DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 08 December 2023. Claims 1-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22212315.0, filed on 08 December 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 December 2023 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following: Fig. 7 shows both operating system “716” and program modules “718” as a part of volatile memory “710” where best to the examiner understanding that volatile memory would lose the stored operating system “716” and program modules “718” data once power is lost or interrupted. Therefore, it is not clear if the operating system “716” and program modules “718” should be under volatile memory “710” or storage non-volatile memory “714” (See at least: para. [00131] of parent Application No. EP22212315.0 which recites “The modules may be stored in the storage device 714 and/or in the volatile memory 710, which may include an operating system 716 and/or one or more program modules 718.”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 14 of 24, line 5 recites “…range of 0,1-1 meters…” and is not clear as to the proper range as written.
Page 14 of 24, line 8 recites “…the range 5-20cm,…” were a space it missing and should be “…the range 5-20 cm,…”.
Page 14 of 24, lines 17 and 19 recite “the control console 201… exemplified in FIG.3 and FIG. 4…”. However, figs. 3-4 do not show the control console 201. It is not clear if the figs. should or should not depict “201”.
Page 16 of 24, line 12 recites “revers” and should be “reverse”.
Page 22 of 24, lines 9-11 recite “The modules may be stored in the storage device 714 and/or in the volatile memory 710, which may include an operating system 716 and/or one or more program modules 718…” and is not clear when viewed with fig. 7 as discussed above in the drawing’s objection section.
Page 22 of 24, line 23 recite “computer system XX00” and should be ““computer system 700”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification paragraphs “…should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.” See MPEP 608.01.I and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). This numbering system will allow for better communication and referencing between the Patent Examiner and the Attorney/Inventor. {Examiner note: parent Application No. EP22212315.0, filed 02 February 2024, has para. numbering however the spec. filed on 08 December 2023 does not.}
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites “…a control system comprised in the marine vessel by means of a laser range measurement system comprised in the steering module…”. 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 placement or 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. 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 2, 4-5, 17, and 20-22 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 2 recites the limitation "the at least one steering module" in line 10. Claim 1 recites in lines 3 and 5 “a steering module” and “the steering module”. There the claim tree of 1-2 does note recite “at least one steering module”. It is not clear that "the at least one steering module" is the same as or different than “a/the steering module” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “…a movement of the steering module is interpreted in a coordinate system of the marine vessel…” where the phase “is interpreted in” is not clear. The term “interpret” is defined as 1 “to explain or tell the meaning of: present in understandable terms” or 2 “to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgement, or circumstance”. Where “interpreting” is normally associated with a method of operation or computer algorithm.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “…a movement of the steering module is interpreted in a coordinate system of the marine vessel…” where it is not clear if what structure is performing “interpreted”. Claim 4 introduces structure of “a steering module compass” and “a steering module gyro” which are part of “the steering module”, where the additional structure of “a vessel compass” and “a vessel gyro” is part of “the marine vessel”. It is not clear if (1) “a steering module compass” and “a steering module gyro” is performing “interpreted”; (2) claim 1’s “a control unit” is performing “interpreted” or (3) another structure/limitation is performing “interpreted”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the steering module is arranged to be in a neutral state”, which phrase “is arranged to be in” is not clear. Where the term “arranged” is associated with physical arrangement of structural parts, however “a neutral state” is not found to be a physical object.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “a neutral state” and "dynamic position state" where both limitations are related to each other without defining what is meant by either “a neutral state” or "dynamic position state". For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets "dynamic position state" under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) “dynamic anchoring” by propulsive elements such as found in CPC B63H25/42 and other CPC classifications.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "dynamic position state" in line 26. Where the claim tree of claims 1 and 5 do not introduce “a dynamic position state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “...the control console is arranged to be tilted laterally with respect to a travelling direction of the marine vessel...” where the claim language of “is arranged to be” is not clear as to the structure that the examiner is to look for in the prior art. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “is arranged to be” as “is capable of being”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "neutral state" in lines 25 and 27 . Where the claim tree of claims 15 and 17 do not introduce “a neutral state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "dynamic position state" in line 26. Where the claim tree of claims 15 and 17 do not introduce “a dynamic position state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "program code" in line 32. Where “a program code” is not found in the claim tree of claim 20 and either of claims 14 or 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a processor device" in line 1. Claim 15 line 11 recites “a processor device”. It is not clear if “a processor device” of claim 20 is the same or different than that of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 20-22 all recite “the method of claim 14” however, claim 14 is “…a computer system…”. Where the examiner finds claim 15 to recite “…a computer-implemented method…”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claims 20-22 to recite “the method of claim 15”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "one or more control units" in line 3. Claim 15 line 11 recites “a processor device”. It is not clear if “one or more control units” of claim 21 is the same or different than “a processor device” of claim 15 (See at least: Spec. page 20 of 24 lines 21-23 where both control unit and processor device are listed to be one of many different names for the same structure). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a processor device" in line 7. Claim 15 line 11 recites “a processor device”. It is not clear if “a processor device” of claim 20 is the same or different than that of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 18 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 18 recites limitations of “a marine vessel” and “a steering system”. Claim 8 recites “a steering system”, “a marine vessel” and “the marine vessel” where, “a/the marine vessel” is found to be positively recited in claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 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 19 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 19 recites limitations of “a marine vessel” and “at least one steering module”. Claim 1 recites “a steering module”, “a marine vessel”, “the steering module” and “the marine vessel” where, “a/the steering module” and “a/the marine vessel” are found to be positively recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 14-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Benda et al. (US 20190219997 A1) {this is the US document of EP 3511804 A1 cited by applicant on IDS of 08 December 2023}. (See at least: fig. 2 reproduced below)
PNG
media_image1.png
668
1192
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), 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).
Regarding claim 2, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses wherein the at least one steering module is 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).
Regarding claim 5, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses wherein the steering module is arranged to be in a neutral state (anchor mode; See at least: figs. 3-3A, 10 and 12-14, anchor button 140 and para. [0127] “anchor mode”.) which causes the marine vessel to operate in 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”.).
Regarding claim 7, Benda et al. discloses 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).
Regarding claim 14, Benda et al. discloses a computer system (electronic control system 102; See at least: figs. 1-2) comprising a processor device (See at least: para. [0019] “...electronic control system 102A processes signals from processor 104A then provides control input signals to one or more of steering and optional propulsion systems 182A of the vehicle such as a steer actuator and optionally one or more thrusters of a trolling motor system which are powered by another power source 134A...” Examiner interprets “processes signals” to include comprising a processor device.) configured to:
obtain information indicating measured steering input which has been measured by 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] and figs. 14 and 17 which call these sensor “GSD sensors”) by monitoring user gestures of a user using the steering module (See at least: figs. 2, 5-8, 14 and 17, where figs. 5-8 show user’s gestures, and figs. 14 and 17 best show “obtaining” data from the GSD sensors “inertial measurement unit” on the first block top left)
wherein the user gestures are interpreted as the steering input for steering the marine vessel (See at least: figs. 2, 14 and 17 where fig. 2 shows electronic control system 102 goes to steer actuator, thruster trolling motor system 182 and where figs. 14 and 17 show GSD sensors are inputs), and
to initiate steering of the marine vessel according to the information indicating the measured steering input, thereby steering the marine vessel according to the user gestures (See at least: figs. 2, 14 and 17 where fig. 2 shows electronic control system 102 goes to steer actuator, thruster trolling motor system 182 and where figs. 14 and 17 show that electronic control system to direct the vehicle to the commanded position (step 264)).
Regarding claim 15, Benda et al. discloses a computer-implemented method (See at least: figs. 14 and 17 showing selected method steps of vehicle control system 100) comprising:
obtaining, by a processor device (processor 104; See at least: figs. 2) of a computer system (vehicle control system 100; See at least: fig 2. Showing the block diagram of different elements that make up the vehicle control system 100), information indicating steering input which has been measured by a six-axes 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] and figs. 14 and 17 which call these sensor “GSD sensors” and where it recites “3 axis (2 minimum) magnetometer, 3 axis accelerometer (optional), 3 axis turn rate gyroscope (optional). Where the minimal required is 2 times a 3-axis magnetometer, therefore a 6-axis magnetometer.) by monitoring user gestures of a user using a steering module (GSD 106; See at least: figs. 2, 5-8, 14 and 17), wherein the user gestures (See at least: figs. 5-8 that best show user’s gestures) are interpreted as the steering input for steering the marine vessel (See at least: figs. 14 and 17 that best shows the GSD sensors as flow chart inputs), and initiating, by the processor device (See at least: figs. 14 and 17 that best show the flow logic of processor 104 and communication to electronic control system 102 along with fig. 2 showing the two.), steering of the marine vessel according to the information indicating the steering input, thereby steering the marine vessel according to the user gestures (See at least: figs. 2, 5-8, 14 and 17 where the final result of figs. 14 and 17 is step 264 “activate the electronic control system to direct the vehicle to the commanded position”).
Regarding claim 16, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses comprising: obtaining, by the processor device, information indicating that that the steering module is pointed at an offboard location (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.); and initiating, by the processor device, steering of the marine vessel towards the offboard location and/or measuring a distance to the offboard location, wherein the offboard location is offboard the marine vessel (See at least: figs. 2, 5-8, 14 and 17 where the final result of figs. 14 and 17 is step 264 “activate the electronic control system to direct the vehicle to the commanded position”).
Regarding claim 17, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses comprising: determining, by the processor device, that the steering module is in neutral state (anchor mode; See at least: figs. 3-3A, 10 and 12-14, anchor button 140, para. [0127] “anchor mode” and para. [0120] “...various modes of the vehicle control system 100B such as anchoring mode, vectoring mode, and manual mode...”); and
initiating, by the processor device, the marine vessel to operate in 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. 14 shows the processor 104 logic flow chart and fig. 19 “driving mode state diagram” shows different active states one being “anchor”.) when the steering module is in neutral state.
Regarding claim 20, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 14 (interpreted as claim 15 by the examiner) as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses a computer program product (control algorithm; See at least: figs. 9-19 and para. [0129] “control algorithm”.) comprising program code for performing, when executed by a processor device (processor 104; See at least: figs. 2, 14 and 17), the method of claim 14 (interpreted as claim 15 by the examiner; See at least: rejection of claim 15 above).
Regarding claim 21, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 14 (interpreted as claim 15 by the examiner) as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses a control system (vehicle control system 100; See at least: figs. 1-2) comprising one or more control units (processor 104 and electronic control system 102; See at least: figs. 1-2) configured to perform the method of claim 14 (interpreted as claim 15 by the examiner; See at least: rejection of claim 15 above).
Claims 8, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1). (See at least: Dannenberg et al. fig. 1 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
814
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Dannenberg et al. a steering system (propulsion control system 20; See at least: fig. 1) for a marine vessel (marine vessel 10; See at least: fig. 1), comprising:
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 (surface; See at least: fig. 1 where the examiner interprets operation console 22 to have a surface for attaching the 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 and where the surface is “a steering module interface” {Examiner notes: the claim language is not clear that “a steering module” is the invention of at least claim 1 and therefore under BRI the examiner interprets a surface to be an interface between the steering module and the control console. The applicant may overcome this rejection by clarifying the steering module and the 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 (See at least: fig. 1);
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);
wherein the steering module interface is arranged to connect steering modules of different types to the control console (See at least: fig. 1 where the examiner interpreted surface is diagrammatically shown connecting the user input devices to the operation console 22); 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.”).
Regarding claim 10, Dannenberg et al. discloses 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.
Regarding claim 12, Dannenberg et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Dannenberg et al. discloses wherein the control console is arranged to be tilted laterally with respect to a travelling direction of the marine vessel (The examiner interprets the claim to be “wherein the control console is capable of being tilted laterally with respect to a travelling direction of the marine vessel”, therefore, the control console that is connected to the marine vessel in a conventional manner is capable of being 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 and clarify that the control console moves independently from the marine vessel movement as it travels.)
Regarding claim 13, Dannenberg et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Dannenberg et al. discloses wherein the different types of steering modules comprise one or more of: a tiller, a handlebar, a joystick (joystick 30; See at least: fig. 1) and a steering wheel (steering wheel 32; See at least: fig. 1).
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.
Claim 3 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benda et al. (US 20190219997 A1) in view of Bertrand et al. (US 20190137993 A1) {Cited by applicant on IDS of 08 December 2023}. (See at least: Bertrand et al. figs. 5A and 6A reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
794
1384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Benda et al. discloses 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) comprised 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.”).
Regarding claim 22, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 14 (interpreted as claim 15 by the examiner) as noted above. Additionally, Benda et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (control algorithm; See at least: figs. 9-19 and para. [0129] “control algorithm” and figs. 14 and 17 showing flow logic diagrams.), which when executed by a processor device (processor 105; See at least: fig .2), cause the processor device to perform the method of claim 14 (interpreted as claim 15 by the examiner; See at least: rejection of claim 15 above).
However, Benda et al. does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium...
Bertrand et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (See at least: fig. 5A where handheld device 200 contains memory 206 along with para. [0046] in full “The memory 206 can be a tangible, computer-readable storage medium that provides storage functionality to store various data and or program code associated with operation of the controller 202, such as software programs and/or code segments, or other data to instruct the processor 204, and possibly other components of the handheld device 200/controller 202, to perform the functionality described herein. The memory 206 can store data, such as a program of instructions for operating the handheld device 200 (including its components), and so forth. It should be noted that while a single memory 206 is described, a wide variety of types and combinations of memory (e.g., tangible, non-transitory memory) can be employed. The memory 206 can be integral with the processor 204, can comprise stand-alone memory, or can be a combination of both. Some examples of the memory 206 can include removable and non-removable memory components, such as random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory (e.g., a secure digital (SD) memory card, a mini-SD memory card, and/or a micro-SD memory card), magnetic memory, optical memory, universal serial bus (USB) memory devices, hard disk memory, external memory, and so forth. In embodiments, the handheld device 200 and/or the memory 206 can include removable integrated circuit card (ICC) memory, such as memory provided by a subscriber identity module (SIM) card, a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) card, a universal integrated circuit card (UICC), and so on.”)...
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 memory 206 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 adding a computer-readable storage medium that provides storage functionality to store various data and or program code associated with operation of GSD 106, such as software programs and/or code segments, or other data to instruct the processor 104, and other components of the GSD 106, to perform the functionality (See at least: Bertrand et al. para. [0046] cited above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benda et al. (US 20190219997 A1) in view of Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Benda et al. discloses 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, such that a movement of the steering module is interpreted 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 (electronic control system 102; See at least: fig. 2 with fig. 17 where steps 260-264 show the electronic control system 102 will direct the vehicle to the updated command position.).
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)...”).
Claim 6 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) {Cited by applicant on IDS of 08 December 2023}. (See at least: comparison of figures of the prior art below.)
PNG
media_image4.png
362
1163
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Benda et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Benda et al. does not disclose wherein the steering module is a tiller, a handlebar, a joystick or a steering wheel (See at least: figs. 3-3A, showing GSD 106 in form of a handheld controller.).
Montague et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the steering module is 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; 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.) or 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.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1) in view of Mizutani (US 20050199168 A1). (See at least: Mizutani fig. 2 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image5.png
552
803
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Dannenberg et al. discloses 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 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 is 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:
Regarding claim 9, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…wherein the at least one steering module is wirelessly connected to the control console via the steering module interface when the at least one steering module is in a wireless steering mode…”. The closest prior art of Dannenberg et al. (US 20200247518 A1) discloses 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 (See at least: fig. 1 and para [0030]). Additionally, Dannenberg et al. discloses the CCM 24 can be in signal communication to other devices by dedicated bus, a CAN bus, or wireless network transmissions (See at least: para. [0031] where the sensors can be applied to other electric components). However, the claim 9 language of “is wirelessly connected to the control console via the steering module interface” is interpreted that “the steering module interface” has either a wireless receiver or wireless transmitter to make the connection.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Buckley et al. (US 6273771 B1) is relevant to at least claim 8 where it is cited above.
Conclusion
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 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615