DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 11 are amended. Claims 1-8 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(a) rejections raised in the previous office action. Applicant’s amendments have also raised new 112(b) issues, see rejections below.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13-14, the claims are in condition for allowance.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues Bihlmire does not disclose metal structural elements for introducing force from said hub into said individual propeller blades being fastened to said hub by a positive-fit connection directly connecting
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 11-12 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “"fastened to said hub by a positive-fit connection directly connecting the hub with the metal structural elements". As written it unclear what Applicant is trying to claim, due to the awkward phrasing, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. Examiner notes the term “positive-fit” is not defined by the specification and has no art recognized meaning. As best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification, the limitation will be interpreted as the propeller blades being fastened to the hub with the metal structural elements interlocking with the hub by encapsulation with PA 12C during the casting process. Examiner suggest amending the claim clarify the term “positive-fit”.
Claim 12 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bihlmire (US 3318388) in view of Kawasaki (JP S6237293) and in further view of Miyoshi et al. (JP 2009263460A), hereinafter: “Bihlmire” and “Miyoshi”, respectively.
In Regard to Claim 11
Bihlmire teaches:
A method for the manufacture of a propeller for driving watercraft(Col 1, ln. 5-23), having propeller blades(2) and a metal hub(1,3,4; Col 3, ln 20-24) for connection to a ship's shaft(10),
wherein said propeller as a whole is manufactured from plastic in one casting process while simultaneously enclosing said metal hub of said propeller(the propeller as a whole is manufactured from plastic by shaping the propeller blades in one casting process while simultaneously enclosing the metal portion of the hub as described at Col 3, ln. 8-19 and 44-50; Col 4, ln. 53-64; Fig 1-5), while shaping all propeller blades in one casting process while simultaneously enclosing said hub prepared for this purpose, wherein metal structural elements(reinforcements 6, 6’; Fig 2-9; Col 3, ln. 50-75) for introducing force from said hub into said individual propeller blades are fastened to said hub by a positive-fit connection directly connecting the hub with the metal structural elements(the structural elements 6,6’ are embedded into(i.e. “interlocked”) with the hub during the casting process, hence a positive-fit connection is made directly connecting the hub with 6,6’; Fig 2; Col 3, ln. 58-70) and then completely enclosed by PA 12 C during the casting process(in combination, the hub, blades and reinforcements 6 are completely enclosed by PA 12 C during the casting process; Col 4, ln. 52-64).
Bihlmire fails to teach:
The propeller being manufactured from polyamide 12 C material
Kawasaki teaches:
An analogous propeller made from a plastic material(polyamide resin being Nylon 12; P[0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bihlmire to incorporate the teachings of Kawasaki to substitute nylon 12 for the generic “plastic” material disclosed in Bihlmire in an attempt to increase cavitation erosion resistance(P[0001]).
Bihlmire in view of Kawasaki still fails to teach the polyamide 12 C material.
Miyoshi teaches:
Polyamide 12C is a known material substitute for polyamide 12, or nylon 12(P[0020]-P[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bihlmire in view of Kawasaki to incorporate the teachings of Miyoshi to substitute polyamide 12C for nylon 12 in an attempt to increase the strength and resistance to temperature of the propeller.
Further, as Miyoshi teaches that the use of a “polyamide 12C” is a known material suitable for making resin compositions that may be injection or cast molded(P[0103]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected a “polyamide 12C” because it is merely the selection of an art known material suitable for the resin compositions.
In further support of this position, the selection of a known material to make an
resin composition used in the construction of a propeller prior to the invention was held to be obvious see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bihlmire in view of Kawasaki in view of Miyoshi and in further view of Cavanagh (US 3744931).
In Regard to Claim 12
Bihlmire in view of Kawasaki in view of Miyoshi teaches:
The method according to claim 11(see rejection of claim 11 above),
Bihlmire in view of Kawasaki in view of Miyoshi fails to teach:
wherein said hub is prepared at the surface towards the PA 12 C by etching, sandblasting, knurling, and/or applying finishing for being encapsulated.
Cavanagh teaches:
Preparing the surface a of metal components of marine propellers to be coated with resin by etching, and/or applying finishing for being encapsulated(Col 1, ln. 19-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bihlmire in view of Kawasaki in view of Miyoshi to incorporate the teachings of Cavanagh to etch and/or apply finishing such as anodizing to the surface of the bronze portion of the hub to assist bonding of the PA 12 C resin to the bronze bushing(Col 1, ln. 19-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, Bihlmire does not disclose an assembly of separately manufactured propeller blades using a Bottcher ring as required.
Regarding claim 10, Bihlmire does not disclose the step of pressing tie rods in the plastic material of the propeller blades as required.
It is the Examiner’s opinion, that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not have arrived at the invention of claims 9 and 10 without the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights