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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “based solely on the controlling parameter without adjusting based on the output from the position sensor” in claims 1, 14, 20 does not appear in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1- 6-12, 14-22, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1, 14, 20 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “based solely on the controlling parameter without adjusting based on the output from the position sensor” is an exclusory proviso that excludes feedback from a sensor. The cited portions of the specification does not support the first stage specifically excluding feeding back from position sensor. Silence is not sufficient to support a negative claim. See MPEP 2173.05i.
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 1-4, 7-12, 15-17, 19-21, 23-25, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pugh (US 10829190 B1) in view of Dugger (US 20230090224 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pugh discloses a system for controlling a deployable device on a boat, the system comprising a controller, the controller including: a memory having stored thereon executable instructions; and a processor in communication with the memory and (Elements 45 and 38), when executing the instructions, configured to: receive a command (C6, L28) to deploy the deployable device to a desired position, the deployable device being movable by a drive mechanism (Elements 18 and 32) between a fully non-deployed position and a fully deployed position, the desired position being one of the fully non-deployed position, the fully deployed position, and a position between the fully non-deployed position and the fully deployed position; obtain a controlling parameter (C15, L1) for the drive mechanism based on the desired position; drive the drive mechanism (C6, L63) to move the deployable device that corresponds to the controlling parameter; receive, from a position sensor (Element 62), an output corresponding to a real-time position of one of the deployable device and the drive mechanism (C14, L53), the position sensor measuring a position of one of the deployable device and the drive mechanism; and drive the drive mechanism to move the deployable device to a final position based on the output of the position sensor and the desired position (C14, L53). Pugh does not explicitly disclose the process configured to operate, in a second stage subsequent to the first stage, the drive mechanism based on the output from the position sensor to move the deployable device to a final position corresponding to the desired position.
Dugger discloses a closed loop control system wherein subsequent to moving a deployable device according to rate of change for a period of time (step 1006), the drive mechanism based on the output from the position sensor to move the deployable device to a final position corresponding to the desired position. (paragraph 184) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the open control loop using the position sensor of Dugger to the instructions of Pugh which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Pugh is to ensure the position of the deployable devices are at the desired final position.
Regarding Claim 2, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the controlling parameter is at least one of a duration, an amperage, and a voltage of an electrical current applied to the drive mechanism. (Duration, C15, L1)
Regarding Claim 3, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the memory has further stored thereon a function or a look-up table of the desired position and the controlling parameter, and the processor is configured to obtain the dur based on the function or the look-up table. (rate of change is function. C6, L30)
Regarding Claim 4, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the controlling parameter is the duration of the electrical current applied to the drive mechanism. (C14, L65)
Regarding Claim 7, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a boat comprising: the control system of claim 1; the deployable device movably attached to the boat, the deployable device being movable between the fully non-deployed position and the fully deployed position; the drive mechanism connected to the deployable device and configured to move the deployable device; and the position sensor configured to measure the real-time position of one of the deployable device and the drive mechanism. (See Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 8, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a boat of claim 7, further comprising a hull, the deployable device being movably attached to the hull. (See Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 9, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a boat of claim 8, wherein, when the desired position is a deployed position and the deployable device is moved to the desired position, at least a portion of the deployable device is configured to interact with water flowing past the hull as the boat moves through the water. (See Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 10, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a boat of claim 7, wherein the deployable device is one of a surf device and a trim device. (See Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 11, Pugh discloses a boat of claim 7, wherein the drive mechanism is an actuator, the actuator being one of an electrical actuator and an electro-hydraulic actuator. (See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 12, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a boat of claim 11, wherein the actuator includes an extendable rod, and the position measured by the position sensor is a position of the extendable rod. (Suggested by C10, L63)
Claims 14-17, 19 claim a method of operating the apparatus of Claims 1-4 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 20, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a non-transitory machine-readable media for controlling a deployable device on a boat, comprising: instructions stored on the non-transitory machine-readable media (C10, L10), the instructions configured to, when executed, cause a processor to: receive a command to deploy the deployable device to a desired position, the deployable device being movable by a drive mechanism between a fully non-deployed position and a fully deployed position, the desired position being one of the fully non-deployed position, the fully deployed position, and a position between the fully non-deployed position and the fully deployed position; obtain a controlling parameter for the drive mechanism based on the desired position; operate, in a first stage, the drive mechanism based on the controlling parameter to move the deployable device toward the desired position; receive, from a position sensor, an output corresponding to a real-time position of one of the deployable device and the drive mechanism, the position sensor measuring a position of one of the deployable device and the drive mechanism; and operate, in a second stage subsequent to the first stage, the mechanism based on the output from the position sensor to move the deployable device to a final position corresponding to the desired position. (See rejection of Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 21, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a non-transitory machine-readable media of claim 20, wherein the controlling parameter is a duration of time that an electrical current is applied to the drive mechanism. (C15, L1)
Regarding Claim 23, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a non-transitory machine-readable media of claim 20, wherein the instructions are further configured to operate the drive mechanism without using feedback from the position sensor in the first stage. (“The desired trim rate of change is then communicated to the motor controller 38 at step 98. In certain embodiments, the motor controller 38 then calculates an appropriate speed for the trim actuator motor 32, and corresponding control signals. The motor controller 38 then controls the trim actuator motor to effectuate the desired trim rate of change at step 100.” Pugh C15, starting at line 18.)
Regarding Claim 24, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the processor when executing the instructions, is further configured to operates the drive mechanism in the first stage without using feedback from the position sensor. (“The desired trim rate of change is then communicated to the motor controller 38 at step 98. In certain embodiments, the motor controller 38 then calculates an appropriate speed for the trim actuator motor 32, and corresponding control signals. The motor controller 38 then controls the trim actuator motor to effectuate the desired trim rate of change at step 100.” Pugh C15, starting at line 18.)
Regarding Claim 25, Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a method of claim 14, wherein the drive mechanism is operated in the first stage without using feedback from the position sensor. (“The desired trim rate of change is then communicated to the motor controller 38 at step 98. In certain embodiments, the motor controller 38 then calculates an appropriate speed for the trim actuator motor 32, and corresponding control signals. The motor controller 38 then controls the trim actuator motor to effectuate the desired trim rate of change at step 100.” Pugh C15, starting at line 18.)
Regarding Claim 26, (27 and 28) Pugh in view of Dugger discloses a the system of claim 1, 14 and 20 wherein the fine-tuning in the second stage achieves positioning accuracy of the deployable device withing a predetermined range by using the position sensor (If the sensed position and the expected position are not the same and/or the sensed position deviates beyond a predetermined range of expected positions, the process can proceed to block 1010 and stop actuation of the foil(s) and/or spar(s) Paragraph 184), but does not disclose an accuracy of the deployable device to within +/- 1% of the desired position.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to minimize the range of Dugger such that the range has an accuracy of the deployable device to within +/- 1% of the desired position which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the range is that accuracy is a basic design incentive that is also suggested by predetermined range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the spec objection, the language at issue excluding the position sensor is descriptive of the definition of the “desired position” in the spec, but applied to “moving the device” in the claim. In paragraph 55 of Applicant’s spec, the alternative parameter “Other calculated or derived suitable parameter that allows the controller to control the movement of the drive mechanism to a desired position, which is not a direct output of a position sensor, also may be used as the controlling parameter herein” uses the nonrestrictive clause “which is not a direct output of a position sensor” to modify “the desired position.” The claim language is literally claiming the process of moving in “moving the deployable device based solely on the controlling parameter without adjusting based on the output from the position sensor”. It’s not the same meaning in the claim as the spec. It is the major issue that Applicant argues differentiates it from the prior art. “The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.” (See MPEP 2173)” The Examiner maintains the objection.
Regarding the 103, Applicant argues Dugger lacks the feature of “wherein operating the drive mechanism in the first stage comprises moving the deployable device based solely on the controlling parameter without adiusting based on the output from the position sensor”. As evidence, Applicant argues that Dugger uses continuous monitoring and feedback throughout the entire movement. This is not true. Determining the elapsed time (Stage 1006) and checking the position with the position sensor (Stage 1008) are two separate stages as seen in Fig 28 and described in paragraph 84. Applicant’s arguments rely on the terms “open loop” and “closed loop” which are unclaimed but perhaps suggest some unclaimed definition between stages. Applicant failed to demonstrate that Stage 1006 in Fig. 28 of Dugger is not moving the device solely on time. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims in this claim set are currently allowable. Applicant may wish to call Examiner before amending claims and considering using claims previously indicated as allowable in an after final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 8 May 2026
Prosecution Insights