Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under pre 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Eichinger (US 6113443A).
Regarding claim 1, Eichinger (US 6113443A) teaches an apparatus for modifying an effective steering angle of a steerable propulsor of a marine vessel (see [col 6 lns 10-47] in general where second nozzle is a steering nozzle that changes steering angle of a jet propulsion system.), the apparatus comprising:
a structure configured to deflect at least a portion of a stream produced by the steerable propulsor to modify the effective steering angle (see [col 6 lns 33-47], [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8], and Figs 6-7 where a second nozzle is rotatably connected to a first nozzle to divert water from central axis and has a trim tab in the second nozzle where water impinges on a selected surface to create an effective thrust vector toward port or starboard, i.e. deflect stream to modify steering angle.), the structure being configured to be:
A) attached to a steering nozzle of the steerable propulsor (see [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8] and Fig. 7 where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is attached to lower internal surface of a second nozzle, or steering nozzle.); and/or
B) positioned within the stream after the stream has exited the steerable propulsor, wherein the at least a portion of the stream deflected by the structure has a directional component in an aft direction of the marine vessel,
wherein the structure does not include a reversing deflector (see Figs 6A-7 where trim tab, which is an interceptor, deflects a portion of a stream which does not reverse a marine vessel. See also in Fig. 8A and [col 7 lns 17-29] where it indicates providing port or starboard thrust through rotation of a trim tab, i.e. an interceptor, with no method of reversing direction of a marine vessel through the interceptor, i.e. structure does not include a reverse deflector. Note also that Figs 6-9, which are figures of Eichinger’s invention itself, only includes first and second nozzles with a trim tab, which is an interceptor, within the nozzles and does not include a reversing deflector.).
Regarding claim 2, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structure comprises a deflector or an interceptor (see [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8] and Figs 6-7 where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is attached to internal surface of a second nozzle, or steering nozzle.).
Regarding claim 4, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structure is configured to move to change the effective steering angle of the steerable propulsor (see [col 6 lns 33-47], [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8], and Figs 6-7 where a second nozzle is rotatably connected to a first nozzle to divert water from central axis and has a trim tab in the second nozzle where water impinges on a selected surface to create an effective thrust vector toward port or starboard, i.e. deflect stream to modify steering angle.).
Regarding claim 5, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structure is configured to move in a direction toward or away from the stream (see [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8] and Fig. 7 where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is attached to lower internal surface of a second nozzle, or steering nozzle, and is able to move with or against water stream.).
Regarding claim 7, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structure is configured to be permanently attached to the marine vessel or detachable (see Figs 3-4, 6 and [col 5 ln 48 thru col 6 ln 9] where first nozzle is rigidly attached to a jet propulsion system and to a watercraft, and second nozzle, which has a trim tab, i.e. an interceptor, is rotatably attached to the first nozzle, i.e. permanently attached to a marine vessel.).
Regarding claim 8, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structure is configured to be attached to the steering nozzle (see [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8] and Fig. 6A where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is attached to internal surface of a second nozzle, or steering nozzle.).
Regarding claim 9, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the structure is configured to move with the steering nozzle (see [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8] and Fig. 6A where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is attached to internal surface of a second nozzle, or steering nozzle. Hence, the trim tab, i.e. interceptor, moves along with the second nozzle, i.e. a steering nozzle.).
Regarding claim 10, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the structure is configured to be attached to an inside of the steering nozzle (see [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8] and Fig. 6A where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is attached to internal surface of a second nozzle, i.e. a steering nozzle.).
Regarding claim 12, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structure comprises an interceptor (see [col 6 ln 56 thru col 7 ln 8] and Fig. 6A where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is attached to internal surface of a second nozzle, i.e. a steering nozzle.).
Regarding claim 13, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the interceptor is curved or straight (see Figs 6-7 where trim tab, which is an interceptor, is shown to have straight and flat surfaces.).
Regarding claim 19, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the structure maintains a forward-aft directional component of the at least a portion of the stream primarily in the aft direction of the marine vessel (see Fig. 7 and [col 6 ln 59 thru col 7 ln 8] where water is ejected through first and second nozzle and is impinged against a trim tab, i.e. an interceptor, within the second nozzle, which creates a corrective force that is in the port direction on a watercraft, or marine vessel, i.e. forward-aft direction.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichinger in view of Narte (WO 0040462A1).
Regarding claim 3, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 2,
Eichinger does not teach: wherein the structure comprises a deflector including at least one vane.
However, Narte teaches a rudder attached behind a jet nozzle such that the rudder impinges upon a jet stream emanating from the jet nozzle, i.e. a deflector, which is also a vane, that deflects stream from a nozzle (see [pg 4 lns 1-15]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify steer nozzle that has a trim tab of Eichinger by incorporating teaching of Narte such that a rudder, which is a vane, to be behind a steering nozzle.
The motivation to have a rudder behind the steering nozzle is that, as indicated by Narte, this would allow for increased maneuverability and safety through a means for positive steering control regardless of jet power settings or conditions (see [pg 3 lns 9-18]).
Regarding claim 6, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 5,
Eichinger does not teach: wherein the structure is configured to be actuated in a direction toward or away from the stream.
However, Narte does teach biasing or deploying means that includes any suitable mechanism or device for changing a rudder into deployed position, which includes hydraulic or pneumatic devices, i.e. actuating means in a direction toward a jet stream (see [pg 5 lns 19-23]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify steer nozzle that has a trim tab of Eichinger by incorporating teaching of Narte such that a rudder, which is a vane, to be behind a steering nozzle.
The motivation to have a rudder behind the steering nozzle is that, as indicated by Narte, this would allow for increased maneuverability and safety through a means for positive steering control regardless of jet power settings or conditions (see [pg 3 lns 9-18]).
4. Claims 11 and 14-17 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichinger in view of Cleary et al. (US 3991700A).
Regarding claim 11, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Eichinger does not teach: wherein the structure is configured to be attached behind the steerable propulsor.
However, Cleary et al. teaches a rudder behind a propeller in upright position in slip stream of the propeller (see [col 2 lns 6-20] and Figs 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify steer nozzle that has a trim tab of Eichinger by incorporating teaching of Cleary such that a rudder, which is a vane, to be behind the steer nozzle or a moving propeller.
The motivation to have a rudder behind the steerable propulsor is that, as indicated by Cleary, this would allow for maintaining a true course without having to adjust a course every few minutes, which allows for one person to troll without having to constantly handle a steering arm (see [col 1 lns 7-19]).
Regarding claim 14, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Eichinger does not teach: wherein the structure is configured to be positioned within the stream after the stream has exited the steerable propulsor, wherein the at least a portion of the stream deflected by the structure has a directional component in an aft direction of the marine vessel.
However, Cleary et al. teaches a rudder behind a propeller in upright position in slip stream of the propeller, i.e. a deflector positioned within a stream which is able to deflect the stream and where the rudder itself includes a directional component in an aft direction of a marine vessel (see [col 2 lns 6-20] and Figs 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify steer nozzle that has a trim tab of Eichinger by incorporating teaching of Cleary such that a rudder, which is a vane, to be behind the steerable propeller.
The motivation to have a rudder behind the steerable propulsor is that, as indicated by Cleary, this would allow for maintaining a true course without having to adjust a course every few minutes, which allows for one person to troll without having to constantly handle a steering arm (see [col 1 lns 7-19]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Eichinger in view of Cleary teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the structure is configured to be attached to a transom of the marine vessel or a steering nozzle of the steerable propulsor (see Cleary [col 1 lns 52-62] where outboard motor constitutes a combined rudder, which is a vane, steering propeller, and gear housing. Note that having an outboard motor that includes a structure of rudder, steerable propeller, and gear housing, indicates that the structure itself must be attached to a transom of a marine vessel.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify steer nozzle that has a trim tab of Eichinger by incorporating teaching of Cleary such that a rudder, which is a vane, to be behind the steerable propeller.
The motivation to have a rudder behind the steerable propulsor is that, as indicated by Cleary, this would allow for maintaining a true course without having to adjust a course every few minutes, which allows for one person to troll without having to constantly handle a steering arm (see [col 1 lns 7-19]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Eichinger in view of Cleary teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the structure is configured to be attached to a transom of the marine vessel and comprises at least one vane (see Cleary [col 1 lns 52-62] where outboard motor constitutes a combined rudder, which is a vane, steering propeller, and gear housing. Note that having an outboard motor that includes a structure of rudder, steerable propeller, and gear housing, indicates that the structure itself must be attached to a transom of a marine vessel.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify steer nozzle that has a trim tab of Eichinger by incorporating teaching of Cleary such that a rudder, which is a vane, to be behind the steerable propeller.
The motivation to have a rudder behind the steerable propulsor is that, as indicated by Cleary, this would allow for maintaining a true course without having to adjust a course every few minutes, which allows for one person to troll without having to constantly handle a steering arm (see [col 1 lns 7-19]).
Regarding claim 17, Eichinger teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
Eichinger does not teach: wherein the steerable propulsor comprises a steerable propeller.
However, Cleary et al. teaches a propeller in a housing and indicates that the propeller itself must be turned to steer a boat (see [col 1 ln 67 thru col 2 ln 5] and Figs 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify steer nozzle that has a trim tab of Eichinger by incorporating teaching of Cleary such that a rudder, which is a vane, to be behind a moving propeller.
The motivation to have a rudder behind the steerable propulsor is that, as indicated by Cleary, this would allow for maintaining a true course without having to adjust a course every few minutes, which allows for one person to troll without having to constantly handle a steering arm (see [col 1 lns 7-19]).
5. Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichinger in view of Fradeley et al. (US 6453835B2).
Regarding claim 25, Eichinger teaches a control system for a marine vessel, comprising: (see [col 6 lns 10-47], Figs 6A and 8A in general where second nozzle is a steering nozzle that changes steering angle of a jet propulsion system.)
Eichinger does teach a trim tab, which is an interceptor, within a steering nozzle (see [col 6 ln 33 thru col 7 ln 8]).
Eichinger does not teach:
a processor configured to receive a steering command for the marine vessel, and, when the steering command commands zero steering angle or a steering angle below a threshold, the processor is configured to control a steering nozzle to angle the steering nozzle such that an interceptor of the steering nozzle is positioned in a direction away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
However, Fradeley teaches an operator adjusted nozzle position that corresponds to zero twist of a joystick, i.e. an operator defined zero steering angle (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]). Note also in Fig. 4 and [col 5 lns 11-26] it shows a control system with multiple circuits, i.e. having processors, that includes comparison circuits which sends command signals to jet depending on position of joystick.
It would have been obvious to modify Eichinger’s waterjet nozzle and interceptor arrangement to incorporate Fradeley’s neutral zero twist control such that, when a steering command is neutral, zero steering angel, or near zero steering angle, which is a zero twist of a joystick, a controller commands the steering nozzle to a slight offset angle as adjusted an operator to place the interceptor away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
The motivation to incorporate zero steering nozzle angle defined by an operator is that, as indicated by Fradeley, this would allow for an operator to reliably put a boat in neutral and compensate for effect of crosswind or current without having to maintain a slight twist on a joystick (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 28, Eichinger teaches a method of operating a control system of a marine vessel, comprising: (see [col 6 lns 10-47] ], Figs 6A and 8A in general where second nozzle is a steering nozzle that changes steering angle of a jet propulsion system.)
Eichinger does teach a trim tab, which is an interceptor, within a steering nozzle (see [col 6 ln 33 thru col 7 ln 8]).
Eichinger does not teach:
receiving, by a processor, a steering command for the marine vessel; and
when the steering command commands zero steering angle or a steering angle below a threshold, controlling, by the processor, a steering nozzle to angle the steering nozzle such that an interceptor of the steering nozzle is positioned in a direction away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
However, Fradeley teaches an operator adjusted nozzle position that corresponds to zero twist of a joystick, i.e. an operator defined zero steering angle (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]). Note also in Fig. 4 and [col 5 lns 11-26] it shows a control system with multiple circuits, i.e. having processors, that includes comparison circuits which sends command signals to jet depending on position of joystick.
It would have been obvious to modify Eichinger’s waterjet nozzle and interceptor arrangement to incorporate Fradeley’s neutral zero twist control such that, when a steering command is neutral, zero steering angel, or near zero steering angle, which is a zero twist of a joystick, a controller commands the steering nozzle to a slight offset angle as adjusted an operator to place the interceptor away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
The motivation to incorporate zero steering nozzle angle defined by an operator is that, as indicated by Fradeley, this would allow for an operator to reliably put a boat in neutral and compensate for effect of crosswind or current without having to maintain a slight twist on a joystick (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Curcio (US 20240182149A1), shows propulsion system that encompasses a rudder that is behind a propeller propulsor and deflects a stream from the propeller. Also teaches a prior art of propeller that is steerable.
b. Terada et al. (US 10167057B1), jet boat with jet propulsion system that uses steering actuator to steer nozzle of jet propulsion to desired angles.
c. Guidry (US 9527565B1), propulsion system that has main propulsion with at least one propeller and rudder to deflect a stream from the propeller, and has secondary propulsion, which includes deflectors, that coordinates direction with the main propulsion.
d. Walkowiak (US 20120285355A1), shows rudder system operated through actuator to engage or disengage the rudders. Figs 2, 3, and 6 shows image of having an actuator rod that impinges on stream coming from a propulsion nozzle.
e. Minoura et al. (US 20120276793A1), shows steerable nozzle of a propulsion system and Figs 6A-C shows deflection of stream coming from the steerable nozzle.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661