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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 25 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 18 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-5, 8, 11-12 and 18 are amended. Claims 6, 14-17 and 19-22 are cancelled. Claims 7, 9-10 and 13 are original. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome every objection and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 25 May 2026.
Regarding previous claims 4 and 5 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Applicants’ arguments on page 11 respond to the rejections {Examiner note: the header by the Applicant is “Claim Objections”} with clarifying details regarding the invention, however, does not modify the claim language to include all the details discussed. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the previous objections and will interpret the claim language under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Regarding the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection for claim 18, upon further consideration Examiner finds that claim 8 does not positively claim “a marine vessel”, therefore withdraws the previous rejection.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, please refer to the detailed discussion below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15 all paras. under header “Claim 1 is Not Anticipated by Benda”, filed 25 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues on page 13, “Even assuming, solely for purposes of argument, that Benda’s device includes sensors that can detect gestures...”. Benda discloses at least “one or more of motion and orientation sensors” (para. [0016]), “...sensors in a gesture sensing device sense one or more of: yaw and roll, and absolute position of the gesture sensing device whereby absolute position is a global latitude and longitude point...” (para. [0021]), “3-axis gyroscope, a 3-axis accelerometer, and a 3-axis magnetometer.” (para. [0023]), “rotation sensors (also known as gyro sensors)...” (para. [0027]) and at least figs. 5-8 showing a user performing gestures. Applicant has not amended claim 1 to include “sensors”.
Applicant argues on page 14, “limitation that the Office Action acknowledges is absent from Benda for purposes of claim 6 cannot simultaneously be present in Benda for purpose of anticipating claim 1.” Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the prior art of Benda is overcome with claim 1 incorporating claim 6, however maintains the claim 6 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as the Applicant does not clearly state how amended claim 1 overcomes the combination of Benda in view of Montague.
Applicant argues on page 14, “Nor does Benda disclose that the claimed steering module is mechanically or wirelessly connected to a steering module interface”. Examiner respectfully transverse due to the amened claim 1 language is not explicitly clear as to what structure to assign “a steering module interface” as the only clue in the claim language is either “mechanically or wirelessly connected” to “the steering module”. Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claim language where Benda discloses at least “a satellite system that is used to pinpoint the geographic location of a user's receiver anywhere in the world” in para. [0043] where the satellite system is wirelessly connected to GSD 106. Additionally, “interface” {noun} is defined as either (1) the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other, (2) the means by which interaction or communication is achieved at an interface or (3) a surface forming a common boundary of two bodies, spaces, or phases. Therefore, the claim language of “a steering module interface” may have multiple other interpretations in the prior art such as a wireless transmitter/receiver, a wired cord, etc. Applicant may further clarify “a steering module interface” in the claim language so as not to be interpreted as the structure of the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-18 all paras. under header “Claim 8 is Not Anticipated by Dannenberg”, filed 25 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant argues on page 16, “a generic surface of a console is not a “steering module interface” as recited in claim 8. Examiner interprets the claim language under BRI and with the definition of “interface” as described above. Therefore, the claimed “steering module interface” is only limited by the connections, arrangement or functional language found in claim 8. Examiner withdrawals the previous rejection and provides a different rejection below that shows the broad interpretation of the claimed “steering module interface” in the claim language.
Applicant argues on page 16, “Dannenberg does not disclose that any one of those devices is a steering module selected from a plurality of different steering module types and then connected to the control console via a steering module interface. Nor does Dannenberg disclose a common or uniform interface, adapter, connector, receptacle, wireless receiver/transmitter or other connection structure arranged to connect different types of steering modules to the console.” The prior art of Dannenberg discloses in fig. 1 and para [0030] “...operation console 22 includes a number of user input devices, such as a keypad 28, a joystick 30, a steering wheel 32, and one or more throttle/shift levers 34. The operation console 22 may further include a display 29, such as may be associated with an onboard management system, that is configured to visually present information to the operator (e.g., information regarding control mode, control settings), present control options to the operator, and receive user input from the operator in response to the control options...” where fig. 1 diagrammatically shows all input devices connected to the operation console. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection and instead provides a different rejection below. Examiner notes: the claim language only limits a “a steering module interface” by connection, arrangement and connection type such that under BRI it can be interpreted broadly; Applicant argues “a common or uniform interface, adapter, connector, receptacle, wireless receiver/transmitter or other connection structure arranged to connect different types of steering modules to the console” however this is NOT recited in the claim language.
Applicant argues on page 17, “identified Dannenberg devices also do not disclose the claimed selection of a steering module from a plurality of different steering module types. A conventional console having a joystick, steering wheel, keypad and throttle/shift levers fixed in place is not the same as a modular system in which a steering module is selected from different steering module types and connected to the control console via a steering module interface”. Claim 8 recites “...the at least one steering module is arranged to be selected from a plurality of different steering module types...” Dannenberg disclose a range of different user input devices, where the user selects the one of the different provided user input devices to operate the craft. The claim language is not clear that the selected devices have a starting condition where they are not connected to the control console, and where the user selects only one of them, connects only the selected one to the control console via a universal connection to operate the craft. Examiner notes: the operation exampled above reads as a method claim, however in the system claim it is difficult to explain the process of connecting, such that even in the prior art of Dannenberg it would be obvious that the connection of the user input device occurs during initial construction of the craft, or during any retrofit period and that the connection step must occur before being able to operate the craft. Examiner looked in the Applicant’s disclosure and finds “the at least one steering module 205 may be attached to and detached from the control console 201 during steering of the marine vessel 100... mechanical removal of the at least one steering module 205 from the control console 201 may be considered as a trigger for the change of the steering mode, i.e. change between wireless and connected steering modes.” which clarifies the invention over the prior art of a conventional console. Examiner notes: the above underlined text from the spec best explains the embodiment the Applicant is arguing over the prior art, however the claim language does not include this embodiment.
Applicant argues on page 17, “Even if Dannenberg’s joystick and steering wheel are considered steering-related input device, their simultaneous presence as fixed controls on a console does not disclose the claimed selection and connection architecture.” Examiner interprets claim 8 “is arranged to be selected” that a user selects a user input device to operate the craft, where the prior art of Dannenberg shows a plurality of user input devices of for the user to operate the craft. Applicant may amend the claim language so that a conventional console with a plurality of user input devices is not read to the claim language.
Drawings
The drawings filed 25 June 2026 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure filed 25 June 2026 is accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 7, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-4, 7, 10 and 11 all recite “…comprised…”. Where, the term “comprised” can be confused with the transitional phrase of MPEP § 2111.03. The examiner interprets the term “comprised” NOT to be the transitional phrase use. Additionally, “comprised” is defined as “to be made up of” where the applicant is using the term to show location and is outside its traditional definition. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “comprised” to be one of the following “disposed”, “located” or “arranged” where the applicant may choose the best one that represents the invention.
Claim 4 recites “comprising” should be “further comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “steering module” in line 4. Claim 1 line 1 recites “a steering module”. Therefore, it is not clear if “steering module” of line 4 is the same or different than “a steering module” of line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets line 4 to recite “the steering module”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “...arranged to be in a connected steering mode or a wireless steering mode...”. However, is not clear as to what structure is “arranged to be in”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 2 to recite either of (1) “...wherein the steering module is...” or (2) “...wherein one or more of: the tiller, the handlebar, the joystick and the steering wheel are...”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "...may be construed in a coordinate system..." in line 4. The phrase “may be” is not clear is not clear if “a movement” is or is not “...construed in a coordinate system...”. This language is unclear as what the Examiner should be looking for in the prior art as everything after “may be” is not positively recited in the claim and therefore viewed as optional. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 4 line 4 to recite at least “is construed in a coordinate system”.
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 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites limitations of “wherein the different types of steering modules comprise one or more of: a tiller, a handlebar, a joystick and a steering wheel.” Claim 8 recites “the different types of steering modules comprise one or more of a tiller, a handlebar, a joystick and a steering wheel...”. Therefore, claim 13 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 8.
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
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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benda et al. (US 20190219997 A1) in view of Montague et al. (US 20220063786 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
1163
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Benda et al. discloses a steering module (gesture sensing device 106 (GSD 106); See at least: figs. 1-8 {Examiner note: Benda et al. uses reference characters with letters such as 106A or 106D, for purposes of citation the Examiner will only use the number and not the letters of the different embodiments.}) for a marine vessel (boat; See at least: figs. 11-13, 16 and 18 and para. [0129]), comprising:
an inertial measurement unit (3-axis linear acceleration sensor 122, 3-axis angular rate gyro 120 and 3-axis magnetic sensor 118; See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0120]) arranged to measure steering input (See at least fig. 4) by monitoring user gestures of a user (user 158; See at least figs. 5-8 {Examiner notes; 158 is also the motor on/off button.}) using the steering module (See at least figs. 5-8),
wherein the user gestures are interpreted as the steering input for steering the marine vessel (See at least: figs. 11, 13-19 for use examples of gesture sensing device 106 and block diagrams with logic to direct the vehicle to the commanded position),
wherein steering module comprise one or more of: a tiller, a handlebar, a joystick and a steering wheel (See at least: figs. 3-3A, showing GSD 106 in form of a handheld controller.), and
wherein the steering module is mechanically or wirelessly connected to a steering module interface (satellite system; See at least: para. [0043] “In one form, the electronic controller comprises a GNSS positioning device. Common names for GNSS are: GPS (US), GLONASS (Russian), Galileo (European), and BeiDou/COMPASS (Chinese). GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) is a satellite system that is used to pinpoint the geographic location of a user's receiver anywhere in the world.”); and
a control unit (processor 104; See at least: figs. 1-2 and para. [0119] “…processor 104A (also referred to as a central processing unit)…”) arranged to initiate steering of the marine vessel according to the measured steering input (See at least: figs. 1-2 which show arrangement in block form to steering and optional propulsion systems 182).
However, Benda et al. does not disclose wherein steering module comprise one or more of: a tiller, a handlebar, a joystick and a steering wheel.
Montague et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein steering module comprise one or more of: a tiller, a handlebar (wireless remote controller 200; See at least: figs. 6A-7 where figs. 6A-6B show handle 201 which is interpreted by the examiner to be either of a handlebar and joystick.), a joystick (wireless remote controller 200) and a steering wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified GSD 106 of Benda et al. with the external form of wireless remote controller 200 of Montague et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a handle configured to be gripped or held with a user’s hand (See at least: Montague et al. para. [0072] “...The wireless remote controller 200 is a waterproof remote controller that that may include a processor, memory, communication circuitry, user interface 202, a throttle control mechanism 204 (e.g., 204A and 204B), and a battery powering the wireless remote controller 200. The remote controller 200 includes a handle 201 configured to be gripped or held within a rider's hand.”).
Regarding claim 2, Benda et al. in view of Montague et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses arranged to be in a connected steering mode (wireless or wired communication channel 110; See at least: figs. 1-2) or a wireless steering mode (wireless or wired communication channel 110; See at least: figs. 1-2).
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Benda et al. in view of Montague et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses wherein the steering module is in a neutral state (anchor mode; See at least: figs. 3-3A, 10 and 12-14, anchor button 140 and para. [0127] “anchor mode”.), causing the marine vessel to operate in a dynamic position state (anchor jog; See at least: figs. 13-14, and 19 with paras. [0130]-[131] “anchor control function... anchor jogging... anchor jog...”; where fig. 19 shows different active states one being “anchor”.).
Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Benda et al. in view of Montague et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses wherein the steering module is arranged to be comprised in a steering system (vehicle control system 100; See at least: figs. 1-2, where the figures show GSD 106 as part of the vehicle control system 100) for the marine vessel together with a control console (electronic control system 102; See at least: figs. 1-2, where the figures show GSD 106 as part of the vehicle control system).
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benda et al. (US 20190219997 A1) in view of Montague et al. (US 20220063786 A1) and further in view of Bertrand et al. (US 20190137993 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
794
1384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Benda et al. in view of Montague et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses wherein the steering module is arranged to provide information indicating an offboard location to a control system (vehicle control system 100; See at least: figs. 1-2) located in the marine vessel (See at least: para [0119] “an electronic control system 102A located on-board an associated vehicle 101 such as boat.”) by means of a laser range measurement system comprised in the steering module when the steering module is pointed at the offboard location, wherein the offboard location is offboard the marine vessel (See at least: figs. 11, 13 and 15 all showing the GSD 106 pointing to an offboard location; along with figs. 14 and 17 showing step 250 “pointing a gesture sensing device in a desired direction...”; where figs. 14 and 17 is the processor 104 logic flow diagram.).
However, Benda et al. does not disclose ...by means of a laser range measurement system comprised in the steering module...
Bertrand et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches...by means of a laser range measurement system (ranging module 236; See at least: figs. 5A and 6A-6B and para. [0051] “...as shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B, the handheld device 200 may include a ranging module 236 that is configured to emit a laser beam that travels along path 237 in direction D towards a geographic location 201 at which the handheld device 200 is pointed in order to identify a geographic location to which the marine vessel 100 should travel or a general direction of travel for the marine vessel 100 (e.g., towards the geographic location 201)...” ) comprised in the steering module (handheld device 200; See at least: figs. 5A and 6A-6B)...
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified GSD 106 of Benda et al. with ranging module 236 of Bertrand et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a laser to determine a distance to a geographic location on the surface of the water (See at least: Bertrand et al. para [0051] “...handheld device 200 includes a ranging module 236 that is configured to emit a laser beam in the direction that the housing of the handheld device 200 is pointed, receive a reflection of the laser beam from a geographic location on the surface of the water, and determine a distance to the geographic location based on the reflected laser beam.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benda et al. (US 20190219997 A1) in view of Montague et al. (US 20220063786 A1) and further in view of Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Benda et al. in view of Montague et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses comprising a steering module compass and/or a steering module gyro (3-axis angular rate gyro 120; See at least: fig. 2) arranged to align the steering input with a vessel compass and/or a vessel gyro comprised in the marine vessel, whereby a movement of the steering module may be construed in a coordinate system (GPS vector 258; See at least fig. 17 and para. [0134] “…process is then run to determine the global/absolute position of the vehicle based on a GPS vector 258…”) of the marine vessel, regardless of user orientation (Examiner note: the operation of GSD 106 is independent of the user’s position. See at least fig. 2 with figs. 5-8.) of the user using the steering module.
However, Benda et al. does not disclose ...a vessel compass and/or a vessel gyro comprised in the marine vessel... (The prior art of Benda et al. uses GPS vector 258 for the position of the vehicle and not a vehicle’s own compass and or gyro as the input to the electronic control system 102.).
Dannenberg et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches …a vessel compass and/or a vessel gyro (INS 60; See at least fig. 1 and para. [0036] “...the main IMU 36 may be part of an inertial navigation system (INS) such as including one or more micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS). For example, the INS 60 may consist of a MEMS angular rate sensor, such as a rate gyro, a MEMS accelerometer, and a magnetometer. Such INS systems are well known in the relevant art. In other embodiments, the motion and angular position (including pitch, roll, and yaw...”) comprised in the marine vessel (marine vessel 10; See at least fig. 1)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified GPS vector 258 of Benda et al. with a marine vessel 10’s inertial navigation system (INS) 60 position data of Dannenberg et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using the ships inertial navigation system with, or without, a global position system (GPS) as both systems provides the position of the marine vessel (See at least: Dannenberg et al para. [0037] “The INS 60 receives orientation information from the main IMU 36 and may also receive information from a GPS receiver 40 comprising part of a global positioning system (GPS). The GPS receiver 40 is located at a pre-selected fixed position on the vessel 10, which provides information related to global position of the marine vessel 10. The main IMU 36 is also located at a known and fixed position with respect to the center of navigation determined for the marine vessel 10, such as the COR or COG....” and para. [0035] “...a main inertial measurement unit (IMU) 36 is installed at a known location on the marine vessel with respect to a predefined point of navigation, such as the center of rotation (COR) or center of gravity (COG)...”).
Claims 8, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1) in view of Shannon (US 20200180745 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
814
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
798
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Dannenberg et al. discloses a steering system (propulsion control system 20; See at least: fig. 1) for a marine vessel (marine vessel 10; See at least: fig. 1), wherein the steering system comprises:
a control console (operation console 22; See at least: fig. 1) arranged to be mechanically connected to the marine vessel (See at least: fig. 1, where the examiner interprets operation console 22 mechanically connected to marine vessel 10 as it is the conventional manner),
wherein the control console comprises a steering module interface; and
at least one steering module (user input devices, keypad 28, joystick 30, steering wheel 32, and one or more throttle/shift levers 34; See at least: fig. 1) arranged to be connected to the control console via the steering module interface;
wherein the at least one steering module is arranged to be selected from a plurality of different steering module types (user input devices, keypad 28, joystick 30, steering wheel 32, and one or more throttle/shift levers 34; See at least: fig. 1), the different types of steering modules comprise one or more of a tiller, a handlebar, a joystick and a steering wheel;
wherein the steering module interface is arranged to connect steering modules of different types to the control console,
wherein the steering module interface is arranged to mechanically or wirelessly connect the at least one steering module to the control console; and
wherein the steering system is arranged to steer the marine vessel based on steering input obtained via the at least one steering module (See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0030] “...Each of these devices inputs commands to the controller 24. The controller 24, in turn, communicates control instructions to the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b by communicating with the PCMs 26a, 26b.”).
However, Dannenberg et al. does not disclose the claim language in bold italics above.
Shannon, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches ...wherein the control console comprises a steering module interface (helm pump 132; See at least: figs. 1 and 3-4 and para. [0020] “The steering input device 130 may be arranged in an operator station 150 of the watercraft 100, such as within a dashboard 152 or a center console of the watercraft 100.”); and
at least one steering module (steering input device 130; See at least: figs. 1 and 3-4 and para. [0020] “the steering input device 130 may be a steering wheel, although it is possible for the steering input device 130 to represent control levers, joysticks, etc., as well.”) arranged to be connected to the control console (“dashboard 152 or a center console”; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0020] “The steering input device 130 may be arranged in an operator station 150 of the watercraft 100, such as within a dashboard 152 or a center console of the watercraft 100.”) via the steering module interface (See at least: figs. 3-4);...
...wherein the steering module interface is arranged to connect steering modules of different types to the control console (See at least: figs. 1 and 3-4 and para. [0020] “the steering input device 130 may be a steering wheel, although it is possible for the steering input device 130 to represent control levers, joysticks, etc., as well.”),
wherein the steering module interface is arranged to mechanically or wirelessly connect the at least one steering module to the control console (See at least: figs. 1-5 where figs. 3-4 best show steering input device 130 connected to helm pump 132 via a pump shaft 168 and para. [0024] “the helm pump 132 may be an axial piston pump of a swashplate type, with a swashplate (not shown) that is fixedly connected to the steering input device 130 via a pump shaft 168 (FIG. 4), such that a movement/rotation of the steering input device 130 may result in a movement/rotation of the swashplate.”);...
However, Shannon does not teach wherein the steering module interface is arranged to mechanically or wirelessly connect the at least one steering module to the control console.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified user input devices of Dannenberg et al. with helm pump 132 of Shannon with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a helm pump configured to respond to the input from a user to steer the watercraft (See at least: Shannon para. [0020] “...the steering input device 130 may be a steering wheel, although it is possible for the steering input device 130 to represent control levers, joysticks, etc., as well. The steering input device 130 may be arranged in an operator station 150 of the watercraft 100, such as within a dashboard 152 or a center console of the watercraft 100...” and para. [0024] “helm pump 132 is operably connected to the steering input device 130 such that the helm pump 132 may respond to the movement (left and right positions) received as input from the steering input device 130.”)
Regarding claim 10, Dannenberg et al. in view of Shannon teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Dannenberg et al. discloses wherein the steering system is arranged to steer the marine vessel based on the steering input by providing control commands to at least one of a rudder system and/or a propulsion system (first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b; See at least: fig. 1) comprised in the marine vessel.
Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 12, Dannenberg et al. in view of Shannon teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Dannenberg et al. discloses wherein the control console is configured to be tilted laterally with respect to a travelling direction of the marine vessel (The examiner interprets a control console that is connected to the marine vessel in a conventional manner is configured to be tilted in all directions with the marine vessel as the marine vessel handles rough seas. {Examiner notes: the applicant may overcome this rejection by stating the type of mechanical connection or clarify that the control console moves/pivots independently from the marine vessel movement as it travels, without introducing new matter.).
Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, Dannenberg et al. in view of Shannon teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Dannenberg et al. discloses a marine vessel (marine vessel 10; See at least: fig. 1) characterized in that it comprising the steering system according to claim 8 (See at least rejection of claim 8 above).
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 8 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1) in view of Shannon (US 20200180745 A1) and further in view of Mizutani (US 20050199168 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image5.png
552
803
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Dannenberg et al. in view of Shannon teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above.
However, Dannenberg et al. does not disclose wherein a force sensor...
Mizutani, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a force sensor (load sensor 16; See at least: fig. 2) is arranged to be connected to a rudder system (rudder device 15 or outboard motor 3; See at least: fig. 2) comprised in the marine vessel (small boat; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0013] “FIG. 1 is a schematic top plan view of a small boat”) and arranged to measure a rudder force (external force F; See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0018] “...A load sensor 16 (See FIG. 2) that can be provided in the outboard motor 3 or the rudder device 15 itself, can be configured to detect an external force F (See FIG. 2) exerted on the outboard motor 3...”), and wherein an actuator (reaction torque motor 11; See at least: fig. 2) is arranged to apply force feedback (reaction force; See at least: fig. 2 and para [0018] “...The controller 12 then drives the reaction torque motor 11 in accordance with the target torque, thereby applying a reaction force corresponding to the external force to the steering wheel 7...”) to the at least one steering module (steering wheel 7; See at least: fig. 2 and para [0018]) in dependence of the measured rudder force (See at least: fig. 2 and para [0018] “The controller 12 can be configured to calculate a target value of reaction torque to be exerted to the steering wheel 7 by the reaction torque motor 11 based on the external force.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified propulsion control system 20 of Dannenberg et al. with elements from the steering system of Mizutani with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a marine vessel operator with the feeling of the reaction force on the motor/rudder while turning the steering wheel on the marine vessel that is configured with an electric steering system (See at least: Mizutani para. [0021] “While the outboard motor 3 rotates, an external resistance (external force) F as a reaction force is applied to the outboard motor 3. The load sensor 16 detects the external force F, and data of which is sent to a reaction torque calculating circuit 17. Based on the data for the detected external force, a target torque is calculated and the reaction torque motor 11 is so driven as to apply such target torque. This causes a reaction force corresponding to the steering operation to be applied to the steering wheel 7 so that the operator can steer the steering wheel while feeling the reaction force in response to the steering wheel operation.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See at least Non-Final Rejection mailed 25 March 2026 for detailed Examiner's statement of reasons for allowance.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights