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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 8, 12 and 23 are amended. Claims 1-25 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Unfortunately, Applicant’s amendments to the claims remain obviated by prior art as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-7, 9-10, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110466725 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a propulsor for a marine vessel (Figure 1), the propulsor comprising: a rotary housing (elements 6, 20); a plurality of blades (elements 10) extending from the rotary housing (Figure 1), each blade having a respective blade axis (Figure 1) about which it can be pivoted relative to the rotary housing (as depicted in Figures 1 and 2), and wherein the blades are distributed around a blade pitch circle diameter of the rotary housing (inasmuch as applicant has claimed); a slewing bearing (element 8. See also ¶ [0017 and 0057]) comprising a driven ring (element 6) fixed to the rotary housing (created by elements 6 and 20) and including a driven gear (elements 5 and 6), and a stationary ring (element 1) adapted to be fixed to the hull of the marine vessel, wherein a diameter of the slewing bearing is at least 0.4 times the blade pitch circle diameter (Figures 1-2, 8. Slewing bearing 8 comprises a larger diameter than the circumference and diameter of the blade pitch systems. Thus, diameter of the slew bearing (Db)> diameter of the pitch mechanism (Dp), resulting in (Db)/(Dp)>1, which is at least 0.4); a main electric motor (element 4) with a drive shaft (evident in connection found between elements 4 and 5 in Figure 1); and a driving gear (element 5) mechanically connected to the drive shaft (Figure 1 and ¶ [0051]), wherein the driven gear and the driving gear define a single-stage transmission gear (as depicted in Figures 1-2). wherein the driven ring is a radially inner ring, the stationary ring is a radially outer ring, the driven gear is formed as a separate component that is fixed to the driven ring, the teeth of the driven gear are arranged on a radially inner surface of the separate ring that is fixed to the driven ring, and the driving gear is positioned radially inside the driven gear such that the teeth of the driving gear mesh with the teeth of the driven gear (On page 3 of the Office Action dated 4/6/2026, Examiner took official notice that the use of epicyclic/annulus/planetary gearing systems were well known in the art, and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate into Wang’s system, in order to improve efficiency and load distribution throughout the gear system. Wikipedia-Epicyclic Gearing was provided as extrinsic supporting evidence. The applicant’s failure to successfully traverse the official notice renders such notice admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03. More, Wang fails to specifically teach wherein the ratio between the driving gear and driven gear comprises a transmission ratio between 5:1 and 15:1. However, the ratio of gear teeth between elements 6 and 5 in Figures 1 and 2 appear to fall within an approximate range of 3-5 given the diameters of the respective elements and the uniformity of the gearing teeth size depicted in the Figures. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a gearing ratio of between 5:1 and 15:1 in order to generate an increase of torque, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Wang’s gearing dimensions where the diameter and number of teeth of driven element 6 are larger than the diameter and teeth number of driving element 5, thereby resulting in a system with lower speed and higher torque), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein a plurality of rolling elements are positioned between the driven and stationary rings (Examiner takes official notice that carrier elements within epicyclic/annulus/planetary gearing systems are known to comprises rollers or bearings between the driven and stationary rings such that the gears mesh and pitch circles roll without slip. See Wikipedia-Epicyclic gearing for extrinsic supporting evidence (specifically, note the green carrier comprising rollers in the animation located at the top of the page)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art prior the effective filing date to suggest that Wang’s epicyclic gearing comprised rollers or bearings between the driven and stationary rings in order to ensure the gears mesh and pitch circles roll without slip.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the invention in claim 2, wherein the driving gear is positioned radially inside the slewing bearing (Examiner’s response to claim 2 satisfies this limitation as an epicyclic/annulus/planetary gear satisfies these limitations).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the driven ring and the driven gear are formed as separate components that are fixed together to define a unitary driven component of the slewing bearing (Figures 1-6. ¶ [0017, 0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the drive shaft is substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of the rotary housing (Figures 1-2, drive 4 comprising drive shaft is substantially parallel to the axis of rotation of housing).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the driving gear is mechanically connected to the drive shaft by a main drivetrain that comprises a mechanism for selectively disengaging the drive shaft from the driven ring. However, Examiner takes official notice that clutches are well known in the art to selectively engage and disengage drive gears to driven gears. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a clutch into Wang’s gearing system, in order to provide the capability to selectively introduce power to the system from the driving motor, or to provide a means to disengage the power from the driving motor in order to coast or in the event of drive system malfunction.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the invention in claim 6, wherein the mechanism is a clutch mechanism between the drive shaft and the driving gear (see cited response to claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach the system further comprising a second main electric motor with a second drive shaft, and a second driving gear mechanically connected to the second drive shaft, wherein the driven gear and the second driving gear define a second single- stage transmission gear. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a redundant motor, drive shaft, and driving gear connected to the driven gear, in order to provide a redundant source of power in the event of a drive malfunction, since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, further comprising a plurality of blade actuators (Figures 1-2, 7-10, element 15 connected to shaft 11 comprising blade 10 is connected to an articulating control shaft 24 via control hinge 17 and driven by motor 33 to articulate the blades), each blade actuator being mechanically connected to a respective one of the blades (elements 10) for pivoting the blade about the blade axis.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach the system further comprising a mounting plate rotatably mounting the rotary housing to the hull of the marine vessel, wherein the stationary ring of the slewing bearing is fixed to the mounting plate. However, ¶ [0001] of Wang specifically notes that the cycloidal propulsion system is used for ships and underwater vehicles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to suggest that Wang’s cycloidal propulsion system comprised a mounting bracket or plate connected to the housing elements of the propulsion system, in order to adequately affix the propulsion system to the bottom of a ship’s hull to provide propulsion.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, adapted to be installed into the hull of a marine vessel from below (see cited response to claim 19).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches a marine vessel comprising at least one propulsor according to any preceding claim 1 (see cited response to claim 19).
Claim(s) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110466725 A) in view of Bradley (US 20150321740 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the main electric motor is a liquid cooled synchronous permanent magnet motor provided within a compact outer housing or casing. However, use of synchronous permanent magnet motors provided within a compact outer housing or casing is well known in the art as is evidenced by ¶ [0033] and Figure 1 of Bradley. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to suggest that the motor used within Wang’s cycloidal propulsion system comprised a synchronous permanent magnet motor, in order to promote higher efficiency, reduced maintenance, and constant torque at lower speeds. The combination of Wang and Bradley fails to specifically teach the use of a liquid-cooled motor. However, Examiner takes official notice that electric motors are well known in the art to be either air or liquid cooled. See Wikipedia-Electric Motor for extrinsic supporting evidence. As such, it would have been obvious to suggest that Wang’s cycloidal motor used on board a marine vessel comprised a motor cooled by liquid, in order to provide a motor cooling system whereby an abundance of cooling liquid is available around the vessel while in use.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the invention in claim 10, but fails to specifically teach wherein each blade actuator comprises an electric motor. However, use of individual motors to actuate each individual blades within cycloidal marine propulsors is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figure 2 and ¶ [0043] of Bradley. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the single motor blade actuation system of Wang with the plurality of blade actuation motors found in Bradley, in order to provide individual drive redundancy in the event that a blade actuation motor experienced a fault or malfunction.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110466725 A) in view of Bradley (US 20150321740 A1), and in further view of Peljo (WO 2020120826 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Bradley teach the invention of claim 11, but fail to specifically teach the propulsor further comprising an auxiliary electric motor for driving the rotary housing, and a method of using the system comprising supplying electrical power recovered by at least one of the blade actuator electric motors during a regenerative mode to the auxiliary electric motor. However, the use of a main power supply, auxiliary power supply, and a main electric motor electrically connected to the main power supply and the auxiliary electric motor is electrically connected to at least one of the blade actuator electric motors and is configured to receive electrical power recovered by the at least one blade actuator electric motor a during regenerative mode is well known in cycloidal marine propulsion systems as is evidenced by Figure 6 and claims 1-25 of Peljo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Peljo into Wang’s system, in order to generate regenerative power from the blade motors that may be fed to other components on board the marine vessel, thereby improving the efficiency of the cycloidal marine propulsors (as taught by Page 2, lines 11-13 of Peljo).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 110466725 A) in view of Evans (WO 2004074680 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach a method of operating a propulsor according to claim 1 as a turbine, wherein comprising: rotating the rotary housing by action of water on the plurality of blades; transferring the rotation of the rotary housing to the drive shaft of the main electric motor by means of the driven gear of the slewing bearing and the driving gear; and operating the main electric motor as a generator to generate electrical power that is fed back to the main power supply. However, Evans teaches a cycloidal turbine generation and propulsion system comprising a technique comprising: rotating the rotary housing by action of water on the plurality of blades (Figures 21-35, 39-43, 56. Col. 4, line 23-Col. 6, line 13. Col. 12, lines 10-20) ; transferring the rotation of the rotary housing to the drive shaft of the main electric motor by means of the driven gear of the slewing bearing and the driving gear (Abstract. Claims 1-17); and operating the main electric motor as a generator to generate electrical power that is fed back to the main power supply (Abstract. Claims 1-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Evans into Wang’s propulsion system in order to generate and store electricity that may later be used for propulsion or auxiliary power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-18, 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights