DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 3/11/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 20 is a new claim.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-16, 19, and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. Specifically, upon further search and consideration of the amendments filed 3/11/2026, new references have been applied.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites the limitation of when the processing circuitry determines that the towed target is not being towed any more, the processing circuitry outputs a determination result through a display or a speaker of the water vehicle (emphasis added). The emphasized portion should be written in clear and affirmative language for proper claim construction. It is recommended to amend this limitation to instead recite “no longer being towed,” so as to align with accepted claim drafting conventions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko et al. (US 2018/0057133 A1), hereinafter Andrasko, in view of Mercury Marine (“Mercury SmartCraft - SmartTow,” Feb. 24, 2020, Mercury Marine, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Rlu9PAiUM), hereinafter Mercury Marine.
Claim 1
Andrasko discloses the claimed water vehicle (i.e. marine vessel 38, depicted in Figure 2) comprising:
a water vehicle body (see ¶0018, regarding dashed line box 38 represents a marine vessel);
a control target mounted on the water vehicle body and controlled to operate the water vehicle body (see ¶0018, regarding marine vessel 38 includes a marine propulsion device 40 that includes an engine 42 which provides marine propulsion for the vessel 38);
processing circuitry configured to acquire requested values used to operate the water vehicle body and generate, based on the requested values, command values to be output to the control target (see ¶0018, regarding propulsion controller 46 controls the operating speed of engine 42 in conformance with signals received from the position of a throttle handle 48 of the manually controllable throttle mechanism 44, and control panel 50 allows the operator to provide additional information to controller 46).
Andrasko further discloses the selection of five acceleration profiles (i.e. acceleration profiles 91, 92, 93, 94, and 95) in comparison to line 90 that represents the maximum vessel speed commands achieved through position of throttle handle 48 (see ¶0022, with respect to Figure 4), where the acceleration profiles are used in tow sports, so as to achieve consistent performance during the period of time when a water skier is accelerated from a stationary position to a full speed position (see ¶0001), and thus, the five acceleration profiles of Andrasko may be reasonably interpreted as a towing mode in which the water vehicle tows a towed target (i.e. water skier). Given that the acceleration profile is selected via control panel 50 (see ¶0019), the condition in which an acceleration profile 91, 92, 93, 94, or 95 is not selected teaches a non-towing mode in which the water vehicle does not tow the towed target, such that Andrasko discloses that the processing circuitry switches a control mode between a towing mode in which the water vehicle tows a towed target and a non-towing mode in which the water vehicle does not tow the towed target through operator selections made via control panel 50.
In case the selection between a “towing mode” and “non-towing mode” cannot be reasonably gleaned from the disclosure of Andrasko, Mercury Marine is applied in combination with Andrasko to teach this inherent feature. Andrasko and Mercury Marine share a common inventive entity, and therefore, it would be reasonable to modify Andrasko in light of the SmartTow technology depicted in Mercury Marine.
Specifically, Mercury Marine teaches SmartCraft (similar to the processing circuitry of Andrasko) switches a control mode between SmartTow’s preloaded acceleration profiles (similar to the towing mode in which the water vehicle tows a towed target of Andrasko) and a mode in which SmartTow is not active (similar to the non-towing mode in which the water vehicle does not tow the towed target of Andrasko) (see frame 0:14 on the first and second page, depicting the user interface that includes a “Smart Tow” selection, and frame 0:15 on the second page, depicting the user interface after selection of “Smart Tow” for selecting an acceleration profile that is subsequently enabled in frame 0:17 on the third page, depicting maximum speed settings for the selected acceleration profile while Smart Tow is in an active state).
Since the systems of Andrasko and SmartTow are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing predefined acceleration profiles for water skiers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing circuitry of Andrasko to further switch a control mode between a towing mode in which the water vehicle tows a towed target and a non-towing mode in which the water vehicle does not tow the towed target, in light of Mercury Marine, with the predictable result of providing an intuitive user interface for enabling and disabling a smart tow operation (frames 00:15 through 00:17 on the second and third pages of Mercury Marine) that takes the guess work out of pulling skiers, tubers, and wakeboarders using preloaded profiles (transcript on right side of the first page of Mercury Marine).
Andrasko further discloses that when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates, based on the requested value, a second command value that is the command value different from a first command value that is the command value generated based on the requested value when the control mode is the non-towing mode (see ¶0022, regarding that in response to rapid movement of throttle handle 48 represented by line 90 in Figure 4, one of the acceleration profiles 91-95 is followed, according to the operator’s prior selection via control panel 50, where the acceleration profiles are used with tow sports, as described in ¶0001). Given that the acceleration profiles 91-95 are used in a “tow mode,” as described in ¶0001 of Andrasko, line 90 in Figure 4 reasonably represents a “non-towing mode” when an acceleration profile 91-95 has not been selected via control panel 50, and thus, the “second command value” generated by acceleration profiles 91-95 are different than the “first command value” generated by line 90.
Andrasko further discloses that the processing circuitry generates the second command value such that a maximum speed of the water vehicle when the control mode is the towing mode becomes lower than a maximum speed of the water vehicle when the control mode is the non-towing mode (see Figure 4, depicting the “vessel speed” axis, such that the maximum vessel speed achieved by acceleration profiles 91-95 are lower than the maximum vessel speed associated with 100% demand of line 90), and acceleration of the water vehicle corresponding to a first requested value when the control mode is the towing mode becomes lower than acceleration of the water vehicle corresponding to a second requested value that is the same as the first requested value when the control mode is the non-towing mode (see Figure 4, depicting the change in vessel speed associated with the acceleration profiles 91-95 as being lower than the change in vessel speed associated with line 90, defined as the manual operation of throttle handle 48 for the application of an acceleration profile that has been previously selected by an operator via control panel 50 in ¶0022). The “first requested value” and “second requested value” are from operation of throttle handle 48; therefore, the requested values may be reasonably interpreted as the same in the “towing mode” and “non-towing mode,” given that Andrasko teaches the restriction of output commands, not the restriction of user input.
Claim 4
Andrasko further discloses a memory storing a map showing the command values corresponding to the requested values (see ¶0021, regarding that acceleration profiles are programmed into the memory of controller 46), wherein:
when the control mode is the non-towing mode, the processing circuitry generates, as the first command value based on the requested value, the command value corresponding to the requested value in the map (see Figure 4, depicting line 90 representing the position of throttle handle 48 as a percentage of maximum vessel speed command); and
when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates, as the second command value based on the requested value, a value obtained by correcting the command value corresponding to the requested value in the map such that the obtained value becomes smaller than the command value corresponding to the requested value in the map (see Figure 4, depicting acceleration profiles 91-95 as “corrected” from line 90, so as to be associated with smaller vessel speed commands). No particular calculations are claimed to perform the claimed “correction” and may reasonably be taught as predefined relationships between the acceleration profiles 91-95 and line 90.
Claim 12
Andrasko further discloses that acceleration profiles 91-95 represent a reduced amount of the second command value from the first command value, as depicted in Figure 4, with respect to line 90, and described in ¶0022. While Andrasko further discloses that the acceleration profiles 91-95 end at the same desired final vehicle speed (e.g., 20 KPH in Figure 4) corresponding to the vessel cruise control segment 14 (see ¶0023), such that the percent overshoot magnitude associated with the vessel launch segment 12 is derived from the final desired vessel speed (see ¶0021), Andrasko does not explicitly describe the method in which the desired final vehicle speed is set, such that the processing circuitry changes a reduced amount of the second command value from the first command value in accordance with an operation of a rider with respect to a user input interface.
However, Mercury Marine teaches that a target speed associated with a selected acceleration profile (similar to a reduced amount of the second command value from the first command value of Andrasko) may be adjusted in accordance with an operation of a rider with respect to a user input interface (see frame 00:17 on the third page, depicting up and down user interface arrows for adjusting the target speed after enabling the selected acceleration profile in frame 0:16).
Since the systems of Andrasko and Mercury Marine are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing predefined acceleration profiles for water skiers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing circuitry of Andrasko to further change a reduced amount of the second command value from the first command value in accordance with an operation of a rider with respect to a user input interface, in light of Mercury Marine, with the predictable result of providing an intuitive user interface for adjusting a target speed of a smart tow operation (frames 0:16 through 00:17 on the third page of Mercury Marine) that takes the guess work out of pulling skiers, tubers, and wakeboarders using preloaded profiles (transcript on right side of the first page of Mercury Marine).
Claim 15
Andrasko further discloses a water vehicle speed sensor that detects a speed of the water vehicle (see ¶0018, regarding that vessel 38 includes a GPS device 52, speedometer, pitot tube, or paddlewheel to measure vessel velocity), wherein the control target is a traveling driving source that generates driving power by which the water vehicle body travels (see ¶0018, regarding the vessel speed is controlled by way of controlling the operating speed of engine 42), when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates the second command value such that the speed detected by the water vehicle speed sensor becomes a predetermined speed or less (see ¶0021-0022, regarding applying a selected acceleration profile associated with a final desired vessel speed, defined as below a 100% speed command, as depicted in Figure 4; ¶0031, regarding that controller 46 uses a difference between a measured vehicle speed and desired vessel speed to calculate control parameters).
Claim 19
Andrasko further discloses that the processing circuitry receives a command for selecting one of a plurality of types of towing (see ¶0019, regarding the operator of the marine vessel selects an acceleration profile via control panel 50, representative of five skill levels, as described in ¶0021), and when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates, based on the requested value, the second command value corresponding to the selected type of the towing (see ¶0022, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that an acceleration profile is applied according to the operator’s prior selection via control panel 50). Different skill levels may reasonably represent different types of towing, e.g., lower skill level is defined by less overshoot and acceleration, and a higher skill level is defined by higher overshoot and acceleration (see Figure 3).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko in view of Mercury Marine, and in further view of Ehlers et al. (US 7,214,110 B1), hereinafter Ehlers.
Claim 3
Andrasko does not further disclose that the water vehicle includes a rotational frequency sensor that detects a rotational frequency of a traveling driving source of the water vehicle body, wherein when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates the second command value such that the rotational frequency detected by the rotational frequency sensor becomes lower than a predetermined maximum rotational frequency set for a case where the control mode is the non-towing mode. However, similar “second command values” are known to include restrictions of the rotational frequency of an engine and would be obvious to incorporate as an additional restriction to the vessel speed control of Andrasko, in light of Ehlers.
Specifically, Ehlers teaches a rotational frequency sensor that detects a rotational frequence of a traveling driving source of a marine vessel (similar to the water vehicle body of Andrasko) (see col. 4, lines 18-22, with respect to Figure 2, regarding tachometer 64 associated with engine 62 of the marine vessel). Ehlers further teaches that a selected acceleration profile 91-95, defined as being used for tow sports in col. 5, line 51-col. 6, line 8 (similar to when the control mode is the towing mode of Andrasko), microprocessor 70 (similar to the processing circuitry of Andrasko) generates the selected acceleration profile, defined as achieved through engine speed control in col. 4, line 51-col. 5, line 6 (similar to the second command value of Andrasko) such that the rotational frequency detected by the rotational frequency sensor becomes lower than a predetermined maximum rotational frequency set for a case where the selected acceleration profile is not applied (similar to the non-towing mode of Andrasko) (see col. 5, lines 29-50, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that microprocessor 70 applies one of the acceleration profiles that is previously selected by an operator of the marine vessel, where line 90 represents the maximum engine speed command; col. 4, lines 45-50, regarding that control panel 76 allows for the operator to select an acceleration profile). Given that the acceleration profiles 91-95 are used in a “tow mode,” line 90 in Figure 4 reasonably represents a “non-towing mode” when an acceleration profile 91-95 has not been selected via control panel 76.
Since the systems of Andrasko and Ehlers are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing predefined acceleration profiles for water skiers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko to further include a rotational frequency sensor that detects a rotational frequency of a traveling driving source of the water vehicle body, wherein when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry of Andrasko further generates the second command value such that the rotational frequency detected by the rotational frequency sensor becomes lower than a predetermined maximum rotational frequency set for a case where the control mode is the non-towing mode, in the same manner that the selected acceleration profile defined with respect to engine RPM of Ehlers is restricted below a maximum RPM for the control vessel speed, with the predictable result of accounting for the vessel speed lagging engine speed by directly responding to throttle control commands (col. 6, lines 16-22 of Ehlers), which provides a more predictable and repeatable behavior (col. 5, line 60-col. 6, line 8 of Ehlers).
Claim 16
Andrasko does not further disclose that the water vehicle includes a rotational frequency sensor that detects a rotational frequency of a traveling driving source of the water vehicle body, wherein when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates the second command value such that the rotational frequency detected by the rotational frequency sensor becomes lower than a predetermined rotational frequency. However, similar “second command values” are known to include restrictions of the rotational frequency of an engine and would be obvious to incorporate as an additional restriction to the vessel speed control of Andrasko, in light of Ehlers.
Specifically, Ehlers teaches a rotational frequency sensor that detects a rotational frequence of a traveling driving source of a marine vessel (similar to the water vehicle body of Andrasko) (see col. 4, lines 18-22, with respect to Figure 2, regarding tachometer 64 associated with engine 62 of the marine vessel). Ehlers further teaches that a selected acceleration profile 91-95, defined as being used for tow sports in col. 5, line 51-col. 6, line 8 (similar to when the control mode is the towing mode of Andrasko), microprocessor 70 (similar to the processing circuitry of Andrasko) generates the selected acceleration profile, defined as achieved through engine speed control in col. 4, line 51-col. 5, line 6 (similar to the second command value of Andrasko) such that the rotational frequency detected by the rotational frequency sensor becomes lower than a predetermined rotational frequency (see col. 5, lines 29-50, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that microprocessor 70 applies one of the acceleration profiles that is previously selected by an operator of the marine vessel, where line 90 represents the maximum engine speed command).
Since the systems of Andrasko and Ehlers are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing predefined acceleration profiles for water skiers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko to further include a rotational frequency sensor that detects a rotational frequency of a traveling driving source of the water vehicle body, wherein when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry of Andrasko further generates the second command value such that the rotational frequency detected by the rotational frequency sensor becomes lower than a predetermined rotational frequency, in the same manner that the selected acceleration profile defined with respect to engine RPM of Ehlers is restricted below a maximum RPM for the control vessel speed, with the predictable result of accounting for the vessel speed lagging engine speed by directly responding to throttle control commands (col. 6, lines 16-22 of Ehlers), which provides a more predictable and repeatable behavior (col. 5, line 60-col. 6, line 8 of Ehlers).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko in view of Mercury Marine, and in further view of Page (US 2019/0228634 A1), hereinafter Page.
Claim 7
Andrasko does not further disclose a water vehicle communicator that communicates with a target communicator attached to the towed target, wherein the processing circuitry determines a towed state of the towed target based on a signal received from the target communicator by the water vehicle communicator or based on a communication state between the water vehicle communicator and the target communicator. However, incorporating the technique of determining the towed state of a towed target based on communication between the water vehicle and towed target would be obvious, in light of Page.
Specifically, Page teaches a similar water vehicle (see watercraft 100 in Figure 1) that tows a surface rider 107 (similar to the towed target of Andrasko) (see ¶0014). Page further teaches a water vehicle communicator (i.e. sensors 113) with a target communicator (i.e. tracking beacon 119) attached to the surface rider 107 (see ¶0022, regarding that surface rider 107 wears a tracking beacon 119 operable to provide signals to sensors 113), where the processor 115 (similar to the processing circuitry of Andrasko) determines a towed state of the surface rider 107 based on a signal received from the target communicator by the water vehicle communicator or based on a communication state between the water vehicle communicator and the target communicator (see ¶0022, regarding that the sensors 113 obtain surface-rider data from the tracking beacon 119, where the sensor data received by the processor 115 is analyzed to determine whether the surface rider 107 has fallen or is actively traversing the water surface 102, as described in ¶0016).
Since the systems of Andrasko and Page are directed to the same purpose, i.e. towing a towed target using a water vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko, so as to further include a water vehicle communicator that communicates with a target communicator attached to the towed target, such that the processing circuitry of Andrasko further determines a towed state of the towed target based on a signal received from the target communicator by the water vehicle communicator or based on a communication state between the water vehicle communicator and the target communicator, in the same manner that surface-rider data is received from a tracking beacon attached to a surface rider in Page to determine whether the surface rider has fallen or is actively traversing the water, with the predictable result of improving driver awareness of the surface rider’s status while minimizing the need for spotters and without averting the driver’s attention from the forward motion of the watercraft (¶0004 of Page).
Claim 8
While Mercury Marine displays the current mode of operation on the user interface, the combination of Andrasko and Mercury Marine does not clearly disclose that when the processing circuitry determines that the towed target is not being towed any more, the processing circuitry outputs a determination result through a display or a speaker of the water vehicle. However, incorporating the technique of determining that a towed target is no longer being towed for alerting a driver through a display would be obvious, in light of Page.
Specifically, Page teaches a similar water vehicle (see watercraft 100 in Figure 1) that tows a surface rider 107 (similar to the towed target of Andrasko) (see ¶0014). Page further teaches that when processor 115 (similar to the processing circuitry of Andrasko) determines that surface rider 107 is not being towed any more, processor 115 outputs a determination result through a display or a speaker of watercraft 100 (see ¶0029-0030, regarding that processor 115 control displays 303 of watercraft 100 to provide a visual feedback indication corresponding to the analysis of the surface-rider data, where the surface-rider data corresponds to the activity status of surface rider 107, such as when surface rider 107 has fallen, as described in ¶0016).
Since the systems of Andrasko and Page are directed to the same purpose, i.e. towing a towed target using a water vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko, such that when the processing circuitry determines that the towed target is not being towed any more, the processing circuitry outputs a determination result through a display or a speaker of the water vehicle, in the same manner that surface-rider data corresponding to whether the surface rider has fallen in Page is provided as visual feedback on a display of the watercraft, with the predictable result of improving driver awareness of the surface rider’s status while minimizing the need for spotters and without averting the driver’s attention from the forward motion of the watercraft (¶0004 of Page).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko in view of Mercury Marine, and in further view of Allsop (US 5,934,217), hereinafter Allsop.
Claim 9
Andrasko does not further disclose a fixture which extends upward from the water vehicle body and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow the towed target is fixed, and a seat which is located in front of the fixture and on which a rider is seated, wherein a height of an upper end of the fixture is higher than a height of an uppermost surface of the seat. However, this structure does not influence the claimed control mode and thus would be an obvious modification of the water vehicle of Andrasko, in light of Allsop.
Specifically, Allsop teaches a watercraft 34 in Figure 3 (similar to the water vehicle of Andrasko) that tows a water sporter 40 (similar to the towed target of Andrasko) (see col. 3, lines 31-35). Allsop further teaches a fixture which extends upward from watercraft 34 and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow water sporter 40 is fixed (see col. 3, lines 35-54, with respect to the elongated towing member 36 configuration depicted in Figure 3), and a seat which is located in front of the fixture and on which a rider is seated, wherein a height of an upper end of the fixture is higher than a height of an uppermost surface of the seat (see Figure 3, depicting the seat with respect to the elongated towing member 36).
Since the systems of Andrasko and Allsop are directed to the same purpose, i.e. towing a towed target with a water vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko, so as to further include a fixture which extends upward from the water vehicle body and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow the towed target is fixed, and a seat which is located in front of the fixture and on which a rider is seated, wherein a height of an upper end of the fixture is higher than a height of an uppermost surface of the seat, in the same manner that the watercraft of Allsop includes an elongated towing member provided behind and higher than a seat, with the predictable result of accommodating launches for more adventurous towed water-sport activities (col. 1, lines 27-33 of Allsop).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko in view of Mercury Marine, and in further view of Allsop and Paccoud et al. (US 2016/0221650 A1), hereinafter Paccoud.
Claim 10
A second rejection of claim 9 is provided for a more proper combination of prior art to teach the limitations of claim 10.
Andrasko does not further disclose a fixture which extends upward from the water vehicle body and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow the towed target is fixed, and a seat which is located in front of the fixture and on which the rider is seated, wherein a height of an upper end of the fixture is higher than a height of an uppermost surface of the seat, nor does Andrasko further disclose a cover located behind the seat and covering at least a part of the fixture from a front side. However, this structure does not influence the claimed control mode and thus would be an obvious modification of the water vehicle of Andrasko, in light of Allsop and Paccoud.
Specifically, Paccoud teaches a personal watercraft 10 depicted in Figures 1 and 2 (similar to the water vehicle of Andrasko and Allsop) that comprises a fixture which extends upward from watercraft 10 and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow a wakeboarder (similar to the towed target of Andrasko) is fixed (see ¶0069, with respect to Figures 1 and 2, regarding that that in the towing position 116, pylon 106 of tow pylon assembly 100 extends upward, as depicted in Figure 2, which is closer to vertical than in the stowed position, as depicted in Figure 1, where tow rope 10 is tied around the board 114 for towing a wakeboarder), and a seat (i.e. rear seat portion 28) which is located in front of the fixture and on which a rider is seated (see Figure 2, depicting rear seat portion 28 in front of tow pylon assembly 100).
Paccoud further teaches that watercraft 10 comprises a cover (i.e. handholds 166 and cap 168) located behind the seat and covering at least a part of the fixture from a front side (see ¶0065, regarding that cap 168 covers the upper end of pylon 106, where handholds 166 further provide coverage, as depicted in Figure 2). While the “front side” is not defined with respect to a particular component, Paccoud is applied to teach the “front side” with respect to the tow pylon assembly from which a wakeboarder would grasp the handle from the “front side.”
In Figure 2, Paccoud does not specifically depict that a height of an upper end of the fixture is higher than a height of an uppermost surface of the seat. However, Paccoud teaches that providing the tow pylon at positions higher than the tow eye is desirable in ¶0003, and therefore, it would be obvious to modify the height of pylon 106 to be higher than seat 28, in light of Allsop.
Specifically, Allsop teaches the known technique of providing a pylon 12 (similar to the fixture of Paccoud) used to support a tow rope at alternative elevations, including a height for normal water-sporting activities (similar to the height of an upper end of the fixture of Paccoud) and an elevated height to accommodate more adventurous water-sporting activities, where a height of an upper end of pylon 12 is higher than a height of an uppermost surface of a seat (similar to the seat of Paccoud), as depicted in Figures 1 and 3 (see col. 1, lines 11-38, with respect to Figure 1). Therefore, it would be obvious to provide a more elevated pylon 12 in Paccoud for more adventurous water-sporting activities, in light of Allsop.
Since the systems of Andrasko, Paccoud, and Allsop are directed to the same purpose, i.e. towing a towed target with a water vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko, so as to further include a fixture which extends upward from the water vehicle body and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow the towed target is fixed, and a seat which is located in front of the fixture and on which the rider is seated, wherein a height of an upper end of the fixture is higher than a height of an uppermost surface of the seat, and a cover located behind the seat and covering at least a part of the fixture from a front side, in light of the combination of Paccoud and Allsop, with the predictable result of accommodating launches for more adventurous towed water-sport activities (col. 1, lines 27-33 of Allsop) where a higher attachment point on the tow pylon provides for more ideal towing (¶0003 of Paccoud).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko in view of Mercury Marine, Allsop, and Paccoud, and in further view of Mccuaig (US 2022/0212073 A1), hereinafter Mccuaig.
Claim 11
While Paccoud further teaches that the cover includes a cover main body supported by the water vehicle body (see Figure 2, depicting the a “body” supporting the handholds 166 and cap 168 to the deck 14 of watercraft 10), Paccoud does not further teach that the cover includes a pad located on a surface of the cover main body, the surface facing forward. However, providing padding on surfaces such as the handholds 166 where a passenger can hold handle 110 of Paccoud (see ¶0065) would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration, in light of Mccuaig. The “forward” direction is not defined in the claim with respect to a particular component and may be broadly interpreted.
Specifically, Mccuaig teaches a grip contact which may be used in boat applications (see abstract), comprising a pad (see ¶0247-0250, with respect to Figure 7) that may be attached to various grip surfaces (see Figures 1-6), similar to a surface of the cover main body of Paccoud where a passenger is provided with a grip surface (see ¶0065).
Since the systems of Paccoud and Mccuaig are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a grip surface to a user, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover main body of Paccoud to further include a pad located on a surface of the cover main body, the surface facing forward, in light of Mccuaig, with the predictable result of providing excellent grip while maintaining improved comfort for a user (¶0250 of Mccuaig), where moisture and/or sweat can be effectively dissipated away from the user (¶0247 of Mccuaig), which would be beneficial in the wakeboarding system of Paccoud.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko in view of Mercury Marine, and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US 2024/0239471 A1), hereinafter Suzuki.
Claim 13
While Andrasko further discloses that the control target is a traveling driving source that generates driving power by which the water vehicle body travels (see ¶0018, regarding that the vessel speed is controlled by way of controlling the operating speed of engine 42) and when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates the second command value different from the first command value, based on the requested value (see ¶0022, regarding that in response to rapid movement of throttle handle 48 represented by line 90 in Figure 4, one of the acceleration profiles 91-95 is followed, according to the operator’s prior selection via control panel 50, where the acceleration profiles are used with tow sports, as described in ¶0001), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Andrasko does not further disclose a steering sensor that detects turning operation of turning the water vehicle body by a rider, such that the generation of the “second command value” occurs while the steering sensor detects the turning operation. However, the “second command value” is not claimed to be influenced by steering operations, and the steering wheel associated with the vessel of Andrasko and Mercury Marine may reasonably be modified to incorporate a sensor for detection of turning operations, in light of Suzuki.
Specifically, Suzuki teaches a watercraft 1 depicted in Figure 1 (similar to the water vehicle of Andrasko) that includes a steering sensor that detects turning operation of turning of the watercraft via an operation amount (see ¶0054-0055, regarding steering angle sensor 29), such that commands are generated when the steering sensor detects the turning operation (see ¶0084, regarding the control of steering based on the detected steering angle sensor 29).
Since the systems of Andrasko and Suzuki are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a water vehicle capable of being steered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko to further include a steering sensor that detects turning operation of turning the water vehicle body by a rider, such that the steering sensor detects the turning operation, in the same manner that steering angle sensor of Suzuki detects steering, with the predictable result of achieving a target steering angle through the use of feedback control (¶0004 of Suzuki).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrasko in view of Mercury Marine, and in further view of Paccoud.
Claim 20
Andrasko does not further disclose that the claimed water vehicle further comprises:
a fixture which extends upward from the water vehicle body and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow the towed target is fixed;
a seat which is located in front of the fixture and on which a rider is seated; and
a cover located behind the seat and covering at least a part of the fixture from a front side, wherein:
the fixture includes:
a fixed portion fixed to the water vehicle body; and
a movable portion supported by the fixed portion so as to be slidable in an upper-lower direction; and
the cover is connected to the movable portion.
However, this claimed structure does not influence the control modes of claim 1, and therefore, it would be reasonable to modify the water vehicle of Andrasko, in light of Paccoud.
Specifically, Paccoud teaches a personal watercraft 10 depicted in Figures 1 and 2 (similar to the water vehicle of Andrasko) comprising a fixture which extends upward from watercraft 10 and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow a wakeboarder (similar to the towed target of Andrasko) is fixed (see ¶0069, with respect to Figures 1 and 2, regarding that pylon 106 extends upward from base 104, such that in a towing position, tow rope 102 can be tied around bollard 114 of pylon 106 to tow a wakeboarder), a seat (i.e. rear seat portion 28) which is located in front of the fixture and on which a rider is seated (see Figure 2, depicting rear seat portion 28 in front of tow pylon assembly 100), and a cover (i.e. handholds 166 and cap 168) located behind the seat and covering at least a part of the fixture from a front side (see ¶0065, regarding that cap 168 covers the upper end of pylon 106, where handholds 166 further provide coverage, as depicted in Figure 2), wherein the fixture includes a fixed portion fixed to watercraft 10 (see ¶0062, with respect to Figures 1 and 3, regarding that pylon 106 connects to the platform 36 of watercraft 10), and a movable portion supported by the fixed portion so as to be slidable in an upper-lower direction (see ¶0065, with respect to Figure 3, regarding that the central member 164 is slid over the upper portion of pylon 106), and the cover is connected to the movable portion (see Figure 3, depicting handholds 166 and cap 168 as connected to central member 164). While the “front side” and “upper-lower direction” are not defined with respect to a particular component, Paccoud is applied to teach the “front side” with respect to the tow pylon assembly from which a wakeboarder would grasp the handle from the “front side,” and Paccoud is applied to teach the “upper-lower direction” with respect to the tow pylon assembly in a towing position.
Since the systems of Andrasko and Paccoud are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing a water vehicle with a tow system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the water vehicle of Andrasko, so as to further include a fixture which extends upward from the water vehicle body and to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow the towed target is fixed, a seat which is located in front of the fixture and on which a rider is seated, and a cover located behind the seat and covering at least a part of the fixture from a front side, wherein the fixture includes a fixed portion fixed to the water vehicle body, and a movable portion supported by the fixed portion so as to be slidable in an upper-lower direction, and the cover is connected to the movable portion, in light of Paccoud, with the predictable result of providing multiple positions where a passenger of the watercraft facing backward can hold the handle when the pylon is in a towing position while covering/protecting the upper end of the pylon (¶0065 of Paccoud).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 are allowed.
With respect to claim 5, the closest prior art of record, Page and Uggeri et al. (US 2023/0002022 A1), hereinafter Uggeri, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed water vehicle comprising:
a water vehicle body;
a control target mounted on the water vehicle body and controlled to operate the water vehicle body;
processing circuitry configured to acquire requested values used to operate the water vehicle body and generate, based on the requested values, command values to be output to the control target;
a fixture to which one end portion of an extending structure used to tow a towed target is fixed; and
a tow sensor that detects that the fixture is being attached to the water vehicle body or detects a posture or position of the fixture, wherein:
the processing circuitry switches a control mode between a towing mode in which the water vehicle tows the towed target and a non-towing mode in which the water vehicle does not tow the towed target, based on information detected by the tow sensor; and
when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates, based on the requested value, a second command value that is the command value different from a first command value that is the command value generated based on the requested value when the control mode is the non-towing mode.
Specifically, reasons for allowable subject matter have been provided in paragraphs 60-62 of the Office Action mailed 12/18/2025, with reference to Page and Uggeri.
With respect to claim 14, the closest prior art of record, Akuzawa et al. (US 2018/0292215 A1), hereinafter Akuzawa, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed water vehicle comprising:
a water vehicle body;
a control target mounted on the water vehicle body and controlled to operate the water vehicle body;
processing circuitry configured to acquire requested values used to operate the water vehicle body and generate, based on the requested values, command values to be output to the control target;
a position sensor that detects a geographical position of the water vehicle body; and
an informer, wherein:
the processing circuitry switches a control mode between a towing mode in which the water vehicle tows a towed target and a non-towing mode in which the water vehicle does not tow the towed target;
when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry generates, based on the requested value, a second command value that is the command value different from a first command value that is the command value generated based on the requested value when the control mode is the non-towing mode;
when the control mode is the towing mode, the processing circuitry determines based on the position detected by the position sensor whether or not the water vehicle body is located within a predetermined warning region that is set as a region unsuitable for towing or a region in which attention is necessary at the time of the towing;
when the processing circuitry determines that the water vehicle body is located within the warning region, the processing circuitry outputs predetermined warning information through the informer; and
when the control mode is the non-towing mode, the processing circuitry does not determine whether or not the water vehicle body is located within the warning region.
Specifically, reasons for allowable subject matter have been provided in paragraphs 63-64 of the Office Action mailed 12/18/2025, with reference to Akuzawa.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Volvo (“Tow mode for more enjoyable water sports,” August 12, 2009, Volvo, https://www.volvogroup.com/en/news-and-media/news/2009/aug/news-67502.html) teaches automatically controlling a boat to accelerate up to a preset rpm in a tow mode (see first paragraph), Wonders (“Towing made easy - by Mercury MerCruiser,” May 11, 2008 Sail-World, https://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Towing-made-easy-%E2%80%93-by-Mercury-MerCruiser/-44302) teaches Smart Tow which allows drivers to select ideal tow profiles, such that the acceleration and RPM overshoot remain smooth, consistent, and automatic (see second paragraph), Mercury Marine (“New MerCruiser Bravo Four S forward-facing drive with Smart Tow system delivers total control for tow sports,” August 24, 2020, Mercury Marine, https://www.mercurymarine.com/sp/en/about-us/news/new-mercruiser-bravofours-forwardfacing-drive-with-smart-tow-sys) teaches the Mercury VesselView touchscreen display, in which the driver can simply select the desired tow sports activity, and the Smart Tow system will display the appropriate controls to dial in the perfect launch acceleration, towing speed, and wake characteristics (see fourth paragraph), and Hystad (US 2022/0264855 A1) teaches the control of a vessel’s engine based on sensed data from the towed object (see ¶0045).
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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights