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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-7, 9-11 have been examined in this application. This communication is a final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 3/7/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-2, 4-6, 8 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 10,723,431 to Przybyl.
Regarding claim 1, Przybyl discloses a propulsion force control apparatus configured to control a propulsion force of a vessel, comprising:
a prime mover configured to drive a propulsor configured to propel the vessel (column 1, lines 63-64 disclose “a marine propulsion system including an engine”);
a speed sensor configured to detect an actual vessel speed of the vessel or a rotation speed of the prime mover (column 3, lines 64-67 disclose “The GPS device 52 may also provide a reading of speed over ground (SOG) to the control module 46, calculated as distance covered in a given period of time, which constitutes one measurement of vessel speed” and column 4, lines 2-4 disclose “a speedometer, pitot tube, paddlewheel, etc. are alternatives for measuring vessel velocity”); and
an electronic control unit including a processor and a memory coupled to the processor (column 5, lines 65-67 disclose “The control module 46 may include a computing system that includes a processing system, storage system, software, and input/output (I/O) interfaces”) and configured to perform feedback control of the rotation speed of the prime mover based on a difference between the actual vessel speed and a target vessel speed (step 210 in Figure 6, where filtered speed comprises the actual vessel speed and the constant setpoint is the target vessel speed), wherein
the processor interrupts the feedback control and maintains a current control command value regardless of the difference when a degree of change in the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined degree (column 12, lines 42-47 disclose “Once the system 39 has transitioned into the cruise control mode at 210, the method may further include transitioning out of the cruise control mode in response to determining that the measured vessel speed has been outside of a deadband around the constant setpoint speed for at least a given amount of time”, the vessel would then return to a different command value such as the setpoint vessel speed for launch mode).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Przybyl discloses the processor interrupts the feedback control when a change amount of the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed in a predetermined time period becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined change amount. Column 12, lines 42-47 disclose “Once the system 39 has transitioned into the cruise control mode at 210, the method may further include transitioning out of the cruise control mode in response to determining that the measured vessel speed has been outside of a deadband around the constant setpoint speed for at least a given amount of time”. Going outside of the deadband around the constant setpoint speed comprises the change amount of the actual speed becoming greater than or equal to the predetermined change amount.
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 2), Przybyl discloses an operation member configured to command adjustment of the target vessel speed or the target rotation speed in response to an operation of a vessel operator (throttle handle 48), wherein the predetermined change amount is larger than an adjustment width of the target vessel speed or the target rotation speed commanded by the operation member (as shown in section 14 of acceleration profiles 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and column 4, line 38 to column 5, line 17, there is an acceleration overshoot before the acceleration profiles settles at the constant setpoint speed.
Regarding claims 5 (dependent on claim 1), 6 (dependent on claim 5)¸ Przybyl discloses the processor resumes the feedback control when the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed is stabilized after interrupting the feedback control, wherein the processor resumes the feedback control when an absolute value of a change amount of the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed in a predetermined time period becomes equal to or less than a predetermined absolute value after interrupting the feedback control. Column 10, lines 40-43 disclose “The system 39 transitions from the launch mode to the cruise control mode in response to the control module 46 determining that the measured vessel speed is within the given range of the desired vessel speed”.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 10,723,431 to Przybyl.
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Przybyl does not explicitly disclose the processor interrupts the feedback control when an absolute value of the difference becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined absolute value. However, column 12, lines 47-49 disclose “The deadband may encompass vessel speeds both above and below the constant setpoint vessel speed”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the optimal deadband to give the desired cruise control range, including centering the deadband at the constant setpoint vessel speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Centering the deadband at the constant setpoint vessel speed would make the deviation between the actual vessel speed and the constant setpoint vessel speed an absolute value of a set amount.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 10,723,431 to Przybyl in view of US Patent Application Number 2017/0144740 by Ito.
Regarding claim 7 (dependent on claim 6)¸Przybyl discloses an operation lever configured to command the rotation speed of the prime mover in accordance with an operation amount of the vessel operator. Column 3, lines 49-52 disclose “A manually controllable throttle mechanism 44 allows the operator of the vessel 38 to control the vessel speed by way of controlling the operating speed of the engine 42”.
Przybyl does not disclose a switch configured to command enablement or disablement of the feedback control in response to an operation of a vessel operator; and wherein the processor controls the prime mover in accordance with an operation amount on the operation lever when the feedback control is disabled, and starts the feedback control on condition that the absolute value of the change amount of the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed in the predetermined time period is equal to or less than the predetermined absolute value when enablement of the feedback control is commanded by the switch. However, this limitation is taught by Ito. Ito discloses a control system for watercraft, and paragraph 37 discloses “By operating the operating buttons or the software keys, the operator is able to activate the automatic cruise function and is able to set the target vessel velocity of the watercraft 1”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Przybyl using the teachings from Ito in order to be able to deactivate the cruise control when manual control is needed.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 10,723,431 to Przybyl in view of US Patent Application Number 2019/0210705 by Lindeborg.
Regarding claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Przybyl does not disclose a rudder angle sensor configured to detect a rudder angle of the vessel, wherein the processor interrupts the feedback control on condition that a change amount of the rudder angle in a predetermined time period is equal to or greater than a predetermined value when the degree of change in the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined degree. However, this limitation is taught by Lindeborg. Lindeborg discloses a propulsion control arrangement for a marine vessel, and paragraph 48 discloses “The determination S1 whether the vessel 1 is running at a constant vessel speed is thereby included in a determination S1, S2 whether the vessel is moving straight at constant speed” and “A steering control sensing device may alternatively be provided as a compass or, where the vessel is provided with a rudder, by a device arranged to detect the angle of the rudder”, and Figure 2 shows loop S1-S12 being interrupted if the vessel doesn’t have a straight course at step S2/S8. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Przybyl using the teachings from Lindeborg in order to maintain a straight course during cruise control to prevent the marine vessel from drifting off course.
Regarding claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Przybyl does not disclose a yaw rate sensor configured to detect a yaw rate of the vessel, wherein the processor interrupts the feedback control on condition that the yaw rate is equal to or greater than a predetermined value when the degree of change in the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined degree. However, this limitation is taught by Lindeborg. Lindeborg discloses a propulsion control arrangement for a marine vessel, and paragraph 48 discloses “The determination S1 whether the vessel 1 is running at a constant vessel speed is thereby included in a determination S1, S2 whether the vessel is moving straight at constant speed. Determining whether the vessel is moving in a straight course may include determining whether the vessel is turning”, and Figure 2 shows loop S1-S12 being interrupted if the vessel doesn’t have a straight course at step S2/S8. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Przybyl using the teachings from Lindeborg in order to maintain a straight course during cruise control to prevent the marine vessel from drifting off course.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over US Patent Number 10,723,431 to Przybyl in view of US Patent Number 12,377,942 to Snipe.
Regarding claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Przybyl does not disclose a radar or a camera configured to detect an object in front of the vessel, wherein the processor interrupts the feedback control on condition that an object in front of the vessel is detected by the radar or the camera when the degree of change in the actual vessel speed or the rotation speed becomes equal to or greater than the predetermined degree. However, this limitation is taught by Snipe. Snipe discloses a marine vessel control system with image sensors 54, column 10, lines 54-56 lists radars and cameras as two types of these image sensors, and column 14, lines 21-33 disclose control system 100 detecting the presence of objects, and lines 36-39 disclose “This information can then be used to…take evasive action to prevent a collision (e.g., reduce throttle)”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Przybyl using the teachings from Snipe in order to reduce the throttle of the vessel in order to avoid collision with objects during cruise control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Przybyl transitions out of cruise control mode and returns to launch mode and therefore feedback control is always performed, Przybyl interrupts the cruise control feedback control, and the claim does not exclude it from returning to a different form of feedback control. Furthermore, “maintains a current control command value” is very broad. Launch control is a control command value that is maintained outside of cruise control which therefore reads on the limitation as claimed.
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 MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
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, Josh Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights