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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 11/28/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) IKEGAYA, JP 2021180207, and previously disclosed prior art reference(s) RIVERS, KISHIMOTO and SCHIBLI. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
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 1-2, 8-9, 10-12, and 18-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RIVERS et al., US 20250065998, herein further known as Rivers, in view of KISHIMOTO et al., US 20160229511, herein further known as Kishimoto, further in view of IKEGAYA, JP 2021180207 herein further known as Ikegaya.
Regarding claim 1, Rivers discloses a system for controlling a watercraft (¶¶ [0048], [0063], see also FIG. 1), the system comprising: a marine propulsion device (¶¶ [0079]); an input to output an operating signal indicating a first mode (¶¶ [0120], [0253], [0260], hold position (i.e. maintained in a target spot)) selected in accordance with an operation thereof (¶¶ [0018-0021]); and a controller configured or programmed to receive the operating signal (¶¶ [0018-0028]), and control the marine propulsion device (¶¶ [0199-0200]) such that the watercraft is maintained in a target spot in the first mode (¶¶ [0120], [0253], [0260], hold position, (i.e. maintained in a target spot)); wherein when it is intended to move the watercraft to the target spot (¶¶ [0241], [0253], [0258], dock/docking vessel) from a first spot remote from the target spot in the first mode (¶¶ [0120], [0253], [0260]), the controller is configured or programmed to select marine propulsion device and controlled depending on a position of the target spot with respect to the first spot so as to control the marine propulsion device such that the watercraft is moved from the first spot to the target spot (¶¶ [0120], [0241], [0253], [0258], [0260]).
However, Rivers does not explicitly state select one of a bow mode or a stern mode in which the selected one of the bow mode or the stern mode; and the bow mode orients a bow of the watercraft so that the bow faces toward the target spot, and the stern mode orients a stern of the watercraft so that the stern faces toward the target spot.
Kishimoto teaches select one of a bow mode or a stern mode in which the selected one of the bow mode or the stern mode; and the bow mode orients a bow of the watercraft and the stern mode orients a stern of the watercraft (¶¶ [0114-0115], [0120-0121]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Rivers the select one of a bow mode or a stern mode in which the selected one of the bow mode or the stern mode; and the bow mode orients a bow of the watercraft and the stern mode orients a stern of the watercraft as taught by Kishimoto. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rivers, and Kishimoto.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Kishimoto for the reasons stated in Kishimoto paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method of controlling a vehicle (e.g. a boat), which can maintain a posture of the vehicle more stably over a disturbance.
Furthermore, Ikegaya teaches the bow mode orients a bow of the watercraft so that the bow faces toward the target spot, and the stern mode orients a stern of the watercraft so that the stern faces toward the target spot (paragraph [0096], claim 1, see also Abstract, automated ship maneuvering for maintaining a hull at a target point by turning round and directing the bow or the stern of the hull).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Rivers the bow mode orients a bow of the watercraft so that the bow faces toward the target spot, and the stern mode orients a stern of the watercraft so that the stern faces toward the target spot as taught by Ikegaya.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Ikegaya for the reasons stated in Ikegaya more robust system and method to improve the position holding accuracy in the control of autopilot.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rivers, Kishimoto, and Ikegaya, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Rivers discloses further controller is configured or programmed to control (¶¶ [0047-0049]) depending on at least either a wind direction (¶¶ [0048], [0081], [0130]) or a difference in an angle between a compass direction (¶ [0068]) from the first spot to the target spot and a compass direction of the watercraft located in the first spot (¶¶ [0120], [0241], [0253], [0258], [0260]).
However, Rivers does not explicitly state select the bow mode or the stern mode
Kishimoto teaches select the bow mode or the stern mode (¶¶ [0114-0115], [0120-0121]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Rivers the select one of a bow mode or a stern mode as taught by Kishimoto. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rivers, and Kishimoto.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Kishimoto for the reasons stated in Kishimoto paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method of controlling a vehicle (e.g. a boat), which can maintain a posture of the vehicle more stably over a disturbance.
In addition, Kishimoto teaches controller is configured or programmed to control (¶ [0012] FIGS. 1A and 1B) depending on a wind direction (¶¶ [0002], [0005], [0135-0138]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Rivers the controller is configured or programmed to control depending on a wind direction as taught by Kishimoto. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rivers, and Kishimoto.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Kishimoto for the reasons stated in Kishimoto paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method of controlling a vehicle (e.g. a boat), which can maintain a posture of the vehicle more stably over a disturbance.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rivers, Kishimoto, and Ikegaya, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Rivers discloses further control the marine propulsion device in the first mode such that the watercraft is maintained in a position thereof (¶¶ [0120], [0253], [0260], hold position (i.e. maintained in a target spot)) located at a point in time when the operating signal indicating the first mode was received by the controller (¶ [0127], real time docking).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rivers, Kishimoto, and Ikegaya, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Rivers does not explicitly state determine whether or not the watercraft is remote from the target spot by a predetermined distance or more in the first mode; and when the watercraft is remote from the target spot by the predetermined distance or more in the first mode, the controller is configured or programmed to select one of the bow mode or the stern mode in which the marine propulsion device is controlled so as to control the marine propulsion device such that the watercraft is moved from the first spot to the target spot in the selected one of the bow mode or the stern mode.
Kishimoto teaches determine whether or not the watercraft is remote from the target spot by a predetermined distance or more in the first mode; and when the watercraft is remote from the target spot by the predetermined distance or more in the first mode, the controller is configured or programmed to select one of the bow mode or the stern mode in which the marine propulsion device is controlled so as to control the marine propulsion device such that the watercraft is moved from the first spot to the target spot in the selected one of the bow mode or the stern mode (¶¶ [0114-0115]) (¶¶ [0111-0112], see also FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Rivers determine whether or not the watercraft is remote from the target spot by a predetermined distance or more in the first mode; and when the watercraft is remote from the target spot by the predetermined distance or more in the first mode, the controller is configured or programmed to select one of the bow mode or the stern mode in which the marine propulsion device is controlled so as to control the marine propulsion device such that the watercraft is moved from the first spot to the target spot in the selected one of the bow mode or the stern mode as taught by Kishimoto. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rivers, and Kishimoto.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Kishimoto for the reasons stated in Kishimoto paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method of controlling a vehicle (e.g. a boat), which can maintain a posture of the vehicle more stably over a disturbance.
Regarding claim 10, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 1. The system taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected under the same rationale as the limitations of claims 1.
Furthermore, Rivers discloses the compass direction keeping mode keeps constant a compass direction of the watercraft (¶¶ [0050-0051]).
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 1. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 2. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 8. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 9. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claims 1. The system taught/disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected under the same rationale as the limitations of claims 1.
Furthermore, Rivers discloses the compass direction keeping mode keeps constant a compass direction of the watercraft (¶¶ [0050-0051]).
Claims 3-4, and 13-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rivers, Kishimoto, and Ikegaya, in view of SCHIBLI, US 20190106190, herein further known as Schibli.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rivers, Kishimoto, and Ikegaya, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Rivers discloses controller is configured or programmed(¶¶ [0047-0049]) and watercraft is maintained in the target spot (¶¶ [0120], [0253], [0260] and is maintained in the target spot and with a compass direction thereof kept constant (¶¶ [0050-0051]).
However, Rivers does not explicitly state to determine whether or not a speed of the watercraft is a predetermined water speed or less in the first mode; when the speed of the watercraft is the predetermined water speed or less in the first mode, the controller is configured or programmed to switch the first mode into a second mode so as to control the marine propulsion device in the second mode; and the controller is configured or programmed to control the marine propulsion device in the second mode.
Kishimoto teaches controller is configured or programmed (¶ [0012] FIGS. 1A and 1B) to determine whether or not a speed of the watercraft is a predetermined speed or less in the first mode (¶¶ [0114-0115]); when the speed of the watercraft is the predetermined speed or less in the first mode (¶¶ [0114-0115]), the controller is configured or programmed (¶ [0012] FIGS. 1A and 1B) to switch the first mode into a second mode so as to control the marine propulsion device in the second mode (¶¶ [0111-0112], see also FIG. 15); and the controller is configured or programmed (¶ [0012] FIGS. 1A and 1B) to control the marine propulsion device in the second mode (¶¶ [0111-0112], see also FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Rivers the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether or not a speed of the watercraft is a predetermined speed or less in the first mode; when the speed of the watercraft is the predetermined speed or less in the first mode, the controller is configured or programmed to switch the first mode into a second mode so as to control the marine propulsion device in the second mode; and the controller is configured or programmed to control the marine propulsion device in the second mode as taught by Kishimoto. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rivers, and Kishimoto.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Kishimoto for the reasons stated in Kishimoto paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method of controlling a vehicle (e.g. a boat), which can maintain a posture of the vehicle more stably over a disturbance.
Furthermore, Schibli teaches water speed of the watercraft (¶ [0108]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Rivers the water speed of the watercraft as taught by Schibli. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rivers, and Schibli.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Schibli for the reasons stated in Schibli paragraph [0006], a more robust watercraft system to improve user-friendliness and user-experience, reduce power consumption, reduce costs, simplify operability, reduce weight and increase environmental sustainability.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rivers, Kishimoto, Ikegaya, and Schibli, disclose all elements of claim 3 above.
Rivers discloses determine whether or not the watercraft is remote from the target spot by a predetermined distance or more and when the watercraft is remote from the target spot by the predetermined distance or more (¶¶ [0099], [0306-0307]).
However, Rivers does not explicitly state switching the first mode to the second mode; and when the watercraft is remote from the target spot, the controller is configured or programmed to switch the second mode to the first mode so as to control the marine propulsion device in the first mode.
Kishimoto teaches switching the first mode to the second mode; and when the watercraft is remote from the target spot, the controller is configured or programmed to switch the second mode to the first mode so as to control the marine propulsion device in the first mode (¶¶ [0114-0115]) (¶¶ [0111-0112], see also FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate in to Rivers switching the first mode to the second mode; and when the watercraft is remote from the target spot, the controller is configured or programmed to switch the second mode to the first mode so as to control the marine propulsion device in the first mode as taught by Kishimoto. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Rivers, and Kishimoto.
One would be motivated to modify Rivers in view of Kishimoto for the reasons stated in Kishimoto paragraph [0007], a more robust system and method of controlling a vehicle (e.g. a boat), which can maintain a posture of the vehicle more stably over a disturbance.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 3. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in claim 4. The methods taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, and 15-17, are 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666