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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 27 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 4, the term “lip portion” which is “configured to partially restrict rotation of the cradle” does not invoke 112(f) as the term “lip” evokes some structure (for example “a protruding edge”) useful for performing the function of restricting rotation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 205769987 U; a translation was included in the Action of 17 September 2025) in view of Marisco (NPL in the form of photographs and description supplied by Applicant in an IDS filed 27 May 2026) and Wu (CN 111392022 A).
As to claim 1, Li teaches a shaft support assembly (guiding trolley 2 as shown in Fig 1) for removing a propeller shaft (screw shaft 100) from a ship (although Figs 7-11 illustrate the shaft 100 being installed in a ship, the trolley is capable of being used in the intended use of removing a propeller from a ship), the shaft support assembly comprising: a vertical axis of motion (as will be later discussed, the supporting frame 43 moves vertically with respect to the chassis/base 3. This is illustrated in Figs 9 and 10 which shows the trolleys having frames 43 lifted to different heights); a jack member disposed along the vertical axis of motion and comprising a main body and a hydraulic ram (lifting driver 42. Although Li never explicitly discloses that lifting driver 42 is a hydraulic ram, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have understood that since hydraulic cylinders are well known and often used in the jacking arts, it would have been a prima facie obvious modification of Li to provide for the lifting driver to by hydraulic, and therefore include a main body and hydraulic ram), wherein the hydraulic ram extends along the vertical axis of motion (as illustrated in Fig 2); an insert portion (supporting frame 43) coupled to the hydraulic ram and extending over the jack member when the ram is in a retracted position within the main body (as illustrated in Fig 2, the supporting frame is coupled to the lifting driver 42 and extends over the lifting driver when the ram is retracted).
Li does not teach a lead screw coupled to an upper side portion of the insert portion and disposed along a translation axis, wherein the translation axis is orthogonal to the vertical axis of motion.
Instead, Li teaches a cradle (roller 72, see Fig 5) moves side to side (transverse to the vertical axis of motion) along roller assembly 81 by the telescopic transverse drive 82. The telescopic transverse drive 82 is not specifically described as a “lead screw.”
PNG
media_image1.png
258
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, in the art of propeller shaft jacks it was known to provide for transverse motion of a roller assembly intended for supporting stern tubes. See Wu which teaches a screw rod 22 useful for adjusting the lateral position of rotary wheel 25. See Fig 5, reproduced right.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Li to have provided for a lead screw coupled to the upper side portion of the insert portion as claimed as Wu teaches the usefulness of such a lead screw for that very purpose. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve the benefit of precise lateral positioning of the roller of Li in order to more accurately support the propeller shaft.
Li in view of Wu further teach: a cradle (Li’s roller 72 is a cradle) disposed on the lead screw (Wu teaches the roller is disposed on the lead scree 22) wherein the cradle is configured to move laterally on the lead screw along the translation axis. (Wu teaches at least in Fig 5 the roller 25 moves laterally on lead screw 25); and a frame (Li chassis/base 3) disposed around the insert portion and the jack member (as shown in Li Fig 2, the chassis/base 3 surrounds the supporting frame 43) and configured to support the insert portion
PNG
media_image2.png
671
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(as illustrated), wherein the frame comprises a base portion (as shown in Examiner’s annotated Figure below of Li Fig 2, the lowest horizontal bar of the chassis/base 3 is a base portion. The base portion rests on wheels 52 which rest on rails 51), a first support portion (as illustrated in Examiner’s annotated Figure) which extends around the insert portion and is spaced from the base portion along the vertical axis of motion (there is vertical distance between the first support portion and the base as illustrated).
Li in view of Wu does not teach a plurality of inwardly angled struts which extend between the base portion and the first support portion, wherein the insert portion and the frame are configured to protect the jack member from lateral loading during relative motion between the insert portion and the frame.
Rather, as illustrated in Li, the base portion is connected to the first support portion by vertical struts, not inwardly angled struts.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
381
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in the field of propeller shaft stands, it was well known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for angled struts to support a central hydraulic column. See Marisco (NPL, Applicant admits is “prior art”) which illustrates a stand used to support propeller shafts of large ships at a shipyard. Marisco illustrates a shaft stand having a central column which is supported by four angled struts each connected to the corner of the top of a square column and to the corner of a square lower base.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Li’s trolley to include struts of the kind shown in Marisco. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the device’s stability to prevent tipping, as would be appreciated by an artisan having ordinary skill in this field.
Li in view of Wu and Marisco accordingly teaches: a plurality of inwardly angled struts (Brown’s struts 42) which extend between the base portion and the first support portion (as shown in Examiner’s modified Figure), wherein the insert portion and the frame are configured to protect the jack member from lateral loading during relative motion between the insert portion and the frame (this is the intended use of the struts, of which the modified struts are capable in view of what a PHOSITA would understand re: Marisco.).
Claims 2 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu and Marisco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (CN 219884054 U).
As to claim 2, Li in view of Wu and Marisco teaches the shaft support assembly of claim 1, further comprising a second support portion positioned radially inward from the base portion (the claimed second support portion is the original lower bar of the chassis/base 3 of Li. See Examiner’s illustration above) and substantially coplanar with the base portion (as shown in Marisco, the bottom of the support is coplanar with the base portion).
Li in view of Wu and Marisco does not teach the insert portion has radially externally facing mating features and wherein the frame has radially internally facing mating features comprising rails fixed between the first support portion and the second support portion which are configured to receive the radially externally facing mating features of the insert portion.
Rather, Li teaches the frame 41 fits within the chassis 3 without rails.
However, in the field of ship propeller shaft installation/removal art, various configurations of trolley were known. See Shen which teaches a trolley having a supporting plate 12 within which a lifting seat 15 is positioned. The lifting seat 15 is lifted by a cylinder 16. Notably, the lifting seat 15 is constrained within the supporting plate 12 by a sliding strip 14 which fits within a chute 13.
Examiner notes the sliding strips 14 are rails which are radially external facing mating features and the chutes 13 are corresponding radially inwardly facing mating feature.
The configuration of Shen is useful for constraining the motion of the lifting seat 15 in a single axis. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Li to provide for the rails (14) and chute (13) of Shen. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to better constrain the vertical movement of Li. See MPEP § 2143 A.
As to claim 22, Li in view of Wu and Marisco and Shen teaches the shaft support assembly of claim 2, wherein the insert portion comprises four sides with a projection on each side, and the frame comprises four corresponding radially inward mating features (It would have been obvious to have included the chute 13 and strips 14 of Shen on every face of the supporting frame 43 which contacts the chassis/base 3. As the supporting frame has four sides which contact the chassis/base 3, the claimed four projections and four corresponding radially inward mating features are rendered obvious.).
As to claim 23, Li in view of Wu and Marisco and Shen teaches the shaft support assembly of claim 2, but does not teach the radially inward mating features comprise eight rails fixed between the first support portion and the second support portion.
Rather, it appears that Shen teaches a single rail for each mating face. This would suggest to an artisan at least four rails, as Li teaches the supporting frame 43 has four faces which mate with the chassis/base 3.
However, the difference between four rails and eight rails does not constitute a patentable jump. That is, as an artisan would have understood that rails are useful for increasing stability, such an artisan would have also understood that by adding more rails he would have increased stability of the device.
Eight rails is prima facie obvious in view of the configuration of Li in view of Wu and Marisco and Shen having the motivation of increasing stability.
As to claim 24, Li in view of Wu and Marisco and Shen teaches the shaft support assembly of claim 2, but does not teach radially internally facing mating features comprises four rails fixed between the first support portion and the second support portion at corners of the first support portion and the second support portion.
Rather, Shen teaches the rails and slots are on the faces of the mating surfaces, not the corners.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the rails in the corners of Li in view of Wu and Marisco and Shen. It appears that the rails would have provided a reasonable amount of stability in any reasonable configuration, including at the face or in the corner.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to include the rails at any reasonable configuration where the support frame 43 meets the chassis/base 3, including at the corners.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Wu and Marisco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN 116280084 A).
As to claim 6, Li in view of Wu and Marisco teaches a system for removing a propeller shaft from a ship (as shown in Li Figs 7-11), the system comprising: one or more shaft support assemblies of claim 1 (as taught by Li in view of Marisco). Li does not teach a self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) configured to carry a propeller shaft, wherein the one or more shaft support assemblies are disposed along a length of the SPMT.
Rather, the trolleys of Li appear to run along a rail, but independently of one another, not on a single self-propelled modular transporter.
However, in the field of installing/removing ship propeller shafts, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to put several shaft support assemblies (trolleys) onto a single vehicle1. See Hu Figs 1-5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided several trolleys on the same vehicle as taught by Hu. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more accurately move each trolley together with the others during an installation/removal process.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 116280084 A) in view of Li et al. (CN 205769987 U).
As to claim 16, Hu teaches a method (“Ship Stern Shaft Mounting Method”). But the method is not for removing a propeller shaft from a ship. The method is instead of mounting the propeller shaft. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have used the reverse of the method of Hu in order to achieve a removing of the propeller shaft as a matter of ordinary engineering skill to reverse an installation method to arrive at a removal method.
Hu thus suggests (see Figs 2-8 in reverse order): the method comprising: positioning a self-propelled modular transporter (SPMT) (transversely moving mechanism 32) under a propeller shaft (the shaft illustrated in Fig 2), wherein the SPMT comprises a first shaft support assembly (as shown in Fig 2, there are four support assemblies. They each include a lifting mechanism 4, a longitudinally moving mechanism 5, and a supporting mechanism 6) and a second shaft support assembly (there are four support assemblies).
Hu does not teach wherein the SPMT is capable of multi dimensional positioning of the first shaft support assembly and the second shaft support assembly.
Rather, Hu teaches the shaft support assemblies are capable of single dimensional positioning (height) but does not describe any further dimensions of position that are unique to each shaft support assembly. (The shaft support assemblies are movable towards and away from the shaft along the axis of the shaft, but move as a unit.) However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed that shaft support assemblies are capable of multi-dimensional positioning. See Li which teaches that a shaft support assembly (trolley 1) is capable of being positioned in the vertical direction (using lifting drive 42) as well as capable of being positioned in a direction transverse to the vertical and the axial direction of the propeller shaft (using telescopic transverse drive 82).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for both vertical and transverse movement to each shaft support assembly of Hu. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the teachings of Li which teach that adjustments to the cradle in the transverse direction can ensure more accurate and safer grasping of the propeller shaft.
Hu in view of Li further teach: attaching the first shaft support assembly and the second shaft support assembly to the propeller shaft (as shown in Hu Fig 8); and retracting the propeller shaft by moving the first shaft support assembly and the second shaft support assembly in a direction which withdraws the propeller shaft from the ship (as shown in the difference from Hu Fig 6 to Fig 5, the vehicle holding the shaft support assemblies is moved leftwards, which is the direction which withdraws the propeller from the ship.).
As to claim 18, Hu in view of Li teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising withdrawing the propeller shaft from an external strut after disengaging the first shaft support assembly (this step is illustrated in Hu Fig 3. The propeller has been entirely withdrawn from the illustrated external strut).
As to claim 19, Hu in view of Li teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising using the first shaft support assembly and the second shaft support assembly to position the propeller shaft as required while withdrawing the propeller shaft from the ship (as illustrated in Hu Figs 2-8 (in reverse order), the shaft support assemblies keep the shaft at the appropriate height for withdrawal from the ship.).
As to claim 20, Hu in vie of Li teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising using an adjustment portion to adjust a position of a cradle portion before attaching the first shaft support assembly and the second shaft support assembly to the propeller shaft (as shown in Hu Fig 9, each support mechanism 6 is lifted by a lift mechanism 4.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13-15 are allowed.
Claim 4 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner’s best art does not teach or obviate the limitations of independent claim 9, nor those of dependent claim 4.
As to claim 9, None of Examiner’s cited references specify that the shaft support assemblies having a cradle coupled to an upper side portion of the insert portion such that the rotation of the cradle about the rotational axis is limited to 30 degrees in either direction from the axis of motion. Rather, the cradles cited are of one of two forms: rollers or pads. The rollers (such as taught by Li Figure 5 (rollers 72)) are not limited to 30 degrees of rotation in either direction. Rather, the rollers appear to invariably be free rolling. The pads (as taught by Li Fig 2 (half arc groove of base 62), or by Shen Fig 3 (lifting seat 15 having mounting plates 17), or Ni Fig 3 (wedge blocks 25 are moved by screw 27 but are not taught to rotate)) are not taught to rotate along the axis as claimed, and not described to be limited to 30 degrees of motion in either direction along that rotation.
Similarly, as to claim 4, none of the cited references comprise lips useful for “partially restrict[ing] rotation of the cradle” since the rollers described above are not in need of having their rotation restricted, and the pads are not taught to rotate by a prescribed amount.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 27 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Li in view of Brown have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li in view of Marisco and Wu.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 4 and 9 are convincing.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 16 are not convincing. Applicant argues that Hu’s vehicle is not an SPMT which applicant would like the Office to more narrowly interpret in view of the NPL document from the Federal Highway Administration introduced in the IDS mailed 27 May 2026.
Examiner’s interpretations of “Self-Propelled,” “Modular,” and “Transport,” are reasonably broad given the ordinary definition of the terms. The nexus of the terms into a single unit is considered with the evidence of the Federal Highway Association NPL. But even here, the NPL admits the term is “somewhat generic in the market” (Page 7) and gives specifications of what distinguishes its use of the term from the “generic” forms. In this way, SPMT appear to be defined by what they are capable of doing rather than their particular structure. Here also Hu is capable of performing the tasks required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 4 September 2026
1 Examiner considers the vehicle of Hu to be a “self-propelled modular transporter” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “self-propelled” meaning that the vehicle provides its own motive force, such as having its own motor rather than for example being pulled by some external motive force. See Hu page 10 which describes the vehicle system as “remote controlled” which suggests the vehicle contains its own motive force.
2 Examiner considers the vehicle of hu to be a “self-propelled modular transporter” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “self-propelled” meaning that the vehicle provides its own motive force, such as having its own motor rather than for example being pulled by some external motive force. See Hu page 10 which describes the vehicle system as “remote controlled” which suggests the vehicle contains its own motive force.
Prosecution Insights