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
Applicant’s election of Species A: Figs. 1-6, Claims 1-13, 17, and 20 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-16, 18-19 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/18/2024 and 04/24/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The European and German search reports are not in English.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract line 1 includes the phrase “is provided” which is implied and should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17 and 20 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 17 recites, “so as to be rotatable about a steering angle axis of rotation via a shaft” which is a functional limitation however claim 17 then states, “a shaft profile according to Claim 1 that is arranged on the shaft” which is a positive limitation of the shaft. It is unclear if applicant is intending to claim the shaft or not.
Claim 20 recites, “wherein the outboard drive is configured such that the shaft profile is configured to be changed”. It is unclear as to what aspect of the profile is changed. Does the profile deform or is applicant claiming removable interchangeable parts?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-8, 10-13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Drapeau (US 2019/0118921, cited in IDS).
For claim 1, Drapeau teaches a shaft profile (fig. 2) for an outboard drive (fig. 3), the shaft profile comprising:
a base body (fig. 2) extending along a longitudinal axis, the base body including a receiving space configured to receive a shaft of the outboard drive; and
at least three support ribs (202) extending in a direction of the longitudinal axis and configured to radially guide the shaft, the at least three support ribs arranged on an inner side of the receiving space (fig. 2).
For claim 2, Drapeau further discloses wherein the at least three support ribs have a rounded shape at a radially inwardly pointing free end (fig. 2).
For claim 3, Drapeau further discloses wherein the free end has one of a concave curvature or a convex curvature (fig. 2).
For claim 4, Drapeau further discloses wherein the base body has exactly one chamber and the receiving space is disposed in the exactly one chamber (Fig. 1 and 2, the one chamber created by the outer wall 201, receiving space between 202/203).
For claim 5, Drapeau further discloses wherein the base body comprises, with respect to the longitudinal axis in a circumferential direction, a closed outer wall (201) of predetermined wall thickness that encloses the exactly one chamber when viewed perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2).
For claim 6, Drapeau further discloses wherein the base body is on at least one end side to be connected in a rotationally fixed manner with respect to the longitudinal axis to a component of the outboard drive arranged on the at least one end side (fig. 3).
For claim 7, Drapeau further discloses a connecting part (connection at 303) configured to connect the shaft profile to a component of the outboard drive arranged on an endside and that is arranged on at least one of end side of the shaft profile with respect to the longitudinal axis (fig. 3).
For claim 8, Drapeau further discloses wherein the connecting part is configured to provide a seal of the shaft profile (Fig. 3, para 0023).
For claim 10, Drapeau further discloses wherein the shaft profile, when viewed perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, has a cross-sectional outer contour that is streamlined in a predetermined transverse direction (Fig. 2).
For claim 11, Drapeau further discloses wherein the cross-sectional outer contour is teardrop-shaped (201, para 0028).
For claim 12, Drapeau further discloses wherein the base body is formed in one piece (Fig. 2).
For claim 13, Drapeau further discloses wherein the base body is one of an extrusion profile, a continuous casting profile or an extruded profile (Fig. 2).
For claim 17, Drapeau discloses an outboard drive for a boat (fig. 3), comprising:
a fastening device configured to fasten the outboard drive to a boat (fastener as per fig. 3);
a drive unit (propeller/motor fig. 3) that is arranged on the fastening device so as to be rotatable about a steering angle axis of rotation via a shaft (abstract and figs., must be driven by shaft); and
a shaft profile according to Claim 1 that is arranged on the shaft between the fastening unit and the drive unit.
For claim 20, Drapeau further discloses wherein the outboard drive is configured such that the shaft profile is configured to be changed (will have at least some change due to deformation over time).
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drapeau.
For claim 9, Drapeau is silent about wherein the connecting part is an elastic connecting part.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the connection of Drapeau elastic, in order to allow for flexibility between parts since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is noted as it pertains to shaft profiles for outboard motors.
The office notes that Sawyer et al. (US 12134450) also anticipates at least claims 1 and 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights