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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on January 23, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Jopling and combs fail to teach determining if one of the motors is at an elevated position relative to the water surface and thereafter cause a corresponding change in operation (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 5, lines 3-4, and claim 16, lines 2-5, the limitation “wherein the first setting and the second setting cause the watercraft to maintain a direction of travel for the watercraft while the watercraft travels along the body of water” in combination with the limitation “caus[ing] adjustment to at least one of the first setting…elevated position relative to the surface to the body of water” in claim 1, lines 21-29, and claim 14, lines 19-26, appears to be new matter. Paragraph 0040 states that the first or second setting is adjusted based on the water level sensor indicating the kicker or trolling motor is in an elevated position during a rough seas mode and paragraph 0035 states that the first and second settings are maintained so the direction of travel and attitude direction of the watercraft remain approximately constant during a drift mode, but there is no detail within the specification stating the settings for these two modes are done at the same time.
In claim 8, lines 2-4, and claim 18, lines 2-3, the limitation “wherein the first setting and the second setting are determined so that the watercraft repeatedly accelerates and decelerate” in combination with the limitation “caus[ing] adjustment to at least one of the first setting…elevated position relative to the surface to the body of water” in claim 1, lines 21-29, and claim 14, lines 19-26, appears to be new matter. Paragraph 0040 states that the first or second setting is adjusted based on the water level sensor indicating the kicker or trolling motor is in an elevated position during a rough seas mode and paragraph 0038 states that the first and second settings are maintained so the watercraft repeatedly accelerates and decelerates during a bait mode, but there is no detail within the specification stating the settings for these two modes are done at the same time.
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 5, 8, 16, and 18 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.
In claim 5, lines 3-4, and claim 16, lines 2-5, the limitation “wherein the first setting and the second setting cause the watercraft to maintain a direction of travel for the watercraft while the watercraft travels along the body of water” in combination with the limitation “caus[ing] adjustment to at least one of the first setting…elevated position relative to the surface to the body of water” in claim 1, lines 21-29, and claim 14, lines 19-26, renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claims are unclear. Paragraph 0040 states that the first or second setting is adjusted based on the water level sensor indicating the kicker or trolling motor is in an elevated position during a rough seas mode and paragraph 0035 states that the first and second settings are maintained so the direction of travel and attitude direction of the watercraft remain approximately constant during a drift mode. It is unclear how the settings for these two modes would be performed at the same time.
In claim 8, lines 2-4, and claim 18, lines 2-3, the limitation “wherein the first setting and the second setting are determined so that the watercraft repeatedly accelerates and decelerate” in combination with the limitation “caus[ing] adjustment to at least one of the first setting…elevated position relative to the surface to the body of water” in claim 1, lines 21-29, and claim 14, lines 19-26, renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claims are unclear. Paragraph 0040 states that the first or second setting is adjusted based on the water level sensor indicating the kicker or trolling motor is in an elevated position during a rough seas mode and paragraph 0038 states that the first and second settings are maintained so the watercraft repeatedly accelerates and decelerates during a bait mode. It is unclear how the settings for these two modes would be performed at the same time.
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 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jopling (US 9,594,375) in view of Combs (US 2022/0373678), and Chretien (US 2020/0127586).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Jopling discloses a system, non-transitory computer readable medium, and method, respectively, for controlling operations of at least two motors on a watercraft on a body of water, the system comprising:
the at least two motors, wherein the at least two motors include a kicker motor and a trolling motor (Jopling, Col. 2, lines 44-47 regarding the watercraft having an outboard and trolling motor & Col. 2, lines 59-64 regarding having any combination of outboard motors, trolling motors, inboard motor, stern-drive, thrusters, jets, pods, or any other type of motor for propulsion);
one or more processors;
a memory including computer program code configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive an indication regarding a current mode of operation for the watercraft (Jopling, Col. 4, lines 33-38 regarding heading options including maintain a selected heading, rotate the watercraft at a selected speed, or rotate the watercraft between two headings);
determine, based on the current mode, a first setting for the kicker motor (Jopling, Col. 4, lines 49-51 regarding determining a set of instructions for the outboard autopilot & Col. 4-5, lines 66-1 regarding the outboard autopilot setting a motor speed, rotational direction, or orientation);
determine, based on the current mode, a second setting for the trolling motor (Jopling, Col. 4, lines 49-51 regarding determining a set of instructions for the trolling autopilot & Col. 4-5, lines 66-1 regarding the trolling autopilot setting a motor speed, rotational direction, or orientation); and
cause (i) the kicker motor to operate according to the first setting, and (ii) the trolling motor to operate according to the second setting so as to cause the watercraft to operate according to the current mode (Jopling, Col. 5, lines 43-47 regarding transmitting the set of instructions to the outboard and trolling autopilot if the watercraft deviates from the calculated course & Col. 4-5, lines 66-1 regarding the autopilots setting a motor speed, rotational direction, or orientation).
Jopling does not explicitly disclose a first water level sensor positioned proximate to the kicker motor;
a second water level sensor positioned proximate to the trolling motor;
a memory including computer program code configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a first level signal from the first water level sensor;
receive a second level signal from the second water level sensor;
determine, based on the first level signal or the second level signal, that one of the kicker motor or the trolling motor is at an elevated position relative to the surface of the body of water; and
cause adjustment to at least one of the first setting to reduce a power level for the kicker motor and the second setting to increase a power level for the trolling motor in an instance in which a determination is made that the kicker motor is at the elevated position relative to the surface of the body of water, or
cause adjustment to at least one of the first setting to increase the power level for the kicker motor and the second setting to decrease the power level for the trolling motor in an instance in which the determination is made that the trolling motor is at the elevated position relative to the surface of the body of water.
Combs teaches a first water level sensor positioned proximate to the kicker motor (Combs, [0059] regarding a sonar assembly positioned on the primary motor assembly);
a second water level sensor positioned proximate to the trolling motor (Combs, [0059] regarding a sonar assembly positioned on the trolling motor assembly);
one or more processors;
a memory including computer program code configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a first level signal from the first water level sensor (Combs, [0119] regarding the marine electronic device receiving sonar signal data, sonar return data, or sonar image data from the sonar transducer);
receive a second level signal from the second water level sensor (Combs, [0119] regarding the marine electronic device receiving sonar signal data, sonar return data, or sonar image data from the sonar transducer); and
determine, based on the first level signal or the second level signal, that one of the kicker motor or the trolling motor is at an elevated position relative to the surface of the body of water (Combs, [0059] regarding a sonar assembly positioned on the motor assembly. By being positioned on the motor assembly the sonar assembly would be able to determine that the trolling or kicker motor is at an elevated position relative to the surface of the body of water as there is nothing clearly defining what an elevated position is and the sonar assembly indicates where in the water the motor assembly is located with respect to the surface of the water.).
Jopling and Combs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of watercraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jopling to incorporate using a first and second water level sensor, as disclosed by Combs, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of knowing the position of the motors.
DNV teaches to limit the power of an engine when that is incomplete propeller immersion (pg. 2).
Jopling and DNV are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of watercraft propellers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jopling, as modified, to incorporate limiting the power of an engine when it is out of the water, as disclosed by DNV, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing bearing failures.
Chretien teaches to increase the power output of an engine when another engine fails ([0020]).
Jopling and Chretien are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of engines. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jopling, as modified, to incorporate limiting increasing power output of an engine when another fails, as disclosed by Chretien, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of maintaining the amount of propulsion.
Jopling, as modified, teaches a memory including computer program code configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
cause adjustment to at least one of the first setting to reduce a power level for the kicker motor and the second setting to increase a power level for the trolling motor in an instance in which a determination is made that the kicker motor is at the elevated position relative to the surface of the body of water, or
cause adjustment to at least one of the first setting to increase the power level for the kicker motor and the second setting to decrease the power level for the trolling motor in an instance in which the determination is made that the trolling motor is at the elevated position relative to the surface of the body of water (increase power of one engine when the other is out of the water).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system and non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 14, respectively. Jopling further discloses wherein the first setting includes at least one of the power level of the kicker motor, an amount of thrust generated by the kicker motor, a speed of the kicker motor, an angle relative to a forward direction for the kicker motor, an angle relative to a horizontal for the kicker motor, or a position of the kicker motor (Jopling, Col. 4-5, lines 66-1 regarding the outboard autopilot setting a motor speed, rotational direction, or orientation).
Regarding claim 3, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. Jopling further discloses wherein the second setting includes at least one of the power level of the trolling motor, an amount of thrust generated by the trolling motor, a speed of the trolling motor, an angle relative to a forward direction for the trolling motor, an angle relative to a horizontal for the trolling motor, or a position of the trolling motor (Jopling, Col. 4-5, lines 66-1 regarding the trolling autopilot setting a motor speed, rotational direction, or orientation).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system and non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed in claim 1 and 14, respectively. Jopling further discloses wherein the first setting and the second setting cause the watercraft to maintain a direction of travel for the watercraft while the watercraft travels along the body of water (Jopling, Col. 6, lines 31-34 regarding a heading offset option which maintains the bow of the watercraft at a selected heading while navigating a course).
Regarding claim 10, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. Jopling further discloses wherein the computer program code is configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive additional data,
wherein the additional data is considered in making the determination of the first setting for the kicker motor and the second setting for the trolling motor (Jopling, Col. 3, lines 28-34 regarding steering to compensate for external forces. By compensating for external forces, the information on the external forces must first have been received).
Regarding claim 11, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system as claimed in claim 10. Jopling further discloses wherein the additional data includes at least one of map data, sonar data, radar data, temperature data, water level data, position data, directional data, wind speed data, water current speed, or water depth data (Jopling, Col. 3, lines 26-28 regarding the external forces including winds, waves, tides, or currents).
Regarding claim 12, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. Jopling further discloses wherein the one or more processors are connected to the at least two motors via a wired connection (Jopling, Col. 5, lines 26-28 regarding the instructions being transmitted to the autopilots using a wired connection & Col. 3, lines 62-67 regarding the autopilots using hydraulic or cable steer systems).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien, and further in view of Poll (US 5,888,109).
Regarding claim 4, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. Jopling further discloses wherein the system can control a watercraft that has any number of motors (Col. 4, lines 1-2) and that the motors can be an outboard, in board, stern-drive, trolling, thruster, jet, pod, or any other type of motor for propulsion (Col. 2, lines 59-64), but does not explicitly disclose the watercraft having a third motor.
Poll teaches a watercraft having a third motor (Fig. 1, regarding a primary, trolling, and auxiliary motor).
Jopling and Poll are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of watercraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jopling, as modified, to incorporate the watercraft having a primary, auxiliary, and trolling motor, as disclosed by Poll, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing the load on the other motors.
Jopling, further teaches an autopilot may be used with each motor (Col. 4, lines 1-2), therefore Jopling, as modified, teaches a watercraft with a primary, trolling, and auxiliary motor, and an autopilot associated with each motor. Therefore, the autopilot for the primary motor would operate in the same manner as the outboard and trolling autopilot. Thus Jopling discloses wherein the computer program code is configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
determine, based on the current mode, a third setting for the third motor (Jopling, Col. 4, lines 49-51 regarding determining a set of instructions for the outboard and trolling autopilot); and
cause the third motor to operate at the third setting (Jopling, Col. 5, lines 43-47 regarding transmitting the set of instructions to the outboard and trolling autopilot if the watercraft deviates from the calculated course & Col. 4-5, lines 66-1 regarding the autopilots setting a motor speed, rotational direction, or orientation).
Regarding claim 13, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system as claimed in claim 1. Jopling further discloses wherein the kicker motor is positioned proximate to a stern of the watercraft, wherein the trolling motor is positioned proximate to the bow of the watercraft and the kicker motor is larger than the trolling motor (Jopling, Fig. 1 regarding the outboard motor being attached to the stern and trolling motor being attached to the bow and the outboard motor being larger than the trolling motor).
Jopling does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum amount of thrust that the kicker motor is capable of generating is greater than a maximum amount of thrust that the trolling motor is capable of generating.
Poll teaches wherein a maximum amount of thrust that the kicker motor is capable of generating is greater than a maximum amount of thrust that the trolling motor is capable of generating (Poll, Col. 1, lines 50-52 regarding the trolling motor having less thrust than the kicker motor).
Jopling and Poll are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of watercraft systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jopling, as modified, to incorporate the kicker motor having a larger maximum thrust than the trolling motor, as disclosed by Poll, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having a motor that is capable of maneuvering the watercraft more quickly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien, and further in view of Wang (US 10,093,355).
Regarding claim 6, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system as claimed in claim 5, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first setting and the second setting cause the watercraft to maintain a direction of travel for the watercraft within three degrees of a target direction.
Wang teaches wherein the first setting and the second setting cause the watercraft to maintain a direction of travel for the watercraft within three degrees of a target direction (Wang, Col. 20, lines 53-59 regarding a course correction not being necessary when the heading error is less than two degrees. By correcting the heading when it exceeds two degrees, the direction of travel for the watercraft would be continually corrected back to zero degrees.).
Jopling and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of watercraft heading. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jopling, as modified, to incorporate keeping watercraft heading error within two degrees, as disclosed by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of keeping the watercraft pointed in the right direction.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien, and further in view of Hood (US 5,185,950).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Jopling in view of Combs, DNV, and Chretien teaches the system and non-transitory computer readable medium as claimed in claims 1 and 14, respectively, but does not disclose wherein the first setting and the second setting are determined so that the watercraft repeatedly accelerates and decelerates while the watercraft travels along the body of water.
Hood teaches rapidly accelerating and then motionless action of a lure attracting fish (Col. 2, lines 21-28).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jopling, as modified, to incorporate mimicking the accelerating and then motionless action of the fishing lure, as disclosed by Hood, as a mode on a watercraft, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of improving the baiting of fish.
Jopling, as modified, teaches wherein the first setting and the second setting are determined so that the watercraft repeatedly accelerates and decelerates while the watercraft travels along the body of water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665