially.
PNG
media_image7.png
269
303
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
271
362
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 6- Weber Figures 2 and 3
Weber does not teach that the assembly further includes at least one gas inlet arranged to open into the slot. Jensen teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vessel, comprising;
a body including a duct 2 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 4, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades 40 and a boss 5 which is supported to the shaft, and a circular rim 42 to which radial ends of the propeller blades are attached; wherein:
at least one gas inlet 21 is arranged to open onto the edges of the rim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Weber with the gas inlets (with or without rim extensions 43, 431) discharging onto the propeller rim as taught by Jensen in order to reduce cavitation and noise effects off the propeller. As modified, the gas inlets are arranged to open into the slot.
Regarding claim 2, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weber also teaches that a space is arranged radially between a bottom of the slot and outer surface of the rim, and (as modified) the at least one gas inlet is arranged to open into the space.
Regarding claim 3, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen also teaches that one gas inlet 21 is arranged to open into the space at its lowermost position. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the inlets at the bottom or any/all points in order to eliminate the most cavitation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weber also teaches that the slot (between 36 and 34) is formed to the body by a radially inwardly extending circumferential projection (the portion of the duct around the slot) forming the side walls of the circumferential slot.
Regarding claim 5, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Weber also teaches that the projection comprises: a first fairing at a first side of the propeller and a second fairing at a second side of the propeller having the slot between the fairings. In this case, any transitional feature of the slot can be considered the fairing.
Regarding claim 6, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Weber does not teach the particular recited shape, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the protrusion/duct slanted or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to obtain the desired flow characteristics. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.Regarding claim 7, Cho and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen also teaches at least one gas inlet arranged to open into the slot. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, Dubois and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen also teaches at least one gas inlet arranged to open into the slot. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not explicitly teach more than four gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not explicitly teach more than 12 gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add multiple gas inlets in order to increase the effectiveness of the device, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Jensen does not teach that the gas inlets are evenly distributed having an angle of 5-30 degrees between the gas inlets, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the inlets at an even spacing of 5-30 degrees, or whatever the number of inlets dictates, in order to obtain a consistent effect, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 12, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weber also teaches that the propeller 20 is provided with a rim drive 14, 16, 18.
Regarding claim 14, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weber also teaches that the propeller 20 is provided with a mechanical rim drive 14, 16, 18.
Regarding claim 16, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Weber also teaches that the propeller shaft 38 is a non-driven shaft.
Regarding claim 17, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Weber also teaches that the slot (between 36 and 34) is formed to the duct 24 as an indent from a level of the inner wall of the duct.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber US 3,361,107 in view of Jensen WO 2013/079584 and Angel US 7,575,490.
Regarding claim 9, Weber and Jensen teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Jensen does not teach a circumferentially extending gas plenum in connection with the body provided with a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets arranged to open into the slot. Angel teaches a propulsion assembly for a marine vehicle comprising:
a body including a duct 16 having a longitudinal axis, and a first end and a second end;
a support structure for a propeller including a propeller shaft at a center line of the duct;
a propeller 18, positioned into the duct and being attached to the propeller shaft, wherein the propeller includes at least three blades and a boss which is supported to the shaft; wherein:
at least one gas inlet 12d is arranged to open onto the edges of the rim; and
a circumferentially extending gas plenum 12 in connection with the body provided with a plurality of substantially evenly distributed gas inlets 12d.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion unit of Weber and Jensen by with a gas distribution plenum as taught by Angel in order to evenly distribute gas around the duct and increase effectiveness of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Weber, Jensen and Angel teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. As taught, the gas plenum 12 circumscribes the duct.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Decrette US 1,583,341 teaches a shaft-driven propeller.
Tuttle US 3,044,259 teaches a rim-driven propeller with funneled exhaust.
Meyerhoff US 5,597,245 teaches a shaft driven propeller with gas injection and the blade tips.
Dyrkorn US 4,629,432 teaches a transverse thruster cushioned with gas inlets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615