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 .
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.
[AltContent: textbox (Incline)]Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US20060040573).
In regard to claim 1, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 for propelling a boat, the electric outboard motor comprising:
a propeller unit including a propeller shaft 26a, a propeller 26 fixed to the propeller shaft 26a, and a case rotatably supporting the propeller shaft 26a, the propeller unit being disposed at a lower portion (lower case 24) of the electric outboard motor;
a motor 27 configured to rotate the propeller shaft 26a;
a first battery and a second battery (fuel cell stack 28a) configured to supply electric power for driving the motor 27 to the motor 27;
an accommodation portion (main unit 20) accommodating the first battery and the second battery (fuel cell stack 28a), the accommodation portion (main unit 20) being disposed at an upper portion (as seen in Figure 1) of the electric outboard motor; and
a support portion (support tube 23) formed in a columnar shape extending in an upper-lower direction (as seen in Figure 1), the propeller unit (comprised of propeller shaft 26a and propeller 26) being supported at a lower portion (lower case 24) and the accommodation portion (main unit 20) being supported at an upper portion.
Kobayashi et al. does not teach wherein each of the first battery and the second battery is formed in a rectangular parallelepiped shape having a thickness dimension smallest among a length dimension, a width dimension, and the thickness dimension, the first battery is disposed in the accommodation portion such that a thickness direction thereof is the upper-lower direction of the electric outboard motor, and is located above the support portion, and the second battery is disposed in the accommodation portion such that a thickness direction thereof is a front-rear direction of the electric outboard motor, and is located rearward of the upper portion of the support portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location of the second battery to be in the upper location of the support portion in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify any aspect of either batteries to be any shape or any dimension in order to fit the batteries within the accommodation portion and/or satisfy an aesthetic design, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regard to claim 2, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 1. Kobayashi et al. does not teach wherein the first battery is disposed in a position intersecting a first straight line that passes a center of the support portion in the upper-lower direction, and the second battery is disposed in a position intersecting a second straight line that passes an intersection of an upper end surface of the support portion and the first straight line and extends in the front-rear direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location of the batteries in respective arbitrary lines in respect to the support portion in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to claim 3, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor according to claim 1. Kobayashi et al does not teach wherein an upper end of the second battery aligns with an upper surface of the first battery in the upper-lower direction, or is located below the upper surface of the first battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location of the fuel cell stack of Kobayashi et al. to be in whatever desired arrangement in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to claim 4, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 1. Kobayashi et al. does not teach wherein a rear end of the first battery aligns with a rear surface of the second battery in the front-rear direction, or is located forward of the rear surface of the second battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify further the arrangement of the fuel cell stack of Kobayashi et al. in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to claim 5, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 1, wherein the support portion (support tube 23) is provided with a transom bracket (mounting bracket 21) configured to attach the electric outboard motor 1 to a transom 22a of the boat. Kobayashi et al. does not teach a lower end of the second battery is located below an upper end of the transom bracket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location any portion of the second battery in respect to the transom of the boat in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to claim 6, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 1, wherein the support portion (support tube 23) is provided with a transom bracket (mounting bracket 21) configured to attach the electric outboard motor 1 to a transom 22a of the boat. Kobayashi et al. does not teach a front end of the first battery is located forward of a rear end of the transom bracket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify any portion of the first battery in respect to the transom of the boat in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to claim 7, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 1, wherein a steering bar handle (operating handle 25) is disposed above and forward of the support portion (support tube 23). Kobayashi et al. does not teach an upper end of the second battery is located below a position of a base end portion of the bar handle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location of the second battery in respect to any portion of the steering bar handle in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to claim 8, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 1, wherein a steering bar handle (operating handle 25) is disposed above and forward of the support portion (support tube 23). Kobayashi et al. does not teach a position of the first battery substantially aligns with a position of a base end portion of the bar handle in the upper-lower direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify any portion of the first battery in respect to any portion of the steering bar handle in order to satisfy an aesthetic design, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regard to claim 9, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 1, wherein the support portion (support tube 23) is provided with, at an upper end portion (as seen in Figure 1), an attachment plate portion (as seen in Figure 1) configured to attach the accommodation portion (main unit 20). Kobayashi et al. does not teach the attachment plate portion is formed in a plate shape inclined such that a rear end is located below a front end.
It would have been an obvious of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to make the different portions of the attachment plate to either be inclined in either direction and/or form a plate shape or whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to benefit from structural needs and/or satisfy an aesthetic design. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In regard to claim 10, Kobayashi et al. teaches an electric outboard motor 1 according to claim 9, wherein the accommodation portion (main unit 20) includes a wall portion (as seen in Figure 1) surrounding the first battery and the second battery (fuel cell stack 28a), the wall portion includes an attachment wall portion configured to attach the accommodation portion to the attachment plate portion (as seen in Figure 1), and the attachment wall portion is inclined such that a rear end is located below a front end (as seen in Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL KENNETH P FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)270-0397. The examiner can normally be reached 0800-1700.
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 5712724530. 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.
/M.P.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights