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 Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 02/24/2026. Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-20 are considered in this office action. Claims 1, 6, 10, and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 15-20 have been added. Claims 1, 5-7, and 9-20 are pending examination. This action is made final as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
“…Gonring fails to teach or suggest a controller that determines whether or not the driver who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body.”
Applicant’s argument A. with respect to the independent claims pertains to newly added claim limitation amendments which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonring et al. (US 20200255104 A1) in view of Frisbie et al. (US 20170210449 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Gonring teaches: “A personal watercraft comprising:
a watercraft body (marine vessel 14; Par. [0026], [0045]- [0046], [0051]) including a boarding section (helm area 15; Par. [0037], [0041]) on which a driver (operator 12) boards (see FIG. 2A) and a sub-boarding section on which a mounted object other than the driver is mounted (additional seat available, see FIG. 2A);
a communication terminal (a helm transceiver 18 in radio communication with wireless fobs 20, 22; Par. [0022]) attached to the mounted object (worn by an operator of the marine vessel, may also include one or more passengers; Par. [0023]);
a tether that connects the driver and the watercraft body (corded lanyard system consists of a mechanical switch mounted at the helm and a tether which physically connects the driver to the switch; Par. [0018]);
a controller having a processor and a memory with a computer readable program stored therein (Fig. 1A and 1B controller 45 including processor 46 and storage system 48 comprising memory; Par. [0022]); and
a power unit that moves the watercraft body, the power unit including a drive source (propulsion device 11 with engine 60; Par. [0046]) that generates a driving force for moving the watercraft body (an outboard motor, an inboard motor, a sterndrive, or any other propulsion device available for propelling a marine vessel 14 [0046]), wherein
the controller is configured to:
detect that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body based on communication state with the communication terminal (controller 45 executing the lanyard control module 49 software is configured to continuously detect, or identify, whether one or more fobs 20, 22 are present on the marine vessel, fob 20, 22 detection may include determining whether transmissions from each fob 20, 22 are detected at the helm transceiver 18 with sufficient signal strength; Par. [0027]),
control the power unit in a first mode when detecting that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the controller 45 may communicate with one or more control modules for the respective propulsion devices 11 incorporated within the system 1; Par. [0045]. Changing the engine speed and/or gear state of each propulsion device 11 in response to a lanyard event; Par. [0045]),
detect that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body based on a connection state with respect to the tether (corded lanyard systems consist of a mechanical switch mounted at the helm and a tether or cord which physically connects the user (driver) to the switch, and if the operator moves to far away from the helm (i.e., falls overboard), the switch is pulled and the ignition is shut off; Par. [0018]),
control the power unit in a second mode, different from the first mode, when detecting that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the control system 1 may be configured to reduce operation of the one or more propulsion devices 11 on the marine vessel upon receipt of the man overboard event; Par. [0026]), and
when detecting that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body, the controller is configured to, as the first mode, restrict output of the drive source (the controller 45 may communicate with one or more control modules for the respective propulsion devices 11 incorporated within the system 1; Par. [0045]) while continuing operation of the drive source (changing the engine speed and/or gear state of each propulsion device 11 in response to a lanyard event; Par. [0045]) as compared with output before detecting that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the control system 1 may be configured to reduce operation of the one or more propulsion devices 11 on the marine vessel upon receipt of the man overboard event; Par. [0026]).”
However, Gonring does not explicitly teach the controller configured to “determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body.”
From the same field of endeavor of marine vessels, Frisbie teaches “determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body (Par. [0052] teaches the processing system 110 implements a man overboard mode in which information representative of passenger location data is presented, where an alert or alarm is displayed and/or sounded when any of the location devices worn by passengers indicate that a passenger is outside of a threshold distance from the marine vessel 102 (implying that the processing system 110 is able to determine if a passenger is on (within a threshold distance) or off (outside a threshold distance) the marine vessel). This ensures the design incentive of knowing if a passenger is on or off the marine vessel. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the above stated design incentives, could have implemented the claimed variation of determining whether a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft and would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Gonring to incorporate the teachings of Frisbie with a reasonable expectation of success to have the controller taught by Gonring determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body as taught by Frisbie.
The motivation for doing so would be to facilitate and ensure the rescue of a passenger who has fallen overboard (Frisbie; Par. [0090]).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above, and further teaches: “wherein the controller is configured to determine, based on a communication state with the communication terminal (fob 20, 22 detection may include determining whether transmissions from each fob 20, 22 are detected at the helm transceiver 18 with sufficient signal strength; Par. [0027]), each of whether or not a first condition has been satisfied, the first condition being that the mounted object has been mounted on the watercraft body (The helm transceiver 18 and one or more fobs 20, 22 are operated and communicate so as to detect all present fobs at step 104, see FIG. 3) during a planing preparation period (the wireless lanyard system is initiated when a gear system shifts out of neutral at step 102; Par. [0054], see FIG 3), and whether or not a second condition has been satisfied, the second condition being that the mounted object has been separated from the watercraft body (if any fob is not detected at step 106, then a warning alert is generated at step 108; Par. [0054], see FIG. 3) exceeding a predetermined distance during planing (the wireless lanyard system 10 may be configured to provide a warning period if a return signal is detected, but the operator distance is outside of a permitted zone or less than a predefined signal strength; Par. [0042] If all fobs remain present at step 106 during each communication check, then all operators and passengers are deemed present; Par. [0054]), and when both of the first condition and the second condition are confirmed to be satisfied (If any fob is not detected at step 106, then a warning alert is generated at step 108, such as a visual and/or audio alert on the marine vessel; Par. [0055]), determines that the mounted object has fallen overboard (if the alert is not canceled or the missing fob is not detected within a predetermined warning at step 110, then a man overboard alert is generated at step 114; Par. [0055]).”
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above, and further teaches: “wherein the mounted object is the passenger (The lanyard system 10 may also include one or more passenger fobs 22 in radio communication with the helm transceiver 18; Par. [0023]), and
the sub-boarding section is a passenger seat on which the passenger can be seated (see FIG. 2A, seat pictured is for passenger boarding).”
With regard to claim 9, Gonring discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above, and further discloses: “wherein when detecting that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (upon receipt of the man overboard event, particularly if the operator fob 20 triggers the man overboard event; Par. [0026]), the controller is configured to, as the second mode, control the power unit so that movement of the watercraft body is restricted (system 1 may be configured to reduce the engine RPM of the engine 60 to an idle set point and then automatically shift the gear system 64 to its neutral position; Par. [0026]) as compared with movement of the watercraft body before the detection of the falling overboard (the engine RPM may be reduced at a pre-set reduction rate, which may be the fastest safe rate of reducing engine RPM for a given marine vessel; Par. [0026]).”
With regard to claim 12, Gonring discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above, and further discloses: “wherein the controller is configured to:
determine whether or not the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the lanyard control module 49 software is configured to continuously detect, or identify, whether one or more fobs 20, 22 are present on the marine vessel, if one or more of the fobs 20, 22 is no longer detected at the helm transceiver 18 then a man overboard event is generated; Par. [0027]) based on presence or absence of the mounted object detected (The helm transceiver 18 and one or more fobs 20, 22 are operated and communicate so as to detect all present fobs at step 104, see FIG. 3) during a planing preparation period based on the communication state with the communication terminal (the wireless lanyard system is initiated when a gear system shifts out of neutral at step 102; Par. [0054], see FIG 3) and presence or absence of the mounted object detected during subsequent planing based on the communication state with the communication terminal (If all fobs remain present at step 106 during each communication check, then all operators and passengers are deemed present; Par. [0054]).”
With regard to claim 14, Gonring teaches: “A personal watercraft comprising:
a watercraft body (marine vessel 14; Par. [0026], [0045]- [0046], [0051]) including a boarding section (helm area 15; Par. [0037], [0041]) on which a driver (operator 12) boards (see FIG. 2A) and a sub-boarding section on which a mounted object other than the driver is mounted (additional seat available, see FIG. 2A);
a communication terminal (a helm transceiver 18 in radio communication with wireless fobs 20, 22; Par. [0022]) attached to the mounted object (worn by an operator of the marine vessel, may also include one or more passengers; Par. [0023]);
a tether that connects the driver and the watercraft body (corded lanyard system consists of a mechanical switch mounted at the helm and a tether which physically connects the driver to the switch; Par. [0018]);
a controller having a processor and a memory with a computer readable program stored therein (Fig. 1A and 1B controller 45 including processor 46 and storage system 48 comprising memory; Par. [0022]); and
a power unit that moves the watercraft body, the power unit including a drive source (propulsion device 11 with engine 60; Par. [0046]) that generates a driving force for moving the watercraft body (an outboard motor, an inboard motor, a sterndrive, or any other propulsion device available for propelling a marine vessel 14 [0046]), wherein
the controller is configured to:
detect that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body based on communication state with the communication terminal (controller 45 executing the lanyard control module 49 software is configured to continuously detect, or identify, whether one or more fobs 20, 22 are present on the marine vessel, fob 20, 22 detection may include determining whether transmissions from each fob 20, 22 are detected at the helm transceiver 18 with sufficient signal strength; Par. [0027]),
control the power unit in a first mode when detecting that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the controller 45 may communicate with one or more control modules for the respective propulsion devices 11 incorporated within the system 1; Par. [0045]. Changing the engine speed and/or gear state of each propulsion device 11 in response to a lanyard event; Par. [0045]),
detect that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body based on a connection state with respect to the tether (corded lanyard systems consist of a mechanical switch mounted at the helm and a tether or cord which physically connects the user (driver) to the switch, and if the operator moves to far away from the helm (i.e., falls overboard), the switch is pulled and the ignition is shut off; Par. [0018]),
control the power unit in a second mode, different from the first mode, when detecting that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the control system 1 may be configured to reduce operation of the one or more propulsion devices 11 on the marine vessel upon receipt of the man overboard event; Par. [0026]).”
However, Gonring does not explicitly teach the controller configured to “determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body.”
From the same field of endeavor of marine vessels, Frisbie teaches “determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body (Par. [0052] teaches the processing system 110 implements a man overboard mode in which information representative of passenger location data is presented, where an alert or alarm is displayed and/or sounded when any of the location devices worn by passengers indicate that a passenger is outside of a threshold distance from the marine vessel 102 (implying that the processing system 110 is able to determine if a passenger is on (within a threshold distance) or off (outside a threshold distance) the marine vessel). This ensures the design incentive of knowing if a passenger is on or off the marine vessel. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the above stated design incentives, could have implemented the claimed variation of determining whether a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft and would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Gonring to incorporate the teachings of Frisbie with a reasonable expectation of success to have the controller taught by Gonring determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body as taught by Frisbie.
The motivation for doing so would be to facilitate and ensure the rescue of a passenger who has fallen overboard (Frisbie; Par. [0090]).
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie teaches the invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 14 above, and further teaches: “wherein the controller is configured to perform different notification controls depending on which passenger among a plurality of passengers has fallen overboard (Gonring, Par. [0027] teaches the man overboard event may be different depending on the configuration of the missing fob (implying that different notification controls can be performed for different fobs, e.g. for each individual passenger fob)).”
Regarding claim 18 and claim 20, the limitations of these system claims are rejected using the combination of cited references Gonring and Frisbie based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 16 above as the limitations of system claim 18 and system claim 20 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 16.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonring et al. (US 20200255104 A1) in view of Frisbie et al. (US 20170210449 A1) and in further view of Takeshi et al. (JP 6136434 B2).
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth in claim 1 above, and further teaches: “wherein the sub-boarding section is luggage storage (Gonring, See FIG. 2) provided at a rear of a seat on which the driver is seated (Gonring, area in the helm behind the driver, see FIG. 2). However, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie fails to explicitly teach: “the mounted object is luggage.”
From the same field of endeavor regarding detecting the presence of absence of loaded luggage, Takeshi teaches:
An automatic guided vehicle with luggage detection means, for detecting the presence or absence of a load for transporting Par. [0006], and when a package is no longer detected outside the delivery allowable region, it is determined that the package has fallen Par. [0007]. Additionally, when the package is no longer detected outside the delivery allowance region, it is determined that the package has fallen, and the autonomous movement (conveyance of the package) is stopped Par. [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie to incorporate the teachings of Takeshi with a reasonable expectation of success to use the lanyard control system of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie to monitor the status of luggage as taught by Takeshi. The difference between the combination of Gonring and Frisbie and the claimed invention is the application of the lanyard to luggage as a mounted object. Takeshi teaches that it is desirable and possible to monitor the status of luggage on an autonomous vehicle, and when the luggage falls off, stopping the operation of the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would just need to use the lanyard system of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie and apply it to luggage that could be mounted on the watercraft. This simple improvement would allow monitoring of the luggage while the driver controls the watercraft and then notify the driver if the lanyard, attached to the luggage, when it fell overboard, similarly to if a passenger fell overboard. Therefore, the disclosed invention of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie in view of Takeshi would render claim 7 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonring et al. (US 20200255104 A1) in view of Frisbie et al. (US 20170210449 A1) and further in view of Kuroyanagi et al. (US 20050124235 A1).
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth in claim 9 above, and further teaches: “wherein when detecting that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (Gonring, the control system 1 may be configured to reduce operation of the one or more propulsion devices 11 on the marine vessel upon receipt of the man overboard even; Par. [0026]), the controller (Gonring, system 1; Par. [0026]) is configured to, as the second mode, restrict movement of the watercraft body by stopping the drive source or changing a position of the reverse bucket to a neutral position (Gonring, throttle/shift lever 68 is directly linked to the gear system 64, the system 1 may be configured to turn off the propulsion device 11 after detection of a man overboard event; Par. [0026]).” However, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie fails to explicitly teach: “the power unit further includes a jet pump that is rotationally driven by the drive source and injects water, and a reverse bucket that is swingably arranged at an outlet of the jet pump.”
From the same field of endeavor regarding watercraft propulsion devices, Kuroyanagi teaches: “the power unit further includes a jet pump (a water jet pump P; Par. [0032]) that is rotationally driven by the drive source (engine E is accommodated within the engine room 8 such that a crankshaft 9 extends along the longitudinal direction of the body 1 as shown in FIG. 1; Par. [0031] the crankshaft 9 is rotatably and integrally coupled with a pump shaft 11 of a water jet pump P; Par. [0032]) and injects water (water jet pump P pressurizes and accelerates the water sucked from the water intake 15), and a reverse bucket (reverse bucket 22; Par. [0036]) that is swingably (Mounting portions (pivot portions) 25 are vertically provided on an upper surface of a rear portion of the pump cover 23 to allow the reverse bucket 22 to be pivotable around pivot shafts 24 see FIG. 4) arranged at an outlet of the jet pump (the reverse bucket 22 is pivoted downward to a lower position around the pivot shafts 24 to be positioned behind the steering nozzle 20; Par. [0037] FIG. 4).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie to incorporate the teachings of Kuroyanagi with a reasonable expectation of success to use a jet pump in conjunction with the reverse bucket of Kuroyanagi to control the movement of the watercraft as disclosed in the combination of Gonring and Frisbie. Gonring states, “any number of one or more propulsion devices may be incorporated within the system 1.” Further listing, “the propulsion devices 11 may be an outboard motor, an inboard motor, a sterndrive, or any other propulsion device available for propelling a marine vessel 14”. The teaching of Kuroyanagi demonstrates the jet pump and reverse as a suitable propulsion device. The substitution of a jet pump as a propulsion device in the embodiments of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date. This teaching in view of the restriction of the drive source disclosed in the combination of Gonring and Frisbie would render the invention as claimed in claim 10 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 13, Gonring teaches: “A personal watercraft comprising:
a watercraft body (marine vessel 14; Par. [0026], [0045]- [0046], [0051]) including a boarding section (helm area 15; Par. [0037], [0041]) on which a driver (operator 12) boards (see FIG. 2A) and a sub-boarding section on which a mounted object other than the driver is mounted (additional seat available, see FIG. 2A);
a communication terminal (a helm transceiver 18 in radio communication with wireless fobs 20, 22; Par. [0022]) attached to the mounted object (worn by an operator of the marine vessel, may also include one or more passengers; Par. [0023]);
a tether that connects the driver and the watercraft body (corded lanyard system consists of a mechanical switch mounted at the helm and a tether which physically connects the driver to the switch; Par. [0018]);
a controller having a processor and a memory with a computer readable program stored therein (Fig. 1A and 1B controller 45 including processor 46 and storage system 48 comprising memory; Par. [0022]); and
a power unit that moves the watercraft body, the power unit including a drive source (propulsion device 11; an outboard motor, an inboard motor, a sterndrive, or any other propulsion device available for propelling a marine vessel 14 [0046]), wherein
the controller is configured to:
detect that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body based on communication state with the communication terminal (controller 45 executing the lanyard control module 49 software is configured to continuously detect, or identify, whether one or more fobs 20, 22 are present on the marine vessel, fob 20, 22 detection may include determining whether transmissions from each fob 20, 22 are detected at the helm transceiver 18 with sufficient signal strength; Par. [0027]),
control the power unit in a first mode when detecting that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the controller 45 may communicate with one or more control modules for the respective propulsion devices 11 incorporated within the system 1; Par. [0045]. Changing the engine speed and/or gear state of each propulsion device 11 in response to a lanyard event; Par. [0045]),
detect that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body based on a connection state with respect to the tether (corded lanyard systems consist of a mechanical switch mounted at the helm and a tether or cord which physically connects the user (driver) to the switch, and if the operator moves to far away from the helm (i.e., falls overboard), the switch is pulled and the ignition is shut off; Par. [0018]),
control the power unit in a second mode, different from the first mode, when detecting that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the control system 1 may be configured to reduce operation of the one or more propulsion devices 11 on the marine vessel upon receipt of the man overboard event; Par. [0026]),
when detecting that the driver has fallen overboard from the watercraft body (the control system 1 may be configured to reduce operation of the one or more propulsion devices 11 on the marine vessel upon receipt of the man overboard even; Par. [0026]), the controller (system 1; Par. [0026]) is configured to, as the second mode, restrict movement of the watercraft body by changing the position of the [drive source] to a neutral position (throttle/shift lever 68 is directly linked to the gear system 64, the system 1 may be configured to turn off the propulsion device 11 after detection of a man overboard event; Par. [0026])”
However, Gonring does not explicitly teach “a jet pump that is rotationally driven by the drive source and injects water, and a reverse bucket that is swingably arranged at an outlet of the jet pump” and the position of the “reverse bucket” is changed, and the controller configured to “determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body.”
From the same field of endeavor regarding watercraft propulsion devices, Kuroyanagi teaches: “a jet pump (a water jet pump P; Par. [0032]) that is rotationally driven by the drive source (engine E is accommodated within the engine room 8 such that a crankshaft 9 extends along the longitudinal direction of the body 1 as shown in FIG. 1; Par. [0031] the crankshaft 9 is rotatably and integrally coupled with a pump shaft 11 of a water jet pump P; Par. [0032]) and injects water (water jet pump P pressurizes and accelerates the water sucked from the water intake 15), and a reverse bucket (reverse bucket 22; Par. [0036]) that is swingably (Mounting portions (pivot portions) 25 are vertically provided on an upper surface of a rear portion of the pump cover 23 to allow the reverse bucket 22 to be pivotable around pivot shafts 24 see FIG. 4) arranged at an outlet of the jet pump (the reverse bucket 22 is pivoted downward to a lower position around the pivot shafts 24 to be positioned behind the steering nozzle 20; Par. [0037] FIG. 4)” and the position of the “reverse bucket” is changed (Par. [0008] teaches the watercraft travels forward when the reverse bucket is in the upper position and travels rearward when the reverse bucket is at the lower position, implying that in order to restrict movement of the watercraft, the reverse bucket must be moved to the neutral position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Gonring to incorporate the teachings of Kuroyanagi with a reasonable expectation of success to use a jet pump in conjunction with the reverse bucket of Kuroyanagi to control the movement of the watercraft as disclosed in Gonring, and to restrict movement of the watercraft in response to detecting the driver has fallen overboard as taught by Gonring by changing the position of the reverse bucket to a neutral position as taught by Kuroyanagi. Gonring states, “any number of one or more propulsion devices may be incorporated within the system 1.” Further listing, “the propulsion devices 11 may be an outboard motor, an inboard motor, a sterndrive, or any other propulsion device available for propelling a marine vessel 14”. The teaching of Kuroyanagi demonstrates the jet pump and reverse as a suitable propulsion device. The substitution of a jet pump as a propulsion device in the embodiments of Gonring would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date. Additionally, Gonring teaches after detection of a man overboard event, the system 1 may be configured to turn off the propulsion device 11 (i.e. restrict movement of the watercraft); Par. [0026]. One of ordinary skill in the art, when substituting the jet pump taught by Kuroyanagi as the propulsion device taught by Gonring, would have found it obvious to change a position of the reverse bucket taught by Kuroyanagi to a neutral position in order to restrict movement of the watercraft when detecting a driver has fallen overboard as taught by Gonring. This teaching in view of the restriction of the drive source disclosed in Gonring would render the invention as claimed in claim 13 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Gonring and Kuroyanagi does not explicitly teach the controller configured to “determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body.”
From the same field of endeavor of marine vessels, Frisbie teaches “determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body (Par. [0052] teaches the processing system 110 implements a man overboard mode in which information representative of passenger location data is presented, where an alert or alarm is displayed and/or sounded when any of the location devices worn by passengers indicate that a passenger is outside of a threshold distance from the marine vessel 102 (implying that the processing system 110 is able to determine if a passenger is on (within a threshold distance) or off (outside a threshold distance) the marine vessel). This ensures the design incentive of knowing if a passenger is on or off the marine vessel. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the above stated design incentives, could have implemented the claimed variation of determining whether a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft and would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Gonring and Kuroyanagi to incorporate the teachings of Frisbie with a reasonable expectation of success to have the controller taught by the combination of Gonring and Kuroyanagi determine whether or not a passenger who has fallen overboard has returned to the watercraft body as taught by Frisbie.
The motivation for doing so would be to facilitate and ensure the rescue of a passenger who has fallen overboard (Frisbie; Par. [0090]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonring et al. (US 20200255104 A1) in view of Frisbie et al. (US 20170210449 A1) and further in view of Suda (US 20220234701 A1).
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie teaches the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth in claim 9 above, however the combination of Gonring and Frisbie does not explicitly teach: “wherein when falling overboard of the driver is detected, the control unit controls the power unit so that the watercraft body remains in an area where a distance from a point of falling overboard of the driver to the watercraft body is equal to or less than a predetermined value.”
From the same field of endeavor regarding detecting the fall of a person from a watercraft and controlling the watercraft position, Suda teaches: “wherein when falling overboard of the driver is detected (the rescue control unit 34 detects a fall of a person from the watercraft 2, based on the signal from the portable device 4 carried by each person on board, Par. [0044]), the control unit controls the power unit (When the rescue control unit 34 detects an overboard event of a person, the automatic navigation control unit 36 controls at least one of the propulsion device 7 and the steering device 8 of the watercraft 2; Par. [0052]) so that the watercraft body remains in an area (the automatic navigation control unit 36 controls at least one of the propulsion device 7 such that the current position of the watercraft 2 approaches the overboard event detection position; Par. [0052]) where a distance from a point of falling overboard of the driver (when an overboard event is detected, the rescue control unit 34 stores the position of the watercraft 2 indicated by the signal from the position detection device 17 as an overboard event detection position; Par. [0045]) to the watercraft body is equal to or less than a predetermined value (the automatic navigation control unit 36 determines whether the distance between the current position of the watercraft 2 acquired by the position detection device 17 and the overboard event detection position has become less than or equal to a prescribed third determination value (S25); Par. [0057] see FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie to incorporate the teachings of Suda with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the lanyard control system of the combination of Gonring and Frisbie with the rescue control system of Suda to allow the watercraft to maneuver back to the overboard object. The system as disclosed in the combination of Gonring and Frisbie anticipates the claimed invention as set forth in claim 9 as described above under the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. Suda describes a similar system: A personal watercraft (watercraft 2) with overboard detection unit (control device 4) that detects objects on the watercraft via fob (control device 3) and limits watercraft operation when a passenger or driver has fallen over board (the automatic navigation control unit 36 outputs a stop command to the hull control unit 35 to stop the propulsion device 7 (S22); Par. [0054]).
Suda differs from the combination of Gonring and Frisbie in that it includes automatic navigation of the watercraft to return to the location where the object fell overboard. Suda teaches the technique to render it an obvious improvement to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonring et al. (US 20200255104 A1) in view of Frisbie et al. (US 20170210449 A1) and further in view of Hill (US 20140038137 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above, and further teaches “wherein the watercraft body further includes: a seat; a handle (Gonring, Fig. 1A and 2A).” However, the combination of Gonring and Frisbie does not explicitly teach the watercraft body includes “a vibrator configured to vibrate the seat or the handle in contact with the driver, in response to detecting that the mounted object has fallen overboard from the watercraft, the controller is configured to control the vibrator to vibrate the seat or the handle.”
From the same field of endeavor of overboard notification, Hill teaches when a crewmember is overboard, the controller 110 conveys a tactile message (e.g., vibration) indicating to other crewmembers (i.e., driver) that a crewmember is overboard (Par. [0123]). This ensures the design incentive of notifying other members on the watercraft that something has fallen overboard. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the above stated design incentives, could have implemented the claimed variation of having the seat or the handle taught by the combination of Gonring and Frisbie to vibrate as a notification when detecting something has fallen overboard as taught by Hill and would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art in view of the teachings of Hill.
Regarding claim 17 and claim 19, the limitations of these system claims are rejected using the combination of cited references Gonring and Frisbie based on the exemplary analysis of the system claim 15 above as the limitations of system claim 17 and system claim 19 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected system claim 15.
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 KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached on (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights