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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of 05/06/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 08/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
Miyagi fails to teach a battery type distinction, because the batteries are not functionally distinct.
Miyagi fails to teach the inclusion of a modular or integrated electric vehicle platform.
Miyagi fails to teach the integration of a cooling device into the electric vehicle platform, merely teaching a cooling device as a marine vessel-specific adaptation.
There is no motivation to combine the references in a marine application because Miyagi is directed toward electric land vehicles and Böbel is focused on cooling land-based EV platforms.
Regarding argument A: The applicant argues that both the main battery and the motor driving battery of Miyagi are part of the propulsion system, without a battery dedicated to powering electronic subsystems. However, Miyagi teaches “a main battery B1 to supply electric power to the electric devices provided in the marine vessel” and “a motor driving battery B2 which accumulates electric power to be supplied to the electric motor 41” (Miyagi – [0084, 0086]), thus teaching that the main battery powers electronic subsystems.
The applicant further argues that a different voltage rating is insufficient to constitute a type of battery because a type “typically implies functional, chemical, structural, or intended-use differences” (emphasis added). The application as originally filed does not disclose any functional, chemical, or structural differences between the two claimed batteries, rather, that the differences between the two batteries are in their relative voltages and in their intended uses. As discussed above, the main battery and the motor driving battery of Miyagi have two different intended uses, and thus constitute two different types of battery.
Regarding argument B: The claim does not recite that the electric vehicle platform is modular or integrated, and no evidence is provided to demonstrate that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an electric vehicle platform is necessarily one which is modular or integrated. In light of the specification, and particularly Fig. 1 and paragraph [0038], the interpretation of this limitation remains the grouping of elements labeled as 90 (i.e., a battery, an inverter, an ECU, and a battery management system). As discussed below, these features are all taught by Miyagi.
Regarding argument C: Miyagi teaches a cooling system which is used in conjunction with the inverter. As the inverter is part of the electric vehicle platform, as discussed above, the cooling system is thus integrated with the electric vehicle platform.
Regarding argument D: The assertion that Miyagi and Böbel are directed toward land-based applications is incorrect; both references are directed toward marine vessels.
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.
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(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi (US 20220119084, previously cited) in view of Böbel (EP 1806282, previously cited).
Claim 1.
Miyagi teaches:
a drive motor configured to rotate a propeller
(Miyagi – Abstract) “an electric motor to rotate a propeller”
a battery configured to supply a voltage
(Miyagi – Abstract) “a battery to supply electric power to the inverter”
an inverter configured to convert a DC voltage of the battery into an AC voltage to drive the drive motor
(Miyagi – Abstract) “an inverter circuit to convert DC electric power supplied from the battery to AC electric power”
a battery management system (BMS)
(Miyagi – [0002]) “a marine vessel power supply system which manages the power supply of a marine vessel”
an electronic control unit (ECU) including a vessel control unit configured to control the BMS, the inverter, and the drive motor in order to operate the vessel
(Miyagi – Abstract) “control the inverter circuit according to a command supplied from the electronic control unit”
an operation unit comprising steering and communication devices configured to transmit an operation signal to the ECU in response to a driver’s operation of the steering device
(Miyagi – [0051] “The propulsion system 2 further includes a steering device which turns the outboard motor 8 laterally of the hull H1, and a tilt device which turns the outboard motor 8 vertically of the hull H1.”
(Miyagi – [0079]) “a steering wheel 52 which is operated to steer the marine vessel 1.”
wherein the battery includes a first type of battery configured to drive the motor and a second type of battery configured to drive electronic components in the vessel
(Miyagi – [0088]) “The main battery B1 has a lower rated voltage than the motor driving battery B2.”
[Examiner’s Note: As discussed above, the two batteries have two different uses, making them two distinct types of battery.]
wherein at least one of the drive motor, the battery, the inverter, and the BMS is included in an electrified platform for an electric vehicle
(Miyagi – Abstract) “A marine vessel power supply system for a marine vessel including an electric motor to rotate a propeller includes an inverter to supply electric power to the electric motor, a battery to supply electric power to the inverter, and an electronic control unit configured or programmed to control the inverter.”
wherein a propulsion system of the electric vessel is implemented with the electric vehicle platform for the electric vehicle in which a cooling device is integrated
(Miyagi – [0030]) “the water pump sucks in the water from outside the marine vessel, and supplies the water into the cooling water channel. The water flowing through the cooling water channel passes through the case of the inverter to cool the inverter.”
[Examiner’s Note: In light of Fig. 2 of the present application, the inverter is considered to be a part of the propulsion system; thus, using a cooling system to cool the inverter demonstrates that a cooling device is integrated into the propulsion system.]
Miyagi does not explicitly teach using a lithium material; however, Böbel teaches:
wherein the electric vehicle platform comprises a lithium material other than iron phosphate
(Böbel – [0019]) “The lithium manganese battery is used to power a boat electric motor”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the generic battery of Miyagi with the lithium-manganese battery of Böbel. Both references are directed toward the field of endeavor of controlling an electric vessel; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the more specific battery of Böbel could be used in the electric vessel of Miyagi with predictable results.
Claim 6.
Miyagi teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Miyagi further teaches:
wherein comprising a converter configured to convert a voltage of the battery into a different voltage and output the different voltage as power for external devices
(Miyagi – [0100]) “The DC/DC converter 60 increases the voltage of the DC electric power supplied from the rectifier/regulator 59 or the main battery B1, and supplies the DC electric power having the increased voltage to the motor driving battery B2.”
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi and Böbel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maim (US 20220281557, previously cited).
Claim 2.
The combination of Miyagi and Böbel teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Miyagi does not explicitly teach a solar module; however, Maim teaches:
further comprising a solar module, wherein the solar module comprises solar panels configured to send solar energy to one or both of the battery and the BMS
(Maim – [0121]) “the electrical connection between the circuitry of the photovoltaic elements PH1 and the battery or batteries B2 may be done by any appropriate means”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the solar cells of Maim. One would have been motivated to do this because photovoltaic cells provide “relatively powerful and very quiet propulsion means” (Maim – [0003]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi and Böbel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dhar et al. (US 20140377596, previously cited).
Claim 4.
The combination of Miyagi and Böbel teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Miyagi does not explicitly teach a battery C-rating; however, Dhar et al. teaches:
wherein the battery includes a 5C-rate battery
(Dhar – [0065]) “this permits the Li-ion battery component(s) (110) to operate at a lower C-rate.”
[Examiner Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to permit the battery to operate at a desired C-rate.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the battery system of Dhar et al. One would have been motivated to do this because an excessive C-rate would put higher demands on the battery and temperature increase (Dhar – [0065]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi and Böbel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa (US 20170285645, previously cited).
Claim 7.
The combination of Miyagi and Böbel teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Miyagi does not explicitly teach a radar, semi-autonomous driving, or obstacle detection; however, Nakagawa teaches:
receive radar information from a radar system installed on a hull, process the radar information to generate a radar control signal, and transmit the radar control signal to the radar system
(Nakagawa – [0052]) “upon identification of an obstacle 70 by a signal from the radar units 45”
generate a control signal for semi-autonomous traveling in a form in which manual traveling under a driver’s control and fully autonomous traveling in which driver intervention is excluded are combined
(Nakagawa – [0043]) “In the case where manual navigation has been selected by the input interface 47”
(Nakagawa – [0044]) “In the case where automated navigation has been selected by the input interface 47”
detect obstacles using an obstacle detection sensor
(Nakagawa – [0042]) “The radar units 45 are obstacle detectors”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the steering system of Nakagawa. One would have been motivated to do this because the steering system of Nakagawa mitigates the engine stalling that could occur during low-speed navigation (Nakagawa – [0003]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi and Böbel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trotter (US 20240067321, previously cited) and further in view of Lammers-Meis et al. (US 20230059445, previously cited).
Claim 8.
The combination of Miyagi and Böbel teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Miyagi teaches neither a lock mode nor an emergency mode; however, Trotter teaches:
a lock mode that is entered by turning off an ignition key to cut off a function of the vessel
(Trotter – [0024]) “a traditional key or start button may be used to start the motor 20 while the fob 12 is in close proximity to the captain’s console 18, the kill switch 10, or in some cases, the motor 20.”
an emergency mode in which an output of the battery supplied to the motor is cut off
(Trotter – Abstract) “a kill switch connected to the motor for preventing the motor from running under dangerous circumstances.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the safety system of Trotter. One would have been motivated to do this in order to prevent the motor from running in dangerous circumstances (Trotter – Abstract).
Neither Miyagi nor Trotter explicitly teach an anchorage mode; however, Lammers-Meis et al. teaches:
an anchorage mode that is manually entered when the vessel is not used to cut off the output of the battery
(Lammers-Meis – [0111]) “the anchoring mode may activate, deactivate, and/or actuate a motor and/or actuate a shallow water anchor to reposition or maintain a position of the marine vessel”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the anchor control system of Lammers-Meis et al. One would have been motivated to do this because the system of Lammers-Meis ensures that “the components of the vessel… are properly utilized based on the environment of the vessel” (Lammers-Meis – [0023]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi and Böbel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (US 10780966, previously cited).
Claim 9.
The combination of Miyagi and Böbel teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Miyagi does not explicitly teach a heat sink; however, Wei et al. teaches:
a secondary heat sink attached to a printed circuit board (PCB) to dissipate heat from heat-generation elements mounted on the PCB
(Wei – Col. 1, lines 45-46) “the cooling silica gel is provided between the control circuit board and the heat sink”
a main heat sink contacting the secondary heat sink to dissipate heat from the ECU
(Wei – Col. 1, lines 45-46) “the cooling silica gel is provided between the control circuit board and the heat sink”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the tailhood of Wei et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure efficient heat dissipation (Wei – Col. 2, lines 23-27).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi and Böbel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pesendorfer (WO 2022236352).
Claim 10.
The combination of Miyagi and Böbel teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Miyagi does not explicitly teach a frequency domain; however, Pesendorfer teaches:
wherein an operation frequency domain of the drive motor, the battery, the inverter, the BMS, and the ECU ranges from 0 to 1500 Hz
(Pesendorfer – [0052]) “In order to reduce so-called skin effects, it can be provided that the electric motors 5 are operated with alternating current with a maximum frequency of 1000 Hz, preferably a maximum of 500 Hz, in particular a maximum frequency between 200 Hz and 600 Hz.”
[Examiner Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that a predetermined frequency range could be set as desired, and is not necessarily limited to the values given as examples by Pesendorfer.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the drive system of Pesendorfer. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce skin effects on the motors (Pesendorfer – [0052]).
Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi and Böbel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakagawa and further in view of Conrad (US 20050268833, previously cited).
Claim 11.
The components of which the electronic vessel is comprised are taught by the combination of Miyagi and Böbel, as discussed with regards to claim 1. Regarding the method limitations, Miyagi further teaches:
transmitting the operation signal
(Miyagi – [0079]) “a steering wheel 52 which is operated to steer the marine vessel 1”
giving propulsion to the vessel by rotating the propeller by the drive motor
(Miyagi – Abstract) “an electric motor to rotate a propeller”
Miyagi does not explicitly teach a steering force or change amount; however, Nakagawa teaches:
transmitting an operation signal including a force and a change amount generated by a driver operation of a steering device from the operation circuitry to the ECU
(Nakagawa – [0043]) “the controller 40 receives a steering angle from the steering wheel and alters the angle of the rudder 4 according to the steering angle”
converting the received operation signal into a control signal including a controlled variable for controlling the drive motor, and transmitting the control signal to the inverter by the ECU
(Nakagawa – [0043]) “the controller 40 receives a steering angle from the steering wheel and alters the angle of the rudder 4 according to the steering angle”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 7.
Neither Miyagi nor Nakagawa explicitly teach modulating a voltage; however, Conrad teaches:
modulating a voltage of the battery so that the controlled variable is reflected according to the control signal from the ECU to generate drive power, and applying the drive power to the drive motor by the inverter
(Conrad – [0041]) “The speed control may be achieved either by turning on and off multiple motors or by using pulse width modulation to reduce the voltage delivered to the electric motor or motors”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the electric vessel of Miyagi with the speed control of Conrad. One would have been motivated to do this because the ability to reduce the voltage delivered to the motor also reduces the electric current, which allows the battery to last longer.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 16.
The combination of Miyagi, Böbel, Nakagawa, and Conrad teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Miyagi further teaches:
wherein the operation signal is transmitted to the ECU using one of controller area network (CAN) communication and wired communication
(Miyagi – [0080]) “The engine ECU 56 and the head ECU 55 are connected to each other via a communication network N1 configured in conformity with communication standards such as CAN (Controller Area Network).”
Claim 17.
The combination of Miyagi, Böbel, Nakagawa, and Conrad teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Miyagi further teaches:
wherein the operation signal is transmitted to the inverter using one of controller area network (CAN) communication and wired communication
(Miyagi – [0095]) “a control cable 65 which connects the communication network N1 to the inverter 61”
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi, Böbel, Nakagawa, and Conrad as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Trotter and further in view of Lammers-Meis.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Miyagi, Böbel, Nakagawa, and Conrad as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Dhar et al.
Claim 18.
The combination of Miyagi and Böbel teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Miyagi further teaches:
wherein the battery is included in the electrified platform for the electric vehicle
(Miyagi – Abstract) “A marine vessel power supply system for a marine vessel including an electric motor to rotate a propeller includes an inverter to supply electric power to the electric motor, a battery to supply electric power to the inverter, and an electronic control unit configured or programmed to control the inverter.”
Miyagi does not explicitly teach a battery C-rating; however, Dhar et al. teaches:
the battery includes a 5C-rate battery
(Dhar – [0065]) “this permits the Li-ion battery component(s) (110) to operate at a lower C-rate.”
[Examiner Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to permit the battery to operate at a desired C-rate.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 4.
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 SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669