Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 15, 2026
Application No. 18/947,303

SHIP PROPULSION MACHINE

Non-Final OA §102§DP
Filed
Nov 14, 2024
Priority
Nov 15, 2023 — JP 2023-194304
Examiner
TOPOLSKI, MAGDALENA
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
SUZUKI MOTOR Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 3m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allowance Rate
310 granted / 552 resolved
-3.8% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+41.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
572
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 552 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18947686 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘686 application claim 1 anticipates all the limitations of the instant claim 1. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Bruestle (US 2022/0089261). For claim 1, Bruestle discloses a ship propulsion machine (see the annotated Fig. 1 below) comprising: a motor (2); an inverter (4) configured to generate a drive current for controlling drive of the motor (2); a propeller (implicitly present, note the propeller drive shaft 19); a power transmission mechanism (implicitly present) configured to transmit power of the motor (2) to the propeller; and a cooling mechanism (see par. [0055]) configured to cool the motor (2) and the inverter (4), wherein the cooling mechanism comprises: a motor water jacket (implicitly present, see also par. [0055]) provided in the motor (2) and configured to cool the motor (2) by allowing cooling water to flow therein; an inverter water jacket (implicitly present, see also par. [0055]) provided in the inverter (4) and configured to cool the inverter (4) by allowing the cooling water to flow therein; a first cooling water passage (13, 24) configured to allow the cooling water to flow toward the motor water jacket and the inverter water jacket; and a branch passage (Fig. 1) connecting the motor water jacket and the inverter water jacket to the first cooling water passage (13) such that the motor water jacket and the inverter water jacket are connected in parallel with each other, the branch passage being configured to distribute and supply the cooling water flowing in the first cooling water passage (13) to the motor water jacket and the inverter water jacket (46, Fig. 1 and par. [0055] describe a liquid channel 13, 24 supplying cooling liquid to cool both the motor 2 and the inverter 4. As seen in Fig. 1 liquid channel 13 is branched in two directions (24), the one on the left supplying the cooling liquid towards motor 2, the one on the right towards inverter 4. The spent/warm cooling liquid is then collected by two respective lines 24' which are joined to form an outflow passage towards liquid channel 13'). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The office notes that claim 1 is also anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0061433) as per the written opinion. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 14, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12691985
OUTBOARD MOTOR AND MARINE VESSEL
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12686472
Valuables Flotation Device (VFD)
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12685270
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RAISING A CART IN A MODULAR GROW TOWER
2y 0m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12685301
SMART INSECT TRAP
1y 9m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12677809
Cephalopod Rearing Method, Cephalopod Rearing Apparatus, Protozoa Prevention Method, and Protozoa Extermination Method
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+41.4%)
3y 0m (~1y 3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 552 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month