DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and some of 112 rejections raised in the previous office action. Applicant’s amendments have also raised new 112 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 (hence a form closure is made; Col 3, ln. 58-70 of Bihlmire) and then completely enclosed by PA 12 C during the casting process(Col 4,ln. 52-64 of Bihlmire).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “"fastened to said hub by form closure of the hub with the metal structural elements". The originally filed specification, is silent regarding any detailed description of the term “form closure”. P[0036] of the originally filed specification, states, “Fastening these structural elements by material-fit connection (by way of example at bars 10 and metal structure 12) and/or positive-fit connection (by way of example at profiles 11) is indicated likewise by way of example and schematically” While fastening of the metal structural elements by “material-fit connection” and/or “positive-fit connection” is discussed, the specification is silent regarding the fastening by “form closure”. Further, while the Figures may be relied upon to teach certain features of the invention, the figures also fail to provide sufficient support for the amendments. Therefore, the above limitations add new matter and fail to comply with the written description requirement, because there is no support in the specification as originally filed for the amended limitations.
Claim 12 also contains new matter by virtue of its dependency on Claim 11.
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 form closure of 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 “form closure” 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 by forming a closure of the hub with the metal structural elements by encapsulation with PA 12C during the casting process. Examiner suggest amending the claim clarify the term “form closure”.
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 form closure of the hub with the metal structural elements(the structural elements 6,6’ are embedded into the hub during the casting process, hence a form closure is made; 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
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 3745
Prosecution Insights