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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 1/18/2024, the response and amendments filed on 12/2/2025, and the response, amendments, and request for continued examination filed 3/06/2026.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 6 and 7 have been previously amended.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 4 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 1/18/2024, 8/14/2024, 9/18/2024, and 5/20/2025, and 3/06/2026 have been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections to Claims 20 and the 112(b) rejection of Claim 3 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 12/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14, filed 3/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-18, and 20-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the failure of the combination of Wilson (US 20100030411 ) and Hasselskog (EP 4086154) to teach the specifically claimed strategy of the amended independent claims to implement “opposite direction” for roll control and “same direction” for pitch control. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further review, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wilson and Hall (US 447056).
Furthermore, the amended claim language introduces new grounds of rejection for claims 8 and 9 under 35 USC 112(d) for failing to further limit the similar claim language now amended into Claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
This argument also argues against the references individually, but one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, the use of an articulated outdrive to steer in the yaw direction as presented by Stallings (US 20060057910) could be added with a reasonable expectation of success to the thrust-vectored steering of Wilson as the method of controlling yaw by using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as outlined in MPEP 2143(I)(C). Particularly, as presented in the original rejection and detailed below, the use of a known technique (using a steerable outdrive structure of Stallings) to improve similar devices (the steerable outdrive of Stallings and the vectored thrust primary propulsive unit dynamically adjustable in a yaw direction of Wilson) in the same way (steering in the yaw direction, or in a horizontal plane) and the incorporation is furthermore motivated by enabling a smaller turning radius and high maneuverability of the vessel as suggested within Stallings ¶ 0027 lines 15-18. Nothing suggested within Stallings precludes the further control of the propulsion units in the pitch direction as established prior within the primary reference of Wilson, so Stallings does not teach away from the individual pitch and roll control as claimed by the incorporation of the outdrive structure for yaw control.
The motivation for combining Hasselskog with Wilson is similarly presented according to MPEP 2143(I)(A) in the Claim 17 rejection below.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the above cases, the motivations are drawn from the features taught within the prior art according to MPEP 2143(I) as well as specific motivations within the prior art that would have led a POSITA to combine the prior art references as outlined in MPEP 2143(I)(G), and are therefore proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “controlling the thrust elevation angles of the drive units in different directions”, and the claim also recites by incorporation of the elements of Claim 1 “by controlling the thrust elevation angles […] in opposite directions” for the same function of “suppressing the roll motion” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, and therefore Claim 8 as a broader recitation, as “different” is more broad than “opposite,” of the same function fails to further limit Claim 1. Claim 1 recites “suppressing the pitch motion by controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in the same direction” and Claim 9 recites the almost identically-worded “suppress a pitch motion by the hull by controlling the thrust elevation angles of the drive units in the same direction,” and therefore fails to further limit Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-9, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 20100030411, hereinafter “Wilson”) in view of Hall et al (US 447056, hereinafter “Hall”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson teaches:
A marine vessel comprising a hull, (Wilson ¶ 0039 line 4 “the marine propulsion system 510 includes a vessel hull ,”)
a propulsion system, (Wilson ¶ 0006 lines 1-3 “In one aspect, there is disclosed a marine vessel control system that includes at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism,”)
a control unit (Wilson ¶ 0006 lines 9-13 “A central control computer is operatively coupled to the actuating system, the servo control and the attitude sensor. The central control computer controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism's thrust vector,”)
and a motion sensor system, (Wilson ¶ x lines 16-20 “Additionally, an attitude reference sensor 24 is also coupled to the central control computer 26. The attitude reference sensor 24 generates a signal indicating the attitude of the vessel. Various attitude reference sensors 24 that measure the rate changes and angles of the attitude of the vessel may be utilized,”)
where the propulsion system comprises a first drive unit and a second drive unit (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 7-10 “The depicted actuating system in FIG. 2 includes two separate actuators 27, 28 for each of the pitch, and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,” as shown in Fig 4a and 4c)
PNG
media_image1.png
449
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
separated by a longitudinal midship line of the hull, (Wilson Fig 6 shows the two outboard motors separated by the depicted longitudinal midship line)
PNG
media_image2.png
229
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where each drive unit is arranged to generate thrust in a controllable thrust elevation angle (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 7-10 “The depicted actuating system in FIG. 2 includes two separate actuators 27, 28 for each of the pitch, and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,”)
and in a controllable thrust azimuth angle, (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 9-10 “and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,”)
where at least the thrust elevation angles are individually controllable by the control unit, (Wilson ¶ 0032 lines 22-25 “The outboard motors 116 may be differentially moved to provide stability and motion damping of the vessel in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes,” ¶ 0053 lines 21-26 “Additionally, the primary propulsion thrust vector may be dynamically adjusted about the yaw axis. In a further aspect, the vessel may include a plurality of primary marine propulsion mechanisms that may be differentially and dynamically independently adjusted to control the vessel attitude, stability and motion damping as described above,” as shown in Fig 4a)
where the control unit is arranged to estimate a pitch motion and a roll motion of the hull based on input from the motion sensor system, (Wilson ¶ 0026 lines 18-19 “The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,”)
and where the control unit is arranged to suppress the estimated motion by: suppressing the roll motion by controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in […] directions […] and suppressing the pitch motion by controlling the thrust elevation angles […] (Wilson ¶ 0026 lines 14-19 “The central control computer 26 controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism's thrust vector 18 in response to the signal from the attitude sensor 24. The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,” and ¶ 0027 lines 10-13 “It should be realized that when two or more thrust vectors are differentially controlled around their individual pitch axes, they can be used to control a vessel's roll axis,” teaching pitch and roll damping using thrust vectoring, and specifically controlling roll axis movement by controlling the pitch axes in different directions (differentially))
Wilson does not explicitly teach the specific mechanism of roll and pitch control:
[…] opposite directions to induce a counter-roll motion by the hull, […]
[…] of the first and second drive units in the same direction to induce a counter-pitch motion by the hull.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Hall teaches:
[…] controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in opposite directions to induce a counter-roll motion by the hull, and […] controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in the same direction to induce a counter-pitch motion by the hull. (Hall Col 50 lines 6-23 “The jetevators are constructed to deflect the motor gases in such a way that the resultant change in missile attitude compensates for any deviation and maintains the missile on the desired flight path. […] the thrust vector of each nozzle is varied in a direction to control missile movements about any of its three axes as follows (see Fig 18): […] jetevators l and 3 work in coordination for pitch correction; and […] jetevators work in pairs; 1 and 3 […] counter to each other for roll correction,” shown in Figs 18a and 18b to teach a pair of propulsion devices (here, the pair of jetevators 1 and 3 being analogous to the paired propulsion devices of Wilson in that they are a pair of thrust vectoring means of propulsion of a vessel with a hull), controlling pitch correction by working in coordination (counter-pitch at the same elevation angle) and controlling roll by working counter to each other (counter-roll at opposite elevation angles) as a clearly presented, unified strategy. Fig 18a makes it clear that Jetevators 1&3 work counter for roll and Fig. 18b makes it clear that the same pair of Jetevators 1 & 3 work in coordination for pitch.)
PNG
media_image3.png
236
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
229
277
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wilson and Hall are considered analogous because they both relate to control of bodies moving through fluid mediums with thrust vectoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the very generally described pitch and roll damping through thrust vectoring of Wilson by the simple addition of using thrust vectoring for roll correction with a pair of propulsion units working counter to one another and for pitch correction using a pair of propulsion units working in coordination as taught by Hall. Hall presents principles of control using thrust vectoring which are now well-known and established within the art. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of a known technique (the specific roll and pitch correction techniques of Hall) to improve similar devices in the same way (Wilson and Hall both teach vessels using thrust vectoring to control their travel and suppress unwanted pitch and roll movements through the use of thrust vectoring) according to (MPEP 2143(I)(C)), analogously to In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988) in that the primary prior art does not disclose a specific method of overcoming a problem and combined with secondary prior art to teach the specific solution. The use of Hall’s clearly presented method of controlling pitch and roll through paired thrust vectoring would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a specific control method applied to the existing thrust vectoring propulsion unit pair of Wilson to accomplish the more generally stated pitch and roll suppression.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the first drive unit and the second drive unit are mounted on a transom of the hull. (Wilson ¶ 0032 lines 1-10 “Referring to FIGS. 4-6 and 8 the primary propulsion mechanism 16 may include outboard motors 116. A four-bar-linkage support bracket 117 may be provided to permit rapid adjustment of the thrust vector angle and to permit sufficient adjustment of the trim […] The bracket may include the support arms 118 extending from a transom plate 119 and an engine mounting plate 120 pivotally mounted to the support arms 118. The transom plate 119 may be mounted to the transom 122,” teaching the engines being mounted via bracket to a transom)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the first drive unit and the second drive unit comprise respective trim actuators, (Wilson ¶ 0030 “Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3, there are shown diagrams detailing one embodiment of an actuating system 20 that is coupled to the primary marine propulsory mechanism 16 and to hydrodynamic effectors 31. In the depicted embodiment, a hydraulic actuating system is shown. It should be realized that various other actuating mechanisms including electric actuators as well as pneumatic actuators may also be utilized,” and ¶ 0032 lines 1-5 “Referring to FIGS. 4-6 and 8 the primary propulsion mechanism 16 may include outboard motors 116. A four-bar-linkage support bracket 117 may be provided to permit rapid adjustment of the thrust vector angle and to permit sufficient adjustment of the trim”)
where each trim actuator is arranged to control thrust elevation angle of its drive unit (Wilson ¶ 0031 lines 19-25 “As stated above, the central control computer 26 processes the input from the user in conjunction with the signal sent from the attitude reference unit 24 to adjust the position of the actuators 27, 28, 29. In this manner, the attitude of the vessel as well as the stability and motion damping of the vessel in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel may be controlled,”)
independently of the thrust elevation angle of the other drive unit, (Wilson ¶ 0032 lines 22-25 “The outboard motors 116 may be differentially moved to provide stability and motion damping of the vessel in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes,” ¶ 0053 lines 21-26 “Additionally, the primary propulsion thrust vector may be dynamically adjusted about the yaw axis. In a further aspect, the vessel may include a plurality of primary marine propulsion mechanisms that may be differentially and dynamically independently adjusted to control the vessel attitude, stability and motion damping as described above,” as shown in Fig 4a)
in response to a control signal from the control unit. (Wilson ¶ 0031 lines 19-22 “As stated above, the central control computer 26 processes the input from the user in conjunction with the signal sent from the attitude reference unit 24 to adjust the position of the actuators 27, 28, 29,”)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the trim actuators comprise hydraulic actuators. (Wilson ¶ 0030 “Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3, there are shown diagrams detailing one embodiment of an actuating system 20 that is coupled to the primary marine propulsory mechanism 16 and to hydrodynamic effectors 31. In the depicted embodiment, a hydraulic actuating system is shown.”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the trim actuators comprise electric machines. (Wilson ¶ 0030 “Referring to FIGS. 2 and 3, there are shown diagrams detailing one embodiment of an actuating system 20 that is coupled to the primary marine propulsory mechanism 16 and to hydrodynamic effectors 31. […] It should be realized that various other actuating mechanisms including electric actuators […] may also be utilized,”)
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the control unit is arranged to suppress a roll motion by the hull by controlling the thrust elevation angles of the drive units in different directions to induce a counter roll motion by the hull. (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 10-13 “It should be realized that when two or more thrust vectors are differentially controlled around their individual pitch axes, they can be used to control a vessel's roll axis,” teaching controlling roll axis movement by controlling the pitch axes in different directions (differentially))
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the control unit is arranged to suppress a pitch motion by the hull by controlling the thrust elevation angles of the drive units […] to induce a counter pitch motion by the hull. (Wilson ¶ 0026 lines 18-19 “The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,”)
Wilson does not explicitly teach:
[…] in the same direction […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Hall teaches:
[…] controlling the thrust elevation angles of the drive units in the same direction to induce a counter pitch motion of the hull (Hall Col 50 lines 20-21 “jetevators 1 and 3 work in coordination for pitch correction;”)
Wilson and Hall are considered analogous because they both relate to control of bodies moving through fluid mediums with thrust vectoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the very generally described pitch and roll damping through thrust vectoring of Wilson by the simple addition of using thrust vectoring for pitch correction using a pair of propulsion units working in coordination as taught by Hall. Hall presents principles of control using thrust vectoring which are now well-known and established within the art. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of a known technique (the specific pitch correction techniques of Hall) to improve similar devices in the same way (Wilson and Hall both teach vessels using thrust vectoring to control their travel and suppress unwanted pitch movements through the use of thrust vectoring) according to (MPEP 2143(I)(C)), analogously to In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988) in that the primary prior art does not disclose a specific method of overcoming a problem and combined with secondary prior art to teach the specific solution. The use of Hall’s clearly presented method of controlling pitch and roll through paired thrust vectoring would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a specific control method applied to the existing thrust vectoring propulsion unit pair of Wilson to accomplish the more generally stated pitch suppression.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
comprising a foiling system, (Wilson ¶ 0033 lines 1-6 “Referring to FIGS. 4C, 6, 7 and 9, there are shown various embodiments of hydrodynamic effectors 60, 210 and 310 including tabs and interceptors. In FIGS. 4C, 6 and 7, tabs 60, 210 are shown on a vessel including dual outboard propulsion mechanisms 16. The hydrodynamic effectors 60, 210 may be hydrofoils, planning devices,”)
where the control unit is arranged to suppress pitch motion and roll motion by the hull by controlling the foiling system (Wilson ¶ 0033 lines 6-11 “The tabs 60 may be coupled to the actuators 29. The tabs/interceptors 60, 310 may be coupled to the central control computer 26 as described above. The tabs 60, 210 may be, differentially articulated to control and damp roll and/or pitch of the vessel.,”)
in combination with the thrust elevation angles and the thrust azimuth angles of the first and second drive units. (Wilson ¶ 0033 lines 11-14 “The central control computer 26 may determine when to actuate the hydrodynamic effector 60 and the primary propulsion mechanism 16 to maintain a desired user defined vessel operating attitude or characteristic response.,”)
Regarding Claim 18, Wilson teaches:
A computer-implemented method, for stabilizing a marine vessel (Wilson ¶ 0007 lines 18-23 “A central control computer is operably coupled to the actuating system servo control and the attitude sensor and controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism and/or the at least one hydrodynamic effector to adjust the thrust vector of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism and/or a position of the vessel hydrodynamic effector in response to the signal from the attitude sensor. The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,”)
comprising a hull, (Wilson ¶ 0039 line 4 “the marine propulsion system 510 includes a vessel hull,”)
a propulsion system, (Wilson ¶ 0006 lines 1-3 “In one aspect, there is disclosed a marine vessel control system that includes at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism,”)
a control unit (Wilson ¶ 0006 lines 9-13 “A central control computer is operatively coupled to the actuating system, the servo control and the attitude sensor. The central control computer controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism's thrust vector,”)
and a motion sensor system, (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 16-20 “Additionally, an attitude reference sensor 24 is also coupled to the central control computer 26. The attitude reference sensor 24 generates a signal indicating the attitude of the vessel. Various attitude reference sensors 24 that measure the rate changes and angles of the attitude of the vessel may be utilized,”)
where the propulsion system comprises a first drive unit and a second drive unit (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 7-10 “The depicted actuating system in FIG. 2 includes two separate actuators 27, 28 for each of the pitch, and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,” as shown in Fig 4a and 4c)
separated by a longitudinal midship line of the hull, (Wilson Fig 6 shows the two outboard motors separated by the depicted longitudinal midship line)
where each drive unit is arranged to generate thrust in a controllable thrust elevation angle (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 7-10 “The depicted actuating system in FIG. 2 includes two separate actuators 27, 28 for each of the pitch, and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,”)
and in a controllable thrust azimuth angle, (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 9-10 “and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,”)
the method comprising: estimating a pitch motion and a roll motion of the hull by the control unit, based on input from the motion sensor system, (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 17-20 “The attitude reference sensor 24 generates a signal indicating the attitude of the vessel. Various attitude reference sensors 24 that measure the rate changes and angles of the attitude of the vessel may be utilized,”)
and suppressing the estimated motion by: suppressing the roll motion by controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in […] directions […] and suppressing the pitch motion by controlling the thrust elevation angles […] (Wilson ¶ 0026 lines 14-19 “The central control computer 26 controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism's thrust vector 18 in response to the signal from the attitude sensor 24. The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,” and ¶ 0027 lines 10-13 “It should be realized that when two or more thrust vectors are differentially controlled around their individual pitch axes, they can be used to control a vessel's roll axis,” teaching pitch and roll damping using thrust vectoring, and specifically controlling roll axis movement by controlling the pitch axes in different directions (differentially))
Wilson does not explicitly teach the specific mechanism of roll and pitch control:
[…] opposite directions to induce a counter-roll motion by the hull, […]
[…] of the first and second drive units in the same direction to induce a counter-pitch motion by the hull.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Hall teaches:
[…] controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in opposite directions to induce a counter-roll motion by the hull, and […] controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in the same direction to induce a counter-pitch motion by the hull. (Hall Col 50 lines 6-23 “The jetevators are constructed to deflect the motor gases in such a way that the resultant change in missile attitude compensates for any deviation and maintains the missile on the desired flight path. […] the thrust vector of each nozzle is varied in a direction to control missile movements about any of its three axes as follows (see Fig 18): […] jetevators l and 3 work in coordination for pitch correction; and […] jetevators work in pairs; 1 and 3 […] counter to each other for roll correction,” shown in Figs 18a and 18b to teach a pair of propulsion devices (here, the pair of jetevators 1 and 3 being analogous to the paired propulsion devices of Wilson in that they are a pair of thrust vectoring means of propulsion of a vessel with a hull), controlling pitch correction by working in coordination (counter-pitch at the same elevation angle) and controlling roll by working counter to each other (counter-roll at opposite elevation angles). Fig 18a makes it clear that Jetevators 1&3 work counter for roll and Fig. 18b makes it clear that the same pair of Jetevators 1 & 3 work in coordination for pitch.)
Wilson and Hall are considered analogous because they both relate to control of bodies moving through fluid mediums with thrust vectoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the very generally described pitch and roll damping through thrust vectoring of Wilson by the simple addition of using thrust vectoring for roll correction with a pair of propulsion units working counter to one another and for pitch correction using a pair of propulsion units working in coordination as taught by Hall. Hall presents principles of control using thrust vectoring which are now well-known and established within the art. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of a known technique (the specific roll and pitch correction techniques of Hall) to improve similar devices in the same way (Wilson and Hall both teach vessels using thrust vectoring to control their travel and suppress unwanted pitch and roll movements through the use of thrust vectoring) according to (MPEP 2143(I)(C)), analogously to In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988) in that the primary prior art does not disclose a specific method of overcoming a problem and combined with secondary prior art to teach the specific solution. The use of Hall’s clearly presented method of controlling pitch and roll through paired thrust vectoring would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a specific control method applied to the existing thrust vectoring propulsion unit pair of Wilson to accomplish the more generally stated pitch and roll suppression.
Regarding Claim 20, Wilson teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, for stabilizing a marine vessel (Wilson ¶ 0007 lines 18-23 “A central control computer is operably coupled to the actuating system servo control and the attitude sensor and controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism and/or the at least one hydrodynamic effector to adjust the thrust vector of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism and/or a position of the vessel hydrodynamic effector in response to the signal from the attitude sensor. The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,” computer operation being analogous to operating from instructions on storage media processed through processing circuitry)
comprising a hull, (Wilson ¶ 0039 line 4 “the marine propulsion system 510 includes a vessel hull ,”)
a propulsion system, (Wilson ¶ 0006 lines 1-3 “In one aspect, there is disclosed a marine vessel control system that includes at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism,”)
a control unit (Wilson ¶ 0006 lines 9-13 “A central control computer is operatively coupled to the actuating system, the servo control and the attitude sensor. The central control computer controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism's thrust vector,”)
and a motion sensor system, (Wilson ¶ x lines 16-20 “Additionally, an attitude reference sensor 24 is also coupled to the central control computer 26. The attitude reference sensor 24 generates a signal indicating the attitude of the vessel. Various attitude reference sensors 24 that measure the rate changes and angles of the attitude of the vessel may be utilized,”)
where the propulsion system comprises a first drive unit and a second drive unit (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 7-10 “The depicted actuating system in FIG. 2 includes two separate actuators 27, 28 for each of the pitch, and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,” as shown in Fig 4a and 4c)
separated by a longitudinal midship line of the hull, (Wilson Fig 6 shows the two outboard motors separated by the depicted longitudinal midship line)
where each drive unit is arranged to generate thrust in a controllable thrust elevation angle (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 7-10 “The depicted actuating system in FIG. 2 includes two separate actuators 27, 28 for each of the pitch, and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,”)
and in a controllable thrust azimuth angle, (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 9-10 “and yaw axes for two primary marine propulsory mechanisms 16,”)
which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: estimate a pitch motion and a roll motion of the hull by the control unit, based on input from the motion sensor system, (Wilson ¶ 0026 lines 18-19 “The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,”)
and suppress the estimated motion by: suppressing the roll motion by controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in […] directions […] and suppressing the pitch motion by controlling the thrust elevation angles […] (Wilson ¶ 0026 lines 14-19 “The central control computer 26 controls the actuation of the at least one primary marine propulsory mechanism's thrust vector 18 in response to the signal from the attitude sensor 24. The attitude, stability and motion damping in at least one of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel is controlled,” and ¶ 0027 lines 10-13 “It should be realized that when two or more thrust vectors are differentially controlled around their individual pitch axes, they can be used to control a vessel's roll axis,” teaching pitch and roll damping using thrust vectoring, and specifically controlling roll axis movement by controlling the pitch axes in different directions (differentially))
Wilson does not explicitly teach the specific mechanism of roll and pitch control:
[…] opposite directions to induce a counter-roll motion by the hull, […]
[…] of the first and second drive units in the same direction to induce a counter-pitch motion by the hull.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Hall teaches:
[…] controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in opposite directions to induce a counter-roll motion by the hull, and […] controlling the thrust elevation angles of the first and second drive units in the same direction to induce a counter-pitch motion by the hull. (Hall Col 50 lines 6-23 “The jetevators are constructed to deflect the motor gases in such a way that the resultant change in missile attitude compensates for any deviation and maintains the missile on the desired flight path. […] the thrust vector of each nozzle is varied in a direction to control missile movements about any of its three axes as follows (see Fig 18): […] jetevators l and 3 work in coordination for pitch correction; and […] jetevators work in pairs; 1 and 3 […] counter to each other for roll correction,” shown in Figs 18a and 18b to teach a pair of propulsion devices (here, the pair of jetevators 1 and 3 being analogous to the paired propulsion devices of Wilson in that they are a pair of thrust vectoring means of propulsion of a vessel with a hull), controlling pitch correction by working in coordination (counter-pitch at the same elevation angle) and controlling roll by working counter to each other (counter-roll at opposite elevation angles). Fig 18a makes it clear that Jetevators 1&3 work counter for roll and Fig. 18b makes it clear that the same pair of Jetevators 1 & 3 work in coordination for pitch.)
Wilson and Hall are considered analogous because they both relate to control of bodies moving through fluid mediums with thrust vectoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the very generally described pitch and roll damping through thrust vectoring of Wilson by the simple addition of using thrust vectoring for roll correction with a pair of propulsion units working counter to one another and for pitch correction using a pair of propulsion units working in coordination as taught by Hall. Hall presents principles of control using thrust vectoring which are now well-known and established within the art. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of a known technique (the specific roll and pitch correction techniques of Hall) to improve similar devices in the same way (Wilson and Hall both teach vessels using thrust vectoring to control their travel and suppress unwanted pitch and roll movements through the use of thrust vectoring) according to (MPEP 2143(I)(C)), analogously to In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988) in that the primary prior art does not disclose a specific method of overcoming a problem and combined with secondary prior art to teach the specific solution. The use of Hall’s clearly presented method of controlling pitch and roll through paired thrust vectoring would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as a specific control method applied to the existing thrust vectoring propulsion unit pair of Wilson to accomplish the more generally stated pitch and roll suppression.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the control unit implements a drive unit coordination function, (Wilson ¶ 0053 lines 10-26 “The central control computer 26 provides a signal to the servo control 22 linked with the actuating system 20 that is coupled with the primary propulsory mechanism 16 or vessel hydrodynamic effector 60. The primary propulsion mechanism's thrust vector 18 and the position of the hydrodynamic effector 60 are controlled such that the attitude, stability and motion damping in any of the pitch, roll and yaw axes of the vessel are controlled in response to the input from the user. In one aspect, the primary propulsion thrust vector may be dynamically adjusted about the pitch axis in both a negative and positive pitch trim about the axis. Additionally, the primary propulsion thrust vector may be dynamically adjusted about the yaw axis. In a further aspect, the vessel may include a plurality of primary marine propulsion mechanisms that may be differentially and dynamically independently adjusted to control the vessel attitude, stability and motion damping as described above,” describing differential and dynamic independent control of a plurality of propulsion mechanisms to control vessel attitude, stability, and motion damping, which describes coordination between drive units)
which drive unit coordination function uses a configured model of vessel dynamics as part of the coordination (Wilson ¶ 0028-0029 “The central control computer 26 may include a gain setting that may be controlled by an operator or may be automatically adjusted by the central control computer 26 as a speed of the vessel changes. In one aspect the central control computer may link the gain settings relative to the vessel's speed which is detected by a speed sensor 33. For example, at lower speeds the central control computer 26 may increase the gain setting to provide greater control as forces produced by hydrodynamic effectors 31 are speed dependent, increasing with speed as a function of velocity-squared […] The central control computer 26 is also linked with various input devices 30 that may be utilized by a user to specify control parameters. […] Examples of system parameters that an operator can control or adjust through the user interface include: the selection of automatic or manual vessel control system operating modes; the selection of a desired trim and list of the vessel such as the static trim and list attitude that the vessel control system attempts to maintain, the selection of the gain setting for pitch and roll control functions to modify how hard the vessel control system attempts to reduce pitch and roll motions, the selection of the static bias angle or baseline average angle of attack, the selection of the desired turn bank mode or how the vessel reacts in a turn between a normal coordinated turn and a flat turn.,” describing configuration of multiple performance variables of the control system and an example of vessel dynamics modelling (adjusting gain settings based on vessel speed))
Claim(s) 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Hall and further in view of Arbuckle et al (US 20110153125, hereinafter “Arbuckle”).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson does not explicitly teach:
where the hull has a center of gravity, where the pitch motion and the roll motion of the hull is defined in relation to the center of gravity.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Arbuckle teaches:
where the hull has a center of gravity, (Arbuckle ¶ 0043 lines 1-2 “In FIG. 1, a marine vessel 10 is illustrated schematically with its center of gravity 12.”)
PNG
media_image5.png
225
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
where the pitch motion and the roll motion of the hull is defined in relation to the center of gravity. (Arbuckle ¶ 0071 lines 3-6 “For purposes of describing a preferred embodiment, the position will be described in terms of the position of the center of gravity 12 of the marine vessel and a heading vector 110 which extends through the center of gravity,” and ¶ 0100 lines 13-15 “The control device 116 is configured to receive at least one of an existing pitch and existing roll of the marine vessel 210 in the selected global position 12,” Global Position 12 being synonymous with Center of Gravity 12)
Wilson and Arbuckle are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch and roll measurement of Wilson with the measurement of existing pitch and existing roll in the center of gravity of Arbuckle. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(a)) to measure pitch and roll relative to a known reference.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the motion sensor system […] arranged to measure rotation by the hull about a longitudinal reference axis and a lateral reference axis. (Wilson ¶ 0027 lines 16-20 “Additionally, an attitude reference sensor 24 is also coupled to the central control computer 26. The attitude reference sensor 24 generates a signal indicating the attitude of the vessel. Various attitude reference sensors 24 that measure the rate changes and angles of the attitude of the vessel may be utilized,” shown in Fig 1 to be about longitudinal and lateral reference axes)
Wilson does not teach:
[…] comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU, […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Arbuckle teaches:
where the motion sensor system comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU, […] (Arbuckle ¶ 0066 “FIG. 11 is a schematic representation of a marine vessel 10 which is configured to perform the steps of a preferred embodiment relating to a method for maintaining a marine vessel in a selected position. The marine vessel 10 is provided with […] an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 106. […] In certain embodiments of the IMU 106, it comprises a differential correction receiver, accelerometers, angular rate sensors, and a microprocessor which manipulates the information obtained from these devices to provide information relating to the current position of the marine vessel 10, in terms of longitude and latitude, the current heading of the marine vessel 10, represented by arrow 110 in FIG. 11, and the velocity and acceleration of the marine vessel 10 in six degrees of freedom.”)
Wilson and Arbuckle are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attitude reference sensors to measure pitch and roll measurement about longitudinal and lateral reference axes of Wilson with the addition of Arbuckle’s IMU in order to measure those values. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(a)).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view Hall and further in view of Buck (DE 102018112052, hereinafter “Buck,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
[…] control unit is arranged to determine at least speed of the hull relative to the water surface […] (Wilson ¶ 0028 lines 15-17 “Vessel speed information may be provided by […] Doppler, paddle wheel, or other speed sensing devices,”)
Wilson does not explicitly teach:
where the motion sensor system comprises at least one radar transceiver arranged to transmit a radar signal in a boresight direction pointing at the sea surface at a non-zero angle relative to a normal of the sea surface, where a radar transceiver […] based on radar backscatter from the sea surface.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Buck teaches:
where the motion sensor system comprises at least one radar transceiver arranged to transmit a radar signal in a boresight direction pointing at the sea surface at a non-zero angle relative to a normal of the sea surface, where a radar transceiver […] based on radar backscatter from the sea surface. (Buck Pg 3 ¶ 1-2 “In a further useful embodiment, it is provided to arrange a plurality of distance sensors at the bow or mast of the vessel. This makes it particularly advantageous possible to detect the amplitude and shape of the incoming waves and adjust the control of the wings accordingly. Preferably, the distance sensors are designed as […] radar sensors,” shown as item 60 in Fig 2 to be oriented at a non-zero angle relative to a normal of the sea surface)
PNG
media_image6.png
418
616
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wilson and Buck are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the doppler speed sensor of Wilson by combining the function with Buck’s radar distance sensor mounted at a non-zero angle to the normal of the sea surface. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
[…] control units are arranged to determine at least speed of the hull relative to the water surface […] (Wilson ¶ 0028 lines 15-17 “Vessel speed information may be provided by […] Doppler, paddle wheel, or other speed sensing devices,”)
Wilson does not explicitly teach:
comprising a plurality of radar transceivers arranged to transmit respective radar signals in respective boresight directions pointing at the sea surface, where one or more radar transceiver […] based on radar backscatter from the sea surface.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Buck teaches:
comprising a plurality of radar transceivers arranged to transmit respective radar signals in respective boresight directions pointing at the sea surface, where one or more radar transceiver […] based on radar backscatter from the sea surface. (Buck Pg 3 ¶ 1-2 “In a further useful embodiment, it is provided to arrange a plurality of distance sensors at the bow or mast of the vessel. This makes it particularly advantageous possible to detect the amplitude and shape of the incoming waves and adjust the control of the wings accordingly. Preferably, the distance sensors are designed as […] radar sensors,” shown as items 60 in Fig 5 to be oriented toward the sea surface)
PNG
media_image7.png
526
427
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wilson and Buck are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the doppler speed sensor of Wilson by combining the function with the addition of Buck’s plurality of radar distance sensors pointing at the sea surface. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)), and further by covering a larger area of space to determine more information about incoming waves with multiple sensors (Buck Pg 4 ¶ 9).
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Hall and further in view of Nakayama (JP H0848288, hereinafter “Nakayama,” all citations and excerpts taken from the attached machine translation).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson does not explicitly teach:
where a radar transceiver is arranged to determine a distance from the radar transceiver to the sea surface,
where the control unit is arranged to estimate the pitch motion and/or the roll motion of the hull based on the determined distance to the sea surface.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Nakayama teaches:
where a radar transceiver is arranged to determine a distance from the radar transceiver to the sea surface, (Nakayama Pg 5 ¶ 2 line 7-¶ 4 line 1 “The wave radar 33 constitutes wave direction detecting means in the invention, and includes a gyro sensor 34, an acceleration sensor 35, The altitude sensor 36 and the wave height calculator 3 in the arithmetic and control unit 1 constitutes the wave height measuring means,” teaching the wave radar including altitude sensing)
where the control unit is arranged to estimate the pitch motion and/or the roll motion of the hull based on the determined distance to the sea surface. (Nakayama Pg 4 ¶ 9 “The wave height calculation unit 31 obtains the reference (average) water surface position L from the acceleration sensor position shown in FIG. 2 by integrating twice the vertical acceleration measured by the acceleration sensor 35, and the altitude sensor 36. The wave height is obtained by obtaining the one-sided amplitude H of the wave from the difference between the height h to the water surface measured in step 1 and this reference water surface position L. At this time, the pitching and rolling signals from the gyro sensor 34 are used to correct the vertical acceleration measured by the acceleration sensor 35,” teaching pitch and roll correction using altitude measurement)
Wilson and Nakayama are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attitude reference sensor of Wilson by adding the function of Nakayama’s wave radar with altitude sensing to use the altitude sensing to correct the pitch and roll measurements. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) to determine more complete information about the vessel’s orientation and movement.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson does not explicitly teach:
where a radar transceiver is arranged to determine a distance from the radar transceiver to the sea surface, where the control unit is arranged to estimate a heave of the hull based on the determined distance to the sea surface.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Nakayama teaches:
where a radar transceiver is arranged to determine a distance from the radar transceiver to the sea surface, (Nakayama Pg 5 ¶ 2 line 7-¶ 4 line 1 “The wave radar 33 constitutes wave direction detecting means in the invention, and includes a gyro sensor 34, an acceleration sensor 35, The altitude sensor 36 and the wave height calculator 3 in the arithmetic and control unit 1 constitutes the wave height measuring means,” teaching the wave radar including altitude sensing)
where the control unit is arranged to estimate a heave of the hull based on the determined distance to the sea surface. (Nakayama Pg 4 ¶ 9 lines 1-2 “The wave height calculation unit 31 obtains the reference (average) water surface position L,” the reference average water surface position L as shown in Figure 1 being analogous to vessel heave)
PNG
media_image8.png
228
422
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wilson and Nakayama are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attitude reference sensor of Wilson by adding the function of Nakayama’s wave radar with altitude sensing to calculate the reference (average) water surface position. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) to determine more complete information about the vessel’s orientation and movement.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where a […] control unit is arranged to determine a speed and/or acceleration of the hull relative to the sea surface […] (Wilson ¶ 0028 lines 15-17 “Vessel speed information may be provided by […] Doppler, paddle wheel, or other speed sensing devices,”)
[…] where the control unit is arranged to determine an Euler angle of the hull […] (Wilson ¶ x lines 16-20 “Additionally, an attitude reference sensor 24 is also coupled to the central control computer 26. The attitude reference sensor 24 generates a signal indicating the attitude of the vessel. Various attitude reference sensors 24 that measure the rate changes and angles of the attitude of the vessel may be utilized,” a signal indicating the attitude of the vessel being analogous to determination of an Euler angle)
Wilson does not explicitly teach:
[…] radar transceiver […] based on one or more radar signals,
where an IMU is arranged to determine an acceleration of the hull in an inertial reference frame,
[…] based on the speed and/or acceleration of the hull relative to the sea surface and on the acceleration of the hull in the inertial reference frame.
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Nakayama teaches:
where a radar transceiver control unit is arranged to determine a speed and/or acceleration of the hull relative to the sea surface (Nakayama Pg 4 ¶ 5 lines 4-6 “Then, the wave radar 33 detects the traveling direction of the wave, that is, whether the wave is an oncoming wave or a follow wave with respect to the own ship, and measures its speed,” teaching the wave radar including altitude sensing)
where an IMU is arranged to determine an acceleration of the hull in an inertial reference frame, (Nakayama Pg 5 ¶ 5 “The wave radar 33 constitutes wave direction detecting means in the invention, and includes a gyro sensor 34, an acceleration sensor 35,” teaching the operative elements of an IMU, gyro and acceleration sensors)
where the control unit is arranged to determine […] of the hull based on the speed and/or acceleration of the hull relative to the sea surface and on the acceleration of the hull in the inertial reference frame. (Nakayama Pg 5 ¶ 5 “The present embodiment is configured as described above, and while measuring the direction and speed of the wave with the wave radar and obtaining the wave height with the acceleration sensor, the altitude sensor, etc., satisfying the condition that the bow is not exposed in the air. In order to reduce fluctuations such as pitching of the hull, calculations are performed to optimally control the fin attack angle, and based on this result, the fin mounting angle as a hydrofoil is controlled and driven. Optimal posture control is ensured according to the environment, the risk of overturning due to broaching or the like, and large sinking are prevented, and the riding comfort is greatly improved,” teaching calculation of hull posture information based on the acceleration and wave radar data)
Wilson and Nakayama are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attitude reference sensor of Wilson by adding the function of Nakayama’s wave radar with gyro and acceleration sensing to calculate posture information about the vessel, applying the calculation of posture information as a method for Wilson’s attitude measurement. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) to determine more complete information about the vessel’s orientation and movement.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Hall and further in view of Hasselskog (EP 4086154, hereinafter “Hasselskog”).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 16 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the foiling system comprises a […] a rear hydrofoil arrangement, (Wilson ¶ 0033 lines 1-6 “Referring to FIGS. 4C, 6, 7 and 9, there are shown various embodiments of hydrodynamic effectors 60, 210 and 310 including tabs and interceptors. In FIGS. 4C, 6 and 7, tabs 60, 210 are shown on a vessel including dual outboard propulsion mechanisms 16. The hydrodynamic effectors 60, 210 may be hydrofoils, planning devices,” shown in Fig 4C to be at the rear of the ship)
where the control unit is arranged to […] to control pitch and/or roll of the hull based on control of the rear hydrofoil arrangement. (Wilson ¶ 0033 lines 6-11 “The tabs 60 may be coupled to the actuators 29. The tabs/interceptors 60, 310 may be coupled to the central control computer 26 as described above. The tabs 60, 210 may be, differentially articulated to control and damp roll and/or pitch of the vessel.,”)
Wilson does not teach:
[…] front hydrofoil arrangement and […]
[…] control a heave of the hull based on control of the front hydrofoil arrangement and […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Hasselskog teaches:
[…] front hydrofoil arrangement and […] (Hasselskog ¶ 0019 “Figure 1 depicts an exemplifying watercraft 120 having a hydrofoil 130. The hydrofoil 130 may be a fully submerged hydrofoil, a surface piercing hydrofoil or the like," Fig 1 shows the hydrofoil 130 toward the front of the ship)
[…] control a heave of the hull (Hasselskog Pg 7 ¶ 0072 line 40 “a first constraint that the hydrofoil 130 stays within an interval relative to the water surface,” and Pg 2 ¶ 0004 line 21 “A hydrofoil boat with fully submerged foils and automatic height control,” teaching height control at a defined interval, analogous to controlling heave)
based on control of the front hydrofoil arrangement […] (Hasselskog Pg 7 ¶ 0072 lines 45-46 “sending A070 a signal for adjusting the hydrofoil 130 according to the AoA, thereby controlling the motion of the watercraft 120,”)
Wilson and Hasselskog are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pitch and roll control via rear hydrofoils of Wilson with the addition of Hasselskog’s automatic height control using a forward hydrofoil. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(a)), and further motivated by raising the vessel on hydrofoils to allow for a smoother ride over the waves with less accelerations to improve driver and passenger comfort (Hasselskog ¶ 0016).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Hall and further in view of Stallings (US 20060057910, hereinafter “Stallings,”).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Wilson and Hall teaches the elements of Claim 1 as described above. Wilson further teaches:
where the two drive units are […] rotatable in a horizontal plane. […] (Wilson ¶ 0053 lines 21-22 “Additionally, the primary propulsion thrust vector may be dynamically adjusted about the yaw axis.,”)
Wilson does not teach:
[…] supported on a center member which is […]
Within the same field of endeavor as Wilson, Stallings teaches:
where the two drive units are supported on a center member which is rotatable in a horizontal plane. (Stallings ¶ 0027 lines 3-18 “Through the use of hydraulic pressure to the steering cylinder 94 the articulated outdrive 30 can be directed to port or to starboard to steer the vessel as shown in FIG. 5. […] By combining a rudder 70 with a hydraulic steering cylinder 94 to control the direction of the articulated outdrive 30, a vessel operator has a smaller turning radius and higher maneuverability of the vessel,” teaching a center member (the articulated outdrive shown as item 30) connecting the two propellers (drive units) and rotatable in a horizontal plane as shown in Fig. 5)
PNG
media_image9.png
579
505
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Wilson and Stallings are considered analogous because they both relate to marine vessel attitude control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the primary propulsion units dynamically adjustable about a yaw axis of Wilson by adding the steerable connective articulated outdrive structure of Stallings. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as motivated by the use of a known technique (using a steerable outdrive structure of Stallings) to improve similar devices (the steerable outdrive of Stallings and the vectored thrust primary propulsive unit dynamically adjustable in a yaw direction of Wilson) in the same way (steering in the yaw direction, or in a horizontal plane) and furthermore motivated by enabling a smaller turning radius and high maneuverability of the vessel (Stallings ¶ 0027 lines 15-18)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20060172630 shows a similar dual-propeller drive unit with a geared transmission to Figure 8
CN 115384743 shows a similar dual-propeller drive unit with a geared transmission to Figure 8 but uses an integrated rudder rather than rotation of the drive unit to control yaw
US 20230286613 shows a propulsion system for a hydrofoil with articulation of below-vessel members in yaw and pitch directions that structurally connects multiple propellers to control them at once, but does not connect them centrally
As cited in a previous rejection, Sicconi (DE 102018109085) teaches the control of thrust opposite a pitch direction to control pitch in a marine vessel, establishing the use of thrust vectoring similar to Wilson and Hall in a unified pitch direction in a marine environment.
EP 3722201 presents marine vessel thrust vectoring using a different arrangement of thrusters.
US 20210403155 presents another example of aircraft thrust vectoring that outlines pitch correction, and roll correction using opposite direction thrust.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights