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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference numbers not mentioned in the description:
Electric motor 20
Rearward facing sensor 25
Forward facing sensor 26
System sensor 27
Applicant is requested to amend the specification to include the above noted reference numbers. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-13 and 17-18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernloehr et al. (US 6213821 B1)
Bernloehr et al. show a propulsion system [20] comprising a drive unit [30] that is arranged to be rotatable between a rearward-facing position and a forward-facing position (see Fig 3 and Fig 4), and a mechanical control unit [332] that is operatively connected with the drive unit. It is noted that the propulsion system of Bernloehr et al. is broadly considered to be a “watersport propulsion system”, wherein the preamble limitation “for a marine watersport vessel” is merely an intended use and has not been given any patentable weight because the claim does not positively recite the vessel.
The control unit [332] is adjustable between a forward trolling mode and backtrolling mode by lifting and turning control knob at its top end (see Fig 12; and col 13, line 64 through col. 14, line 2), wherein the forward trolling mode of the control unit is broadly considered to be the watersport mode, while the backtrolling mode of the control unit is broadly considered to be the nominal mode. The control unit is configured to operate the drive unit in the forward-facing position when in the watersport mode of operation and in the rearward-facing position when in the nominal mode of operation.
Re claim 2, the drive unit comprises one or more propellers [58].
Re claim 4, the one or more propellers in the rearward-facing mode is/are in a pushing mode.
Re claim 5, one or more propellers of the drive unit in the forward-facing position protrude towards and/or beneath a hull of the marine watersport vessel.
Re claim 6, the drive unit is connected with a transom of the marine vessel via a transom bracket.
Re claim 7, the drive unit comprises a first part [26] and a second part [28], the first part being connected with the marine vessel and the second part is rotatable arranged in relation to the first part.
Re claim 8, the second part comprises the one of more propellers.
Re claim 9, the drive unit comprises an electric motor (col. 5, lines 13-16).
Re claim 12, the propeller is driven by the electrical motor, the electrical motor being configured to rotate in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction.
Re claim 13, the control unit is configured to control an angle of the second part of the drive unit.
Re claim 17, the watersport mode of operation is activated by an operator of the vessel.
Re claim 18, the propulsion system is attached to the marine vessel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 12-13 and 17-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016198731 A1 (‘731).
WO ‘731 discloses a propulsion system comprising a drive unit [200A, 200B] that is arranged to be rotatable from a rearward-facing pushing position to a forward-facing pulling position (see p-2, lines 11-14) and vice versa, and a control unit [220] that is operatively connected with the drive unit. It is noted that the propulsion system of WO’731 is broadly considered to be a “watersport propulsion system”, wherein the preamble limitation “for a marine watersport vessel” is merely an intended use and has not been given any patentable weight because the claim does not positively recite the vessel.
WO ‘731 discloses that the drive unit is configured to be operated both in pulling and pushing drive positions. WO ‘731 further teaches that one of the drive positions is the principal propulsion position to be used in open water operation, which is broadly considered to be the nominal (open water) mode of operation, while the other drive position is the secondary propulsion position to be used in the ports, which is broadly considered to be the watersport (port) mode of operation (see p-2, lines 11-14).
WO ‘731 however does not expressly disclose which of the two drive positions is associated with the nominal or the watersport modes of operation.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the drive unit so that it was disposed in a forward-facing pulling position when in the watersport (port) mode of operation, and in the rearward-facing pushing position when in the nominal (open water) mode of operation. Keeping the drive unit in the rearward-facing pushing position and away from the vessel hull when in the nominal (open water) mode of operation would have minimized propeller-generated pressure pulses and noise transmission toward the hull. On the other hand, maintaining the drive unit in the forward-facing pulling position when in the watersport (port) mode of operation, especially when sailing to the dock, would have reduced the risk of propeller damage caused by collision with dock structures and/or underwater objects.
It would also have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the existing control unit of WO ‘731 so that it would enable the drive unit operation associated with and conforming to the desired mode of operation, which would have reduced the risk of human error, thereby improving safety.
Re claim 2, the drive unit comprises one or more propellers.
Re claim 3, the one or more propellers in the forward-facing position are in a pulling mode.
Re claim 4, the one or more propellers in the rearward-facing mode are in a pushing mode.
Re claim 5, the one or more propellers of the drive unit in the forward-facing position protrude towards and/or beneath a hull of the marine watersport vessel.
Re claim 7, the drive unit comprises a first part and a second part, the first part being connected with the marine vessel and the second part [120, 130] is rotatable arranged in relation to the first part.
Re claim 8, the second part comprises the one of more propellers.
Re claim 9, the drive unit comprises an electric motor (see p-2, lines 16-18).
Re claim 12, the propellers are driven by the electrical motor, wherein the electrical motor is configured to rotate in one of clockwise or counterclockwise directions.
Re claim 13, the control unit is configured to control at least an angle of the second part of the drive unit (col. 7, lines 4-6).
Re claim 17, with the described modification in place, the watersport mode of operation would be activated automatically by the control unit.
Re claim 18, the propulsion system is attached to a marine vessel.
Re claims 19-20, the method steps set forth in the claims are encompassed in the construction and subsequent operation of the modified propulsion system, as described above. Specifically, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to ensure that the drive unit was in the forward-facing position before activating the propulsion system to ensure that the propulsion system would conform to the allowable position for proper operation, which otherwise would not operate for safety reasons.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016198731 A1 (‘731) in view of Aarnivuo (US 6431928 B1).
WO ‘731 discloses a propulsion system comprising a drive unit [200A, 200B] that is arranged to be rotatable between a rearward-facing pushing position and a forward-facing pulling position, and a control unit [220] that is operatively connected with the drive unit, as described above.
WO ‘731 however fails to disclose the drive unit as having a sensor for detecting the position of the drive unit.
Aarnivuo discloses a propulsion system comprising a drive unit [1] that is arranged to be rotatable from a rearward-facing pushing position to a forward-facing pulling position, wherein
the drive unit comprises a sensor [16] connected with a control unit [34] for detecting a position of the drive unit (see Fig 1, and the abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the drive unit of WO ‘731 with a sensor connected with the control unit, as taught by Aarnivuo. Having such a mechanism would have allowed the control unit to accurately determine the position of the drive unit before allowing it to safely operate in a corresponding mode of operation. With such a modification in place, the control unit would be operatively connected with the sensor(s) so as to ensure that the drive unit was in the forward-facing position when the watersport propulsion system was set in the watersport mode of operation.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016198731 A1 (‘731) in view of Wilson et al. (US 7485018 B2).
WO ‘731 discloses a propulsion system comprising a drive unit [200A, 200B], and a control unit [220] that is operatively connected with the drive unit, as described above.
WO ‘731 however fails to disclose a system sensor configured to detect if a person or obstacle is present around the drive unit.
Wilson et al. discloses a marine vessel with an obstacle avoidance system having a system sensor configured to detect if a person or obstacle is present around the drive unit (see 7, 25-33). The obstacle avoidance system also comprises a mechanism to override the existing settings of the propulsion system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the control system of WO ‘731 with a system sensor to detect if a person or obstacle was present around the drive unit, as taught by Wilson et al. Having such a modification would have prevented damage to the propeller and ensured safe operations. It would have also been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an override feature taught by Wilson et al., which would have allowed the drive unit to be moved into the forward-facing position, i.e., the safety position, in the event a person or obstacle were detected near the drive unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's Arguments: Applicant has argued that Bernloehr teaches a manually adjusted control knob for rotatably positioning a trolling motor, whereby the operator mechanically lifts and turns the knob to change the motor's physical orientation. However, such manual reindexing does not disclose a control unit having two operational modes, nor a control unit configured to operate the drive unit in the forward-facing position when in a watersport mode and in the rearward-facing position when in a nominal mode. The mapping of Bernloehr's "forward trolling" and "backtrolling" settings to the claimed "watersport" and "nominal" modes only identify fishing/trolling orientations of a manually adjusted trolling motor, not selectable modes of a control unit. Bernloehr does not disclose a watersport mode, a nominal mode, or any control logic that associates those modes with the claimed drive-unit positions. Bernloehr lacks the claimed mode-configurable control unit and the claimed correspondence between control-unit mode and drive-unit position.
Response: It is first noted that the claims do not preclude the use of a manual control system, and the claims do not require any control logic associated with different modes with the claimed drive-unit positions, as being argued.
It is further noted that the phrases "watersport mode" and "nominal mode" are nothing but general labels that have been assigned to identify the status of the control unit when the drive unit is in the forward and rearward facing positions, respectively. In the case of Bernloehr, the manually adjustable control knob is arranged, and therefore configured, to position and operate the drive unit in the forward and rearward facing positions, which correspond to the watersport and nominal modes of operation, respectively. Specifically, when the manually adjustable control unit is selectively positioned to operate the drive unit in a forward facing position, it is considered to be in a watersport mode. Similarly, when the manually adjustable control unit is selectively positioned to operate the drive unit in a rearward facing position, it is considered to be in a nominal mode.
Applicant’s Arguments: Even assuming that WO '731 discloses a rotatable drive unit and a control unit, it does not teach or suggest the claimed relationship between the control unit's modes and the drive unit's positions. The control system described by '731 uses measured loads/strain to set operation parameters and to optimize thrust direction. The Office Action relies on '731's discussion of operation in open water and in ports and characterizes those as nominal and watersport modes. That mapping is unsupported and depends on hindsight. Nothing in '731 would have led a person of ordinary skill to configure the control unit so that the drive unit is operated in the forward-facing position when in a watersport mode and in the rearward-facing position when in a nominal mode.
Response: As noted above, the phrases "watersport mode" and "nominal mode" are nothing but general labels that have been assigned to identify the status of the control unit when the drive unit is in the forward and rearward facing positions, respectively.
WO ‘731 discloses a drive unit that can be selectively operated in two drive position, i.e., a forward-facing pulling mode or a rearward-facing pushing mode (see p-2, lines 11-14). Regarding claim 1, the forward-facing pulling mode described in WO '731 can be broadly considered and labeled as the watersport mode of operation, and the rearward-facing pushing mode can be broadly considered and labeled as the nominal mode of operation. The only thing that WO '731 fails to teach is a control unit for selectively operating the drive unit in one of the two modes of operation. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to configure the existing control unit of WO ‘731 so that it could also position the drive unit in the desired orientation, wherein the use of the control unit would have reduced the risk of human error and improved safety. It would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to label the control unit modes as watersport mode and nominal mode to match the watersport and nominal modes of operation of the drive unit, which would have allowed easy and accurate selections when using the control unit.
Further, the mapping of port operation to the watersport mode, and open-water operation to nominal mode is not necessary because such is not required by the claims. The examiner had employed such description of the port and open-water operations only for a better understanding of how the drive unit is operated.
Applicant’s Arguments: Regarding rejection of claims 10 and 11 by combining Aarnivuo with WO '731, applicant has argued that it would at best results in an efficiently controlled, load-optimized azimuthing unit. It would not result in a control unit configurable in a watersport mode that automatically dictates a forward-facing position for swimmer safety. If the drive unit is forced into a "forward-facing position" for safety, it can no longer respond to the load-balancing requirements that are the sole purpose of the '731 system.
Regarding claim 14, applicant has further argued that neither Aarnivuo nor WO '731 suggests a system sensor configured to detect the presence of a person or obstacle to trigger an automated safety orientation.
Response: Providing the drive unit of WO ‘731 with a sensor, as taught by Aarnivuo, would have allowed its control unit to accurately determine the position of the drive unit before allowing it to safely operate in a corresponding mode of operation. Claim 11 has been broadly interpreted to mean that "the drive unit is brought into a forward-facing position as a result of the control unit being set in the watersport mode", but not necessarily interpreted in a narrow sense to mean that "the drive unit must already be in the forward-facing position before, or at the moment, the control unit is set in the watersport mode". A rephrasing of claim 11 for better differentiation could help overcome the current rejection.
Additionally, claim 14 has not been rejected by combining WO '731 with Aarnivuo, as being argued. Instead, claims 14-16 have been rejected as being obvious in view of Wilson et al. (US 7485018 B2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights