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
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.
Claims 1, 2, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US 20140046515 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mizutani disclose a watercraft propulsion system comprising: a bow thruster(Element 3c, paragraph 62) at a bow of a hull to generate a lateral propulsive force; at least two propulsion devices on a stern of the hull each having a variable steering angle (Elements 3a, 3b, paragraph 60); and a controller configured or 3, and control propulsive forces and the steering angles of the two propulsion devices to perform an azimuth control to control an azimuth of the hull (ECU Element 10) according to automatic mode switching (paragraph 81). Mizutani discloses the azimuth control includes the propulsive force of the bow thruster is controlled to adjust the hull azimuth, and the propulsive force of the bow thruster is controlled and the two propulsion devices are driven forward and in reverse, respectively, to adjust the hull azimuth, and moment generated by the propulsion devices and bow thruster are is a result-effective variable for moment around a steering axis. (paragraphs 132-137). Mizutani discloses wherein the azimuth control includes a bow thruster mode in which the propulsive force of the bow thruster is controlled to adjust the hull azimuth (Fig 10, P103-1), and a combinational mode in which the propulsive force of the bow thruster is controlled and the two propulsion devices are driven forward and in reverse, respectively, to adjust the hull azimuth (Fig. P103-6.) Mizutuni does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured or programmed to switch between the bow thruster mode and the combinational mode based on a predetermined switching condition during the azimuth control.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to configure the controller to switch between the bow thruster mode and the combinational mode based on the amount of steering moment desired as predetermined switching condition during the azimuth control which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mizutuni is to automate the manual process of providing additional turning moment when a greater degree of steering force that can be provided by the bow thruster alone is desired. (See P103-1 to P103-6 that recognizes different degrees of steering force are desired.)
Regarding Claim 2, Mizutani disclose a watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein propulsive forces generated by the two propulsion devices in the bow thruster mode do not contribute to the adjustment of the hull azimuth. ()
Regarding Claim 14, Mizutani disclose a watercraft comprising: a hull; and the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1 on the hull.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US 20140046515 A1) and further in view of Sakashita (US 20200331578 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Mizutani disclose a watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the switching condition includes a combinational mode switching condition to switch from the bow thruster mode to the combinational mode but does not explicitly disclose the combinational mode switching condition includes at least one of a first switching condition such that an output requirement value for the bow thruster is not less than a first threshold or a second switching condition such that a propulsive force requirement value for anteroposterior propulsive forces to be generated anteroposteriorly of the hull is not less than a second threshold.
Sakashita discloses a combinational mode switching condition to switch from the bow thruster mode to the combinational mode, and the combinational mode switching condition includes at least one of a first switching condition such that an output requirement value for the bow thruster is not less than a first threshold (paragraph 134, small/large threshold for bow thruster) or a second switching condition such that a propulsive force requirement value for anteroposterior propulsive forces to be generated anteroposteriorly of the hull is not less than a second threshold. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to proam the controller such that the combinational mode switching condition includes at least one of a first switching condition such that an output requirement value for the bow thruster is not less than a first threshold which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Sakashita is to stay within the maximum thrust of the bow thruster.
Regarding Claim 4, Mizutani in view of Sakashita discloses a watercraft propulsion system according to claim 3, wherein the bow thruster mode is switched to the combinational mode if at least one of the first switching condition or the second switching condition is satisfied. (at least the first switching condition.)
Regarding Claim 7, Mizutani in view of Sakashita discloses a watercraft propulsion system according to claim 3, further comprising: an upper limit of the bow thruster based on maximum output (Sakashita, paragraph 116) but does not explicitly disclose an upper output limit setter to be operated by a user to set an upper output limit of the bow thruster; wherein the first threshold for the first switching condition is variably set based on the upper output limit set by the upper output limit setter.
Sakashita discloses wherein a DC bow thruster has a maximum operating time. (paragraph 21) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to program an upper output limit setter to be operated by a user to set an upper output limit of the bow thruster; wherein the first threshold for the first switching condition is variably set based on the upper output limit set by the upper output limit setter into the controller of Mizutani which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mizutani is to increase the driving time of the electric motor of the bow thruster at lower outputs.
Regarding Claim 5, Mizutani in view of Sakashita discloses a watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein switching conditions includes the amount of turning moment desired but does not explicitly disclose wherein the switching condition includes a bow thruster mode switching condition to switch from the combinational mode to the bow thruster mode, and the bow thruster mode switching condition includes at least one of a third switching condition such that an output requirement value for the bow thruster is not greater than a third threshold or a fourth switching condition such that a propulsive force requirement value for anteroposterior propulsive forces to be generated anteroposteriorly of the hull is not greater than a fourth threshold.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to program the controller of Mizutani in view of Sakashita wherein the switching condition includes a bow thruster mode switching condition to switch from the combinational mode to the bow thruster mode, and the bow thruster mode switching condition includes at least one of a third switching condition such that an output requirement value for the bow thruster is not greater than the maximum output of the bow thruster, or a fourth switching condition such that a propulsive force requirement value for anteroposterior propulsive forces to be generated anteroposteriorly of the hull is 0 output of the two propulsive devices which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mizutani is to conserve energy when the turning force is not needed.
Regarding Claim 6, Mizutani in view of Sakashita discloses the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 5, wherein the combinational mode is switched to the bow thruster mode if both the third switching condition and the fourth switching condition are satisfied. (The switch proposed would require both.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US 20140046515 A1) and further in view of Robertson (US 6678589 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Mizutani discloses the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a position of the hull is maintained with the bow or the stern of the hull directed against a movement direction of the hull.
Robertson discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a position of the hull is maintained with the bow or the stern of the hull directed against a movement direction of the hull. (See Fig. 13) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to program the controller of Mizutani to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a position of the hull is maintained with the bow or the stern of the hull directed against a movement direction of the hull which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mizutani is to provide an anchorless boat positioning system.
Claims 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US 20140046515 A1) and further in view of Ito (US 20170139426 A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Mizutani in watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a position of the hull is not maintained and a bow azimuth of the hull is maintained at a target azimuth.
Ito discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a position of the hull is not maintained and a bow azimuth of the hull is maintained at a target azimuth. (paragraph 20) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to program the controller of Mizutani to programmed to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a position of the hull is not maintained and a bow azimuth of the hull is maintained at a target azimuth which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mizutani is so the actual orientation converges on the target orientation.
Regarding Claim 12, Mizutani in view of Ito discloses the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a position of the hull is maintained on a specified route and a bow azimuth of the hull is maintained at a target azimuth. (See Fig. 10. It’s maintained at a target for at least a portion of the route.)
Regarding Claim 13, Mizutani in view of Ito discloses the watercraft propulsion system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the azimuth control during an automatic watercraft maneuvering control in which a bow azimuth of the hull is maintained during sailing. (See Fig. 10. It’s maintained at a target for at least a portion of the route.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 18 March 2026