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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Nozue (US 6,416,372).
1. A boat propulsion device comprising: an engine (38, including 48); an oil pan (138) to store oil to be supplied to the engine; a case (including 32) to accommodate at least a portion of the oil pan; and a pump (150) to pump cooling water to a cooling water flow path in the boat propulsion device; wherein the cooling water flow path includes: a first flow path (b) extending between the oil pan, the case, and the engine (figs. 1-2); and a second flow path (f) branching from the first flow path at a location between the oil pan and the case and not extending to the engine (figs. 1-2); and the boat propulsion device further comprises a flow rate regulator (152) to change at least one of a flow rate of the cooling water flowing into the first flow path and a flow rate of the cooling water flowing out of the first flow path.
2. The boat propulsion device according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one temperature sensor (184) to measure one of a temperature in a vicinity of a combustion chamber of the engine, a temperature of an exhaust pipe through which exhaust gas discharged from the combustion chamber flows, a temperature of the oil, or a temperature of the cooling water.
3. The boat propulsion device according to claim 2, further comprising: a controller (i.e., 152 operates via output of 184, so controller is inherent) configured or programmed to control the flow rate regulator to: set the flow rate of the cooling water flowing into the first flow path to a first flow rate (i.e., corresponding to preset temperature value) when the temperature measured by the at least one temperature sensor is less than a predetermined value (conditional limitation); and set the flow rate of the cooling water flowing into the first flow path to a second flow rate, which is higher than the first flow rate, when the temperature measured by the at least one temperature sensor is equal to or more than the predetermined value (i.e., as disclosed, if water termperature is lower than preset value, thermostats 184 will not open and water pressure exceeds the predetermined magnitude to open the pressure control valve 152).
8. The boat propulsion device according to claim 1, wherein the oil pan is located higher than the pump (fig. 1); and the engine is located higher than the oil pan (fig. 1).
9. The boat propulsion device according to claim 8, wherein the first flow path and the second flow path branch at a height lower than a lower end of the oil pan (i.e., limitation is met by the prior art insomuch as the prior art can be flipped).
10. The boat propulsion device according to claim 1, wherein the flow rate regulator includes a valve (152).
11. The boat propulsion device according to claim 10, wherein the valve (152) is adjustable to any valve opening degree from 0% to 100%.
12. The boat propulsion device according to claim 10, wherein the valve (152) is located outside the case (32).
15. The boat propulsion device according to claim 1, wherein the first flow path contacts the oil pan (fig. 1).
16. The boat propulsion device according to claim 1, wherein the first flow path extends around the engine and then between the oil pan and the case (fig. 1).
17. The boat propulsion device according to claim 1, further comprising: an exhaust pipe (including 131) located adjacent to the oil pan and through which exhaust gas discharged from the engine flows.
18. A boat comprising: a hull (22, 24); and the boat propulsion device according to claim 1 mounted at a rear of the hull (fig. 1).
19. A movable body comprising: an engine; and an oil pan to store oil to be supplied to the engine; a case to accommodate at least a portion of the oil pan; and a pump to pump cooling water to a cooling water flow path in the movable body; wherein the cooling water flow path includes: a first flow path extending between the oil pan, the case, and the engine; and a second flow path branching from the first flow path at a location between the oil pan and the case and not extending to the engine; and the movable body further comprises a flow rate regulator to change at least one of a flow rate of the cooling water flowing into the first flow path and a flow rate of the cooling water flowing out of the first flow path (mapping as above).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozue (US 6,416,372).
Regarding claim 5, Nozue discloses the use of multiple temeprature sesnors (184); but does not explicitly disclose the four temperature sensors as claimed. However, it has been held that the mere duplication of known parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.1 In the instant case, the claimed multiplicity of similar temperature sensors do not appear to change the function of the claimed device, and the device of the prior art having the number of similar parts, as claimed, would not change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of duplicate parts, and since the claimed device having the number of parts would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozue (US 6,416,372), in view of Hall et al. (US 6,942,530).
Regarding claim 4, Nozue does not disclose the claimed controller functionality.
Hall teaches a controller configured or programmed, in an idle state of the boat propulsion device, to: switch a rotation speed of the engine to a first speed when the temperature measured by the at least one temperature sensor is less than a predetermined value; and switch the rotation speed of the engine to a second speed, which is slower than the first speed, when the temperature measured by the at least one temperature sensor is equal to or more than the predetermined value (col. 7, line 54-col. 8, line 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to incorporate the structure and/or functionality of control as taught by Hall into the device of Nozue, for the expected benefit of preventing stalling.
The limitations of claims 6-7 flow naturally from the explanations of the prior art above.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozue (US 6,416,372), in view of Yashiro et al. (US 2003/0134547).
The combination is summarized as follows:
Nozue discloses the general structure of the claims, as mapped below, but does not disclose the valve is a three-way valve. However, three-way valves were old, well-known, and ubiquitous in the boating arts, and replacing the valve of Nozue with a three-way valvue would not impede the function of the design. Yashiro teaches the use of a three-way valve (37). The combination of the prior art would have been obvious to an ordinary practitioner since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.2 Thereafter, the combination suggests the limitations of the claims as follows (mapping to Nozue unless explicitly noted):
13. The boat propulsion device according to claim 10, wherein the valve is a three-way valve (Yashiro: 37) and is located inside the case (32, 42); the second flow path extends downwardly in the boat propulsion device from a connection position with the valve (figs. 1-2); and an outlet of the second flow path is located at a lower portion of the boat propulsion device (figs. 1-2).
14. The boat propulsion device according to claim 10, further comprising: a device (fig. 2) to be cooled by the cooling water; wherein the valve is a three-way valve (Yashiro: 37) and is located inside the case (32, 42); and the second flow path extends around the device (fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
2 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Prosecution Insights