DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the remarks filed on 12/8/2026.
Claims 1-29 are currently pending
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8-11, 15, 16, 18, 22-25, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) in further view of Lemancik et al. (US 11,519,327).
As to claim 1 Hiramatsu discloses a throttle controller system adapted for retrofit installation on an auxiliary outboard motor (figure 2) of a watercraft to implement closed-loop control of trolling speed Comprising:
a plurality of sensors (column 10 liens 45-60) installed within the watercraft, configured to generate one or more signals based at least on a movement of the watercraft and a movement of a shift arm attached to the watercraft: (column 10 liens 60-65)
at least one controller communicatively coupled to the plurality of sensors, configured to determine a motor shift position of the auxiliary outboard motor based at least on the generated one or more signals (column 10 liens 60-65, see below.)
The hull ECU 20 is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a microcomputer. The hull ECU 20 communicates with the ECUs 13R, 13L, 14R, and 14L via a LAN (local area network; hereinafter referred to as the "inboard LAN") disposed inside the hull 2. The hull ECU 20 acquires engine speeds of engines, included in the outboard motors 11R and 11L, via the outboard motor ECUs 13R and 13L. The hull ECU 20 provides data expressing target shift positions (forward drive, neutral, and reverse drive) and target engine speeds to the outboard motor ECUs 13R and 13L. Also, the hull ECU 20 provides target steering angles to the steering ECUs 14R and 14L via the inboard LAN 25. The steering ECUs 14R and 14L control steering actuators 53 (see FIG. 2) included in the steering units 12R and 12L to pivot the outboard motors 11R and 11L in right and left directions according to the target steering angles.
at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one controller (figure 2 #13 and 14), and configured to facilitate a user to send one or more commands to the at least one controller;
an actuator (figure 2 #51) configured for installation underneath a cowling of the auxiliary outboard motor and to actuate a motor throttle linkage that facilitates mechanically controlling a throttle response of the auxiliary outboard motor based at least on the one or more commands and the determined motor shill position, and
(Column 10 liens 60-65, see below.)
The hull ECU 20 provides data expressing target shift positions (forward drive, neutral, and reverse drive) and target engine speeds to the outboard motor ECUs 13R and 13L. Also, the hull ECU 20 provides target steering angles
wherein the at least one controller, based at least on the one or more commands and the determined motor shift position, controls the actuator to change the throttle response and thereby precisely control the trolling speed.
(column 27 lines 35-50)
The hull ECU 20 is programmed to execute a control operation of maintaining the heading of the hull 2 when the heading maintenance button 80 is operated. The heading sensor 18 is arranged to detect the heading of the hull 2. The heading of the hull 2 refers to the direction from the stern to stem along the hull center line 5. Heading maintenance of the hull 2 is a hull behavior that is desirable in a case of performing fishing while letting the hull 2 move along with a current flow while maintaining the heading of the hull 2 (drift fishing), in a case of making the hull 2 run at low speed while maintaining the heading of the hull 2 (trolling), etc.
Hiramatsu is disclosing the full motor and limitations above but does not disclose the controller being wireless.
Lemancik disclose a motor controller similar to Hiramatsu is and also discloses in (column 6 lines 45-55) that it is well known in the art to make the controllers wireless in order to link to different control modules.
As to being retrofit all controllers are adapted to being retrofit. Adapted to meaning the controllers have connections meant to me connected to sensors and controls of an engine ready to be retrofitted.
As to claim 2 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, wherein the at least one controller (13) is installed underneath the cowling (36).
As to claim 4 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 2, wherein the controller is installed without cutting or modifying the cowling (shown in figure 2).
As to claim 8 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, wherein the actuator is a radio control (RC) servo motor or a stack linear actuator.
(As disclosed in the prior set of claims these are common actuators. The actuators disclosed are a common electric motor type actuator same as servo motor is an electric motor). (column 13 lines 40-50).
As to claim 9 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, wherein the position of the at least one controller is re-oriented with recalibration of the wireless throttle controller system.
This limitation is mentioned in the specification. But is not expanded on other than the controller can be relocated. Therefore, the controller to Hiramatsu is also capable of being moved as any controller can be placed anywhere and wires connected. Recalibration of the wireless throttle can be interpreted as reconnection to the controller after moving it.
As to claim 10 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, wherein the motor shift position neutral, forward, and reverse position.
(column 9 lines 60-70)
The hull ECU 20 is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a microcomputer. The hull ECU 20 communicates with the ECUs 13R, 13L, 14R, and 14L via a LAN (local area network; hereinafter referred to as the "inboard LAN") disposed inside the hull 2. The hull ECU 20 acquires engine speeds of engines, included in the outboard motors 11R and 11L, via the outboard motor ECUs 13R and 13L. The hull ECU 20 provides data expressing target shift positions (forward drive, neutral, and reverse drive)
As to claim 11 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 10, wherein upon determining the motor shift position in either forward or reverse position, the at least one controller drives the actuator to control the throttle response. (column 11 lines 30-60)
As to claim 15 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, wherein the one or more commands comprises at least one of increasing the trolling speed, decreasing the trolling speed, setting the watercraft on cruise control, resetting a throttle position, setting the throttle position to idle, or executing & time-variable speed adjustment pattern (column 6 lines 5-25)
As to claim 16 Hiramatsu discloses a method of closed-loop control of trolling speed using a retrofit installation of a wireless throttle controller system on an auxiliary outboard motor of a watercraft, the method comprising:
generating, via a plurality of sensors (column 10 lines 45-60), one or more signals based at least on a movement of a watercraft and a movement of a shift arm (figure 1 # 16) attached to the watercraft (figure 1):
determining, via at least one controller (figure 1 #20,13 and 14) communicatively coupled to the one or more sensors, a motor shift position of the auxiliary outboard motor based at least on the generated one or more signals (figure 1);
sending, via at least one computing device communicatively coupled to the at least one controller, one or more commands to the at least one controller (column 6 lines 5-25); and
driving, via the at least one controller, an actuator (figure 2 #51) to actuate a motor throttle linkage that facilitates mechanically controlling a throttle response of the auxiliary outboard motor based at least on the one or more commands and the determined motor shift position (Column 10 liens 60-65),
wherein the at least one controller (figure 2 #13) is installed underneath a cowling (figure 2 # 36) of the auxiliary outboard motor.
As to claim 18 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the controller is installed without cutting the cowling or the watercraft. (shown in figure 2).
As to claim 22 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 16 wherein the actuator is a radio control (RC) servo motor or a stack linear actuator.
(As disclosed in the prior set of claims these are common actuators. The actuators disclosed are a common electric motor type actuator same as servo motor is an electric motor). (column 13 lines 40-50).
As to claim 23 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 16, wherein a position of the at least one controller is re-oriented with recalibration of the wireless throttle controller system.
This limitation is mentioned in the specification. But is not expanded on other than the controller can be relocated. Therefore, the controller to Hiramatsu is also capable of being moved as any controller can be placed anywhere and wires connected. Recalibration of the wireless throttle can be interpreted as reconnection to the controller after moving it.
As to claim 24 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the motor shift position includes neutral, forward, and reverse position.
(column 9 lines 60-70)
The hull ECU 20 is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a microcomputer. The hull ECU 20 communicates with the ECUs 13R, 13L, 14R, and 14L via a LAN (local area network; hereinafter referred to as the "inboard LAN") disposed inside the hull 2. The hull ECU 20 acquires engine speeds of engines, included in the outboard motors 11R and 11L, via the outboard motor ECUs 13R and 13L. The hull ECU 20 provides data expressing target shift positions (forward drive, neutral, and reverse drive)
As to claim 25 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 24, further comprising, driving, via at least one controller, the actuator upon determining the motor shift in either forward or reverse position. (column 11 lines 30-60).
As to claim 28 Hiramatsu in further view of Lemancik discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1.
Hiramatsu discloses wherein determining the motor shift position comprises comparing orientation data from a reference sensor (18) rigidly mounted to the watercraft and a shift position sensor (22R and 22L) mounted to the shift arm (16R and 16L).
As to claim 29 Hiramatsu in further view of Lemancik discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1.
Hiramatsu discloses wherein the controller determines a speed of the watercraft based on GPS data (column 30 lines 45-50) or based on a speed-through-water sensor.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) and Lemancik et al. (US 11,519,327) as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2016/0090165).
As to claim 3 Hiramatsu in further view of Lemancik discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 2, however both are silent to how the power to the controller is run specifically, the controller is installed without additional power sources beyond the power connection under the cowling.
Suzuki discloses a controller (figure 1 #6) is installed without additional power sources beyond the power connection under the cowling (shown but not numbered in the figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the power connection as disclosed in Suzuki as it would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of an ECU power system.
Claim(s) 5 ,6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) and Lemancik et al. (US 11,519,327) as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Arbuckle et al. (US 9,039,468).
As to claim 5 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, but is silent to the plurality of sensors corresponds to one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, and wherein at least one of the IMU sensors is a reference sensor and another one of the IMU sensors is a shift position sensor.
Arbuckle discloses the plurality of sensors corresponds to one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors (figure 2 #106), and wherein at least one of the IMU sensors is a reference sensor (accelerometer see claim 6 below) and other one of the IMU sensors is a shift position sensor (transducer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the IMU in Arbuckle as it would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of an ECU power system.
(column 6 lines 50-55).
The throttle/shift lever 124 is also provided with, for example, a transducer that provides a signal to the CCM 116, which in turn sends shift and throttle commands to the PCMs 25, 26 controlling the propulsion devices 27.
As to claim 6 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 5, however is silent to the reference sensor and the shift position sensor correspond to an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or a magnetometer.
Arbuckle discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 5, wherein the reference sensor and the shift position sensor correspond to an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer in Arbuckle as it would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of an ECU power system.
(column 5 lines 5-15).
The IMU 106 comprises a portion of a global positioning system (GPS) 109 which, in the example shown, comprises a first GPS device 101 and a second GPS device 102 which are each located at a pre-selected fixed position on the marine vessel 10 and provide information related to the global position of the marine vessel 10 in terms of latitude and longitude. Signals from the GPS devices 101, 102 and the IMU 106 are provided to the CCM 116. In one example, the IMU 106 can be a solid state, rate gyro electronic compass that detects the direction of the earth's magnetic field using solid state magnetometers and indicates the marine vessel heading relative to magnetic north. The IMU 106 can be, for example, part 8M0048162 available from Mercury Marine, of Fond du Lac, Wis. In certain examples 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 actual heading of the marine vessel 10, represented by heading arrow 110 in FIG. 1, and the velocity and acceleration of the marine vessel 10 in six degrees of freedom.
As to claim 7 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 5, wherein the reference sensor is configured to be mounted within the watercraft to determine real time movement of the watercraft, and wherein the shift position sensor is coupled to a gear arrangement of the auxiliary outboard motor and used to determine movement of the shift arm.
(column 9 lines 60-70)
The hull ECU 20 is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a microcomputer. The hull ECU 20 communicates with the ECUs 13R, 13L, 14R, and 14L via a LAN (local area network; hereinafter referred to as the "inboard LAN") disposed inside the hull 2. The hull ECU 20 acquires engine speeds of engines, included in the outboard motors 11R and 11L, via the outboard motor ECUs 13R and 13L. The hull ECU 20 provides data expressing target shift positions (forward drive, neutral, and reverse drive)
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) above, and further in view of Osthelder et al. (US 11,008,926) and O'Brien et al. (US 2023/0368244).
As to claim 12 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, with at least one computing device (figure 2 #13, 14 and 20). However, is silent to the at least one computing device includes a mobile phone, a remote controller, or a web browser.
Osthelder discloses a computing device (20) used to send commands to a controller (figure 1 #16)
(7 Column 6 lines 20-25)
For example, the docking mode may be selected via the display screen 18 or the user input device 20.
Osthelder discloses the at least one computing device includes a mobile phone, a remote controller, or a web browser.
(Column 3 lines 55-65)
The user input device 20 could be one or more of a touch-sensitive display screen (which can be the same as the display screen 18), a keyboard, a keypad, a mouse, a track ball, a button or buttons, a stylus, a smart device such as a smart phone or a tablet, a remote control, a voice recognition module, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use one of the above devices as the controller because it would be the simple substitution of one known device for another device known for the same purpose as disclosed by Osthelder to obtain predictable results, control of the boat.
As to claim 13 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, however does not disclose the at least one controller acts as a W1-Fi-access point (AP) or a Wi-Fi station device to facilitate wireless communication with the at least one computing device operated by the user.
Osthelder discloses in the clam 12 above that the controller can be a mobile phone.
O'Brien discloses that a mobile phone (paragraph 0022) can operate the Wi-Fi protocol (paragraph 0052) in being a Wi-Fi access point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a phone as a controller as disclosed in claim 12 above and for that phone to have Wi-fi protocol as it is a known feature of a cell phone having predictable results.
As to claim 14 Hiramatsu discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, however does not disclose the at least one controller implements a RESTful API or a web socket API to communicate with the user, wherein the at least one controller serves as a front-end web application to the user to configure the at least one controller.
Osthelder discloses in the clam 12 above that the controller can be a mobile phone.
O'Brien discloses that a mobile phone (paragraph 0022) can operate the RESTful web service (paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a phone as a controller as disclosed in claim 12 above and for that phone to have the RESTful web service as it is a known feature of a cell phone as proven by O'Brien and it would have predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 9,663,211).
As to claim 17 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 16 disclosed above, however is silent to how the controller is powered by local power under the cowling.
Suzuki discloses a controller (figure 1 #6) is installed without additional power sources beyond the power connection under the cowling (shown but not numbered in the figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the power connection as disclosed in Suzuki as it would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of an ECU power system.
Claim(s) 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) and Lemancik et al. (US 11,519,327) as applied to claims 16 above, and further in view of Arbuckle et al. (US 9,039,468).
As to claim 19 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 16, but is silent to the plurality of sensors corresponds to one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, and wherein at least one of the IMU sensors is a reference sensor and another one of the IMU sensors is a shift position sensor.
Arbuckle discloses the plurality of sensors corresponds to one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors (figure 2 #106), and wherein at least one of the IMU sensors is a reference sensor (accelerometer see claim 6 below) and other one of the IMU sensors is a shift position sensor (transducer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the IMU in Arbuckle as it would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of an ECU power system.
(column 6 lines50-55).
The throttle/shift lever 124 is also provided with, for example, a transducer that provides a signal to the CCM 116, which in turn sends shift and throttle commands to the PCMs 25, 26 controlling the propulsion devices 27.
As to claim 20 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 19, however is silent to the reference sensor and the shift position sensor correspond to an accelerometer, a gyroscope, or a magnetometer.
Arbuckle discloses the wireless throttle controller system of claim 5, wherein the reference sensor and the shift position sensor correspond to an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer in Arbuckle as it would combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of an ECU power system.
(column 5 lines 5-15).
The IMU 106 comprises a portion of a global positioning system (GPS) 109 which, in the example shown, comprises a first GPS device 101 and a second GPS device 102 which are each located at a pre- selected fixed position on the marine vessel 10 and provide information related to the global position of the marine vessel 10 in terms of latitude and longitude. Signals from the GPS devices 101, 102 and the IMU 106 are provided to the CCM 116. In one example, the IMU 106 can be a solid state, rate gyro electronic compass that detects the direction of the earth's magnetic field using solid state magnetometers and indicates the marine vessel heading relative to magnetic north. The IMU 106 can be, for example, part 8M0048162 available from Mercury Marine, of Fond du Lac, Wis. In certain examples 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 actual heading of the marine vessel 10, represented by heading arrow 110 in FIG. 1, and the velocity and acceleration of the marine vessel 10 in six degrees of freedom.
As to claim 21 Hiramatsu discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the reference sensor is configured to be mounted within the watercraft to determine real time movement of the watercraft, and wherein the shift position sensor is coupled to a gear arrangement of the auxiliary outboard motor and used to determine movement of the shift arm.
(column 9 lines 60-70)
The hull ECU 20 is an electronic control unit (ECU) that includes a microcomputer. The hull ECU 20 communicates with the ECUs 13R, 13L, 14R, and 14L via a LAN (local area network; hereinafter referred to as the "inboard LAN") disposed inside the hull 2. The hull ECU 20 acquires engine speeds of engines, included in the outboard motors 11R and 11L, via the outboard motor ECUs 13R and 13L. The hull ECU 20 provides data expressing target shift positions (forward drive, neutral, and reverse drive).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) and Lemancik et al. (US 11,519,327) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Andrasko et al. (US 9,643,698).
As to claim 26 Hiramatsu in further view of Lemancik disclose the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1 as shown in the rejection of claim 1 Above. But Hiramatsu in further view of Lemancik does not discloses wherein the controller implements a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm to compute a speed error and adjust the actuator based on the computed speed error.
Andrasko discloses a boat (figure 1) including a controller (24) programmed with instructions to implement a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) algorithm to compute a speed error and adjust the actuator based on the computed speed error.
(column 8 lines 25-45)
This helm demand is used to determine an engine speed setpoint, as shown at box 603, and the helm input therefore represents an operator-desired engine speed. The operator-desired engine speed is sent to a summer 605 and is also sent to box 607, to look up a feed forward signal. The feed forward signal is used to look up a throttle position, as shown at box 609. The throttle position signal is sent to summer 611, and thereafter passed along to the engine 18 to move the throttle valve 16, as shown at box 613. An engine speed sensor 40 reads the actual engine speed, as shown at box 615. The actual engine speed is sent to the summer 605, which compares the engine speed setpoint from box 603 with the actual engine speed from box 615 and sends this to a feedback control section 48 of the controller 24, which generates proportional, integral, and/or derivative (PID) output on the feedback, as shown at box 617. The controller 24 thereafter controls the throttle valve 16 with PID control over the difference between the measured engine speed and the operator-desired engine speed. For example, P-term and I-term gains, based on the actual engine speed and the engine speed setpoint, may be provided to the feedback control section 48. The feedback control section 48 can then determine a P-term and an I-term: the P-term gain is multiplied by the engine speed error to output a P-term, while the I-term gain is multiplied by the integral of the engine speed error to output an I-term. The P-term and the I-term are then added together and output from the feedback control section 48 to modify the signal that moves the throttle valve 16. In other examples, derivative control is included in the PID control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use this PID program to control engine speed to maintain the desired operator engine speed as disclosed in column 9 lines 35-40
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 8,700,238) and Lemancik et al. (US 11,519,327) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Yanagihara et al. (US 6,709,302).
As to claim 27 Hiramatsu in further view of Lemancik disclose the wireless throttle controller system of claim 1, however is silent to the controller automatically returns the throttle response to idle when user commands are not received within a threshold time period.
Yanagihara discloses an example of a controller (86) capable of controller automatically returns the throttle response to idle (figure 3 Step S7) when user commands are not received within a threshold time period (3 seconds).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the engine program to return the throttle to idle in a controlled manner to prevent abrupt movement (column 2 lines 35-40)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants first argument is the system is not retrofit. In response to applicant’s argument that their system is retrofit and the prior art is OEM, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The claim 1 requires the actuator be installed under the cowling as shown in figure 2 #52 there is no other special structure or novelty required. The figure 2 represents both the primary and auxiliary motors.
As to the closed loop control in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., speed sensor, target trolling speed, speed error calculation or speed feedback control) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As to Lemancik not discloses wireless controller teachings please see figure 11 showing sending more than data transmission but acceleration and orientation commands and further supported in columns 7 and 8.
As to the fourth argument, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., using inertial or motion sensor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 est.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747