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 with traverse of Invention I and Species II in the reply filed on 09/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not mutually exclusive, the inventions of I and II are not distinct, and that there is no search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because with regard to the species restriction, Fig. 1 does not disclose of the same additional features and layout thereof the features, such as 211 and 220 shown in Fig. 2. Therein, due to the additional features recited in Fig. 2, examining both species is a search and examination burden because a first search would be necessary to search for the propulsion system configuration shown in Fig. 1 and an additional search, which requires additional prior art and different search queries, would be required to find the propulsion system that contains all the of the additional features shown in Fig. 2. With regard to the restriction of Inventions I and II, Invention I does not require the implicit sequential order of steps as outlined in Invention II. In claim 12, a sensor signal indicative of a measured position of the rotating wheel must be received before an estimated position of the rotating wheel can be determined based on the sensor signal and therein, a search for a disclosure in the prior art would be required to find such sequence of steps, whereas in Invention I, such search for the sequential order of steps is not required because such implicit order of steps is not required in the product claims. Therein, the inventions of Group I and Group II are distinct. Therein, for the reasons stated above, there is a search and examination burden. The restriction/election requirement is therefore deemed proper and is made FINAL. Claims 1-11 and 16-18 are examined. Claims 12-14 and 19-21 are withdrawn. Claim 15 has been canceled by the Applicant.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretations
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 10 - “wheel position estimation unit” read as a unit [means] for wheel position estimation.
Claims 1 and 10 - “blade pitch determining unit” read as a unit [means] for determining blade pitch.
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders:
Claims 1 and 10 – “unit”
Claims 1 and 10 – “unit”
coupled with functional language:
“for wheel position estimation”
“for determining blade pitch”
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Corresponding structure is found in [0043].
Corresponding structure is found in [0043].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 7, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley et al. (US 2015/0321740 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley et al. discloses a blade pitch control system ([0089]) for a cycloidal marine propulsion system ([0001]), the cycloidal marine propulsion system comprising a rotating wheel (106, [0029]), and a plurality of rotating blades (110) attached to the rotating wheel (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein each rotating blade of the plurality of rotating blades is individually rotatable with respect to the rotating wheel ([0045], [0089]), the blade pitch control system comprising:
at least one rotating wheel position sensor (312, [0098]) configured to provide a sensor signal indicative of a measured position of the rotating wheel (position or movement sensor, [0098]);
a wheel position estimation unit (304) configured to determine an estimated position of the rotating wheel based upon the sensor signal of the at least one rotating wheel position sensor (i.e., receives input from sensors 312 and processes data to provide an output or command, [0097]; based on the inputs received from the sensor data, the processor determines (i.e., estimates) a position to generate a position command control ([0111], [0112]); and
a blade pitch determining unit (i.e., blade command 300, [0106], [0114], which is a part of the processor 304) configured to determine a blade pitch set point for at least one of the plurality of rotating blades based upon the estimated position of the rotating wheel (i.e., blade command determined the blade position command to set and increase the blade rotation about the blade axis 117 and sent the command to blade actuator 108, [0114], [0089]),
wherein the determination of the estimated position of the rotating wheel comprises a data processing activity of the sensor signal (i.e., the processor 304 obtains the data received from the sensors and processes such data (i.e., data processing, [0108]) to determine the control map 309 and necessitated command instructions ([0106]).
Regarding claim 3, Bradley et al. discloses wherein the data processing activity comprises a storing activity of the sensor signal (i.e., the control map, which receives and processes input data from sensors, [0037], is stored in memory 302 of the controller 300, [0103], wherein the memory 302 stores data, code and executable instructions/commands, [0075]).
Regarding claim 7, Bradley et al. discloses a plurality of rotating wheel position sensors (i.e., the system can use at least one angle sensor, signifying that more than 1 can be used and is therein a plurality of sensors on the shaft or adjacent the shaft 104, wherein the rotating wheel 106 is rigidly connected to the shaft 104, [0029]-[0030]), wherein the data processing activity comprises sensor fusion of the plurality of rotating wheel position sensors (i.e., the controller 300/processor 304 uses a variety of input data, such as from adjacent bladed angle sensors or from main assembly angle sensors, wherein such data is fused in a control map that contains algorithms that implement control commands/procedures according to the data received, [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Bradley et al. discloses a cycloidal marine propulsion system ([0001]) comprising a rotating wheel (106, [0029]), a plurality of rotating blades (110) attached to the rotating wheel (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein each rotating blade of the plurality of rotating blades is individually rotatable with respect to the rotating wheel ([0045], [0089]), and a blade pitch control system ([0089]), the blade pitch control system comprising:
at least one rotating wheel position sensor (312, [0098]) configured to provide a sensor signal indicative of a measured position of the rotating wheel (position or movement sensor, [0098]);
a wheel position estimation unit (304) configured to determine an estimated position of the rotating wheel based upon the sensor signal of the at least one rotating wheel position sensor (i.e., receives input from sensors 312 and processes data to provide an output or command, [0097]; based on the inputs received from the sensor data, the processor determines (i.e., estimates) a position to generate a position command control ([0111], [0112]); and
a blade pitch determining unit (i.e., blade command 300, [0106], [0114], which is a part of the processor 304) configured to determine a blade pitch set point for at least one of the plurality of rotating blades based upon the estimated position of the rotating wheel (i.e., blade command determined the blade position command to set and increase the blade rotation about the blade axis 117 and sent the command to blade actuator 108, [0114], [0089]),
wherein the determination of the estimated position of the rotating wheel comprises a data processing activity of the sensor signal (i.e., the processor 304 obtains the data received from the sensors and processes such data (i.e., data processing, [0108]) to determine the control map 309 and necessitated command instructions ([0106]), and
wherein the cycloidal marine propulsion system ([0001]) is controlled using blade pitch information obtained from the blade pitch control system (i.e., data inputs/information obtained from sensors [0098]; in exemplarily situations wherein the drag needs to be reduced [0085] or the thrust increased [0090], the positions of the blades are adjusted about the blade axis, [0086]-[0091]).
Regarding claim 11, Bradley et al. discloses wherein the cycloidal marine propulsion system is provided on a marine vessel ([0002]).
Regarding claim 17, Bradley et al. discloses wherein the data processing activity comprises a storing activity of the sensor signal (i.e., the control map, which receives and processes input data from sensors, [0037], is stored in memory 302 of the controller 300, [0103], wherein the memory 302 stores data, code and executable instructions/commands, [0075]).
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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (US 2015/0321740 A1) in view of Biancale et al. (US 2022/0392351 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bradley et al. discloses that the system can use at least one angle sensor on the shaft or adjacent the shaft 104, wherein the rotating wheel 106 is rigidly connected to the shaft 104, [0029]-[0030], wherein the rotational displacement of the wheel is measured with the shaft, but Bradley et al. does not specifically disclose
wherein the measured position is indicative of a polar angle.
Biancale et al. teaches of the use of sensors in marine applications, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Biancale et al. teaches of the use of sensor (315), wherein the data indicative from the sensor can be used to calculate a polar angle ([0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley et al. in view of Biancale et al. by knowing that measured data by a sensor, used in marine applications, has the capacity for the data to be indicative of a polar angle as it is known in the art for sensors to be configured to measure angular positions or displacements (Biancale, [0132]).
Regarding claim 16, see claim 2 rejection above.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (US 2015/0321740 A1) in view of Bertin (US 2021/0285753 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Bradley et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the data processing activity comprises a smoothing activity of the sensor signal.
Bertin teaches of the use of a position sensor the measure an angle of a rotating device and of signal processing ([0003]), which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Bertin teaches of the use of a low pass filter configured to receive the data input of a measured angular position ([0039]). The use of a low pass filter results in a smoothing activity of the sensor signal of the measured angular position because such data processing activity reduces the noise of the measured angular position ([0039], [0044]) and therein provides a smoother curve of the measured data points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley et al. in view of Bertin by using a low pass filter for the acquired sensor data disclosed in Bradley et al. to obtain a smoothing of the measured data as taught in Bertin in order to reduce the noise associated with the measured angular position data from the sensor (Bertin, [0039], [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Bradley et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the data processing activity comprises a filtering activity of the sensor signal.
Bertin teaches of the use of a position sensor the measure an angle of a rotating device and of signal processing ([0003]), which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Bertin teaches of the use of a low pass filter configured to receive the data input of a measured angular position ([0039]). The use of a low pass filter results in a smoothing and filtering activity of the sensor signal of the measured angular position because such data processing activity reduces the noise of the measured angular position ([0039], [0044]) and therein provides a smoother curve of the measured data points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley et al. in view of Bertin by using a low pass filter for the acquired sensor data disclosed in Bradley et al. to obtain a filtering of the measured data as taught in Bertin in order to reduce the noise associated with the measured angular position data from the sensor (Bertin, [0039], [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Bradley et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the data processing activity comprises an extrapolating activity of the sensor signal.
Bertin teaches of the use of a position sensor the measure an angle of a rotating device and of signal processing ([0003]), which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Bertin teaches of the use of extrapolation of a measured angle sensor signal ([0025]). The purpose of the extrapolation would be for signal integrity verification purposes ([0025]). In the scenarios when the input angle is not valid or calculated erroneously, the extrapolation value can be used to replace the erroneous angle value and therein provides a corrected data point ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley et al. in view of Bertin by using extrapolation for the acquired sensor data disclosed in Bradley et al. to obtain a corrected values of the measured data as taught in Bertin because in the scenarios when the input angle is not valid or calculated erroneously, the extrapolation value can be used to replace the erroneous angle value and therein provides a corrected data point (Bertin, [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Bradley et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the data processing activity comprises an analysis of the sensor signal to identify a type of noise overlaying overlayed on the sensor signal of the rotating wheel.
Bertin teaches of the use of a position sensor the measure an angle of a rotating device and of signal processing ([0003]), which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Bertin teaches wherein the data processing activity comprises an analysis of the sensor signal to identify a type of noise overlaying overlayed on the sensor signal of the rotating wheel (i.e., the data is analyzed for any noise and delays, [0025], lines 1-5; and once the noise is identified, a filter is applied to remove the noise, [0025]; further data processing involves analysis and the investigation of any delays and data corrections applied to the data via extrapolation). The purpose of the extrapolation would be for signal integrity verification purposes ([0025]). In the scenarios when the input angle is not valid or calculated erroneously, the extrapolation value can be used to replace the erroneous angle value and therein provides a corrected data point ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley et al. in view of Bertin by using the data analysis techniques, such as the application of a filter to remove noise identification and the use of extrapolation for the acquired sensor data disclosed in Bradley et al. to obtain a corrected values of the measured data as taught in Bertin because in the scenarios when the input angle is not valid or calculated erroneously, the extrapolation value can be used to replace the erroneous angle value and therein provides a corrected data point (Bertin, [0027]). Such techniques results in reliable data measurements obtained from the sensors.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 8 rejection above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (US 2015/0321740 A1) in view of Kautz (US 2016/0125868 A1) and further in view of Salas-Boni et al. (US 2016/0029966 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bradley et al. does not specifically disclose wherein: the blade pitch control system further comprises a noise sensor configured to sense a background noise signal present at the rotating wheel position sensor, and wherein the data processing activity comprises a deconvolution of the sensor signal.
Kautz teaches of a noise sensor, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Kautz teaches of a noise sensor (26, [0028]) configured to detect and sense any noise (such as through the voltage signal input into the sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bradley et al. in view of Kautz by using a noise sensor in conjunction with the sensors disclosed in Bradley et al. to obtain accurate measured readings from the sensors without noise as taught by Kautz because such anti-noise output results in reliable data and mitigates false commands executed by the controller based on the acquired measurements.
The combination of Bradley et al. and Kautz does not specifically disclose wherein the data processing activity comprises a deconvolution of the sensor signal.
Salas-Boni et al. teaches of signal processing of sensor signals, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Salas-Boni et al. teaches of the data processing activity of deconvolution of the sensor signal ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Bradley et al. and Kautz in view of Salas-Boni et al. by using the data processing activity of deconvolution of the sensor signal for the data disclosed in Bradley et al. as taught in Salas-Boni et al. because deconvolution facilitates data correction to provide greater accuracy and representation of the measured data acquired from the sensors (Salas-Boni et al. [0028]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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, COURTNEY HEINLE can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 10/01/2026
