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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 14 (and all claims that depend therefrom) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite that “the switches include at least one of a power supply switch to start and stop a supply of electric power to the power source, a start/stop switch to start and stop the power source in response to an operation, or an engine shutoff switch to emergency-stop the power source” in line 11, but then proceed to recite that “the steering wheel includes at least one of the power supply switch or the start/stop switch” and “the column portion includes the engine shutoff switch.” It is unclear how many of the switches are required, as claim 1 recites “at least one” switch, after which the claim recites at least two switches. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the vessel comprises at least two switches- one on the wheel and one on the column.
To elaborate, this is as if the claim recited:
A shirt comprising colors;
the colors including at least one of red, yellow and blue;
the front of the shirt including at least one of red and yellow; and
the back of the shirt including blue.
In this example, limitation ii is unnecessary and makes the claim unclear.
Claim 6 recites that “the power supply switch and the start/stop switch are located adjacent to each other.” However, parent claim 1 only recites that “the switches include at least one of a power supply switch to start and stop a supply of electric power to the power source, a start/stop switch to start and stop the power source in response to an operation, or an engine shutoff switch to emergency-stop the power source” and then later that “the steering wheel includes at least one of the power supply switch or the start/stop switch.” It is therefore unclear if both the power supply and start/stop switch are positively recited.
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, 4-6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 18 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyano US 10,661,871 in view of Kinoshita US 9,878,769 and Broughton US 2019/0322344.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Koyano teaches a marine vessel 1 comprising:
a marine vessel steering mechanism 14 including a steering wheel 41 and a column portion that rotatably supports the steering wheel;
switches 50-59 to control a power source of the marine vessel; wherein
the steering wheel includes at least one of the switches.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Koyano Figure 1
Koyano does not teach that the (steering wheel) switches are to start and stop a power source of a marine vessel, or an engine shutoff switch to emergency-stop the power source. Kinoshita teaches a marine vessel 1 comprising:
a marine vessel steering mechanism 45 including a steering wheel 5 and a control device 8;
switches 85, 86 to start and stop a power source of the marine vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the steering wheel switches of Koyano with switches to start and stop a power source of the marine vessel as taught by Kinoshita in order to enable a user to have greater control over vessel functions without taking their hands off of the steering wheel.
Koyano does not teach that the column portion includes the engine shutoff switch at a position below a virtual plane extending through a rotational center of the steering wheel and parallel to a left/right direction. Broughton teaches that a marine vessel steering mechanism 100 includes a column portion 75 that rotatably supports the steering wheel 36; and an engine shutoff switch 182 is located on the column portion below a virtual plane extending through a rotational center of the steering wheel and parallel to a left/right direction [0087]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the steering wheel of Koyano with an ignition switch on the column as taught by Broughton in order to enable the operator easily start and stop the power source with a switch close at hand for a user but away from the wheel to prevent inadvertent actuation.
PNG
media_image2.png
279
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Broughton Figure 7
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 14. Koyano also teaches that the steering wheel includes a central portion supported rotatably around a rotation fulcrum with respect to a hull of the marine vessel, a wheel portion having an annular shape, and at least one spoke portion 45, 46 that connects the central portion and the wheel portion, and the switches 50-54, 59 are located on the spoke portion. As modified, at least one of the power supply switch or the start/stop switch is located on the spoke portion.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 4 and 17. Koyano also teaches that the spoke portions 45, 46, on which the at least one of the ignition switch and the start/stop switch (as modified) is located, is positioned above the virtual plane extending through the rotation fulcrum 42 and parallel to the left/right direction, and within an angle range from about 0° to about 60° with respect to the virtual plane in a circumferential direction about the rotation fulcrum. Please note that at least a portion of the side spokes 45 and 46 are above the plane of the fulcrum 42.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the wheel spoke portions above a virtual plane extending through the rotation fulcrum and parallel to a left/right direction, and within an angle range from about 0° to about 60° with respect to the virtual plane in a circumferential direction about the rotation fulcrum in order to provide optimal user comfort or give the device the desired aesthetic appearance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As taught, the power supply switch and the start/stop switch are located adjacent to each other, as every component on the steering device can be considered adjacent to each other.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate any switches on the wheel adjacent to each other in order to provide more free space on the wheel and prevent inadvertent actuation, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As stated above, Koyano does not teach that at least one of the power supply switch and the start/stop switch is located on the column portion. Broughton teaches that various vessel engine controls are located on the column portion [0087, 0112]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the steering wheel of Koyano and Kinoshita with one of the power supply switch and the start/stop switch located on the column portion as taught by Broughton in order to enable the operator easily start and stop the power source with a switch close at hand for a user but away from the wheel to prevent inadvertent actuation.
Regarding claim 12, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Koyano is silent as to the nature of the power source. Kinoshita teaches that the marine vessel power source is an internal combustion engine (column 7, line 61-column 8, line 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Koyano with an internal combustion engine as taught by Broughton in order to ensure the vessel is able to propel itself through the water using a widely available fuel source.
Claim 10 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyano US 10,661,871 in view of Kinoshita US 9,878,769, Broughton US 2019/0322344 and Martin US 7,575,491.
Regarding claim 10, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Koyano does not teach that the switches further include a battery switch to switch whether or not the electric power is supplied from a battery. Martin teaches a marine vessel steering mechanism 10 which comprises a battery switch 52 to switch whether or not the electric power is supplied from a battery. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Koyano with a battery switch as taught by Martin in order to enable selective activation and deactivation of a vessel battery for safety or power saving.
Claim 11 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyano US 10,661,871 in view of Kinoshita US 9,878,769, Broughton US 2019/0322344 and Ito US 8,682,515.
Regarding claim 11, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Koyano does not explicitly teach that the ignition switch, the start/stop switch, and the engine shutoff switch are operable to emit analog signals according to respective operations. Ito teaches a marine vessel control system in which the controller 7 emits an analog signal (column 16, lines 39-41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Koyano with analog signals as taught by Ito in order to enable a variety of signal command strengths, and use established communication devices and protocol.
Claims 21 and 22 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyano US 10,661,871 in view of Kinoshita US 9,878,769, Broughton US 2019/0322344 and Nakajima US 6,959,661.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 4 and 17. Neither Koyano, Kinoshita nor Broughton teach an end of a lanyard rope is attached to the engine shutoff switch. Nakajima teaches a marine vessel 10 with a lanyard rope 45 attached to an engine shutoff (main) switch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Koyano, Kinoshita and Broughton with a lanyard attached to a shutoff switch as taught by Nakajima in order to automatically stop the vessel if an operator inadvertently moves too far from the controls.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Kinoshita teaches a multi-screen display device, which is incompatible with steering wheel switches as taught by Koyano, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, while Koyano teaches that vessel/engine control switches can be located on the spokes of a steering wheel, Kinoshita teaches that vessel/engine control switches can comprise power supply and start/stop switches. The teachings of these references indicate that a steering wheel can comprise power supply and start/stop switches.
Likewise, in response to applicant’s preemptive argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason or motivation to make any changes whatsoever to Koyano, which is unpersuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art is able to understand how features taught by one piece of prior art would be beneficial to another prior art device. In this case, Koyano teaches that marine vessel control switches can be conveniently located on a wheel spoke portion within reach of a thumb of an operator gripping the wheel portion in an upper half of the wheel portion. In a related piece of art, Kinoshita teaches that marine vessel controls can include power supply and start/stop switches. One of ordinary skill in the art would, seeing these, understand that it would also be convenient for the power supply and start/stop switches to be located on a wheel spoke portion within reach of a thumb as well.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Again, Koyano teaches that vessel/engine control switches can be located on the spokes of a steering wheel, while Kinoshita teaches that vessel/engine control switches can comprise power supply and start/stop switches. One of ordinary skill in the art would surmise that a steering wheel can comprise power supply and start/stop switches.
In response to applicant’s argument that “the ignition switch 182 of Broughton is not, in fact, located on the steering column 78” (page 10), please see the expanded explanation above. Broughton teaches that “The steering column assembly 75, illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3, includes a steering column 78 that rotates with the steering wheel 36 and a steering column housing 77 which is rotationally fixed with respect to the dashboard 20” [0084]. As such, 75 is interpreted as the column portion. Ignition switch 182 is located on lever 150, which is on housing 108, which is on column housing 77, which is part of the column 75. It follows that switch 182 is on the column 75. This is similar to the current application, which specifies that “an engine shutoff switch 29 is located on the non-rotating portion 11b of the column portion 11” [0037]. In both Broughton and the current application, the column switch is located on a non-rotating housing that surrounds the rotating column shaft.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okuyama US 7,306,499 teaches a watercraft in which engine controls are mounted to the steering wheel shaft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615