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 .
Please note that the examiner of record has changed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/2/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn, however new grounds is presented below.
A new non-final rejection with new prior art has been issued, therefore applicant’s arguments are moot.
Specification Objections
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Applicant is reminded that the Abstract is required to clearly and concisely surmise applicants claimed subject matter in under 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 ,10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites “selectively execute the first jet stream direction control mode and the second jet stream direction control mode”. It is unclear if selectively execute means to execute the first jet stream direction control mode or the second jet stream direction control mode, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean “selectively execute the first jet stream direction control mode or the second jet stream direction control mode”.
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites “selectively execute the third jet stream direction control mode and the fourth jet stream direction control mode”. It is unclear if selectively execute means to execute the third jet stream direction control mode or the fourth jet stream direction control mode, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean “selectively execute the third jet stream direction control mode or the fourth jet stream direction control mode”.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites “selectively execute the first jet stream force control mode and the second jet stream force control mode”. It is unclear if selectively execute means to execute the first jet stream control mode or the second jet stream control mode, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean “selectively execute the first jet stream force control mode or the second jet stream force control mode”.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites “selectively execute the third jet stream force control mode and the fourth jet stream force control mode”. It is unclear if selectively execute means to execute the third jet stream control mode or the fourth jet stream control mode, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean “selectively execute the third jet stream force control mode or the fourth jet stream force control mode”.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites “selectively execute the first combined control mode and the second combined control mode”. It is unclear if selectively execute means to execute the first combined control mode or the second combined control mode, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean “selectively execute the first combined control mode or the second combined control mode”.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites “selectively execute the third combined control mode and the fourth combined control mode”. It is unclear if selectively execute means to execute the third combined control mode or the fourth combined control mode, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean “selectively execute the third combined control mode or the fourth combined control mode”.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishihata (JP 2008254641 A, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 1
Kishihata teaches:
A water jet propulsion boat comprising (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3, Page 14 Paragraph 2) “the hull using a power trim motor (PTT motor) 301 as a power source and an outboard motor body (not shown) having an engine and a propeller driven by the engine”
a hull; a drive source in the hull (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3, Page 14 Paragraph 2) “the hull using a power trim motor (PTT motor) 301 as a power source and an outboard motor body (not shown) having an engine and a propeller driven by the engine”
a jet propulsion mechanism to generate a propulsive force for the hull by ejecting a jet of water with a driving force from the driving source (Kishihata - Page 2 Paragraph 3, Page 23 Paragraph 4 – Page 24 Paragraph 1) “thrust of the outboard motor is maintained in a substantially horizontal direction”
a jet stream changer to change at least one of a jet stream direction or a jet stream force of the jet of water from the jet propulsion mechanism (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3, Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “The outboard motor 3 adjusts the inclination angle of the outboard motor body with respect to the hull using a power trim motor (PTT motor)”
A tilt detector to detect a tilt angle of the hull and output a detection signal according to the tilt angle of the hull (Kishihata - Page 14 Paragraph 4 – Page 15 Paragraph 1) “an inclination angle sensor for detecting the pitch angle of the hull is attached to the hull”
a controller configured or programmed to execute (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3 – Page 13 Paragraph 4) “a power trim controller (hereinafter referred to as a PTT controller) 304 for controlling the power trim device 303”
an angle difference calculation to calculate an angle difference between the tilt angle of the hull and a target angle of the hull for a bow-up attitude based on the detection signal from the tilt detector (Kishihata - Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “the deviation between the average pitch angle value θbavg and the target pitch angle value”; It is further obvious that the controller calculates this deviation because it has all the necessary data and this value is used to control the trim angle of the motor.
and a feedback process to reduce the angle difference by changing at least one of the jet stream direction or the jet stream force by the jet stream changer (Kishihata - Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “controls the PTT motor of the power trim device in accordance with the deviation between the average pitch angle value θbavg and the target pitch angle value, thereby converging the average pitch angle value θbavg to the target value. To control the trim angle θt”
Claim 4
Kishihata teaches:
A water jet propulsion boat comprising: a hull; a drive source in the hull (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3, Page 14 Paragraph 2) “the hull using a power trim motor (PTT motor) 301 as a power source and an outboard motor body (not shown) having an engine and a propeller driven by the engine”
a jet propulsion mechanism to generate a propulsive force for the hull by ejecting a jet of water with a driving force from the driving source (Kishihata - Page 2 Paragraph 3, Page 23 Paragraph 4 – Page 24 Paragraph 1) “thrust of the outboard motor is maintained in a substantially horizontal direction”
a jet stream changer to change at least one of a jet stream direction or a jet stream force of the jet of water from the jet propulsion mechanism (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3, Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “The outboard motor 3 adjusts the inclination angle of the outboard motor body with respect to the hull using a power trim motor (PTT motor)”
a tilt detector to output a detection signal according to a tilt angle of the hull (Kishihata - Page 14 Paragraph 4 – Page 15 Paragraph 1) “an inclination angle sensor for detecting the pitch angle of the hull is attached to the hull”
and a controller configured or programmed to execute (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3 – Page 13 Paragraph 4) “a power trim controller (hereinafter referred to as a PTT controller) 304 for controlling the power trim device 303”
an angle difference calculation to calculate an angle difference between the tilt angle of the hull and a target angle of the hull for a bow-up attitude based on the detection signal from the tilt detector (Kishihata - Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “the deviation between the average pitch angle value θbavg and the target pitch angle value”; It is further obvious that the controller calculates this deviation because it has all the necessary data and this value is used to control the trim angle of the motor.
and a feedback process to reduce the angle difference by changing at least one of the jet stream direction or the jet stream force by the jet stream changer (Kishihata - Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “controls the PTT motor of the power trim device in accordance with the deviation between the average pitch angle value θbavg and the target pitch angle value, thereby converging the average pitch angle value θbavg to the target value. To control the trim angle θt”
wherein the jet stream changer includes a direction changer to change the jet stream direction of the jet of water from the jet propulsion mechanism (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3, Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “The outboard motor 3 adjusts the inclination angle of the outboard motor body with respect to the hull using a power trim motor (PTT motor)”
and the controller is configured or programmed to execute (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3 – Page 13 Paragraph 4) “a power trim controller (hereinafter referred to as a PTT controller) 304 for controlling the power trim device 303”
in the feedback process, a jet stream direction control mode to change the jet stream direction with the direction changer to reduce the angle difference (Kishihata - Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “controls the PTT motor of the power trim device in accordance with the deviation between the average pitch angle value θbavg and the target pitch angle value, thereby converging the average pitch angle value θbavg to the target value. To control the trim angle θt”
Claim 18
Kishihata teaches:
A method of maintaining a bow-up attitude of a water jet propulsion boat including a hull and a jet propulsion mechanism to generate a propulsive force of the hull by ejecting a jet of water, the method comprising (Kishihata – Abstract) “a vessel which can perform control for converging a pitch angle of a hull to a target value”
detecting a tilt angle of the hull and outputting a detection signal according to the tilt angle of the hull (Kishihata - Page 14 Paragraph 4 – Page 15 Paragraph 1) “an inclination angle sensor for detecting the pitch angle of the hull is attached to the hull”
calculating an angle difference between the tilt angle of the hull in an upper-lower direction and a target angle of the hull in the bow-up attitude (Kishihata - Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “the deviation between the average pitch angle value θbavg and the target pitch angle value”; It is further obvious that the controller calculates this deviation because it has all the necessary data and this value is used to control the trim angle of the motor.
and reducing the angle difference in a feedback process by changing at least one of a jet stream direction or a jet stream force of the jet of water from the jet propulsion mechanism (Kishihata - Page 22 Paragraph 1, Page 26 Paragraph 4) “controls the PTT motor of the power trim device in accordance with the deviation between the average pitch angle value θbavg and the target pitch angle value, thereby converging the average pitch angle value θbavg to the target value. To control the trim angle θt”
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 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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishihata in view of Hiroshi (JP H06321186 A).
Claim 2
Kishihata teaches:
the controller is configured or programmed to execute (Kishihata - Page 13 Paragraph 3 – Page 13 Paragraph 4) “a power trim controller (hereinafter referred to as a PTT controller) 304 for controlling the power trim device 303”
Kishihata does not teach:
Calculating the angular velocity of the tilt angle of the hull and changing the jet stream direction or force based on the angular velocity.
However, Hiroshi teaches:
an angular velocity calculation to calculate an angular velocity of the tilt angle of the hull based on the detection signal from the tilt detector (Hiroshi - Page 7 Paragraph 8 – Page 8 Paragraph 6) “various sensors 47 such as a tilt sensor and an acceleration sensor detect the tilt amount and tilt speed of the water boat 20”
and in the feedback process, at least one of the jet stream direction or the jet stream force is changed by the jet stream changer according to the angular velocity of the tilt angle (Hiroshi - Page 7 Paragraph 8 – Page 8 Paragraph 6) “the jet jet is deflected and bent obliquely upward”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kishihata with calculating the angular velocity of the tilt angle of the hull and changing the jet stream direction or force based on the angular velocity of Hiroshi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kishihata and Hiroshi both describe a watercraft deflecting a jet stream. One would have been motivated to combine as this restores the attitude of the watercraft (Hiroshi – Page 8 Paragraph 3).
Claim 19
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 2. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishihata in view of Ito (US 20050273224 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 5
Kishihata teaches:
and the jet stream direction control mode includes a first jet stream direction control mode to reduce the angle difference while allowing a change in the jet stream force according to the operation by the steering device (Kishihata - Page 14 Paragraph 3 – Page 15 Paragraph 1) “In this cruise mode, the rotational speed of the engine is controlled so as to sail at a speed corresponding to the throttle position. In the cruise mode, trim automatic control described later is performed”
Kishihata does not teach:
A steering device and changing a jet stream force by operating the steering device.
However, Ito teaches:
a steering device on the hull (Ito - Paragraphs 0024, 0066) “A steering device 12 can be disposed generally in about the center of the watercraft 10”
Wherein the jet stream changer is operable to change the jet stream force according to an operation by the steering device to change the jet stream force (Ito - Paragraphs 0066) “the power output request device can be in the form of a lever 55 disposed adjacent to a grip 12a of the steering assembly”
By the steering device (Ito - Paragraphs 0024, 0066) “A steering device 12 can be disposed generally in about the center of the watercraft 10”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kishihata with a steering device and changing a jet stream force by operating the steering device of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Kishihata and Ito both describe a watercraft with a propulsion system. One would have been motivated to combine as this enables the watercraft to steer and maneuver – (Ito – Paragraph 0061).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishihata in view of Leason (US 20210323637 A1).
Claim 17
Kishihata teaches:
based on the detection signal from the tilt detector (Kishihata - Page 14 Paragraph 4 – Page 15 Paragraph 1) “an inclination angle sensor for detecting the pitch angle of the hull is attached to the hull”
Kishihata does not teach:
A steering device including a display, and causing the display to display tilt-related information of the hull.
However, Leason teaches:
a steering device on the hull and including a display (Leason - Paragraph 0041, Fig. 5) “a steering system 135 which can be used with watercraft 100, including a left throttle 137, right throttle 138, and screen 145”
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to cause the display to display tilt- related information according to the tilt angle of the hull (Leason - Paragraph 0041, Fig. 5) “ display information regarding watercraft 100, such as the speed, tilt angle of hydrofoils 120a,b, 120, foiling or hulling mode of the watercraft, current level of pitch control”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Kishihata with a steering device including a display, and causing the display to display tilt-related information of the hull of Leason with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Kishihata and Leason describe sensing and controlling an attitude of a watercraft. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows the user to see watercraft settings (Leason – Paragraph 0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 16, and 20 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.
Claims 6-7, 10, 11, and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 12-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 recites:
“The water jet propulsion boat according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to increase, in the feedback process, a rate of change of at least one of the jet stream direction or the jet stream force by the jet stream changer as the angular velocity of the tilt angle increases.”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Hiroshi (JP H06321186 A) teaches changing the jet stream force or direction based on the angular velocity of the tilt angle.
However, Hiroshi does not teach increasing the rate of change of the jet stream direction or jet stream force based on an increase in the angular velocity of the tilt angle.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 3 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 3 is objected to.
Claim 20 is objected to because this claims recite similar allowable subject matter found in claim 3.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 recites (emphasis added):
“The water jet propulsion boat according to claim 5, wherein the jet stream direction control mode further includes a second jet stream direction control mode to reduce the angle difference while prohibiting the change of the jet stream force according to the operation by the steering device; and
the controller is configured or programmed to selectively execute the first jet stream direction control mode and the second jet stream direction control mode in the feedback process.”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Kishihata teaches reducing the angle difference by changing a direction of the jet stream.
However, Kishihata does not teach reducing the angle difference by prohibiting the change of the jet stream force.
Kamio (US 20050255760 A1) teaches a jet stream force control mode to change the jet stream force by the jet stream force changer when the inclination angle of the hull is above or below a certain angle.
However, Kamio does not describe prohibiting the change of the jet stream force.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 6 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 6 recites allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 recites (emphasis added):
“The water jet propulsion boat according to claim 4, further comprising:
a steering device on the hull; wherein the direction changer is operable to change the jet stream direction according to an operation by the steering device to change the jet stream direction;
the jet stream direction control mode includes a third jet stream direction control mode to reduce the angle difference while allowing a change in the jet stream direction according to the operation by the steering device, and a fourth jet stream direction control mode to reduce the angle difference while prohibiting a change in the jet stream direction according to the operation by the steering device; and
the controller is configured or programmed to selectively execute the third jet stream direction control mode and the fourth jet stream direction control mode in the feedback process.”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Kishihata teaches reducing the angle difference by changing the jet stream direction.
However, Kishihata does not teach reducing the angle difference by prohibiting a change in the jet stream direction.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 7 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 7 recites allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8 recites (emphasis added):
“The water jet propulsion boat according to claim 1, wherein
the jet stream changer includes a jet stream force changer to change the jet stream force of the jet of water from the jet propulsion mechanism; and
the controller is configured or programmed to executes in the feedback process, a jet stream force control mode to change the jet stream force by the jet stream force changer to reduce the angle difference”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Kishihata (JP 2008254641 A) teaches a feedback process based on changing the jet stream direction.
However, Kishihata does not teach a feedback process of changing the jet stream force.
Kamio (US 20050255760 A1) teaches a jet stream force control mode to change the jet stream force by the jet stream force changer when the inclination angle of the hull is above or below a certain angle.
However, Kamio does not describe the feedback process of reducing the angle difference to achieve a target angle.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 8 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 8 is objected to.
Claims 9 and 12 are allowed because these claims recite similar allowable subject matter found in claim 8.
Claim 11 recites allowable subject matter because these claims recite similar allowable subject matter found in claim 8.
Claims 10 and 14-15 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from one of claims 9 and 12.
Claim 13 is allowed based upon its dependency from claim 12.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 recites (emphasis added):
“The water jet propulsion boat according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to start the feedback process based on the detection signal from the tilt detector if the tilt angle of the hull reaches a trigger angle smaller than the target angle”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Kishihata teaches a trim down process when the inclination angle exceeds a limit.
However, Kishihata does not teach start the feedback process if the tilt angle of the hull reaches a trigger angle is smaller than the target angle.
Kamio (US 20050255760 A1) teaches a jet stream force control mode to change the jet stream force by the jet stream force changer when the inclination angle of the hull is above or below a certain angle.
However, Kamio does not describe the starting the feedback process of reducing the angle difference for achieving a target angle.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 16 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 16 is objected to.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights