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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on January 12th, 2024. Claims 1-19 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on January 12th, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to JP2023-005379 dated January 17th, 2023.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20140106631 (hereinafter, “Ito”) in view of US-20150353128 (hereinafter, “Shibuya”).
Regarding claim 1 Ito discloses a watercraft maneuvering system (see at least [0002]; “The present invention relates to a method of operating a marine vessel propulsion system that includes an outboard motor”) comprising:
a plurality of propulsion devices provided on a hull (see at least [0058]; “The marine vessel 1 includes a hull 2, a plurality of outboard motors 3 as marine vessel propulsion devices,”);
a plurality of steerings corresponding respectively to the plurality of propulsion devices, and each including a steering actuator to change a steering angle of the corresponding propulsion device (see at least [0058]; “a steering apparatus 4 that controls turning angles of the respective outboard motors 3”);
a plurality of steering angle sensors corresponding respectively to the plurality of propulsion devices to detect the steering angle of the corresponding propulsion device (see at least [0060]; “A steering angle of the steering handle 6 is detected by a steering angle sensor 11 (see FIG. 4).”); and
a plurality of steering controllers corresponding respectively to the plurality of steerings, and each configured or programmed to control the steering actuator of the corresponding steering (see at least [0127]; “Thereafter, the turning ECU 20 uses the target turning angle of each outboard motor 3 to perform feedback control of the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 (step S13). Specifically, the turning ECU 20 drives the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of each outboard motor 3 so that the actual turning angle 11 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 detected by the turning angle sensor 112 approaches the target turning angle of the corresponding outboard motor 3. The turning angles of the respective outboard motors 3 are thus controlled in accordance with the steering angle of the steering handle 6”);
wherein the plurality of steering controllers are each configured or programmed to feedback-control the corresponding steering actuator based on an output signal of the corresponding steering angle sensor so as to achieve a target steering angle (see at least [0127]; “Thereafter, the turning ECU 20 uses the target turning angle of each outboard motor 3 to perform feedback control of the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 (step S13). Specifically, the turning ECU 20 drives the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of each outboard motor 3 so that the actual turning angle 11 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 detected by the turning angle sensor 112 approaches the target turning angle of the corresponding outboard motor 3. The turning angles of the respective outboard motors 3 are thus controlled in accordance with the steering angle of the steering handle 6”).
Ito does not disclose the feedback control includes a first mode in which a first feedback parameter is used, and a second mode in which a second feedback parameter different from the first feedback parameter is used; and
the plurality of steering controllers are each configured or programmed to perform the feedback control in the first mode when at least one of the plurality of propulsion devices is operating, and to perform the feedback control in the second mode when all of the plurality of propulsion devices are not operating.
Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the feedback control includes a first mode in which a first feedback parameter is used, and a second mode in which a second feedback parameter different from the first feedback parameter is used (see at least [0124]; “The IS-switching control unit 21 is configured to perform IS-switching control processing described below to output a clutch command for controlling the disengagement and engagement of a clutch 19, as well as to output a switching flag fs for switching a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic. The switch flag fs is switched within a range of 0 to 3. In a case of fs=0, an ordinary reaction force control characteristic and an ordinary turning angle control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=1, a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic when the idle reduction is activated are used. Furthermore, in a case of fs=2, a turning angle control characteristic when the clutch is disengaged and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=3, a turning angle control characteristic when the engine is restarted from the idle reduction and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are use,” each fs value corresponds to a specific mode, each fs value yields a different turning angle control characteristic, it would be obvious that as the values are different one would be smaller than the other, whichever would be smaller would correspond to the second mode); and
the plurality of steering controllers are each configured or programmed to perform the feedback control in the first mode when at least one of the plurality of propulsion devices is operating, and to perform the feedback control in the second mode when all of the plurality of propulsion devices are not operating (see at least [0124]; “The IS-switching control unit 21 is configured to perform IS-switching control processing described below to output a clutch command for controlling the disengagement and engagement of a clutch 19, as well as to output a switching flag fs for switching a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic. The switch flag fs is switched within a range of 0 to 3. In a case of fs=0, an ordinary reaction force control characteristic and an ordinary turning angle control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=1, a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic when the idle reduction is activated are used. Furthermore, in a case of fs=2, a turning angle control characteristic when the clutch is disengaged and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=3, a turning angle control characteristic when the engine is restarted from the idle reduction and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are use,” the feedback control when not in idle reduction mode (fs does not equal 1) corresponds to the first mode and the feedback control when fs = 1 corresponds to the idle reduction mode which corresponds to the second mode, each fs value yields a different turning angle control characteristic, it would be obvious that as the values are different one would be smaller than the other, whichever would be smaller would correspond to the second mode. The idle reduction mode corresponds to a mode wherein the engine is off).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 2 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ito discloses wherein the plurality of steering controllers are each configured or programmed to perform the feedback control in the first mode when at least one of the plurality of propulsion devices has an unknown operation state (see at least Fig. 7A-7C; if only one of the motors is determined to have malfunctioned the other motors may continue to work, as the motors are not stopped this corresponds to Shibuya’s mode where idle reduction mode is not used).
Regarding claim 3 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ito, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of steering controllers are each configured or programmed to acquire information about operation states of the plurality of propulsion devices, respectively, through communications via a communication network (see at least [0122]; “function of the turning ECU 20 as the malfunction monitoring unit is to monitor whether or not there is a malfunction in the turning angle control of the respective outboard motors 3.”), and to perform the feedback control in the first mode when a communication failure occurs in the communication network (see at least Fig. 7A-7C; a communication failure would be considered a type of malfunction of the system, Ito described in figures 7A-7C how malfunctions are dealt with, if only one of the motors is determined to have malfunctioned the other motors may continue to work, as the motors are not stopped this corresponds to Shibuya’s mode where idle reduction mode is not used).
Regarding claim 4 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the second feedback parameter is defined so that the steering actuators are lower in at least one of responsiveness or steering speed in the second mode than in the first mode (see at least [0122]; “The fade-in control processing unit 45 is configured to perform a fade-in processing on the final target turning angle, depending on the switching flag fs. The fade-in processing gradually changes the target steering angle so as to reach the original value while a predetermined fade-in time TF has elapsed, and serves like a rate limiter for suppressing a sudden change in the target turning angle. Specifically, on the basis of the number of computing executed in the fade-in time TF, an amount of change of the turning angle to be changed per one computing is set, and the target turning angle is changed by the amount of change. In this example, when the switching flag fs="2", the fade-in processing on the target turning angle is performed, and when the switching flag fs="0", "1", or "3", the fade-in processing on the target turning angle is not performed,” the modes may be adjusted to cause the steering change to occur more or less gradually).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 5 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the second feedback parameter is smaller than the first feedback parameter (see at least [0124]; “Furthermore, the limiter processing unit 47 is configured, in the one-motor SBW mode, to perform the limiter processing on the current command value for the second turning motor M2 depending on the switching flag fs…when the switching flag fs=1, the limiter processing on the current command value is performed, otherwise, that is when flag fs = 0, 2, or 3, the limiter processing on the current command value is not performed,” the limiter process is understood to limit the power consumption since this process is only done when fs=1, the power consumption in this mode, the idle reduction mode, has a smaller consumption than one of the other modes in which the fs does not equal 1, which would correspond to the first mode. Since the power consumption is lower the feedback parameter is also lower).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 6 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Ito, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the plurality of propulsion devices each include an engine to generate a propulsive force by a driving force of the engine (see at least [0058]; “Each of the outboard motors 3 includes an engine (internal combustion engine as an example of a motor) and a propeller (screw) and generates a propulsive force by rotation of the propeller by a driving force of the engine.”);
the plurality of steering controllers are each configured or programmed to perform the feedback control (see at least [0127]; “the turning ECU 20 uses the target turning angle 11* of each outboard motor 3 to perform feedback control of the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of the corresponding outboard motor 3”).
Ito does not disclose perform the feedback control in the first mode when the engine of at least one of the plurality of propulsion devices is operating, and to perform the feedback control in the second mode when the engines of all of the plurality of propulsion devices are not operating.
Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches perform the feedback control in the first mode when the engine of at least one of the plurality of propulsion devices is operating, and to perform the feedback control in the second mode when the engines of all of the plurality of propulsion devices are not operating (see at least [0124]; “The IS-switching control unit 21 is configured to perform IS-switching control processing described below to output a clutch command for controlling the disengagement and engagement of a clutch 19, as well as to output a switching flag fs for switching a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic. The switch flag fs is switched within a range of 0 to 3. In a case of fs=0, an ordinary reaction force control characteristic and an ordinary turning angle control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=1, a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic when the idle reduction is activated are used. Furthermore, in a case of fs=2, a turning angle control characteristic when the clutch is disengaged and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=3, a turning angle control characteristic when the engine is restarted from the idle reduction and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are use,” the feedback control when fs is any value other than 1 corresponds to the first mode and the feedback control when fs = 1 corresponds to the idle reduction mode which corresponds to the second mode, each fs value yields a different turning angle control characteristic, it would be obvious that as the values are different one would be smaller than the other, whichever would be smaller would correspond to the second mode. The idle reduction mode corresponds to a mode wherein the engine is off).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 7 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the plurality of propulsion devices each include a power generator to generate electric power by the driving force of the engine (see at least [0089]; “The battery 95 is configured to supply the electric power to various electric equipment mounted on the vehicle. That is, the battery 95 is configured to supply electric power to the engine controller 81, the starter motor 92, the first turning controller 71, the first turning motor M1, the second turning controller 72, the second turning motor M2, the reaction force controller 73, the reaction force motor 51, and the like.”);
the plurality of steering actuators are each operated with electric power supplied from a battery charged with the electric power generated by the power generator (see at least [0089]; “The battery 95 is configured to supply the electric power to various electric equipment mounted on the vehicle. That is, the battery 95 is configured to supply electric power to the engine controller 81, the starter motor 92, the first turning controller 71, the first turning motor M1, the second turning controller 72, the second turning motor M2, the reaction force controller 73, the reaction force motor 51, and the like,” and [0186]; “In the present embodiment, an electric motor is used as the turning actuator”);
the second feedback parameter is defined so that the steering actuators are lower in power consumption in the second mode than in the first mode (see at least [0124]; “Furthermore, the limiter processing unit 47 is configured, in the one-motor SBW mode, to perform the limiter processing on the current command value for the second turning motor M2 depending on the switching flag fs…when the switching flag fs=1, the limiter processing on the current command value is performed, otherwise, that is when flag fs = 0, 2, or 3, the limiter processing on the current command value is not performed,” the limiter process is understood to limit the power consumption since this process is only done when fs=1, the power consumption in this mode, the idle reduction mode, has a smaller consumption than one of the other modes in which the fs does not equal 1, which would correspond to the first mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 8 Ito discloses a watercraft maneuvering system (see at least [0002]; “The present invention relates to a method of operating a marine vessel propulsion system that includes an outboard motor”) comprising:
a propulsion device provided on a hull (see at least [0058]; “The marine vessel 1 includes a hull 2, a plurality of outboard motors 3 as marine vessel propulsion devices,”); and including an engine to generate a propulsive force by a driving force of the engine (see at least [0058]; “Each of the outboard motors 3 includes an engine (internal combustion engine as an example of a motor) and a propeller (screw) and generates a propulsive force by rotation of the propeller by a driving force of the engine.”);
a steering angle sensor to detect the steering angle (see at least [0060]; “A steering angle of the steering handle 6 is detected by a steering angle sensor 11 (see FIG. 4).”); and
a steering controller configured or programmed to feedback-control the steering actuator based on an output signal of the steering angle sensor so as to achieve a target steering angle (see at least [0127]; “Thereafter, the turning ECU 20 uses the target turning angle of each outboard motor 3 to perform feedback control of the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 (step S13). Specifically, the turning ECU 20 drives the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of each outboard motor 3 so that the actual turning angle 11 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 detected by the turning angle sensor 112 approaches the target turning angle of the corresponding outboard motor 3. The turning angles of the respective outboard motors 3 are thus controlled in accordance with the steering angle of the steering handle 6”).
Ito does not disclose wherein the steering controller is configured or programmed to perform the feedback control in a first mode in which a first feedback parameter is used when the engine is operating, and to perform the feedback control in a second mode in which a second feedback parameter is used when the engine is not operating, the second feedback parameter being defined so that the steering actuator has a smaller power consumption than in the first mode.
Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering controller is configured or programmed to perform the feedback control in a first mode in which a first feedback parameter is used when the engine is operating, and to perform the feedback control in a second mode in which a second feedback parameter is used when the engine is not operating (see at least [0124]; “The IS-switching control unit 21 is configured to perform IS-switching control processing described below to output a clutch command for controlling the disengagement and engagement of a clutch 19, as well as to output a switching flag fs for switching a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic. The switch flag fs is switched within a range of 0 to 3. In a case of fs=0, an ordinary reaction force control characteristic and an ordinary turning angle control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=1, a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic when the idle reduction is activated are used. Furthermore, in a case of fs=2, a turning angle control characteristic when the clutch is disengaged and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=3, a turning angle control characteristic when the engine is restarted from the idle reduction and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are use,” the feedback control when fs is any value other than 1 corresponds to the first mode and the feedback control when fs = 1 corresponds to the idle reduction mode which corresponds to the second mode, each fs value yields a different turning angle control characteristic, it would be obvious that as the values are different one would be smaller than the other, whichever would be smaller would correspond to the second mode. The idle reduction mode corresponds to a mode wherein the engine is off), the second feedback parameter being defined so that the steering actuator has a smaller power consumption than in the first mode (see at least [0124]; “Furthermore, the limiter processing unit 47 is configured, in the one-motor SBW mode, to perform the limiter processing on the current command value for the second turning motor M2 depending on the switching flag fs…when the switching flag fs=1, the limiter processing on the current command value is performed, otherwise, that is when flag fs = 0, 2, or 3, the limiter processing on the current command value is not performed,” the limiter process is understood to limit the power consumption since this process is only done when fs=1, the power consumption in this mode, the idle reduction mode, has a smaller consumption than one of the other modes in which the fs does not equal 1, which would correspond to the first mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 9 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the propulsion device includes a power generator to generate electric power by the driving force of the engine (see at least [0089]; “The battery 95 is configured to supply the electric power to various electric equipment mounted on the vehicle. That is, the battery 95 is configured to supply electric power to the engine controller 81, the starter motor 92, the first turning controller 71, the first turning motor M1, the second turning controller 72, the second turning motor M2, the reaction force controller 73, the reaction force motor 51, and the like.”); and
the steering actuator is operated by electric power supplied from a battery charged with the electric power generated by the power generator (see at least [0089]; “The battery 95 is configured to supply the electric power to various electric equipment mounted on the vehicle. That is, the battery 95 is configured to supply electric power to the engine controller 81, the starter motor 92, the first turning controller 71, the first turning motor M1, the second turning controller 72, the second turning motor M2, the reaction force controller 73, the reaction force motor 51, and the like,” and [0186]; “In the present embodiment, an electric motor is used as the turning actuator”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 10 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious s all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the second feedback parameter is smaller than the first feedback parameter (see at least [0124]; “Furthermore, the limiter processing unit 47 is configured, in the one-motor SBW mode, to perform the limiter processing on the current command value for the second turning motor M2 depending on the switching flag fs…when the switching flag fs=1, the limiter processing on the current command value is performed, otherwise, that is when flag fs = 0, 2, or 3, the limiter processing on the current command value is not performed,” the limiter process is understood to limit the power consumption since this process is only done when fs=1, the power consumption in this mode, the idle reduction mode, has a smaller consumption than one of the other modes in which the fs does not equal 1, which would correspond to the first mode. Since the power consumption is lower the feedback parameter is also lower).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 11 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the second feedback parameter is defined so that at least one of responsiveness or steering speed of the steering actuator is lower than that for the first feedback parameter (see at least [0122]; “The fade-in control processing unit 45 is configured to perform a fade-in processing on the final target turning angle, depending on the switching flag fs. The fade-in processing gradually changes the target steering angle so as to reach the original value while a predetermined fade-in time TF has elapsed, and serves like a rate limiter for suppressing a sudden change in the target turning angle. Specifically, on the basis of the number of computing executed in the fade-in time TF, an amount of change of the turning angle to be changed per one computing is set, and the target turning angle is changed by the amount of change. In this example, when the switching flag fs="2", the fade-in processing on the target turning angle is performed, and when the switching flag fs="0", "1", or "3", the fade-in processing on the target turning angle is not performed,” the modes may be adjusted to cause the steering change to occur more or less gradually).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 12 Ito discloses a watercraft maneuvering system (see at least [0002]; “The present invention relates to a method of operating a marine vessel propulsion system that includes an outboard motor”) comprising:
a propulsion device provided on a watercraft (see at least [0058]; “The marine vessel 1 includes a hull 2, a plurality of outboard motors 3 as marine vessel propulsion devices,”);
a steering including a steering actuator to change a steering angle of the propulsion device (see at least [0058]; “a steering apparatus 4 that controls turning angles of the respective outboard motors 3.”);
a steering angle sensor to detect the steering angle (see at least [0060]; “A steering angle of the steering handle 6 is detected by a steering angle sensor 11 (see FIG. 4).”); and
a steering controller configured or programmed to feedback-control the steering actuator based on an output signal of the steering angle sensor to achieve a target steering angle (see at least [0127]; “Thereafter, the turning ECU 20 uses the target turning angle of each outboard motor 3 to perform feedback control of the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 (step S13). Specifically, the turning ECU 20 drives the electric motor 102 of the turning mechanism 12 of each outboard motor 3 so that the actual turning angle 11 of the corresponding outboard motor 3 detected by the turning angle sensor 112 approaches the target turning angle of the corresponding outboard motor 3. The turning angles of the respective outboard motors 3 are thus controlled in accordance with the steering angle of the steering handle 6”).
Ito does not disclose the feedback control includes a first mode in which a first feedback parameter is used, and a second mode in which a second feedback parameter smaller than the first feedback parameter is used; and
the steering controller is configured or programmed to select the first mode or the second mode based on a predetermined mode selection criterion.
Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the feedback control includes a first mode in which a first feedback parameter is used, and a second mode in which a second feedback parameter smaller than the first feedback parameter is used (see at least [0124]; “The IS-switching control unit 21 is configured to perform IS-switching control processing described below to output a clutch command for controlling the disengagement and engagement of a clutch 19, as well as to output a switching flag fs for switching a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic. The switch flag fs is switched within a range of 0 to 3. In a case of fs=0, an ordinary reaction force control characteristic and an ordinary turning angle control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=1, a reaction force control characteristic and a turning angle control characteristic when the idle reduction is activated are used. Furthermore, in a case of fs=2, a turning angle control characteristic when the clutch is disengaged and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are used. In a case of fs=3, a turning angle control characteristic when the engine is restarted from the idle reduction and the ordinary reaction force control characteristic are use,” each fs value corresponds to a specific mode, each fs value yields a different turning angle control characteristic, it would be obvious that as the values are different one would be smaller than the other, whichever would be smaller would correspond to the second mode); and
the steering controller is configured or programmed to select the first mode or the second mode based on a predetermined mode selection criterion (see at least Fig. 6, the fs is used to determine the mode and the fs is determined based on various selection criteria such as whether idle reduction is activated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 13 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the predetermined mode selection criterion includes a criterion related to a charge/discharge state of a battery (see at least [0090-0092]; “Next, the outline of the operation of the idle reduction control will be described. In the idle reduction system, for example, when all of the following permission conditions are satisfied, the system is put into a standby state in which the idle reduction is permitted: IS-OFF switch 88 is not operated (the idle reduction function is ON state). The state of charge (SOC) of the battery 95 is 70 percent or more,” the idle reduction mode can only be selected when it is permitted which only occurs if the charge of the battery is above a predetermined value) that supplies electric power to the steering actuator (see at least [0213]; “In the steering control device according to the present embodiment, the turning actuator includes an electric motor,” and [0089]; “A battery 95 is charged by the generated electric power. The battery 95 is configured to supply the electric power to various electric equipment mounted on the vehicle. That is, the battery 95 is configured to supply electric power to the engine controller 81, the starter motor 92, the first turning controller 71, the first turning motor M1, the second turning controller 72, the second turning motor M2, the reaction force controller 73, the reaction force motor 51, and the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 14 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the predetermined mode selection criterion includes a criterion related to information about an operation state of the propulsion device (see at least [0090-0092]; “Next, the outline of the operation of the idle reduction control will be described. In the idle reduction system, for example, when all of the following permission conditions are satisfied, the system is put into a standby state in which the idle reduction is permitted: IS-OFF switch 88 is not operated (the idle reduction function is ON state). The state of charge (SOC) of the battery 95 is 70 percent or more,” the idle reduction mode can only be selected when it is permitted which only occurs if the charge of the battery is above a predetermined value, since the battery drives the motor to provide propulsion and turning, under broadest reasonable interpretation the charge able to be provided to the motor corresponds to an operation state, and [0089]; “A battery 95 is charged by the generated electric power. The battery 95 is configured to supply the electric power to various electric equipment mounted on the vehicle. That is, the battery 95 is configured to supply electric power to the engine controller 81, the starter motor 92, the first turning controller 71, the first turning motor M1, the second turning controller 72, the second turning motor M2, the reaction force controller 73, the reaction force motor 51, and the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 15 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising: a second propulsion device different from the first propulsion device (see at least Fig. 1; turning motor M1 and turning motor M2); wherein the predetermined mode selection criterion includes a criterion related to information about an operation state of the second propulsion device (see at least [0090-0092]; “Next, the outline of the operation of the idle reduction control will be described. In the idle reduction system, for example, when all of the following permission conditions are satisfied, the system is put into a standby state in which the idle reduction is permitted: IS-OFF switch 88 is not operated (the idle reduction function is ON state). The state of charge (SOC) of the battery 95 is 70 percent or more,” the idle reduction mode can only be selected when it is permitted which only occurs if the charge of the battery is above a predetermined value, since the battery drives the motor to provide propulsion and turning, under broadest reasonable interpretation the charge able to be provided to the motor corresponds to an operation state, and [0089]; “A battery 95 is charged by the generated electric power. The battery 95 is configured to supply the electric power to various electric equipment mounted on the vehicle. That is, the battery 95 is configured to supply electric power to the engine controller 81, the starter motor 92, the first turning controller 71, the first turning motor M1, the second turning controller 72, the second turning motor M2, the reaction force controller 73, the reaction force motor 51, and the like” the battery provides power to two motors therefore the idle reduction mode is determined based on the operating state of both those motors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 16 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Shibuya, in the same field of endeavor teaches further comprising: a network to provide information communications in the watercraft maneuvering system (see at least [0042]; “It is to be noted that the controllers are connected to one another via a communication line 74 to be capable of communicating with one another. That is, a communication path adopting an on-vehicle communication network (on vehicle LAN) standard, such as a CSMA/CA type multiplex communication (CAN: Controller Area Network), Flex Ray, or the like, is constructed.”); wherein the predetermined mode selection criterion includes a criterion related to a communication state of the network (see at least Fig. 4, step 113; “Is CL disconnected?,” and [0043]; “The respective controllers are connected to the clutch 19 via a communication line 75. The communication line 75 is a communication path for outputting a clutch control signal capable of switching the clutch 19 such that the clutch is engaged or disengaged,” the mode can only be selected after the clutch state is received through the communication network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the watercraft maneuvering system of Ito with the feedback modes of Shibuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a mode which may reduce exhaust emissions and improve fuel efficiency (see at least Shibuya; [0212]).
Regarding claim 17 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious the watercraft maneuvering system according to claim 1 provided on the hull (see above claim 1 rejection). Additionally, Ito, discloses A watercraft comprising a hull (see at least Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious the watercraft maneuvering system according to claim 1 provided on the hull (see above claim 8 rejection). Additionally, Ito, discloses A watercraft comprising a hull (see at least Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19 Ito in view of Shibuya renders obvious the watercraft maneuvering system according to claim 1 provided on the hull (see above claim 12 rejection). Additionally, Ito, discloses A watercraft comprising a hull (see at least Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220315193 teaches a vessel azimuth control apparatus and method which optimizes the calculation by adjusting control gain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/9/26