Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/379,204

WATERCRAFT PROPULSION SYSTEM, AND WATERCRAFT

Non-Final OA §102§Other
Filed
Oct 12, 2023
Examiner
POLAY, ANDREW
Art Unit
3615
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Yamaha Hatsudoki Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 881 resolved
+22.2% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
923
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
37.0%
-3.0% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 881 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §Other
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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “propulsive force matching control” in claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 9. “filtering process” in Claim 3 “translation commander” in Claim 7 (Not that the 112f in Claims 3 and 7 don’t necessarily require force matching.) Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claims 1, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Caoette (US 20120101671 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Caoette discloses a watercraft propulsion system comprising: an engine propulsion device attachable to a hull and including a propeller rotatable about a first propeller axis (Element 18); an electric propulsion device attachable to the hull and including a propeller rotatable about a second propeller axis different from the first propeller axis (Element 20); and a controller (Element 12) configured or programmed to control the engine propulsion device and the electric propulsion device and, when a command is inputted to cause the engine propulsion device and the electric propulsion device to simultaneously generate propulsive forces (during maneuvering, paragraph 60), to perform a propulsive force matching control to match a propulsive force increasing characteristic of the electric propulsion device with a propulsive force increasing characteristic of the engine propulsion device (equal thrust, paragraph 60). Regarding Claim 7, Caoette discloses a watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, further comprising: a translation commander to input a translation command to the controller to translate the hull; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the propulsive force matching control when the translation command is inputted from the translation commander. (paragraph 60, maneuvering is in the translation plane.) Regarding Claim 8, Caoette discloses a watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the engine propulsion device and the electric propulsion device are attachable to a stern of the hull. (Caoette, Fig. 1. Both are at the stern.) Regarding Claim 9, Caoette discloses a watercraft propulsion system comprising: a first propulsion device attachable to a hull and including a propeller rotatable about a first propeller axis, and having a first propulsive force increasing characteristic; a second propulsion device attachable to the hull and including a propeller rotatable about a second propeller axis different from the first propeller axis, and having a second propulsive force increasing characteristic different from the first propulsive force increasing characteristic; and a controller configured or programmed to perform a propulsive force matching control to match the first propulsive force increasing characteristic and the second propulsive force increasing characteristic with each other when both the first propulsion device and the second propulsion device are to be driven. (See rejection Claim 1.) Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Caoette discloses a watercraft comprising: a hull; and the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1 (and 9) provided on the hull. (marine vessel, paragraph 4) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Osara (US 20210139123 A1) discloses ICE and electric engines working simultaneously. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific. 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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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. /ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 23 Dec 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 12, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §Other (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12589833
VENTILATION DRUG REDUCTION DEVICE AND MARINE VENTILATION DRUG REDUCTION SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589847
BIOMIMETIC AQUATIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589848
Hydrogen Transport Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582886
SWIM TRAINING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565294
ADJUSTABLE ELECTRONICS MOUNTING PLATFORM AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+21.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 881 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month