Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/892,882

ELECTRIC MARINE PROPULSION SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD WITH VOLTAGE ADAPTATION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 22, 2022
Examiner
REDA, MATTHEW J
Art Unit
3665
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Brunswick Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allow Rate
126 granted / 231 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
277
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 231 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claims 1-23 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 11/20/25. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/25 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 filed on 11/20/25, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments of 11/20/25. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made below in view of Sullivan (US 2009/0186535). 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. Claim 1-11 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane et al. (US 2010/0283318) in view of Sullivan (US 2009/0186535). Regarding claims 1 and 13, Crane discloses a marine power distribution system including an electric marine propulsion system/method configured to propel a marine vessel, the system comprising (Abstract): at least one electric motor powered by a power storage system and configured to rotate a propulsor to propel the marine vessel (¶19 and ¶29 – propulsion motor corresponding to the recited electric motor powered by zonal energy stores corresponding to the recited power storage system); a control system configured to (¶70 - electronic control system): determine a voltage change due to a change in demand level of the electric motor (¶44-45 - load voltage can be ramped up to the desired operating point corresponding to the recited voltage change due to a change in demand level); determine a minimum voltage at a maximum rated demand level for the electric motor based on the voltage change, wherein the minimum voltage is a minimum input voltage at the electric motor (¶118-119 – uppermost constant power curve corresponding to the recited maximum rated demand level for the electric motor is utilized to determine minimum voltage for the rated load which is the load presented by a propulsion drive comprising the propeller 6, the propulsion motor 5 and the propulsion converter 4 corresponding to the recited minimum voltage input at the motor before the system goes into fault and voltage tripping occurs); determine an adjusted command for the electric motor based on the minimum voltage and a current demand input (¶119 – voltage and current is limited based on the determined load curves including the minimum loaded voltage corresponding to the recited adjusted command for the motor based on the minimum voltage and current demand input); and control the electric motor based on the adjusted command (¶119 - propulsion drive load is regulated by the regulator that controls the propulsion converter based on the adjusted power levels). While Crane does disclose adjusting voltage applied to the motor based on change in demand, it does not explicitly state the demand change is a required change in propulsion output. However, Sullivan discloses a system for powering an amphibious craft including determine a voltage change in input voltage at the electric motor due to a change in demand level requiring a change in propulsion output of the electric motor (¶44 – determined desired or target torque value via operator input controls corresponding to the recited change in demand level requiring a change in propulsion output of the electric motor used to determine dynamically reconfigures the motor/generator current level and/or voltage and/or polarity thousands of times per second such as to produce maximum peak torque efficiency while simultaneously providing a high level of maneuvering (forward, reverse and steering) control); The combination of the marine power distribution system of Crane with the operator control input electrical adjustments to the motor of Sullivan fully discloses the elements as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the marine power distribution system of Crane with the operator control input electrical adjustments to the motor of Sullivan in order to produce maximum peak torque efficiency while simultaneously providing a high level of maneuvering (forward, reverse and steering) control (Sullivan - ¶44). Regarding claims 2 and 14, Crane further discloses determine an adapted system resistance of the power storage system based on the voltage change, and wherein the minimum voltage is determined based on the adapted system resistance (¶69 and ¶122 – minimum and nominal levels of supply voltage corresponding to the recited minimum voltage is determined utilizing dynamic source resistance corresponding to the recited adapted system resistance of the power storage system applied based on supply voltage fluctuations where the power supply is a battery corresponding to the recited power storage system). Regarding claims 3 and 15, Crane further discloses wherein the adapted system resistance includes an internal resistance of at least one battery in the power storage system and a resistance of connection elements connecting the electric motor to the at least one battery (¶87 and ¶122-123 – dynamic source resistance includes resistance measured at the power source(s) which includes zonal power supply units corresponding to the recited at least one battery in the power storage system as well as the feeder connections corresponding to the recited connection elements connecting the motor to the battery such as converters). Regarding claims 4 and 16, Crane further discloses determine a filtered adapted system resistance based on the adapted system resistance over time, and wherein the minimum voltage is determined based on the filtered adapted system resistance (¶122-123 – dynamic source resistance measures the resistance applied to the power sources over time corresponding to the recited filtered adapted system resistance which is utilized for determining the minimum voltage levels). Regarding claims 5 and 17, Crane further discloses identify the change in demand level that is at least a threshold change (¶112 – change in output voltage which displaces from the determined steady state corresponding to the recited threshold change); identify the voltage change as a corresponding change in the input voltage at the electric motor that corresponds with the threshold change in demand level (¶112-113 and ¶119-122 – voltage is calculated utilizing the propulsion drive load corresponding to the recited input voltage at the motor with respect to the supply voltage); and determine the adapted system resistance based on the change in demand level and the corresponding change in the input voltage (¶122 – minimum and nominal levels of supply voltage corresponding to the recited minimum voltage is determined utilizing dynamic source resistance corresponding to the recited adapted system resistance applied based on supply voltage fluctuations which may fluctuate outside of the steady state as determined utilizing dynamic source resistance corresponding to the recited adapted system resistance). Regarding claims 6 and 18, Crane further discloses wherein the change in demand level is one of a threshold change in motor current, a threshold change in motor torque, and a threshold change in helm command (¶35 and ¶119-122 – change in demand level includes propulsion motor load, corresponding to the recited change in motor torque, current curves corresponding to the recited motor current, and operator commands corresponding to the recited helm command wherein any factor that disrupts the steady state corresponding to the recited threshold change). Regarding claims 7 and 19, Crane further discloses identify a first steady state demand level and measure a first motor input voltage at the first steady state demand level; identify a second steady state demand level and measure a second motor input voltage at the second steady state demand level; wherein the change in demand level is a difference between the first steady state demand level and the second steady state demand level (¶112-122 – outputs at nominal steady state loading point corresponding to the recited first steady state demand level and demand exceeding steady state limits corresponding to the recited second steady state demand level where the change in demand is the difference between the two). Regarding claims 8 and 20, Crane further discloses wherein the maximum rated demand level is a maximum rated torque for the electric motor, wherein the current demand input is a current torque demand, and the adjusted command is a torque command to the electric motor (¶54 and ¶119-122 - maximize the performance of the associated propulsion motor corresponding to the recited maximum rated torque for the electric motor where current demand input is the current load demand for the motor corresponding to the recited current torque demand to determine the modified voltage/current output corresponding to the recited adjusted command). Regarding claims 9 and 21, Crane further discloses wherein the current demand input is based on a user demand input at a user input device (¶35 – propulsion device is commanded based on operator commands (e.g., demand signals provided directly from the control levels of the marine vessel)). Regarding claims 10 and 22, Crane further discloses determine the adjusted command for the electric motor by rescaling user demand input values from the user input device based on the minimum voltage (¶113-122 – output voltage is reduced corresponding to the recited rescale user demand input values based on the calculated minimums). Regarding claims 11 and 23, Crane further discloses determine the adjusted command for the electric motor to limit user authority over output of the electric motor based on the minimum voltage (¶113-122 – output voltage is reduced corresponding to the recited limited user authority based on the calculated minimums). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crane et al. (US 2010/0283318) in view of Sullivan (US 2009/0186535), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Onnerud et al. (US 2011/0049977). Regarding claim 12, Crane doesn’t explicitly disclose utilizing a command table for determining command values however Onnerud discloses a vehicle battery management system including further comprising a command table stored in memory comprising adjusted command values based on minimum voltage values; wherein the control system is further configured to access the command table based on the minimum voltage and the current demand input to determine the adjusted command (¶44-48 – charge/discharge rates are determined utilizing a look-up table with measured power factors). The combination of the marine power distribution system including determining minimum voltages and current demands of Crane in view of Sullivan with the battery state look-up tables of Onnerud fully disclose the elements as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the marine power distribution system including determining minimum voltages and current demands of Crane in view of Sullivan with the battery state look-up tables of Onnerud in order to optimize performance and safety associated with large scale battery systems (Onnerud - ¶3). Additional References Cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haugland (US 2012/0309242) discloses a hybrid propulsion system for a marine vessel including adjusting output voltage based on input demand in either speed or power control mode (¶71-74). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET. 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 22, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 18, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 20, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 06, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 06, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12573248
AN ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT FOR A VEHICLE CAPABLE OF CONTROLLING MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL LOADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570509
INDUSTRIAL TRUCK WITH DETECTION DEVICES ON THE FORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12533065
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CLASSIFYING SUBJECT INDEPENDENT DRIVER STATE USING BIO-SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12530029
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ADAPTIVE, REAL-TIME VEHICLE SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FOR AUTONOMOUS DRIVING
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12525071
METHOD FOR ASSISTED OPERATING SUPPORT OF A GROUND COMPACTION MACHINE AND GROUND COMPACTION MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+28.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 231 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month