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 .
This is a final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below
The examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
In light of recent amendments and applicant' s arguments, see Remarks pg.7, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 103 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pugh Jason et al. (US10829190B1), hereinafter referred to as Pugh in view of Gonring Steven et al. (US7416456B1), hereinafter referred to as Steven.
Regarding claim 1, Jason discloses a dynamic active control system for a marine vessel, the system (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 23-25 which discloses a dynamic active control system for a marine vessel) comprising:
a software module (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 21-26, which discloses the software installed in a commutation controller)
a plurality of sensors and a plurality of water engagement devices (see at least Jason, col.7, lines 49-54, col.10, lines 41-44, which discloses various sensors disposed throughout the system; col.4. lines 18-22, col.9, lines 6-11, Fig.1 discloses water engagement devices in the disclosure such as trim tabs, deflectors, interceptors, and/but not limited to propulsion devices)
wherein each of the water engagement devices includes an actuator and a blade connected to the actuator and is configured to mount adjacent a transom of the marine vessel (see at least Jason, Fig.1, col.4. lines 18-22, col.9, lines 6-11 which discloses a water engagement device installed near the back surface of the boat, meaning that it is configured to mount adjacent a transom of the marine vessel; col.9, lines 10-11 discloses the blade (propeller); Fig.4, Item 116, “trim actuator” discloses the actuator)
wherein the software module is communicatively and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors and to each water engagement device to iteratively command activation of the actuator and deployment of the blade in response thereto based on data received from the plurality of sensors and a desired setting (see at least Jason, Fig.4 which discloses the software module (control module, storage system, and processor) connected to a plurality of sensors (e.g. engine speed and gear state sensors) to command the actuation motor and blade in response to the data received from the plurality of sensors (trim rate of change) and a desired setting (communicate desired trim rate of change to motor controller); Fig.7 discloses the process described) Jason is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Steven teaches: wherein the software module includes safe blade deploy limit control strategy that limits at least one of a depth of deployment of one or more of the water engagement devices or a speed of deployment of the one or more of the water engagement devices to a pre-determined threshold as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an acceleration or deceleration of the marine vessel (see at least Steven, Fig.7; pg.9, col.2, lines 54-64, pg.11, col.5, lines 49-57, col.6, lines 53-66, which discloses wherein the safe blade deploy limit control strategy limits a speed of deployment of the one or more water engagement devices to a predetermined threshold of speed magnitude related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an event of acceleration, or deceleration; pg.12, col.7, lines 12-34)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jason to include wherein the software module includes safe blade deploy limit control strategy that
limits a speed of deployment of the one or more of the water engagement devices to a pre-determined threshold as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an acceleration or deceleration of the marine vessel as taught by Steven. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base device of Jason that further maintains an appropriate angle and depth of deployment of the vessel on the water as it achieves a planning speed and increases its velocity (accelerates) over the water.
Regarding claim 2, Jason discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the pre-determined threshold is defined as a bias of the one or more of the water engagement devices (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel); col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices)
Regarding claim 3, Jason discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the software module comprises at least one embedded microprocessor and the control strategy implemented by a safe blade deployment limit control strategy comprises at least one set of program instructions and wherein the at least one embedded microprocessor is further configured to run the at least one set of program instructions in order for the software module to iteratively read and interpret data associated with the operation of the marine vessel (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel); col.9, lines 26-29 which discloses an embedded microprocessor and control strategy; col.5, lines 23-29 discloses an example of utilizing a strategy of safe blade deployment through a control algorithm of the trim control module; Fig.4 and 6)
Regarding claim 4, Jason discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the bias is a minimum bias associated with a change in speed of the marine vessel (see at least Jason col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel, this includes a minimum bias associated with a change in speed of the marine vessel; col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices)
Regarding claim 5, Jason discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the safe blade deployment limit control strategy is configured to iteratively set the bias of the at least one or more of the water engagement devices within a certain pre-determined range of values as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to the speed of the marine vessel (see at least Jason col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel, this includes a minimum bias associated with a change in speed of the marine vessel; col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices)
Regarding claim 6, Jason discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the set bias is a deployment bias and wherein the deployment bias is static until the speed of the marine vessel reaches a certain pre-determined limit (see at least Jason, col.12, lines 6-32 which discloses an instance wherein the set bias is a deployment bias (change in velocity of marine vessel) and wherein the deployment bias is static until the speed of the marine vessel reaches a pre-determined (planned) limit)
Regarding claim 7, Jason discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the speed of the marine vessel at the certain pre-determined limit is 5 miles/hour (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel); col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices; col.13, lines 25-30)
Regarding claim 8, Jason discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the safe blade deployment limit control strategy is further configured to automatically identify and prevent triggering an increase in control authority or operator feedback in response to a change of the speed of the marine vessel (see at least Jason, col.11, lines 30-51; col.12, lines 21-30, 33-41, col.13, lines 8-15, which discloses an auto-trim mode where the control algorithm automatically identifies and prevents triggering an increase in control authority or operator feedback in response to the change of the vessel speed)
Regarding claim 9, Jason discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the data comprises information extracted from a dataset of a two-dimensional marine vessel acceleration/deceleration and blade deployment curve plot embedded within the at least one set of program instructions of the safe blade deployment limit control strategy (see at least Jason, Fig.5-6, col.13 lines 45-58 discloses information extracted from a dataset of a curve plot containing factors such as acceleration (rate of change of velocity in Fig,5), velocity, trim rate of change embedded within the control algorithm; col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel, this includes a minimum bias associated with a change in speed of the marine vessel)
Regarding claim 10, Jason discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the safe blade deployment limit control strategy comprises: is a closed loop control system configured and enabled to continuously read, measure and interpret the data and limit the bias of the at least one pair of the water engagement devices at various speeds during operation of the marine vessel (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel, this includes a minimum bias associated with a change in speed of the marine vessel); col.14, lines 49-55 discloses the control loop system)
Regarding claim 11, Jason discloses a method of dynamic active control of a marine vessel (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 23-25), the method comprising:
mounting a plurality of water engagement devices adjacent a transom of the marine vessel, wherein each of the water engagement devices includes an actuator and a blade connected to the actuator (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 37-40, col.7, lines 49-54, col.10, lines 41-44, which discloses various sensors disposed throughout the system; col.4. lines 18-22, col.9, lines 6-11, Fig.1 discloses water engagement devices in the disclosure such as trim tabs, deflectors, interceptors, and/but not limited to propulsion devices)
connecting a software module to (1) a plurality of sensors disposed within the marine vessel and (2) each of the water engagement devices wherein the software module comprises an embedded microprocessor-based control system and (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 21-26, which discloses the software installed in a commutation controller; col.9, lines 26-29 which discloses an embedded microprocessor and control strategy; col.7, lines 49-54, col.10, lines 41-44, which discloses various sensors disposed throughout the system; col.4. lines 18-22, col.9, lines 6-11, Fig.1 discloses water engagement devices in the disclosure such as trim tabs, deflectors, interceptors, and/but not limited to propulsion devices, this means connecting a software module having an embedded microprocessor-based control system to (1) a plurality of sensors and (2) each of the water engagement devices)
wherein the plurality of sensors comprises at least one inertial sensor (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 33-41; col.6, lines 37-40 discloses sensors that determine inertial measurement of position along multiple axis and motion of the marine vessel)
commanding activation of the actuator and deployment of the blade in response thereto based on data received from the plurality of sensors and a desired setting (see at least Jason, Fig.4 which discloses the software module (control module, storage system, and processor) connected to a plurality of sensors (e.g. engine speed and gear state sensors) to command the actuation motor and blade in response to the data received from the plurality of sensors (trim rate of change) and a desired setting (communicate desired trim rate of change to motor controller); Fig.7 discloses the process described, this means commanding activation of the actuator and deployment of the blade in response thereto based on data received from the plurality of sensors and a desired setting)
measuring data received from the at least one inertial sensor that is representative of motion of the vessel (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 33-41; col.4, lines 35-45, col.6, lines 37-40, col.11, lines 20-29 discloses an example of a multi-axis sensor that determines inertial measurement of position and orientation of the marine vessel, this means data is measured from at least one inertial sensor that is representative of motion of the vessel)Jason is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, Steven teaches: implementing a safe blade deployment limit control strategy to further limit at least one of a depth of deployment of one or more of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one or more of the water engagement devices to a pre-determined level of bias as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an acceleration or deceleration of the marine vessel (see at least Steven, Fig.7; pg.9, col.2, lines 54-64, pg.11, col.5, lines 49-57, col.6, lines 53-66, which discloses wherein the safe blade deploy limit control strategy limits a speed of deployment of the one or more water engagement devices to a predetermined threshold of speed magnitude related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an event of acceleration, or deceleration; pg.12, col.7, lines 12-34)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jason to include wherein the software module includes safe blade deploy limit control strategy that
limits a speed of deployment of the one or more of the water engagement devices to a pre-determined threshold as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an acceleration or deceleration of the marine vessel as taught by Steven. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base device of Jason that further maintains an appropriate angle and depth of deployment of the vessel on the water as it achieves a planning speed and increases its velocity (accelerates) over the water.
Regarding claim 12, Jason discloses: the method of claim 11, wherein the level of bias is a threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one or more of the water engagement devices (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel); col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices)
Regarding claim 13, Jason discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the safe blade deployment limit control strategy iteratively sets the level of bias of the one or more water engagement devices within a certain pre-determined range of values based on the speed of the marine vessel (see at least Jason col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel, this includes a minimum bias associated with a change in speed of the marine vessel; col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices)
Regarding claim 14, Jason discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the set level of bias is a deployment bias and wherein the deployment bias is static until the speed of the marine vessel reaches a certain pre-determined limit (see at least Jason, col.12, lines 6-32 which discloses an instance wherein the set bias is a deployment bias (change in velocity of marine vessel) and wherein the deployment bias is static until the speed of the marine vessel reaches a pre-determined (planned) limit)
Regarding claim 15, Jason discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the speed of the marine vessel is 5 miles/hour at the certain pre-determined limit (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel); col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices)
Regarding claim 16, Jason discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the software module comprises at least one embedded microprocessor and the safe blade deployment limit control strategy comprises at least one set of program instructions and wherein the at least one embedded microprocessor is further configured to run the at least one set of program instructions in order for the software module to iteratively read and interpret data associated with operation of the marine vessel (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel); col.9, lines 26-29 which discloses an embedded microprocessor and control strategy; col.5, lines 23-29 discloses an example of utilizing a strategy of safe blade deployment through a control algorithm of the trim control module; Fig.4 and 6)
Regarding claim 17, Jason discloses a dynamic active control system (see at least Jason, col.3, liens 23-25), the system comprising:
a marine vessel (see at least Jason, Fig.1 and 3A which discloses a marine vessel)
a software module (see at least Jason, Fig.4 which discloses the software module)
a plurality of sensors and a plurality of water engagement devices (see at least Jason, Fig.4, which discloses a plurality of sensors (e.g. engine speed and gear state sensors) to command the actuation motor and blade in response to the data received from the plurality of sensors (trim rate of change) and a desired setting (communicate desired trim rate of change to motor controller); Fig.7 discloses the process described)
wherein the plurality of water engagement devices are connected to the marine vessel adjacent a transom of the marine vessel (see at least Jason, col.7, lines 49-54, col.10, lines 41-44, which discloses various sensors disposed throughout the system; col.4. lines 18-22, col.9, lines 6-11, Fig.1 discloses water engagement devices in the disclosure such as trim tabs, deflectors, interceptors, and/but not limited to propulsion devices)
wherein each of the water engagement devices includes an actuator and a blade connected to the actuator, wherein the software module is communicatively and operatively connected to the plurality of sensors and to each water engagement device to iteratively command activation of the actuator and deployment of the blade in response thereto based on data received from the plurality of sensors and a desired setting (see at least Jason, Fig.4 which discloses the software module (control module, storage system, and processor) connected to a plurality of sensors (e.g. engine speed and gear state sensors) to command the actuation motor and blade in response to the data received from the plurality of sensors (trim rate of change) and a desired setting (communicate desired trim rate of change to motor controller); Fig.7 discloses the process described)
Jason is silent on, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein the software module includes a safe blade deployment limit control strategy to further limit one of a depth of deployment of one or more of the water engagement devices or a speed of deployment of the one or more of the water engagement devices to a pre-determined level of bias as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an acceleration or deceleration of the marine vessel (see at least Steven, Fig.7; pg.9, col.2, lines 54-64, pg.11, col.5, lines 49-57, col.6, lines 53-66, which discloses wherein the safe blade deploy limit control strategy limits a speed of deployment of the one or more water engagement devices to a predetermined threshold of speed magnitude related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an event of acceleration, or deceleration; pg.12, col.7, lines 12-34)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jason to include wherein the software module includes safe blade deploy limit control strategy that
limits a speed of deployment of the one or more of the water engagement devices to a pre-determined threshold as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to both a speed of the marine vessel and an acceleration or deceleration of the marine vessel as taught by Steven. Incorporating the teaching would allow for an improvement to the base device of Jason that further maintains an appropriate angle and depth of deployment of the vessel on the water as it achieves a planning speed and increases its velocity (accelerates) over the water.
Regarding claim 18, Jason discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the software module further includes:
a total pitch axis control strategy including symmetric deployment of a plurality of water engagement devices at a deployment speed of at least 100 mm/s while simultaneously adjusting an engine trim actuator and (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 19-41, col.4, lines 1-6, col.6, discloses the pitch axis control strategy including deployment of a plurality of water engagement devices while adjusting an engine trim actuator)
a total roll and heading control strategy including a differential deployment of the plurality of water engagement devices at a deployment speed of at least 100 mm/s to counter a measured rolling motion while simultaneously adjusting a steering actuator to counter a measured yaw motion resulting from the differential deployment (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 19-41, col.4, lines 1-6, col.6, discloses the pitch axis control strategy including deployment of a plurality of water engagement devices while adjusting an engine trim actuator; col.11, lines 20-25 discloses measuring yaw, pitch, and roll motion of orientation for the marine vessel and incorporating them as inputs to adjust a steering trim actuator to account for a different deployment (trim rate of change); col.8 discloses an instance of the strategy deploying the water engagement devices to counter the measured motion along the yaw (horizontal) and roll (vertical) lines and axis)
adjusting the steering actuator to counter the measured yaw motion generated by a gyroscopic stabilization device adapted to be installed within the marine vessel (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 19-41, lines 33-41; col.4, lines 1-6, col.6, discloses the pitch axis control strategy including deployment of a plurality of water engagement devices while adjusting an engine trim actuator; col.11, lines 20-25, 52-64 discloses measuring yaw, pitch, and roll motion of orientation for the marine vessel and incorporating them as inputs to adjust a steering trim actuator to account for a different deployment (trim rate of change); col.8 which discloses an example of the adjustment to counter the yaw motion)
Regarding claim 19, Jason discloses the system of claim 17, wherein:
the software module includes an embedded microprocessor-based control system (see at least Jason, col.6, lines 21-26, which discloses the software installed in a commutation controller)
a multi-axis rate sensor and a steering position sensor operatively connected to at least one of the water engagement devices and to the software module (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 33-41; col.4, lines 35-45, col.6, lines 37-40, col.11, lines 20-29 discloses an example of a multi-axis sensor that determines inertial measurement of position and orientation of the marine vessel, this means data is measured from at least one inertial sensor that is representative of motion of the vessel operatively connected to at least one of the water engagement devices and software module)
the control system determines an asymmetric deployment of the at least one of the water engagement devices in response to a dynamic roll axis motion measured by the rate sensor as a result of a change in an output from the steering position sensor (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 19-41, lines 33-41; col.4, lines 1-6, col.6, discloses the pitch axis control strategy including deployment of a plurality of water engagement devices while adjusting an engine trim actuator; col.11, lines 20-25, 52-64 discloses measuring yaw, pitch, and roll motion of orientation for the marine vessel and incorporating them as inputs to adjust a steering trim actuator to account for a different deployment (trim rate of change); col.8 which discloses an example of the adjustment to counter the yaw motion, which means the system determines an asymmetric deployment of the at least one of the water engagement devices in response to a dynamic roll axis motion measured by the rate sensor as a result of a change in an output from the steering position sensor)
the control system determines a relationship between the output from the steering position sensor and the asymmetric controller deployment (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 19-41, col.4, lines 1-6, col.6, discloses the pitch axis control strategy including deployment of a plurality of water engagement devices while adjusting an engine trim actuator; col.11, lines 20-25 discloses measuring yaw, pitch, and roll motion of orientation for the marine vessel and incorporating them as inputs to adjust a steering trim actuator to account for a different deployment (trim rate of change); col.8 discloses an instance of the strategy deploying the water engagement devices to counter the measured motion along the yaw (horizontal) and roll (vertical) lines and axis, this means the system determines a relationship between the output from the steering position sensor and the asymmetric controller deployment)
the control system automatically commands changes to the asymmetric controller deployment to counter the dynamic roll axis motion resulting from the change in the output from the steering position (see at least Jason, col.3, lines 19-41, lines 33-41; col.4, lines 1-6, lines 46-49; col.6, discloses the pitch axis control strategy including deployment of a plurality of water engagement devices while adjusting an engine trim actuator; col.10, lines 41-50; col.11, lines 20-25, 52-64 discloses measuring yaw, pitch, and roll motion of orientation for the marine vessel and incorporating them as inputs to adjust a steering trim actuator to account for a different deployment (trim rate of change); col.8 which discloses an example of the adjustment to counter the yaw motion as a result from the change in output from the steering position)
Regarding claim 20, Jason discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the safe blade deployment limit control strategy is configured to iteratively set the bias of the one or more of the water engagement devices within a certain pre-determined range of values as a function of the data received from the plurality of sensors related to the speed of the marine vessel (see at least Jason col.6, lines 4-6, which discloses the control strategy of the trim actuator providing iterative (continuous) variable speed control within a pre-determined threshold (minimum and maximum) as a function of data received from the plurality of sensors (speed, gear state, etc.) of the marine vessel, this includes a minimum bias associated with a change in speed of the marine vessel; col.14, lines 44-49, col.15, lines 43-53, discloses setting the operational parameter of speed as a threshold, this means wherein the pre-determined threshold of one of a depth of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices and a speed of deployment of the one of the water engagement devices is defined as a bias of the one of the water engagement devices)
Conclusion
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 KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-7442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm, 6:00-8:00 pm (+ with flex).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KIRSTEN JADE M SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights