DETAILED ACTION
This is a final action based on the merits of application 17970618.
Claims 2, 4, 14 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15, 17-20 are pending.
Per the interview summary, Examiner had agreed to conduct a 2nd Non-Final but applicant has elected to submit an amendment before a 2nd Non-Final was conducted, so the amendment is entered and will be responded to further prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller US 20190179318 and further in view of Fujima US 20210004007.
Claim 1 and 12-13, Miller discloses a main propulsion device 122 attached to a stern [110/112] of a hull and operable to rotate in a right-left direction 154 to change a direction of a thrust; an auxiliary propulsion device 120 attached to the stern, including an electric motor 136 to drive an auxiliary thruster 136 to generate a thrust, operable to rotate in the right-left direction to change a direction of the thrust, and having a maximum output smaller than a maximum output of the main propulsion device 122; and a controller 200 configured or programmed to perform a control to move the hull in a lateral direction by driving the auxiliary propulsion device 120. See figs. 3a and 5, [0033-0038]. He does not disclose a controller configured or programmed to perform a control to move the hull in a lateral direction by driving both the main propulsion device and the auxiliary propulsion device. Fujima discloses a system control unit 30 and ECU 21 that controls 2 outboard motor propeller thrust direction in fig. 2 via joystick inputs. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to control both motors to facilitate lateral thrust.
Claim 3 and 15, Miller discloses the controller 200 is configured or programmed to perform a control to move the hull in the lateral direction by positioning an intersection of an output
vector of the main propulsion device 122 and an output vector of the auxiliary propulsion device 120 on a straight line extending from a center of gravity of the hull toward a side in the lateral direction in which the hull is to move. See [0051-0055]. The creation of vectors is inherent in the wave propagation created by propulsion devices movement in the specified direction.
Claim 5-7 and 17-19, Miller and Fujima discloses the controller 200 is configured or programmed to perform a control to move the hull in a diagonal direction [inherent based on angle] in addition to the control to move the hull in the lateral direction by driving both the main propulsion device and the auxiliary propulsion device and move the hull in the diagonal direction by positioning an intersection of an output vector of the main propulsion device and an output vector of the auxiliary propulsion device on a straight line extending from a center of gravity of the hull toward a side in the diagonal direction in which the hull is to move and controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to adjust, according to at least one of a shape of the hull, a size of the hull, and attachment positions of the main propulsion device and the auxiliary propulsion device to the hull, an output of the main propulsion device, a rudder angle of the main propulsion device, an output of the auxiliary propulsion device, and a rudder angle of the auxiliary propulsion device when both the main propulsion device and the auxiliary propulsion device are driven to move the hull in the diagonal direction in response to an operation on an operator to move the hull in the diagonal direction. [0035], [0051-0055]. Fujima discloses a system control unit 30 and ECU 21 that controls 2 outboard motor propeller thrust direction in fig. 2 via joystick inputs. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to control both motors to facilitate lateral thrust and the creation of vectors is inherent in the wave propagation created by propulsion devices movement in the specified direction.
Claim 9, Miller discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cause a direction of an output vector of the main propulsion device and a direction of an output vector of the auxiliary propulsion device to be opposite to each other in a forward-rearward direction when the hull is moved in the lateral direction. [0051-0055] The creation of vectors is inherent in the wave propagation created by propulsion devices movement in the specified direction.
Claim 10, Miller discloses the controller 200 is configured or programmed to perform a control to move the hull in the lateral direction by driving the main propulsion device 122 and the auxiliary propulsion device 120 when a joystick [steering device 134] corresponding to an operator to operate the hull is tilted in the lateral direction. [0046] Fujima discloses a system control unit 30 and ECU 21 that controls both outboard motor propeller thrust direction in fig. 2 via joystick inputs. Thus, it 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 to have combined the disclosures to control both motors to facilitate lateral thrust.
Claim 11, Miller discloses the main propulsion device 122 is an engine outboard motor including an engine to drive a main propeller [gig. 3a] corresponding to a main thruster that generates the thrust and provided on a centerline of the hull in the right-left direction; and the auxiliary propulsion device 120 is an electric outboard motor 136 including the electric motor to drive an auxiliary propeller corresponding to the auxiliary thruster 124 and provided to one side of the centerline of the hull in the right-left direction. See figs. 3-4, [0033-0038]
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Fujima et al.
Claims 8 and 20, Miller and Fujima discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 and 13, they do not explicitly disclose wherein the main propulsion device includes an engine having a maximum value and a minimum value of a power range larger than a maximum value and a minimum value of a power range of the electric motor to drive a main thruster that generates the thrust; and the controller is configured or programmed to: limit the power range of the engine by matching an upper limit value of the power range of the engine with the maximum value of the power range of the electric motor while both the main propulsion device and the auxiliary propulsion device are driven to move the hull in the lateral direction; and limit the power range of the electric motor by matching a lower limit value of the power range of the electric motor with the minimum value of the power range of the engine while both the main propulsion device and the auxiliary propulsion device are driven to move the hull in the lateral direction. However, this is of ordinary skill in the art because it makes sense to match the power range of the engine and motors maximum and minimum limits to prevent damage to the smaller size motor because at max output the smaller motor would blow out so limits must inherently be placed when matching power ranges. Thus, it 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 to have the controller programmed to limit the power range of the engine by matching an upper limit value of the power range of the engine with the maximum value of the power range of the electric motor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/11/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-13, 15, 17-20 under USC 102a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fujima et al. Applicant’s arguments in view of claim 1 is moot by the combination of Fujima. In response to applicant’s argument about the vectors the creation of vectors is inherent in the wave propagation created by propulsion devices movement in the specified direction.
.
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 JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615