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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on December 1, 2025 amends independent claims 1, 15, and 16. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on December 1, 2025, regarding the newly presented claim limitations have been fully considered and are moot as shown in the rejections that follow. The newly presented claim limitations in independent claims 1, 15, and 16 are taught by newly presented reference, Gradolph (US 2020/0398939), in combination with the previously cited reference, Watabe, in light of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (US 2004/0139903) in view of Gradolph (US 2020/0398939).
Regarding claim 1, Watabe teaches a marine propulsion system to propel a marine vessel, the marine propulsion system comprising: a propulsive force generator to generate a propulsive force to propel the marine vessel; and a controller configured or programmed to perform a marine vessel traveling direction control to change a direction of the propulsive force generated by the propulsive force generator so as to change a traveling direction of the marine vessel; (see Watabe at the Abstract which discloses an outboard motor steering system for an outboard motor mounted on a stern of a boat and having an internal combustion engine at its upper portion and a propeller with a rudder at its lower portion powered by the engine to propel and steer the boat; Examiner maps outboard motor steering system to the marine propulsion system. Examiner maps boat to the marine vessel. Watabe, at the Abstract, further discloses that a controller is connected to an actuator to rotate the outboard motor relative to the boat, and controls the actuator in such a manner that steered angle of the outboard motor relative to a steering angle inputted through a steering wheel becomes a predetermined ratio that is changed such that the steered angle of the outboard motor
relative to the steering angle decreases with increasing moving speed of the boat. Examiner maps engine and propeller with rudder to propulsive force generator. Examiner notes that steering the boat corresponds to changing a traveling direction.)
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the marine vessel traveling direction control such that the traveling direction of the marine vessel is changed to a predetermined angle equal to or greater than a first angle with respect to the traveling direction of waves toward the marine vessel when it is determined that the traveling direction of the marine vessel is less than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel (see Watabe at the Abstract which discloses that a controller is connected to an actuator to rotate the outboard motor relative to the boat, and controls the actuator in such a manner that steered angle of the outboard motor relative to a steering angle inputted through a steering wheel becomes a predetermined ratio that is changed such that the steered angle of the outboard motor relative to the steering angle decreases with increasing moving speed of the boat; see Watabe at [0008] which discloses a steering angle sensor generating a signal indicative of a steering angle inputted through the steering device by the operator; a steered angle sensor generating a signal indicative of a steered angle of the outboard motor; a speed sensor generating a signal indicative of a moving speed of the boat; and a controller connected to the actuator, the steering angle sensor, the steered angle sensor and the speed sensor, and controlling the actuator in such a manner that the steered angle of the outboard motor relative to the steering angle becomes a predetermined ratio determined based on the moving speed of the boat. Examiner notes that an angle relative to a traveling direction of waves may be measured at any reference point relative to a direction of the waves. Examiner notes that the steered angle is reduced as the speed increases. Likewise, the Examiner notes that the steered angle is increased as the speed decreases. Examiner maps one of the steered angles to the predetermined angle, which would increase, in an embodiment where the speed of the boat decreases. Examiner notes that the traveling direction of the marine vessel is less than the first angle before the speed of the boat is decreased. Examiner notes that predetermined angle is greater than a first angle with respect to a traveling direction of waves toward the marine vessel after the speed of the boat is decreased. Examiner maps the steered angle of a predetermined ratio associated with a decreased speed of the boat to the predetermined angle. Examiner has shown a teaching based on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language.)
Watabe does not expressly disclose a detector to detect a traveling direction of waves toward the marine vessel, which in a related art, Gradolph teaches (see Gradolph at [0082] which discloses that the control device 82 may comprise a sensor device 84 for detecting a distance 86 of the watercraft 10 from the water surface 100 and/or for detecting a wave motion of the water surface 100. Gradolph at [0082] further discloses that the sensor device 84 can allow to detect a wave movement of the water surface 100 upstream of the watercraft 10 in the direction of travel and that the sensor device 84 can comprise a sensor element 88, in particular a radar sensor, preferably a LIDAR system. Examiner maps the control device or sensor device to the recited detector. Examiner maps watercraft to the recited marine vessel.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watabe to include a detector to detect a traveling direction of waves toward the marine vessel, as taught by Gradolph.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification for the purposes of automatic height distance and/or leveling of the watercraft 10 and/or compensation of the influence of wave movements, as suggested by Gradolph at [0082].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Watabe teaches the marine propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the marine vessel traveling direction control such that the traveling direction of the marine vessel is changed to the predetermined angle equal to or greater than the first angle and equal to or less than a second angle that is greater than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel when the traveling direction of the marine vessel is less than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel (see Watabe at [0049] in conjunction with Fig. 6 which discloses how the desired steered angle is calculated at S16. Examiner notes that a desired steered angle Θod may be calculated for a particular engine speed and that desired steered angle may be an angle set to angle equal to or greater than the first angle and equal to or less than a second angle that is greater than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves. Examiner notes that the recited predetermined angle may be determined and calculated using the equation depicted at Fig. 6, S16.)
Regarding claim 9, the modified Watabe teaches the marine propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the marine vessel traveling direction control when the marine vessel is in a marine vessel traveling direction control mode in which the marine vessel traveling direction control is performed (see Watabe at [0008] which discloses a controller connected to an actuator for controlling the actuator in such a manner that the steered angle of the outboard motor relative to the steering angle becomes a predetermined ratio determined based on the moving speed of the boat. Examiner notes that the controller controls the actuator to perform the directional control of the marine vessel.)
Regarding claim 12, the modified Watabe teaches the marine propulsion system according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the marine vessel traveling direction control such that the traveling direction of the marine vessel is changed to the predetermined angle equal to or greater than the first angle and equal to or less than the second angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel when the traveling direction of the marine vessel is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel (see Watabe at the Abstract which discloses that a controller is connected to an actuator to rotate the outboard motor relative to the boat, and controls the actuator in such a manner that steered angle of the outboard motor relative to a steering angle inputted through a steering wheel becomes a predetermined ratio that is changed such that the steered angle of the outboard motor relative to the steering angle decreases with increasing moving speed of the boat; see Watabe at [0008] which discloses a steering angle sensor generating a signal indicative of a steering angle inputted through the steering device by the operator; a steered angle sensor generating a signal indicative of a steered angle of the outboard motor; a speed sensor generating a signal indicative of a moving speed of the boat; and a controller connected to the actuator, the steering angle sensor, the steered angle sensor and the speed sensor, and controlling the actuator in such a manner that the steered angle of the outboard motor relative to the steering angle becomes a predetermined ratio determined based on the moving speed of the boat. Examiner notes that an angle relative to a traveling direction of waves may be measured at any reference point relative to a direction of the waves. Examiner notes that the steered angle is reduced as the speed increases. Examiner notes that as the speed increases, the steered angle reaches a smaller angle where the marine vessel is perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel.)
Claim 15 is directed toward a marine propulsion system that performs the steps recited in marine propulsion system of claim 1. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claim 1 teach the steps recited in the system of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claim 1.
Claims 16-18 are directed toward a marine vessel that performs the steps recited in marine propulsion system of claims 1-3. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 1-3 teach the steps recited in the marine vessel of claims 16-18. Therefore, claims 16-18 are rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 1-3.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (US 2004/0139903) in view of Gradolph (US 2020/0398939) and further in view of Sawada (US 2023/0192262).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Watabe teaches the marine propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the marine vessel traveling direction control such that the traveling direction of the marine vessel is changed to the predetermined angle equal to or greater than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel, and the traveling direction of the marine vessel is less than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel (for example, see Watabe at the Abstract which discloses that a controller is connected to an actuator to rotate the outboard motor relative to the boat, and controls the actuator in such a manner that steered angle of the outboard motor relative to a steering angle inputted through a steering wheel becomes a predetermined ratio that is changed such that the steered angle of the outboard motor relative to the steering angle decreases with increasing moving speed of the boat; see Watabe at [0049] in conjunction with Fig. 6 which discloses how the desired steered angle is calculated at S16. Examiner previously noted that predetermined angle is greater than a first angle with respect to a traveling direction of waves toward the marine vessel after the speed of the boat is decreased.)
The modified Watabe does not expressly disclose while advancing the marine vessel toward a set target position when the marine vessel is in an automatic navigation mode in which the marine vessel automatically navigates toward the set target position, which in a related art, Sawada teaches (see Sawada at the Abstract which discloses that automatic guiding method of a vessel using an automatic sailing device which at least automatically steers of the vessel underway includes a scheduled route/course producing process S1 for acquiring or calculating the scheduled route/course, the vessel information acquiring process S3 for acquiring a position of the vessel and a heading, a pure pursuit calculation process S4 for calculating a target point or an orientation of the target point which satisfies a predetermined condition on the scheduled route/course in an ongoing direction of the vessel based on the position and a heading, an automatic sailing calculation process S5 for calculating a steering/rudder angle of the vessel based on the target point or the orientation and the position or the heading, and controlling process S6 for controlling the automatic sailing device based on the calculated steering/rudder angle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watabe to advance the marine vessel toward a set target position when the marine vessel is in an automatic navigation mode in which the marine vessel automatically navigates toward the set target position, as taught by Sawada.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to prevent deviation from a scheduled route, as suggested by Sawada at the Abstract and at [0015].
Claim 13 is directed toward a marine propulsion system that performs the steps recited in marine propulsion system of claims 3 and 12. The cited portions of the reference(s) used in the rejections of claims 3 and 12 teach the steps recited in the system of claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale used in the rejections of claims 3 and 12.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (US 2004/0139903) in view of Gradolph (US 2020/0398939) and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0300056).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Watabe teaches the marine propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: perform the marine vessel traveling direction control such that the traveling direction of the marine vessel is changed to the predetermined angle equal to or greater than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel when the traveling direction of the marine vessel is less than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel, [and a height of the waves toward the marine vessel is equal to or greater than a first height; and not perform the marine vessel traveling direction control when the height of the waves toward the marine vessel is less than the first height] even when the traveling direction of the marine vessel is less than the first angle with respect to the traveling direction of the waves toward the marine vessel (see Watabe at the Abstract which discloses that a controller is connected to an actuator to rotate the outboard motor relative to the boat, and controls the actuator in such a manner that steered angle of the outboard motor relative to a steering angle inputted through a steering wheel becomes a predetermined ratio that is changed such that the steered angle of the outboard motor relative to the steering angle decreases with increasing moving speed of the boat; Examiner noted that predetermined angle is greater than a first angle with respect to a traveling direction of waves toward the marine vessel after the speed of the boat is decreased. Examiner mapped the steered angle of a predetermined ratio associated with a decreased speed of the boat to the predetermined angle.)
The modified Watabe does not expressly disclose and a height of the waves toward the marine vessel is equal to or greater than a first height; and not perform the marine vessel traveling direction control when the height of the waves toward the marine vessel is less than the first height, which in a related art Johnson teaches (see Johnson at [0098] which discloses that in various embodiments, a disturbance model may be configured to use AHRS data to determine various wave characteristics (e.g., height, length, period, propagation direction), in addition to a heading for mobile structure 101, to determine the position of mobile structure 101 in the wave cycle (e.g., crest or trough or intermediate, following or approaching) and the orbital velocity of the wave at rudder 152. In some embodiments, a disturbance model may be configured to use roll angles to determine the relative heading to the wave propagation direction; see Johnson at [0099] which further discloses that with knowledge of the water velocity under the rudder, and the boat's position in the wave cycle, a disturbance model and/or an autopilot incorporating a disturbance model may be configured to apply corresponding steering corrections, such as using the wave velocity in a vector triangle with the speed to determine a local neutral flow angle at rudder 152 and correcting the neutral rudder angle in the autopilot accordingly, and that in some embodiments, an autopilot may be configured to use such information to providing a further steering angle disturbance adjustment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watabe to include a height of the waves toward the marine vessel is equal to or greater than a first height; and not perform the marine vessel traveling direction control when the height of the waves toward the marine vessel is less than the first height, as taught by Johnson.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to apply corresponding steering corrections, as suggested by Johnson at [0099].
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watabe et al. (US 2004/0139903) in view of Gradolph (US 2020/0398939) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0180686).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Watabe does not expressly disclose the marine propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to notify a vessel operator that the marine vessel traveling direction control is to be performed when the marine vessel traveling direction control is to be performed, which in a related art Lee teaches (see Lee at [0083] which discloses that in manual control, vehicle state information, including the steering angle and the air pressure of the tires detected by the sensors, may be collected and provided to the driver via vehicle state indicators, thereby recommending a mode change to the driver. Examiner maps providing to the driver via vehicle state indicators to performing a control to notify a vessel operator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watabe to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to notify a vessel operator that the marine vessel traveling direction control is to be performed when the marine vessel traveling direction control is to be performed, as taught by Lee.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to recommend a mode change to the driver, as suggested by Lee at [0083].
Regarding claim 11, the modified Watabe does not expressly disclose the marine propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to notify a vessel operator that the marine vessel traveling direction control is being performed when the marine vessel traveling direction control is being performed which in a related art Lee teaches (see Lee at [0083] which discloses that the steering system of a vehicle according to the exemplary embodiment of the present invention is capable of, based on the traveling state of the vehicle, variably adjusting the steering characteristics and steering assist characteristics that the driver feels, thereby improving the marketability of the vehicle. Examiner notes that the driver feeling the variably adjusted steering characteristics corresponds to notifying a vessel operator that the marine vessel traveling direction control is being performed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watabe to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to notify a vessel operator that the marine vessel traveling direction control is being performed when the marine vessel traveling direction control is being performed, as taught by Lee.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification to recommend a mode change to the driver, as suggested by Lee at [0083].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROY RHEE whose telephone number is 313-446-6593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am to 5:30 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 may contact the Examiner via telephone or 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 on 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, one may visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. In addition, more information about Patent Center may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROY RHEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664