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 .
Election/Restrictions
The response to Election/Restriction filed 6/12/2026 has been entered. Applicant has elected Group I, drawn to claims 22-30, with traverse. Claims 31-41 are provisionally withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being ancitipated by Clark (US Patent No. 5439401).
Regarding claim 22, Clark teaches an outboard propulsion unit mountable on a transom of a watercraft, the outboard propulsion unit comprising a tiller (element 29), an outboard shaft comprising a propulsion arrangement (element 12), and a transom mount for attachment to the transom (element 15), wherein the tiller is articulatable into an extended 22configuration axially aligned with the outboard shaft and extending from a tiller-connecting end of the outboard shaft (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 23, Clark teaches the invention in claim 22, comprising a tiller-locking arrangement allowing the tiller to be locked in the extended configuration (Figures 1-3. Col. 2, line 47- Col. 3, line 27).
Regarding claim 24, Clark teaches the invention in claim 22, wherein the tiller is articulatable into a steering configuration from the extended configuration (Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 30, Clark teaches the invention in claim 22, wherein the tiller is articulatable by way of a pivotable connection (Figures 1-3).
Claim(s) 22-24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being ancitipated by Price (GB 477542 A).
Regarding claim 22, Price teaches an outboard propulsion unit mountable on a transom of a watercraft (Figures 1-3), the outboard propulsion unit comprising a tiller (element 44), an outboard shaft (element 28) comprising a propulsion arrangement (Figures 1-3), and a transom mount (elements 14, 18) for attachment to the transom (Figures 1-3), wherein the tiller is articulatable into an extended configuration axially aligned with the outboard shaft and extending from a tiller-connecting end of the outboard shaft (See Figure 3. Tiller is configurable to axially align with outboard shaft in an intermediate position between two depicted tiller positions, one of which is a steering position.)
Regarding claim 23, Price teaches the invention in claim 22, comprising a tiller-locking arrangement allowing the tiller to be locked in the extended configuration (Page 1, line 61- Page 2, line 58).
Regarding claim 24, Price teaches the invention in claim 22, wherein the tiller is articulatable into a steering configuration from the extended configuration (See Figure 3. Tiller is configurable to axially align with outboard shaft in an intermediate position between two depicted tiller positions, one of which is a steering position.).
Regarding claim 30, Price teaches the invention in claim 22, wherein the tiller is articulatable by way of a pivotable connection (Figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Patent No. 5439401) in view of Snyder (US Patent No. 3018754).
Examiner’s note: The rejection reasoning(s) provided below would also apply to Price in view of Snyder.
Regarding claim 25, Clark teaches the invention in claim 22, but fails to specifically teach wherein the tiller is articulatable into a stowed configuration along the outboard shaft, and wherein the tiller is articulatable into a stowed configuration from the extended configuration. However, articulating tillers into a stowable configuration along an outboard shaft of a propulsion unit from an extended configuration and back is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-4 of Snyder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to incorporate the stowed configuration taught by Snyder into Clark’s system, in order to provide “a relatively small manually transportable motor wherein certain components of the motor which normally project outwardly beyond the overall configuration of the motor housing during operation can be collapsed against the housing so as to provide relatively compact unit for storage or transportation when the motor is not in use” as taught in by Col. 1 lines 13-20 of Snyder.
Regarding claim 26, Clark in view of Snyder teaches the invention in claim 25, wherein the outboard shaft and the tiller comprise tiller-shaft-engaging structures configured to latch the tiller in the stowed configuration along the outboard shaft (Col. 2, lines 24-28 of Snyder).
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US Patent No. 5439401) in view of Snyder (US Patent No. 3018754), in further view of Ellen (Rolling Case for Trolling Motor NPL).
Examiner’s note: The rejection reasoning(s) provided below would also apply to Price in view of Snyder, in further view of Ellen.
Regarding claim 27, Clark in view of Snyder teaches the invention in claim 22, but fails to specifically teach wherein the tiller comprises a carrier handle arrangement located, when in a stowed configuration, opposite the outboard shaft. However, use of a carrier handle arrangement located, when in a stowed configuration, opposite the outboard shaft is well known in the art as is evidenced by the top figure of Ellen (inasmuch as applicant has claimed). It would have been obvious to prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a carrying handle arrangement into the manually transportable motor of Clark and Snyder, in order to facilitate transportation.
Regarding claim 28, Clark in view of Snyder and Ellen teaches the invention in claim 27, wherein at least a portion of the carrier handle arrangement is located near a shaft-connected end of the tiller (Ellen, inasmuch as claimed).
Regarding claim 29, Clark in view of Snyder and Ellen teaches the invention in claim 27, wherein at least a portion of the carrier handle arrangement is located near a propulsion end of the outboard shaft when the tiller is in the stowed configuration (Ellen, inasmuch as claimed).
Conclusion
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