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 .
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, 3-12, 14-17, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith (US 6350164 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Griffiths discloses a autonomous watercraft comprising: a positioning system comprising a controller (Fig. 12)and at least two stationary mounted propulsion units (Element 36, 38) that are stationary with respect to the watercraft for generating a forward and backward thrust with respect to the respective propulsion unit in a respectively fixed direction with respect to the watercraft; wherein the controller is arranged for individually controlling the thrust generated by each of the two propulsion units for moving and steering the watercraft (Controllers have this arrangement. see MPEP 2114 regarding functional descriptions of an apparatus.), wherein the watercraft is arranged to be steered exclusively by the stationary mounted propulsion units, and wherein the watercraft comprises a rudder for the primary propulsion system (C4, L64). Griffiths also discloses further comprising a position sensor system (C10, paragraph starting at L66), wherein the position sensor system is arranged for determining a dynamic position of the watercraft and is connected to the controller that is arranged for controlling the stationary mounted propulsion units on the basis of the measured dynamic position. Griffiths does not explicitly disclose and wherein the watercraft does not comprise a rudder for steering.
Griffiths discloses wherein the boat is used for fishing (C1, L30). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to remove the outboard motor containing the rudder of Griffiths which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Griffiths is to use the boat for fishing in fishing areas like reservoirs where internal combustion outboard motors are often prohibited.
Regarding Claim 3, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the stationary mounted propulsion units is directed such that the respective forward and backward thrusts generate respective moments around the centre of gravity of the watercraft. (See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 4, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the two stationary mounted propulsion units are mounted on opposite sides of the centre of gravity of the watercraft. (See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 5, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the two stationary mounted propulsion units are arranged mirror symmetric with respect to a line of mirror symmetry of the watercraft. (See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 6, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the two stationary mounted propulsion units are arranged at an angle with respect to each other. (See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 7, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the respective fixed directions of the two stationary mounted propulsion units are such that the largest part of the respective generated thrusts is in a direction that is substantially parallel to a virtual centre line of the watercraft running from bow to stern. (See Fig. 3.)
Regarding Claim 8, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the positioning system comprises a third stationary mounted propulsion unit (Element 61) that is arranged for generating a forward and backward thrust with respect to said propulsion unit, and wherein the third stationary mounted propulsion unit is fixed at an angle with respect to a virtual centre line of the watercraft running from bow to stern, such that the largest part of the respective thrust is in in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to the virtual centre line. (See Fig. 3.)
Regarding Claim 9, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 8, wherein the forward direction and sideward direction span a two dimensional plane of movement of the watercraft and the controller is arranged for individually controlling the thrusts of the stationary mounted propulsion units, such that the positioning system is arranged to generate a resultant thrust in any direction of the two dimensional plane. (See Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 10, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the stationary mounted propulsion units is, as seen in the direction towards the centre of gravity, arranged at an outward angle towards the nearest of the starboard and port side of the watercraft. (Element 61, Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 11, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein at least one stationary mounted propulsion unit is arranged between a central point, such as the centre of gravity, of the watercraft and the bow of the watercraft, and wherein at least one stationary mounted propulsion unit is arranged between central point of the watercraft and the stern of the watercraft. (Element 61, Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 12, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 4, wherein the two stationary mounted propulsion units are arranged on one side of the watercraft with respect to the central point, as seen in the surge direction, and wherein the third stationary mounted propulsion unit is mounted at the other side of the watercraft with respect to the central point, as seen in the surge direction. (Element 61, Fig. 2. Examiner notes “forward” is descriptive of a direction. Surge is a motion in the forward direction.)
Regarding Claim 14, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 0, comprising a position sensor system, wherein the position sensor system is arranged for determining a dynamic position of the watercraft and is connected to the controller that is arranged for controlling the stationary mounted propulsion units on the basis of the measured dynamic position; wherein the controller is arranged for maintaining a predetermined position of the watercraft by individually controlling the thrusts generated by the respective stationary mounted propulsion units. (C11, L4)
Regarding Claim 15, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 130, wherein the position sensor system is arranged for determining an actual orientation and actual position of the watercraft and wherein said sensor system comprises at least one position sensor. (C11, L3) wherein the position sensor system is arranged for determining a dynamic position of the watercraft and is connected to the controller that is arranged for controlling the stationary mounted propulsion units on the basis of the measured dynamic position (paragraph starting at C10, L66.)
Regarding Claim 16, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein a propulsion unit comprises a propeller and an electrical motor for driving the propeller. (See Fig, 10a)
Regarding Claim 17, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 16, wherein the propeller and the electrical motor of at least one propulsion unit are arranged in a propulsion unit housing having a connection section for fixedly connecting the propulsion unit housing to a hull of the watercraft. (Element 76, see Fig. 10a)
Regarding Claim 20, Griffiths discloses the positioning system for use in a autonomous watercraft according to claim 1.
18. Regarding Claim 21, Griffiths discloses the autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein each propulsion unit comprises an electric motor (Element 40) and a propeller (Element 106), wherein each electric motor generates torque around a drive axis (axis of Element 108 Fig. 10), wherein the drive axis is parallel to a rotation axis of the propeller (See Fig. 10.)
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith (US 6350164 B1) in view of Stewart (US 20080269968 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Griffiths discloses a method of controlling a autonomous watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises: determining planned movement of the watercraft; (C11, L8) but does not explicitly disclose determining a required resultant thrust for achieving the planned movement; determining a required individual thrust of the respective stationary mounted propulsion units for obtaining the required resultant thrust; and driving the stationary mounted propulsion to deliver the required individual thrust of the respective stationary mounted propulsion units.
Stewart discloses determining a required resultant thrust for achieving the planned movement; determining a required individual thrust of the respective stationary mounted propulsion units for obtaining the required resultant thrust (paragraph 40-58); and driving the stationary mounted propulsion to deliver the required individual thrust of the respective stationary mounted propulsion units. (paragraph 113). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to determine the thrust vectors as taught by Stewart and use them to automate the process of navigation which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Griffiths is to use the known process of Stewart to automate the navigation as suggested by Griffiths.
Regarding Claim 19, Griffiths I view of Stewart discloses the method of controlling a autonomous watercraft according to claim 18, wherein the method further comprises: providing a target position (waypoint, Griffiths C11, L8) of the watercraft; determining an actual position and/or rate of change of the actual position of the watercraft (GPS C11, L3); and determining the planned movement of the watercraft on the basis of the target position of the watercraft and the actual position and/or rate of change of the actual position of the watercraft. (See combination with Stewart above.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of Griffith lacks the claimed feature of “autonomous”. Applicant neglected to define the term. As evidence, Applicant argues Griffith lacks the unclaimed feature of “fully autonomous” using both bold and italic fonts because “the system may be adapted to produce navigational commands and drive signals to regulate the relative speeds of the propulsion units to maintain navigation through desired way points, within desired depths, in preset directions.” To Examiner, this means that Griffith has autonomous navigation because the Oxford English Dictionary defines autonomous as “Of a machine, apparatus, etc.: capable of carrying out, without supervision, tasks typically performed by humans.” It need not be autonomous in every aspect to be considered autonomous. When Examiner gets in an autonomous taxi, he still closes the door and puts on the seatbelt himself. They/it just have the driving aspect they do on their/its own (Examiner hesitates to personify AI until the robots form him to do so.). Having a fishing boat do the driving is the type of command carried out without supervision a fisherman would want in this context. The Examiner is not persuaded that Griffith is not autonomous.
Applicant argues that Griffith does not satisfy the limitation of “wherein the watercraft does not comprise a rudder for steering” because at least one embodiment is described as “Navigation of the system is controlled by adjustment of a rudder or of the annular position of the outboard 30, such as by means of a steering wheel 32." This is true. Griffith also discloses when it steered without the steering wheel (quoted in the paragraph above as between waypoint) and other embodiments disclose the trolling system alone replaces the steering of the outboard motor “The resulting system and controls enable a wide range of navigational commands. For example, the system may be employed for relatively slow-speed navigation during activities such as fishing. In this type of operation, the technique allows for replacement or reduced dependency on conventional trolling motor or electric outboard systems.” (C2, paragraph starting at line 16.). It’s still operable for fishing with the proposed modification of removal of the main propulsion motor. “The court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." See MPEP 2143.03. The Examiner was not persuaded that Griffith requires a rudder or the annular position of the outboard motor because the specification explicitly states the trolling system can replace the steering of the outboard motor when trolling (fishing). The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
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 19 Sept 2026
Prosecution Insights