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 25, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on April 29, 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
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/441,106 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term at least some time in claims 10, 12, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term at least some time is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation as a timeframe greater than zero units of time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2023/0161360 (hereinafter, “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses A method of controlling movement, relative to a watercraft, of at least one steering device on the watercraft in response to movement of a steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0039]; the course changing operator such as the steering wheel (i.e., steering input), and the steering device (i.e., at least one steering device)), the method comprising:
controlling a target association, between steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft and respective steering positions of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft, in response to at least uncoordinated movement comprising previous movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft, previous movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft, or both (see at least Fig. 5, [0012] and [0074]-[0081]; an error (i.e., target association) between the operation of the steering wheel and the operation of the steering device is monitored and identified as an error based on a difference/inconsistency between the operation of the steering wheel and the operation of the steering device).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the uncoordinated movement comprises previous movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft (see at least [0012] and [0058]; the uncoordinated movement may be detected based on previous movement of the steering input and/or the at least one steering device).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the previous movement of the steering input uncoordinated with any movement of the at least one steering device comprises previous movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft when the steering input is in a mode in which movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft does not control movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft (see at least [0058]; the inconsistency may be caused by the previous operations being performed in a mode that does not update the steering device based on the steering wheel).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the previous movement of the steering input uncoordinated with any movement of the at least one steering device comprises previous movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft beyond a steering-input position associated with an end of a steering range of the at least one steering device (see at least [0078]; the predetermined voltage range of the steering position sensor may be exceeded resulting in the inconsistency).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the uncoordinated movement comprises previous movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0058]; the inconsistency may be caused by the previous operations being performed in a mode that does not update the steering device based on the steering wheel).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue discloses An apparatus for controlling movement, relative to a watercraft, of at least one steering device on the watercraft in response to movement of a steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0039]; the course changing operator such as the steering wheel (i.e., steering input), and the steering device (i.e., at least one steering device)), the apparatus comprising:
at least one controller configured to, at least, control a target association, between steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft and respective steering positions of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft, in response to at least uncoordinated movement comprising previous movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft, previous movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft, or both (see at least Fig. 5, [0012] and [0074]-[0081]; an error (i.e., target association) between the operation of the steering wheel and the operation of the steering device is monitored and identified as an error based on a difference/inconsistency between the operation of the steering wheel and the operation of the steering device).
Regarding claim 7, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the target association has a predefined ratio of amounts of change of steering angle relative to the watercraft to amounts of change of steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0012] and [0074]-[0081]; the error is based on the positional relationship between the steering wheel and steering device).
Regarding claim 8, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the target association has a ratio, modified by the at least one controller from a predefined ratio, of amounts of change of steering angle relative to the watercraft to amounts of change of steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0012] and [0074]-[0081]; the error is based on the positional relationship between the steering wheel and steering device).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein:
a reference association is an association, between steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft and respective steering positions of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft, absent any movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft, and absent any movement of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft uncoordinated with any movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0007]; the neutral position is considered the reference association); and
the at least one controller is configured to control the target association by, at least, causing the target association to comprise the reference association, for at least some time, in response to the steering input reaching a steering-input position relative to the watercraft when the at least one steering device reaches a steering position relative to the watercraft associated with the steering-input position according to the reference association (see at least Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0007], and [0081]-[0087]; the neutral position is considered the reference association).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the steering input is rotatable relative to the watercraft entirely around an axis of rotation (see at least [0044]; the entirety of the steering wheel rotates around the axis of rotation relative to the watercraft).
Regarding claim 17, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the target association associates steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft with respective steering positions of the at least one steering device relative to the watercraft such that movement of the steering input relative to the watercraft, by a required amount of movement associated with the target association, causes the steering input to reach a reference steering-input position relative to the watercraft and is associated with causing the at least one steering device to reach a reference steering position relative to the watercraft when the steering input reaches the reference steering-input position relative to the watercraft (see at least Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0007], and [0081]-[0087]; the neutral position is considered the reference steering input position).
Regarding claim 18, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Inoue discloses wherein the reference steering-input position is a central steering position of the steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0007], and [0081]-[0087]; the neutral position (i.e., central steering position) is considered the reference steering input position).
Regarding claim 19, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Inoue discloses A system comprising (see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, and [0012]):
the watercraft (see at least Fig. 1); and
the apparatus of claim 6 on the watercraft (see at least claim 6 above).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of JP2015/182665 (hereinafter, “Miyagi”).
Regarding claim 9, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. However, Inoue does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9. Miyagi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ratio is modified by the at least one controller according to at least a rate of movement over time of the steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least the Advantage section and Claim 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Inoue with the teachings of Miyagi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the boat more user friendly based on user intent; see at least Miyagi at Advantage section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are objected to as depending on a rejected claim but may be found allowable if re-written in independent form including any intervening claims and after the above rejections are remedied. Claim 20 is found allowable over the prior art and may be found allowable after the above rejections are remedied. Reasons for indicated allowable subject matter will be provided after the above rejections are remedied.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US2023/0202632 which relates to controlling an outboard motor based when a failure is detected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666