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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 28, 2026 has been entered.
An amendment was filed by the applicant on March 26, 2026.
Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Timothy (US 12,172,736).
Timothy discloses the same system and method for stabilizing a boat as claimed, as shown in Figures 1-15, which is comprised of a boat, defined as Part #50, with a navigation assembly in the form of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), defined as Part #232, at least one stabilization mechanism or control surface, defined as Part #110, in the form of a pair of fin stabilizers, defined as Parts #110a-b, as shown in Figure 9, for stabilizing said boat, said at least one stabilization mechanism or control surface being configured to apply a corrective stabilization force onto said boat in order to cause said boat to maintain a relative orientation with a body of water, as shown in Figures 9-11, a controller, defined as Part #230, with a processor, defined as Part #102, and memory, defined as Part #240, having computer executable instructions that when executed cause said processor to follow the steps of receiving data from said navigation assembly, as shown in Figure 5, where said data can indicate that said boat is making a turn or will make a turn, determining, based on said data, an adjustment for said at least one stabilization mechanism or control surface to apply during said turn by said boat, where said adjustment can reduce a corrective stabilization force that is being applied by said at least one stabilization mechanism or control surface in order to aid or assist in making said turn, as described in lines 36-60 of column 20, and causing said determined adjustment to be applied to said at least one stabilization mechanism or control surface with an actuator, defined as Part #104, before or as said turn begins, as shown in Figure 5. Said navigation assembly is configured to allow said boat to follow a predetermined navigation route and to receive data indicating that said boat will make a turn, as shown in Figure 11. Said navigation assembly is further comprised of a steering wheel that is operated by a driver, defined as Part #460, for steering said boat, as shown in Figure 11. Said processor is configured to determine corrective stabilization force adjustments for each of said pair of fin stabilizers proportionately, and said processor adjusts each of said pair of fin stabilizers within selected parameters that are based on detected circumstances of a turn, as shown in Figure 9, which include weather conditions or waves, as shown in Figure 11.
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.
Claims 2-3, 8-9 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Timothy in view of Moore (US 8,216,007).
Timothy, as set forth above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the use of a navigation assembly with an autopilot, sensors to determine a tilt value or trim angle, and a processor with learning logic in memory to predict movement of a boat during operation.
Moore discloses a system for stabilizing a watercraft, as shown in Figures 1A-10, which is comprised of a watercraft, defined as Part #100, with a hull, defined as Part #105, a steering and instrument panel, defined as Part #120, with a steering wheel, defined as Part #118, and a throttle control, defined as Part #125, which form a navigation assembly for said watercraft, and a controller, defined as Part #140, with a processor and memory. Said controller is coupled with sensors, defined as Part #600, where the tilt of a sensor is based upon the trim angle of the watercraft, as shown in Figures 6A-D. A pair of stabilization mechanisms or trim tabs, each defined as Part #230, are provided on a stern of said watercraft, as shown in Figure 2, and are configured to apply a corrective stabilization force onto said watercraft within approximately two seconds after a turn to allow said watercraft to maintain a desired relative orientation while operating in a body of water. Another controller, defined as Part #301, utilizes the trim angle indicated by a sensor, defined as Part #302, to determine an adjustment for leveling said watercraft, as shown in Figure 3. An autopilot control in the form of a toggle switch, defined as Part #440, is configured to change the control of a control knob, defined as Part #422, from manual to automatic operation. When in automatic operation, said trim tabs are automatically adjusted up or down based on control logic that determines the position of said trim tabs based on sensor readings, as described in lines 31-41 of column 10. An embodiment of a control system for said watercraft, defined as Part #900, as shown in Figure 9, is comprised of a sensor, defined as Part #910, a speed indicator, defined as Part #915, a controller, defined as Part #920, with a processor and memory, a sensor tilt control, defined as Part #960, and a trim adjustment controller, defined as Part #965, as described in lines 23-35 of column 15. Said controller (920) is further comprised of a sensor interpreter, defined as Part #925, a trim adjustment interpreter, defined as Part #930, and a sensor tilt determiner, defined as Part #935. Said sensor interpreter determines a trim angle based on a sensor signal from sensor (910), and then uses computer program instructions in the form of sensor logic, defined as Part #927, to select one or more sensor signals by comparing said sensor signals to each other or to a reference signal. Said trim adjustment determiner then determines adjustments to communicate to a driver interface, defined as Part #940, by a control signal that are based on the trim angle of said watercraft as determined by said sensor interpreter. Said driver interface then applies voltage to an electric motor of said trim adjustment controller to increase or decrease an angle of said trim tabs, as described in lines 38-49 of column 16. Said trim adjustment determiner is further comprised of computer program instructions in the form of learning logic, defined as Part #932, to monitor the effects of said adjustments to the trim adjuster on the trim angle that is based upon said control signal, as described in lines 15-26 of column 16, in order to predict movement of said watercraft during operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize a watercraft with a navigation assembly having an autopilot, sensors to determine a tilt value or trim angle, and a processor with learning logic in memory to predict movement of said watercraft during operation, in combination with the system for stabilizing a boat as disclosed by Timothy for the purpose of providing a system for stabilizing a watercraft where a steering controller is configured to determine an adjustment to at least one stabilization mechanism in order to cause an adjusted stabilization force that is applied by said at least one stabilization mechanism to aid or assist in making a turn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-20 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 LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 571-272-4530. 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.
May 6, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights