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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 27 September 2024. Claims 1-13 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed for this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 12 reference character “137”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 7 of 12 line 16 recites “...114 has a bottom at the lower end and a top...” and should be “114 has a bottom 114b at the lower end and a top 114a...” (See at least: page 7 of 12, line 23 and fig. 4 for reason).
Page 10 of 12 discuss fig. 12 however no structure is found to recite “137” (See at least: drawing objection above).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a waterline” in page 1 line 15. Claims 1 page 1 line 9 “a waterline”. It is not clear if “a waterline” of line 15 is the same or different than that of line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 1 line 15 to recite “the waterline”.
Claims 2-13 are rejected based on the above claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the complementary connector” twice in lines 1-2. Claims 1 and 2 do not recite “a complementary connector”. Examiner notes: “a complementary connector” is found in claim 4, where it is not clear if the Applicant intended (1) claim 5 to depend on claim 4 or (2) “a complementary connector” to be introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 5 to depend on claim 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the pontoon boat” in line 2. Claim 1 does not recite “a pontoon boat”. Examiner notes: “a pontoon boat” is found in claim 12, where it is not clear if the Applicant intended (1) claim 9 to depend on claim 12 or (2) “the boat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9 to recite “the boat”.
Claim 10 is rejected based on the above claim 9 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-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.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 20160090166 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
1215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al. discloses a boat (fig. 1; See at least: fig. 1 and boat body 200) with at least one hull (boat body 200; See at least: figs. 1 and 17) and an outboard motor (outboard motor 150; See at least: para. [0057] and figs. 1and 17), the at least one hull having a transom (See at least: figs. 1 and 17) wherein the outboard motor comprises: a powerhead (power source 152; See at least: para. [0058] and figs. 1-2 and 17); a mounting bracket (bracket 155; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0058] “The outboard motor 150 is mounted on the boat body 200 through the bracket 155 including a clamp bracket 155a and a swivel bracket 155b.”) attaching the outboard motor with respect to the at least one hull; a midsection leg (See at least: fig. 17 where the “midsection leg” is interpreted as the part of the outboard motor 150 that is between the case portion 151 and to the parting line above or at cavitation plate 160) extending downwardly from the powerhead; a lower unit (See at least: fig. 17 where the “lower unit” is interpreted as the part of the outboard motor 150 below the parting line above or at cavitation plate 160) provided at a downward end (See at least: fig. 17 where directions “forward (FWD)” and “backward (BWD)” are shown, up and down are interpreted from the view where the “downward end” is the one approximate the propeller 153 side) of the midsection leg, the lower unit comprising a propulsion propellor (propeller 153; See at least: fig. 17) configured to be positioned below a waterline (waterline ; See at least: fig. 17 where two waterlines are shown which are dependent on operation of the boat) of the at least one hull in use, the boat further comprising a stern thruster (electric propulsion device 1a; See at least: figs. 1 or 17 where fig. 17 shows embodiment 1a(1)), the stern thruster comprising: at least one thruster motor (stator portion 21 and rotor portion 31; See at least: fig. 3 and paras. [0063] to [0069]); at least one thruster propellor (fins 32; See at least: fig. 3); a sleeve housing (annular duct 2; See at least: fig. 3) the at least one thruster motor and the at least one thruster propellor; wherein the stern thruster is attached with respect to the transom, at a position (See at least: fig. 17) below a waterline of the at least one hull in use (See at least: fig. 17 “waterline during non-planing operation”), with the stern thruster positioned between the midsection leg or lower unit of the outboard motor and the transom (See at least: fig. 17), the stern thruster configured to provide lateral thrust to the at least one hull (propulsive force; See at least: para. [0098] “the duct 2 has directivity such that propulsive force is efficiently generated, and hence propulsive force is efficiently generated while significantly reducing an increase in the sizes of the electric propulsion devices 1a and 1b and integrally turning the duct 2 and the rim 3”).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein there is further provided a thruster mounting bracket (bracket 4; See at least: fig. 17 and para. [0124]), the thruster mounting bracket being attached to the transom and the stern thruster being attached to the thruster mounting bracket (See at least: fig. 17).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the thruster mounting bracket is permanently attached to the transom (See at least: fig. 17 where bolts/fasteners are shown in the image)and permits temporary removal and reattachment of the stern thruster (See at least: figs. 15-16 where screws/fasteners are shown in the image).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the stern thruster comprises a complementary connector (turning shaft 22a; See at least: fig. 15 and para. [0065] “The turning shaft 22 has turning shafts 22a and 22b. The turning shaft 22a is provided so as to protrude upward (along arrow Z1) from the outer surface of an upper portion of the housing 2a...”) configured to slide onto the thruster mounting bracket from above in a substantially downwards direction (See at least: fig. 15 in view of fig. 17; where turning shaft 22a of fig. 15 is applied to fig. 17 bracket 4’s upper portion 4a where assembly of the parts would include sliding motion to insert turning shaft 22a in a downward direction).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the pontoon boat has a fore-aft direction (FWD/BWD; See at least: figs. 1 and 17) extending between a bow (See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0057] “keel portion 220 on the front side of the boat body 200”) and a stern (See at least: fig. 1 BWD side of 200) of the pontoon boat and the at least one thruster propellor is rotatable about a rotation axis (rotation axis Ar; See at least: fig. 17) that is oriented transverse the fore-aft direction (See at least: fig. 17), and wherein the transom has a top and a bottom (See at least: fig. 17), and wherein the rotation axis is positioned not lower than the bottom of the transom (See at least: fig. 17).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the sleeve has a waisted central portion (See at least: figs. 3 and 13 where the external slope/angle of duct 2 is interpreted as a waist) facing the midsection leg (See at least: fig. 17 where the slope/angle of duct 2 is facing the “midsection leg” of outboard motor 150) or lower unit of the outboard motor in order to provide clearance between the stern thruster and the outboard motor (See at least: fig. 17 in view of figs. 3 and 13 where the slope/angle of duct 2 creates a clearance between electric propulsion device 1a and outboard motor 150).
Examiner notes: Claim 11 terms “waisted” and “facing” are interpreted under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI). Applicant may further clarify the shape (i.e. convex, concave) of the “waist”; the surface defining the “waist” and “face”. Additionally, clarifying the position of “the stern thruster” as shown on Applicant’s figs. 3 and 5 as the claim language is not apparent that “the stern thruster” is in plane with “the outboard motor” and positioned behind “the outboard motor”. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20160090166 A1) in view of Griffin et al. (US 20200031449 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
815
1326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Suzuki et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the stern thruster further comprises a second thruster motor and a second propellor {MPEP § 2144.IV.B “Duplication of Parts” recites “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) … the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced...” Therefore, the duplication of stator portion 21, rotor portion 31 and fins 32 of Suzuki et al. has no patentable significance.}.
Griffin et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the stern thruster further comprises a second thruster motor (second high torque electric motor; See at least: figs. 2 and 5, para. [0049] “...a first high torque electric motor and a second high torque electric motor (not shown)...”) and a second propellor (a second propeller 26; See at least: figs. 2 and 5, para. [0049] “...a first propeller 24 and a second propeller 26...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified electric propulsion device 1a of Suzuki et al. with second stator portion 21, rotor portion 31 and fins 32 as taught by Griffin et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of electric propulsion device that is bi-directional (See at least: Griffin et al. col. 4 lines 18-19 “...lateral marine thruster assembly includes a bi-directional thruster...”).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al. in view of Griffin et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the sleeve provides a passage (housing 2a of the duct 2 and rim 3; See at least: para. [0064] and fig. 3 where the inside portion of housing 2a and the rim 3 forms a passage for water flow) from one lateral side of the stern thruster to another lateral side of the stern thruster, each thruster motor being held within the passage such that water flows axially along the passage and around each thruster motor when operated to drive the respective thruster propellor (See at least: fig. 3 and para. [0067] “the rim 3 is arranged in an inner peripheral portion of the annular duct 2 and is rotatably held by the duct 2 so as to be integrally turnable or simultaneously turnable with the rim 3.”).
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 6 above.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20160090166 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the at least one thruster propellor has a diameter (See at least: para. [0098] “...significantly reducing an increase in the sizes of the electric propulsion devices 1a and 1b and integrally turning the duct 2 and the rim 3...” where Suzuki et al. discloses the invention reduces an increase overall size) of not more than 185 mm.
Suzuki et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one thruster propellor has a diameter of not more than 185 mm.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange and size as required by the end-user application. Applicant has not disclosed that a diameter of not more than 185 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with larger diameters because a larger thrust area is appropriate for the design of larger boats or areas of greater clearance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Suzuki et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above. Additionally, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the rotation axis is positioned not more than a distance equal to the sum of the thruster propellor radius and 20 mm from the transom (See at least: fig. 17 where the fig. shows rotation axis positioned no more than the radius of the fins 32 of fig. 3).
Suzuki et al. does not explicitly disclose discloses wherein the rotation axis is positioned not more than a distance equal to the sum of the thruster propellor radius and 20 mm from the transom.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange and size as required by the end-user application. Applicant has not disclosed that the rotation axis is positioned not more than a distance equal to the sum of the thruster propellor radius and 20 mm from the transom provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with larger distances since the distance is associated to a torque applied for turning the boat {Examiner note: torque equation is defined as τ = F × r, where: τ (tau) is the torque, F is the force applied, r is the distance from the pivot point to the point where the force is applied}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Suzuki et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20160090166 A1) in view of Christensen et al. (US 20210354803 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
867
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Suzuki et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the boat is a pontoon with at least two pontoon hulls.
Christensen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the boat is a pontoon boat (pontoon-style boat; See at least: fig. 10 and para. [0034] “FIG. 10 illustrates a top plan view of example mounting locations for modular thruster motor/propeller units on a pontoon-style boat”) with at least two pontoon hulls (See at least: fig. 10 and para. [0095] “On a pontoon boat, the modular thruster motor/propeller units 27 can be mounted on respective end portions 90 of the marine vessel 30.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the boat body of Suzuki et al. with the form of a pontoon boat of Christensen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of applying the thruster and its associated system to all marine vessels so as not to limit to a certain type of marine vessel (See at least: Christensen et al. para. [0060] “The thruster system disclosed herein can be used on marine vessels, which can include recreational boats, such as boats used for sporting and leisure activities. These activities can include watersports such as water skiing, wakeboarding, wake surfing, sport fishing, and the like. Marine vessels can also include jet skis and other personal watercrafts. These boats may also be used for travel and other leisure activities. These boats can also include pontoon boats, and the like. These boats can range from a length of about 18 feet to about 50 feet, or about 18 feet to about 45 feet, or about 18 feet to about 36 feet. These boats may be high performance boats with limited surface space, or limited available space on the hull for mounting boat accessories.”).
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki et al. in view of Christensen et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Christensen et al. teaches wherein the pontoon boat has three pontoon hulls ({MPEP § 2144.IV.B “Duplication of Parts” recites “In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) … the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced...” Therefore, the duplication of a third pontoon with additional modular thruster units 27s attached as disclosed in fig. 10 has no patentable significance.}) and the stern thruster is attached to a central one of said three pontoon hulls.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 12 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims{Examiner note: Claim 5 is allowable for the examiner interpretation that claim 5 depends on claim 4 above}.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…wherein at least one of the thruster mounting bracket and the complementary connector is shaped to permit the complementary connector to attach to the thruster mounting bracket in only one orientation.”. The closest prior art is Suzuki et al. (US 20160090166 A1) in view of Skage et al. (WO 2008108664 A1). Suzuki et al. discloses a turning shaft 22a which was interpreted by the Examiner to be “the complementary connector” under BRI above for claim 4 above. This interpretation would be removed to make combinable with Skage et al. discussed below. The Examiner notes the Applicant’s “the complementary connector” is complementary connector 134 as disclosed in the spec. and figures which shows complementary connector 134 slides over or slots over the mounting bracket 160. Applicant does not clearly identify in the claim 4 or 5 that sleeve 132 has an integral complementary connector 134 which serves to mount the stern thruster 130 to the mounting bracket 160. Skage et al. is the closest prior art where thruster housing 240 (interpreted as Applicant’s complementary connector 134) is viewed as slotting over backing plate 241 (interpreted as Applicant’s the mounting bracket 160) matching the intent of the Applicant’s disclosure (See at least: Skage et al. fig. 3b reproduced below with other figs.). Skage et al. text copy page 5 of 6 teaches “The thruster housing (240) may in an embodiment of the invention comprise a back plate (241) arranged for being positioned on the inside of an opening in the transom plate (100), where the opening has an edge in the transom plate (100) arranged for being covered by and for fastening by a flange on the thruster housing (240).” Claim 4 recites “configured to slide onto the thruster mounting bracket from above in a substantially downwards direction”. Where the Examiner is interpreting “in only one orientation” to be in Claim 4’s “substantially downwards direction”. Therefore, the Applicant’s novel feature is that the complementary connector 134 slides over or slots over the mounting bracket 160 in only one orientation which is in the substantially downward direction which is not found in the prior art of Skage et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
861
1186
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
McDugle et al. (US 7789032 B1) teaches a boat thruster mounted on the transom of a boat (See at least: figs. 1-3).
Skage et al. (WO 2008108664 A1) is applicable to at least claims 4-5 as discussed above.
Den Ouden (US 5704306 A) teaches a stern screw mounted on a stern 4 of a boat (See at least: figs. 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights