DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07 August 2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-20, 22, and 24-25 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive. The Applicant amendments generated a new claim objection.
The arguments in response to the claim(s) rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejection(s).
The arguments in response to the claim(s) 8 and 12 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
The remarks pertaining to “positive fit,” are not found persuasive since the term “positive fit” is not a term of art in the English language. The Applicant’s remarks have provided some clarity, and it appears the term “positive fit” is meant to be “snap fit.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The remarks that acquiesce to the interpretation of the rejected claim 12 do not obviate the rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
The arguments in response to the claim(s) 13 and 14 rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b), have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection(s) for claims 13 and 14.
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The remarks that the cross-head 100 is not positioned between the motor and the pitch adjusting member are not found persuasive since the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
The remarks that the motor does not directly carry or engage the threads are not found persuasive since the arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
The remarks pertaining to obviousness are not found persuasive since an obviousness rejection was not made in the 102 rejection.
The remarks pertaining to the hypothetical modification of Nichols is not found persuasive since the Office has not made such a rejection.
The original rejection is included in this Office Action.
It is noted the Applicant has not provided arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103.
The original rejection is included in this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Sweden on 03 October 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the SE2251146-3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The claim language, "the translation means is configured..." is interpreted such that the "configured" limitation includes selecting the thread pitch such that the angular difference between end positions of the rotatory actuator 30 is at least 90 degrees, at least 180 degrees, or such that the rotary actuator 30 may be rotated several turns between its end positions (see Page 12, lines 5-10).
The term “thread means” first introduced in claim 4 is interpreted to be threads.
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.
Examiner note: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "pitch adjusting member," first introduced in claim 1:
the pitch adjusting member that is adapted to be linearly movably mounted on the drive shaft and connected to the offset pitch interface, such that a linear motion of the pitch adjusting member along the drive shaft results in a pitch adjustment of the propeller blade and may comprise a structure (20, FIG. 1-2) disposed on a shaft via a central opening, having a receiving opening (21, FIG. 1) to accept the offset pitch interface 11 of the propeller blade 10, or an equivalent thereof (see Page 12, lines 0-25).
B. "translation means," first introduced in claim 1:
the translation means converts rotary motion of the rotary actuator 30 into linear motion of the linear actuator 40 and may comprise cooperating threads on the inner and outer surfaces of the rotary and linear actuators, respectively, or an equivalent thereof (see Page 12, lines 5-10).
C. "rotation blocking interface," first introduced in claim 11:
C. "rotation blocking interface," first introduced in claim 11: the rotation blocking interface 43 prevents the linear actuator from rotating. The rotation
blocking interface 43 is in the present case a recess (see figure 2) in the radially outer surface
of the linear actuator 40. In other embodiments, the rotation blocking interface 43 may be one
30 or more through-holes made in the linear actuator 40, each engaged by a stationary member (not shown)(see Page 13, lines 25-31).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
Regarding Claim 13:
a propeller blade comprising an offset pitch interface,
a pitch adjusting member that is adapted to be linearly movably mounted on the drive shaft and connected to the offset pitch interface, such that a linear motion of the pitch adjusting member along the drive shaft results in a pitch adjustment of the propeller blade,
a rotary actuator,
a linear actuator operationally arranged between the rotary actuator and the pitch adjusting member, and
translation means for translating a rotary motion of the rotary actuator about the drive shaft into a linear motion of the linear actuator along the drive shaft, wherein the pitch adjusting member is rotationally fixed to the propeller blade as a front propeller, and
a counter-rotating secondary propeller as a rear propeller, the secondary propeller comprising secondary blades each being rotatable around a respective folding axis perpendicular to the drive shaft between a deployed orientation and a folded orientation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 13.
Regarding Claim 14:
a primary propeller, comprising primary blades carried by the shaft assembly, driven in rotation by the shaft assembly around the propeller axis, each primary blade being rotatable relative to the shaft assembly, around a respective pitch axis perpendicular to the propeller axis and extending along said primary blade, between a first pitch orientation and a second pitch orientation, wherein the primary propeller is a marine controllable-pitch propeller including a propeller blade comprising an offset pitch interface, a pitch adjusting member that is adapted to be linearly movably mounted on the drive shaft and connected to the offset pitch interface, such that a linear motion of the pitch adjusting member along the drive shaft results in a pitch adjustment of the propeller blade, a rotary actuator, a linear actuator operationally arranged between the rotary actuator and the pitch adjusting member, and translation means for translating a rotary
motion of the rotary actuator about the drive shaft into a linear motion of the linear actuator along the drive shaft, wherein the pitch adjusting member is rotationally fixed to the propeller blade; and
a secondary propeller, comprising secondary blades carried by the shaft assembly, driven in rotation by the shaft assembly around the propeller axis, each secondary blade being rotatable relative to the shaft assembly, around a respective folding axis perpendicular to the propeller axis and to said secondary blade, between a deployed orientation and a folded orientation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 14.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
for grammatical purposes the claim language, "wherein the translation means is configured such that angular difference" (emphasis added) is objected to. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to instead be, "wherein the translation means is configured such that the angular difference."
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 8 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 8:
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “positive fit” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “snap fit,” while the accepted meaning is “there is no accepted definition for the term positive fit.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Regarding Claim 12:
The claim language, "wherein the linear actuator is rotationally fixed to the stationary housing" renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the linear actuator is supposed to be rotationally fixed to the stationary housing, since the linear actuator is prevented from rotating and the linear actuator is completely within the rotary actuator 30. For purposes of examination the claim language is interpreted to instead be, "wherein the linear actuator is rotationally fixed relative to the stationary housing."
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, 4-6, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nichols (US 2548045), hereafter referred to as Nichols.
Regarding Claim 1, Nichols discloses the following:
A marine (for example see claim 2) controllable-pitch propeller to be mounted on a drive shaft (45), the marine controllable-pitch propeller comprising
a propeller blade (70) comprising an offset pitch interface (73; FIG. 4),
a pitch adjusting member (103; FIG. 3-4) that is adapted to be linearly movably mounted on the drive shaft (45) and connected to the offset pitch interface (73; FIG. 4), such that a linear motion of the pitch adjusting member (103; FIG. 3-4) along the drive shaft (45) results in a pitch adjustment of the propeller blade (70),
a rotary actuator (15, including gear system in FIG. 3, 6; FIG. 1; Col. 7, lines 10-35),
a linear actuator (100; FIG. 3) operationally arranged between the rotary actuator (15, including gear system in FIG. 3, 6; FIG. 1; Col. 7, lines 10-35) and the pitch adjusting member (103; FIG. 3-4), and
translation means (90; FIG. 3) for translating a rotary motion of the rotary actuator (15, including gear system in FIG. 3, 6; FIG. 1; Col. 7, lines 10-35) about the drive shaft (45) into a linear motion of the linear actuator (100; FIG. 3) along the drive shaft (45),
wherein the pitch adjusting member (103; FIG. 3-4) is rotationally fixed (via 73) to the propeller blade (70).
Regarding Claim 4, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller claim 1,
wherein the translation means (90; FIG. 3) comprise threads (as seen in FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller claim 1,
wherein the translation means (90; FIG. 3) comprise an internal thread arranged on the rotary actuator (15, including gear system in FIG. 3, 6; FIG. 1; Col. 7, lines 10-35) and an external thread arranged on the linear actuator (100; FIG. 3)(as seen in FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller of claim 5,
wherein the linear actuator (100; FIG. 3) is arranged radially internally (at least a portion of 100 is arranged radially internally relative to the rotary actuator (15, including gear system in FIG. 3, 6; FIG. 1; Col. 7, lines 10-35).
Regarding Claim 8, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller claim 1,
wherein the offset pitch interface (73; FIG. 4) and the pitch adjusting member (103; FIG. 3-4) are configured to engage in a positive fit.
Regarding Claim 10, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller claim1,
wherein the linear actuator (100; FIG. 3) and the pitch adjusting member (103; FIG. 3-4) are linearly fixed to one another.
Regarding Claim 11, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller claim1,
wherein the linear actuator (100; FIG. 3) comprises a rotation blocking interface (78 in combination with 63; FIG. 4) that is adapted to be engaged by a stationary member to rotationally fix the linear actuator (100; FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller claim 1 comprising
a movable housing (93), which is rotationally fixed to the drive shaft (45), and
a stationary housing (60), wherein the linear actuator (100; FIG. 3) is rotationally fixed (relative, see 112b above) to the stationary housing (60) and the rotary actuator (15, including gear system in FIG. 3, 6; FIG. 1; Col. 7, lines 10-35) is rotatable with respect to the stationary housing (60) for pitch adjustment of the propeller blade (70).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols (US 2548045), hereafter referred to as Nichols.
Regarding Claim 2-3 and 7, Nichols discloses the following:
The marine controllable-pitch propeller claim 1, and claim 4 (as shown above)
Nichols does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the translation means is configured such that angular difference between end positions of the rotatory actuator is at least 90 degrees (claim 2); wherein the translation means is configured such that the angular difference between end positions of the rotatory actuator is at least 180 degrees (claim 3); wherein the thread pitch of the thread means is selected such the angular difference between end positions of the rotatory actuator is at least 90 degrees (claim 7);
However the Examiner notes the following:
Nichols discloses a variable pitch propeller. In other words, Nichols discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the translation means is configured such the angular difference between end positions of the rotatory actuator is at least 90 degrees (claim 2); wherein the translation means is configured such that the angular difference between end positions of the rotatory actuator is at least 180 degrees (claim 3); wherein the thread pitch of the thread means is selected such the angular difference between end positions of the rotatory actuator is at least 90 degrees (claim 7); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as translation means and rotary actuator could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Nichols would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the translation means and rotary actuator, as disclosed by Nichols, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically providing a thread pitch. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20, 22, and 24-25 are allowable.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 13:
a propeller blade comprising an offset pitch interface,
a pitch adjusting member that is adapted to be linearly movably mounted on the drive shaft and connected to the offset pitch interface, such that a linear motion of the pitch adjusting member along the drive shaft results in a pitch adjustment of the propeller blade,
a rotary actuator,
a linear actuator operationally arranged between the rotary actuator and the pitch adjusting member, and
translation means for translating a rotary motion of the rotary actuator about the drive shaft into a linear motion of the linear actuator along the drive shaft, wherein the pitch adjusting member is rotationally fixed to the propeller blade, as a front propeller, and
a counter-rotating secondary propeller as a rear propeller, the secondary propeller comprising secondary blades each being rotatable around a respective folding axis perpendicular to the drive shaft between a deployed orientation and a folded orientation;
Regarding Claim 14:
a primary propeller, comprising primary blades carried by the shaft assembly, driven in rotation by the shaft assembly around the propeller axis, each primary blade being rotatable relative to the shaft assembly, around a respective pitch axis perpendicular to the propeller axis and extending along said primary blade, between a first pitch orientation and a second pitch orientation, wherein the primary propeller is a marine controllable-pitch propeller including a propeller blade comprising an offset pitch interface, a pitch adjusting member that is adapted to be linearly movably mounted on the drive shaft and connected to the offset pitch interface, such that a linear motion of the pitch adjusting member along the drive shaft results in a pitch adjustment of the propeller blade, a rotary actuator, a linear actuator operationally arranged between the rotary actuator and the pitch adjusting member, and translation means for translating a rotary
motion of the rotary actuator about the drive shaft into a linear motion of the linear actuator along the drive shaft, wherein the pitch adjusting member is rotationally fixed to the propeller blade; and
a secondary propeller, comprising secondary blades carried by the shaft assembly, driven in rotation by the shaft assembly around the propeller axis, each secondary blade being rotatable relative to the shaft assembly, around a respective folding axis perpendicular to the propeller axis and to said secondary blade, between a deployed orientation and a folded orientation; (emphasis added)
Regarding Claims 15-20, 22, 24-25:
Claims 15-20, 22, 24-25 are dependent upon claim 14;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Nichols (US 2548045) or Skrydstrup et al (US 20190135395).
The Examiner notes, Nichols is considered the closest prior art, but does not teach the limitations as described above.
Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
