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 .
Am amendment to the claims was received from Applicant on 14 October 2025. Claim 13 is canceled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1-12, 14-21 are remaining in the action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each propulsion unit comprises an electric motor and a propeller, wherein each electric motor generates torque around a drive axis, wherein the drive axis is parallel to a rotation axis of the propeller” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: newly added Claim 21 “each propulsion unit comprises an electric motor and a propeller, wherein each electric motor generates torque around a drive axis, wherein the drive axis is parallel to a rotation axis of the propeller” does not appear in the specification. (The closest appears at the bottom of page 5, and it contains no logical nexus to the claim language.)
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.
Claim 21 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.
The claim(s) contains 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. Amended Claim’s 21 feature of “each propulsion unit comprises an electric motor and a propeller, wherein each electric motor generates torque around a drive axis, wherein the drive axis is parallel to a rotation axis of the propeller” does not appear in the specification, drawing, and was wholly unaddressed in Applicant’s remarks.
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 1-12, 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 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 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 2, Griffiths discloses a watercraft according to claim 1, wherein the watercraft is an autonomously operated vessel. (At least some aspects are autonomously automated. See C9, L29.)
Regarding Claim 3, Griffiths discloses the watercraft 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 C1, L66.)
Regarding Claim 16, Griffiths discloses the 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 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 watercraft according to claim 1.
18. Regarding Claim 21, Griffiths discloses the 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 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 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 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of Griffiths cannot remove the internal combustion engine outboard motor in order to use the boat of Griffiths for fishing on reservoirs because “Griffith is explicitly not intended to be used as a main propulsion system.” As evidence, Applicant cites Griffiths “with fixed thrusters is "employed for relatively slow-speed navigation during activities such as fishing.” Examiner’s position is that the explicit evidence of using the thruster’s of Griffiths for fishing bolster’s Examiner’s motivation of using the thrusters for fishing. Examiner’s position is that the evidence cited by applicant is not an explicit prohibition of using the thrusters as main propulsion, but a suggestion that they are used for fishing. Examiner’s position is the evidence cited by Applicant bolsters the motivation that removing the internal combustion engine is obvious if its function is not needed for maneuvering during fishing especially on reservoirs where internal combustion engines are prohibited.
Applicant argues that Griffiths cannot be used for primary propulsion because it transfers torque from the motor at an angle. Applicant argues this is well-known, but is unable to provide evidence. This appears to be untrue based on outboard engines that transfer torque at an angle such as US3025822A. But more importantly, it lacks a logical nexus to the motivation cited. The motivation cited is low speed fishing. Applicant agrees and copied and underlined the specific propulsion use of “fishing” into the arguments. Examiner concedes Griffith’s low speed thrusters are unsuitable for jet boat racing, but the rejection was based on fishing. Examiner is not persuaded that the thrusters cannot be used as primary propulsion when the use is fishing because the torque is transferred at a right angle.
Applicant argues there is no motivation to remove the internal combustion for fishing in reservoirs because the prior art already can be used for fishing. This is not responding to the same motivation of “fishing where internal combustion engines are prohibited”, but instead addressing fishing generally. Examiner attached a fly fishing forum discussion of removing gas powered engines to fish on lakes with only trolling motors. (See https://pnwflyfishing.com/forum/index.php?threads/wa-electric-only-lakes-cant-even-have-your-gas-motor-on-the-boat.2454/) The Examiner is not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would keep the internal combustion engine on the boat where gas engines are prohibited.
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 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 14 Jan 2026