Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/079,925

OUTBOARD MOTOR AND BOAT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 13, 2022
Examiner
BURGESS, MARC R
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allow Rate
164 granted / 477 resolved
-17.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
69 currently pending
Career history
546
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 477 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/5/25 has been entered. 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 1-18, 21, 22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alby US 10,800,502 in view of Fujimoto US 5,224,888, Lundqvist US 8,808,045 and Kato US 6,632,110. Regarding claims 1 and 10, Alby teaches an outboard motor 20 comprising: an outboard motor body including: an engine 22; a propeller shaft 40; a propeller 43 attached to the propeller shaft; a transmission to transmit rotation of the engine to the propeller shaft; an upper accommodation body 29 that accommodates at least a portion of the engine; a lower accommodation body 38 that accommodates at least a portion of the propeller shaft; and a steering 46, 56 to cause the lower accommodation body to rotate about a steering axis with respect to the upper accommodation body; a suspension 23 to suspend the outboard motor body from a transom of a hull of a boat (column 4, lines 42-47); wherein the upper accommodation body includes an upper exhaust channel 204 including an upper exhaust port that communicates with the engine; and the lower accommodation body includes a lower exhaust channel 206 including a lower exhaust port. Alby does not teach that the suspension includes a pair of clamp brackets, a tilt shaft, and a connection bracket. Fujimoto teaches an outboard motor 10 comprising: an outboard motor body including: PNG media_image1.png 384 270 media_image1.png Greyscale an engine 20; a propeller shaft; a propeller 32 attached to the propeller shaft; a transmission to transmit rotation of the engine to the propeller shaft; an upper accommodation body 56 that accommodates at least a portion of the engine; [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Fujimoto Figure 3)]a lower accommodation body 28 that accommodates at least a portion of the propeller shaft; and a steering 51 to cause the lower accommodation body to rotate about a steering axis with respect to the upper accommodation body; a suspension to suspend the outboard motor body from a transom of a hull of a boat, the suspension including a pair of clamp brackets 13, a tilt shaft 12, and a connection bracket 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Alby with the suspension as taught by Fujimoto in order to facilitate attachment of the motor to a boat. Alby does not teach that the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel are switchable between a communication state where the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel communicate with each other, and a non-communication state where the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel do not communicate with each other based on a rudder angle of the steering. Lundqvist teaches a motor comprising: an engine; a propeller shaft 125; a propeller attached to the propeller shaft; a transmission to transmit rotation of the engine to the propeller shaft; an upper accommodation body 410; a lower accommodation body 415 that accommodates at least a portion of the propeller shaft; and a steering to cause the lower accommodation body to rotate about a steering axis with respect to the upper accommodation body; wherein the upper accommodation body includes an upper exhaust channel 110 including an upper exhaust port that communicates with the engine; the lower accommodation body includes a lower exhaust channel including a lower exhaust port 115; and the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel are switchable between a communication state where the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel communicate with each other, and a non-communication state where the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel do not communicate with each other based on a rudder angle of the steering (column 4 line 34- column 5 line 7). PNG media_image2.png 262 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Figure 2- Lundqvist Figure 4 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Alby with the switchable exhaust channels of Lundqvist in order to reduce or entirely eliminate any noise, vibrations and other undesired effects caused by exhaust gasses hitting the bottom of the boat (column 1, lines 16-26). Note that Lundqvist does not explicitly depict a total non-communication state, but this would be achieved by continued turning of the lower accommodation body. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rotate the lower housing until no exhaust is communicated in order to maximize the effect, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. PNG media_image3.png 241 400 media_image3.png Greyscale Figure 3- Lundqvist Figures 5 and 6 Alby does not teach that the upper exhaust port is located above a waterline, above a connection between the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel, and configured to discharge exhaust gas directly into the air. Kato teaches an outboard motor comprising an upper exhaust port 328 that communicates with the engine 72, is located above a waterline WL, and configured to discharge exhaust gas directly into the air (column 12, lines 55-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Alby with the selectably closable exhaust channels (including the upper exhaust port) of Kato in order to provide more exhaust options, send more exhaust to the upper muffler when necessary (at lower speeds) and enable the use of a smaller catalyst. As modified, the upper exhaust port is above a connection between the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel. Regarding claims 2 and 11, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Lundqvist also teaches that the upper exhaust channel 110 and the lower exhaust channel are operable to be brought into the communication state when the rudder angle is equal to or smaller than a specified value, and to be brought into the non-communication state when the rudder angle is larger than the specified value. Regarding claims 3 and 12, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Lundqvist also teaches that: one of the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel includes a first communication port 50; the other of the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel includes a second communication port 60 that extends along a circumferential portion around the steering axis; and the second communication port communicates with the first communication port in the communication state and does not communicate with the first communication port in the non-communication state. Regarding claims 4 and 13, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 3 and 12. Lundqvist also teaches that the second communication port 60 is rotatable about the steering axis relative to the first communication port during steering. PNG media_image4.png 225 450 media_image4.png Greyscale Figure 4- Lundqvist Figures 7a, 7c and 7f Regarding claims 5 and 14, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 3 and 12. Lundqvist also teaches that an area of the second communication port 60 is larger than an area of the first communication port 50. Regarding claims 6 and 15, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 5 and 14. Lundqvist also teaches that in the communication state, an entirety of the first communication port 50 is included within the second communication port 60 when seen in an up-down direction (see Lundqvist figure 7a). Regarding claims 7 and 16, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Neither Alby, Fujimoto nor Lundqvist teach a switch to restrict a flow of exhaust gas from the upper exhaust channel to the lower exhaust channel when a speed of the engine is equal to or lower than a specified value. Kato teaches an outboard motor comprising a switch 144 to restrict a flow of exhaust gas from an upper exhaust channel 308, 310 to a lower exhaust channel 314, 316 when a speed of the engine is equal to or lower than a specified value (column 14, lines 44-51, column 16 line 66- column 17 line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Alby with the selectably closable exhaust channels of Kato in order to send more exhaust to the muffler when necessary (at lower speeds) and enable the use of a smaller catalyst. Regarding claims 8 and 17, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 7 and 16. Kato also teaches that the switch 144 includes a switching valve 334, 336. Regarding claims 9 and 18, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Alby, Fujimoto and Lundqvist also teach a boat comprising: a hull; and the outboard motor according to claims 1 and 10 attached to the transom of the hull (Alby column 4, lines 43-47). Regarding claims 21 and 25, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Neither Alby, Fujimoto nor Lundqvist teach that when the speed of the engine is equal to or lower than a specified value, a flow of exhaust gas is discharged from the upper exhaust port but not the lower exhaust port; and when the speed of the engine is higher than the specified value, the flow of exhaust gas is discharged from both the upper exhaust port and the lower exhaust port. Kato teaches an outboard motor comprising a switch 144 to restrict a flow of exhaust gas from an upper exhaust channel 308, 310 to a lower exhaust channel 314, 316 when a speed of the engine is equal to or lower than a specified value, such that a flow of exhaust gas is discharged from the upper exhaust port but not the lower exhaust port; and when the speed of the engine is higher than the specified value, the flow of exhaust gas is discharged from both the upper exhaust port and the lower exhaust port (column 14, lines 44-51, column 16 line 66- column 17 line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Alby with the selectably closable exhaust channels of Kato in order to send more exhaust to the muffler when necessary (at lower speeds) and enable the use of a smaller catalyst. Regarding claims 22 and 26, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Neither Alby, Fujimoto nor Lundqvist teach a switching valve in the upper exhaust channel configured to discharge a flow of exhaust gas from the upper exhaust port whether the switching valve is open or closed. Kato teaches an outboard motor comprising a switching valve 334, 336 to restrict a flow of exhaust gas from an upper exhaust channel 308, 310 to a lower exhaust channel 314, 316 when a speed of the engine is equal to or lower than a specified value (column 14, lines 44-51, column 16 line 66- column 17 line 15), and configured to discharge a flow of exhaust gas from the upper exhaust port whether the switching valve is open or closed (column 14, lines 34-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Alby with the selectably closable exhaust channels of Kato in order to send more exhaust to the muffler when necessary (at lower speeds) and enable the use of a smaller catalyst. Regarding claims 27 and 28, Alby, Fujimoto, Lundqvist and Kato teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Neither Alby, Fujimoto nor Lundqvist teach a switching valve in the upper exhaust channel to open and close the upper exhaust channel; wherein the switching valve is configured to close in the non-communicating state so that the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel do not communicate with each other. Kato teaches an outboard motor comprising a switching valve 334, 336 in the upper exhaust channel 308, 310 to open and close the upper exhaust channel; wherein the switching valve is configured to close in the non-communicating state (or whenever the throttle opening is low) so that the upper exhaust channel and the lower exhaust channel do not communicate with each other (column 14, lines 44-51, column 16 line 66- column 17 line 15, figure 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the motor of Alby with the selectably closable exhaust channels of Kato in order to send more exhaust to the muffler when necessary (at lower speeds) and enable the use of a smaller catalyst. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s argument seems to be that because Kato funnels engine gasses through catalyst device 326 in upper outlet passage 308, 310, it does not “discharge exhaust gas directly into the air.” This is found unpersuasive, because even after catalytic treatment, the engine gasses are still exhaust, and Kato still discharges them into the air. As the connection (in Lundqvist) between the upper and lower channel is below the water line, and Kato’s upper exhaust port is above the water, as taught the device meets the claim as written. Conclusion 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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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. /MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 13, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 21, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 17, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 15, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12454342
ADAPTABLE THROTTLE UNITS FOR MARINE DRIVES AND METHODS FOR INSTALLING THEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Oct 28, 2025
Patent 12356953
INTELLIGENT CAT LITTER BOX
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 15, 2025
Patent 11524761
STRINGER-FRAME INTERSECTION OF AIRCRAFT BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 13, 2022
Patent 11240999
FISHING ROD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 08, 2022
Patent 11130565
ELECTRIC TORQUE ARM HELICOPTER WITH AUTOROTATION SAFETY LANDING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 28, 2021
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+21.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 477 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month