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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/18/2025. Please note that claim 14 was not properly labeled as withdrawn in the most recent submission.
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, 5, 7, 11-13, 16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander US 6,142,841 in view of Henmi US 6,171,158.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Alexander teaches a jet propulsion boat which planes on water in an inclined posture in which a bow rises comprising:
a boat body;
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1- Alexander Figure 13)]
PNG
media_image1.png
385
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first propulsion device (main propulsion system- column 9, lines 44-54) that imparts propulsion force to the boat body; and
a second propulsion device (any of 311, 312, 313) that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device;
the second propulsion device 311, 312 includes a lateral thruster 313 that generates propulsion force for moving the boat body at least leftward or rightward,
the lateral thruster is disposed at a front part of the boat body and includes:
an impeller disposed in a water passage 303 through which water flows; and
an electric motor 220 to rotationally drive the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage (abstract), and
the water passage includes an inlet formed at a position at least partially exposed above a water surface when the jet propulsion boat is in a planing state (column 11, lines 51-55).
If the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 utilize electric motors, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with electric motor driven impellers as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to utilize a modular, easy to replace and maintain propulsion system. Likewise, if the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 are above the waterline when planing, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with inlets above the waterline when planing as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to reduce resistance and improve efficiency at high speed.
Alexander does not teach a boat type or details of the first propulsion device. Henmi teaches a straddle-type jet propulsion boat which planes on water in an inclined posture in which a bow rises comprising:
a boat body 12;
a first propulsion device that imparts propulsion force to the boat body by injection of a jet water flow;
the first propulsion device includes an engine 38 of an internal combustion type and a jet pump 20 (with water suction port 24) that is driven by the engine.
PNG
media_image2.png
304
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Henmi Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with a straddle-type body style and a jet water flow first propulsion device as taught by Henmi in order to be smaller and more maneuverable, and utilize a proven water jet propulsion for efficient high-speed travel independent of the (second) docking maneuvering system. As modified, the inlet is higher than a water suction port of the jet pump
Regarding claim 5, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Alexander also teaches that the water passage 303 includes an outlet formed at a position away from a center of gravity of the jet propulsion boat in a longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 7, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also discloses that:
the second propulsion device further includes a longitudinal thruster; and
the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in a water passage 301, 302 passing through the boat body, and a power source disposed inside the boat body to rotationally drive the impeller to inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from one end of the water passage (column 13, lines 23-28).
If the applicant does not agree that the power source is inside the boat body, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with an electric inside the boat body as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to protect all system components from the external environment.
Regarding claim 11, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the longitudinal thruster is detachably attached to the boat body, as everything is detachable to some degree. In an alternative interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thrusters detachable in order to simplify maintenance or replacement, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 12, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes a pair of the longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 that each inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from openings at opposite ends of corresponding one of a pair of left and right water passages 301, 302 extending in the longitudinal direction, and
each of the longitudinal thrusters has a mechanism that changes a direction of a water flow flowing through the corresponding one of the water passages (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse).
Regarding claim 13, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the electric motor is capable of changing a rotation direction of the impeller (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse- column 13, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 16, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the impeller 313 of the lateral thruster injects a water flow in a lateral direction from one end of the water passage 303 (each impeller has its own motor- column 13, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 18, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device further includes a pair of left and right longitudinal thrusters 311, 312.
Regarding claim 19, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Alexander also teaches that:
the pair of longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 are disposed on the respective left 14 and right 12 sides of a rear part of the boat body in a posture in which an injection axis of a water flow faces a longitudinal direction, and
the lateral thruster 313 is disposed in a front part of the boat body in a posture in which an injection axis of a water flow faces the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 21, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device further includes a longitudinal thruster, the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in another water passage 301, 302 through which water flows, and the another water passage includes a rear opening that opens straight backward. Note that as the opening is completely in the flat rear face of the hull, it can be said to open straight backward.
Regarding claim 22, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the boat body includes a hull, but is silent as to particulars of the deck and engine. Henmi teaches that the boat body includes a hull 12, a deck 50 overlying the hull, and a seat 62 covering an upper surface of the deck, and the engine 38 is disposed below the seat and behind a center of the boat body in a longitudinal direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with a straddle-type body style as taught by Henmi in order to be smaller and more maneuverable. If applicant does not agree that the engine is behind a center of the boat body, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the engine behind a center of the boat body in a longitudinal direction in order to achieve the desired weight distribution, 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 23, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes a pair of the longitudinal thrusters 311, 312,
each of the longitudinal thrusters includes
an impeller disposed in a water passage through which water flows, and
an electric motor that rotationally drives the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage, and
the electric motors of the pair of longitudinal thrusters are arranged behind the lateral thruster symmetrically with respect to a center axis of the boat body extending in a longitudinal direction.
If the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 utilize electric motors, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with electric motor driven impellers as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to utilize a modular, easy to replace and maintain propulsion system.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander US 6,142,841 in view of Henmi US 6,171,158 and Duclos US 11,173,993.
Regarding claim 21, Alexander and Henmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device further includes a longitudinal thruster, the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in another water passage 301, 302 through which water flows, but in an alternative interpretation the another water passage does not include a rear opening that opens straight backward. Duclos teaches a jet propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body;
a first propulsion device 32 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body (column 4, lines 44-53); and
a second propulsion device 30.1, 30.2 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device, wherein
the first propulsion device includes an engine of an internal combustion type,
the second propulsion device is a propulsion device of an electric type using an electric motor 38 as a power source; and
the second propulsion device includes a longitudinal thruster that generates propulsion; and
that the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 42 disposed in a water passage 44 through which water flows, and the water passage includes a rear opening 50 that opens straight backward.
PNG
media_image3.png
245
421
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Duclos Figure 8
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with longitudinal thruster ducts that open straight backward as taught by Duclos in order to enable the thrusters to be used for purely forward propulsion when desired.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11-13, 16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henmi US 6,171,158 in view of Alexander US 6,142,841.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Henmi teaches a straddle-type jet propulsion boat which planes on water in an inclined posture in which a bow rises comprising:
a boat body 12;
a first propulsion device that imparts propulsion force to the boat body by injection of a jet water flow;
the first propulsion device includes an engine 38 of an internal combustion type and a jet pump 20 (with water suction port 24) that is driven by the engine.
Henmi does not teach a second propulsion device. Alexander teaches a jet propulsion boat which planes on water in an inclined posture in which a bow rises comprising:
a boat body;
a first propulsion device (main propulsion system- column 9, lines 44-54) that imparts propulsion force to the boat body; and
a second propulsion device (any of 311, 312, 313) that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device;
the second propulsion device 311, 312 includes a lateral thruster 313 that generates propulsion force for moving the boat body at least leftward or rightward,
the lateral thruster is disposed at a front part of the boat body and includes:
an impeller disposed in a water passage 303 through which water flows; and
an electric motor 220 to rotationally drive the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage (abstract), and
the water passage includes an inlet formed at a position at least partially exposed above a water surface when the jet propulsion boat is in a planing state (column 11, lines 51-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Henmi with a second propulsion device as taught by Alexander in order to enable precise positional control when needed, such as during docking maneuvers.
If the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 utilize electric motors, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with electric motor driven impellers as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to utilize a modular, easy to replace and maintain propulsion system. Likewise, if the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 are above the waterline when planing, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with inlets above the waterline when planing as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to reduce resistance and improve efficiency at high speed.
Regarding claim 5, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Alexander also teaches that the water passage 303 includes an outlet formed at a position away from a center of gravity of the jet propulsion boat in a longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 7, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also discloses that:
the second propulsion device further includes a longitudinal thruster; and
the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in a water passage 301, 302 passing through the boat body, and a power source disposed inside the boat body to rotationally drive the impeller to inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from one end of the water passage (column 13, lines 23-28).
If the applicant does not agree that the power source is inside the boat body, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with an electric inside the boat body as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to protect all system components from the external environment.
Regarding claim 11, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the longitudinal thruster is detachably attached to the boat body, as everything is detachable to some degree. In an alternative interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thrusters detachable in order to simplify maintenance or replacement, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Regarding claim 12, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes a pair of the longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 that each inject a water flow in the longitudinal direction from openings at opposite ends of corresponding one of a pair of left and right water passages 301, 302 extending in the longitudinal direction, and
each of the longitudinal thrusters has a mechanism that changes a direction of a water flow flowing through the corresponding one of the water passages (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Henmi with a second propulsion device as taught by Alexander in order to enable precise positional control when needed, such as during docking maneuvers.
Regarding claim 13, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the electric motor is capable of changing a rotation direction of the impeller (thrusters can operate in forward or reverse- column 13, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 16, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the impeller 313 of the lateral thruster injects a water flow in a lateral direction from one end of the water passage 303 (each impeller has its own motor- column 13, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 18, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device further includes a pair of left and right longitudinal thrusters 311, 312.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Henmi with a second propulsion device as taught by Alexander in order to enable precise positional control when needed, such as during docking maneuvers.
Regarding claim 19, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. Alexander also teaches that:
the pair of longitudinal thrusters 311, 312 are disposed on the respective left 14 and right 12 sides of a rear part of the boat body in a posture in which an injection axis of a water flow faces a longitudinal direction, and
the lateral thruster 313 is disposed in a front part of the boat body in a posture in which an injection axis of a water flow faces the lateral direction.
Regarding claim 21, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device further includes a longitudinal thruster, the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in another water passage 301, 302 through which water flows, and the another water passage includes a rear opening that opens straight backward. Note that as the opening is completely in the flat rear face of the hull, it can be said to open straight backward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Henmi with a second propulsion device as taught by Alexander in order to enable precise positional control when needed, such as during docking maneuvers.
Regarding claim 22, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Henmi also teaches that the boat body includes a hull 12, a deck 50 overlying the hull, and a seat 62 covering an upper surface of the deck, and the engine 38 is disposed below the seat and behind a center of the boat body in a longitudinal direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Alexander with a straddle-type body style as taught by Henmi in order to be smaller and more maneuverable. If applicant does not agree that the engine is behind a center of the boat body, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the engine behind a center of the boat body in a longitudinal direction in order to achieve the desired weight distribution, 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 23, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that:
the second propulsion device includes a pair of the longitudinal thrusters 311, 312,
each of the longitudinal thrusters includes
an impeller disposed in a water passage through which water flows, and
an electric motor that rotationally drives the impeller to inject a water flow from the water passage, and
the electric motors of the pair of longitudinal thrusters are arranged behind the lateral thruster symmetrically with respect to a center axis of the boat body extending in a longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Henmi with a second propulsion device as taught by Alexander in order to enable precise positional control when needed, such as during docking maneuvers.
If the applicant does not agree that the propulsion devices in the embodiment of figure 13 utilize electric motors, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the propulsion system of Alexander (figure 13) with electric motor driven impellers as taught by Alexander (figure 9) in order to utilize a modular, easy to replace and maintain propulsion system.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henmi US 6,171,158 in view of Alexander US 6,142,841 and Duclos US 11,173,993.
Regarding claim 21, Henmi and Alexander teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Alexander also teaches that the second propulsion device further includes a longitudinal thruster, the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 311, 312 disposed in another water passage 301, 302 through which water flows, but in an alternative interpretation the another water passage does not include a rear opening that opens straight backward. Duclos teaches a jet propulsion boat comprising:
a boat body;
a first propulsion device 32 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body (column 4, lines 44-53); and
a second propulsion device 30.1, 30.2 that imparts propulsion force to the boat body with a mechanism independent of the first propulsion device, wherein
the first propulsion device includes an engine of an internal combustion type,
the second propulsion device is a propulsion device of an electric type using an electric motor 38 as a power source; and
the second propulsion device includes a longitudinal thruster that generates propulsion; wherein
that the longitudinal thruster includes an impeller 42 disposed in a water passage 44 through which water flows, and the water passage includes a rear opening 50 that opens straight backward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the boat of Henmi and Alexander with longitudinal thruster ducts that open straight backward as taught by Duclos in order to enable the thrusters to be used for purely forward propulsion when desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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
