DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s argument/remarks filed on 08/06/2026, claims 1-15 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1, 5 and 8.
Response to Argument
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendment of the claims, applicant is kindly invited to consider the above Office Action below to view the new ground of rejection and cited prior arts’ section.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a foreign object attachment decision logic to determine whether or not attachment of a foreign object to the watercraft has occurred;
a propeller matching decision logic to determine whether or not a propeller appropriately matches the marine propulsion device; a damper slippage decision logic to determine whether or not slippage of a propeller damper has occurred in the marine propulsion device; or a water landing decision logic to determine whether or not a water landing of the watercraft has occurred in claims 1; a foreign object attachment decision logic to determine whether or not attachment of a foreign object to the watercraft has occurred;
a propeller matching decision logic to determine whether or not a propeller appropriately matches the marine propulsion device; a damper slippage decision logic to determine whether or not slippage of a propeller damper has occurred in the marine propulsion device; or a water landing decision logic to determine whether or not a water landing of the watercraft has occurred in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the terms “a foreign object attachment decision logic,” “a propeller matching decision logic,” “a damper slippage decision logic,” and “a water landing decision logic” refer to watercraft computer 5 (see specification (Pub. No.- US 2024/0326973 A1) par. 59).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim 1-5, 7-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motose et al. (JP 2002160696 A – Machine Translation) in view of Aihara (US 5,466,177 A).
Regarding claim 1, Motose et al. disclose diagnosis support system for a vessel, the diagnosis support system comprising:
a marine propulsion device (e.g., the outboard motor (1)) including a drive source (e.g., the outboard motor (1) comprising engine 2 – par. 64 and Figure 1);
a load sensor (e.g., intake pressure sensor (121) and engine speed sensor (43)) to detect load data indicating a load acting on the drive source (e.g., the intake pressure sensor (121) detects pressure inside the intake passage (19) (par. 69) and the engine speed sensor (43) detects engine speed (par. 66) on the engine (2)); and
a computer (e.g., Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (42)) configured or programmed to:
store a decision logic to determine whether or not a malfunction or trouble of the watercraft has occurred (e.g., store “normal state reference data” (par 59) within a storage means (203) to support diagnostic (par. 179) – for instance, storing a range of normal value for operating state data (par. 182 and 203) to determine malfunction (par. 48 and 90, 92));
obtain the load data (e.g., the ECU (42) receives detection signal from sensors – for instance, intake pressure sensor (121) and engine speed sensor (43) (par. 78-79)); and
determine whether or not the malfunction or trouble of the watercraft has occurred based on the load data with reference to the decision logic (e.g., determine whether the vessel’s propeller is too small or too large based on intake pressure and engine speed data and boat load (par. 105, 104 and 100); for instance, poor match of the propeller with the outboard motor and usage (par. 100) ).
However, Motose et al. failed to specifically disclose wherein the decision logic includes at least one of: or alternative limitation).
However, Aihara teaches a variable propeller for boat configured to detect slipping between damper rubber 20 and boss body 17 of a propelling device 1 when the rotating torque equal to or more than a predetermined value (col. 3, lines 51-54 and Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the vessel ECU / diagnostic support system taught by Motose et al. such that the ECU / diagnostic support system detects slipping between damper rubber and boss body of a propelling device when the rotating torque equal to or more than a predetermined value, in view of Aihara, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing a variable propeller for a boat which can be easily mounted to a relatively short shaft for a usual propeller while detecting slip between damper rubber and boss body of a propelling device (col. col. 1, lines 11-14 and col. 3, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 2, Motose et al. disclose diagnosis support system wherein the drive source includes an engine (engine 2 – par. 64 and Figure 1);
the load sensor includes:
an intake pressure sensor to detect an intake pressure of the engine (e.g., the intake pressure sensor (121) detects pressure inside the intake passage 19 (par. 69); and
an engine speed sensor to detect an engine rotational speed (e.g., the engine speed sensor (43) detects engine speed (par. 66)); and
the computer (e.g., Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (42)) is configured or programmed to:
obtain the intake pressure and the engine rotational speed as the load data (e.g., the ECU (42) receives detection signal from sensors – for instance, intake pressure sensor (121) and engine speed sensor (43) (par. 78-79)); and
determine whether or not the malfunction or trouble of the watercraft has occurred based on the intake pressure and the engine rotational speed (e.g., the ECU (42) determines whether the vessel’s propeller is too small or too large based on intake pressure and engine speed data and boat load (par. 105, 104 and 100-101); for instance, vessel’s propeller poorly matches with the outboard motor and usage (par. 105 and 100-101) ).
Regarding claims 3-4, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim 1; therefore, Motose et al.’s invention still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claim 5, Motose et al. disclose diagnosis support system wherein the drive source includes an engine (e.g., engine 2 – par. 64 and Figure 1);
the load sensor includes:
an intake pressure sensor to detect an intake pressure of the engine (e.g., the intake pressure sensor (121) detects pressure inside the intake passage 19 (par. 69); and
an engine speed sensor to detect an engine rotational speed e.g., the engine speed sensor (43) detects engine speed (par. 66);
the computer (e.g., Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (42)) is configured or programmed to:
obtain the intake pressure and the engine rotational speed as the load data (e.g., the ECU (42) receives detection signal from sensors – for instance, intake pressure sensor (121) and engine speed sensor (43) (par. 78-79)); and
determine that a propeller does not appropriately match the marine propulsion device with reference to a propeller matching decision logic (e.g., determine whether the vessel’s propeller is too small or too large - for instance, poor match of the propeller with the outboard motor and usage (par. 105 and 100-101)) when the intake pressure and the engine rotational speed are plotted outside of a predetermined range in the load data during steady navigation of the watercraft (e.g., For instance, Figure 6 shows a plot of normal range area for intake pressure and engine speed data. When the load is above or below the normal range area (par. 105, 104 and 100)), it is determined that the vessel propeller doesn’t matches with the vessel outboard motor and usage (par. 105, 100-101 and Figure 6 below with annotation)).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
1072
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim 1; therefore, Motose et al.’s invention still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claim 8, Motose et al. disclose diagnosis support method for controlling a vessel including a marine propulsion device (e.g., the outboard motor (1)) including a drive source (e.g., the outboard motor (1) comprising engine (2) – par. 64 and Figure 1), the method comprising:
obtaining load data indicating a load acting on the drive source (e.g., receiving detection signal on the engine (2) from intake pressure sensor (121) and engine speed sensor (43) (par. 78-79)); and
determining whether or not a malfunction or trouble of the watercraft has occurred based on the load data with reference to a decision logic to determine whether or not the malfunction or trouble of the watercraft has occurred (e.g., determining whether the vessel’s propeller is too small or too large based on intake pressure and engine speed data and boat load (par. 105, 104 and 100); for instance, poor match of the propeller with the outboard motor and usage (par. 100) ).
Motose et al. failed to specifically disclose wherein the decision logic includes at least one of: or
alternative limitation).
However, Aihara teaches a variable propeller for boat configured to detect slipping between damper rubber 20 and boss body 17 of a propelling device 1 when the rotating torque equal to or more than a predetermined value (col. 3, lines 51-54 and Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the vessel ECU / diagnostic support system taught by Motose et al. such that the ECU / diagnostic support system detects slipping between damper rubber and boss body of a propelling device when the rotating torque equal to or more than a predetermined value, in view of Aihara, with reasonable expectation of success, since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing a variable propeller for a boat which can be easily mounted to a relatively short shaft for a usual propeller while detecting slip between damper rubber and boss body of a propelling device (col. col. 1, lines 11-14 and col. 3, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 9, Motose et al. disclose diagnosis support method for
controlling a vessel, wherein the drive source includes an engine (e.g., engine 2 – par. 64 and Figure 1), and the method further comprises:
obtaining an intake pressure of the engine and an engine rotational speed as the load data (e.g., receiving detection signal from intake pressure sensor (121) and engine speed sensor (43) (par. 78-79)); and
determining whether or not the malfunction or trouble of the watercraft has occurred based on the intake pressure and the engine rotational speed (e.g., the ECU (42) determines whether the vessel’s propeller is too small or too large based on intake pressure and engine speed data and boat load (par. 105, 104 and 100-101); for instance, vessel’s propeller poorly matches with the outboard motor and usage (par. 105 and 100-101)).
Regarding claims 10-11, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim 8; therefore, Motose et al.’s invention still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claim 12, Motose et al. disclose diagnosis support method for
controlling a vessel wherein the drive source includes an engine, and the method further comprises:
obtaining an intake pressure of the engine and an engine rotational speed as the load data (e.g., receiving detection signal from intake pressure sensor (121) and engine speed sensor (43) (par. 78-79)); and
determining that the propeller does not appropriately match the marine propulsion device with reference to the propeller matching decision logic (e.g., determining whether the vessel’s propeller is too small or too large - for instance, poor match of the propeller with the outboard motor and usage (par. 105 and 100-101)) when the intake pressure and the engine rotational speed are plotted outside of a predetermined range in the load data during steady navigation of the watercraft (e.g., For instance, Figure 6 shows a plot of normal range area for intake pressure and engine speed data. When the load is above or below the normal range area (par. 105, 104 and 100)), it is determined that the vessel propeller doesn’t matches with the vessel outboard motor and usage (par. 105, 100-101 and Figure 6 below with annotation)).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
1072
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 14, the claim limitations recited features on alternative form of rejected claim 8; therefore, Motose et al.’s invention still read on the claimed combination alternative form.
Regarding claim 15, Motose et al. disclose a vessel (par. 38 and 41) comprising the diagnosis support system for a vessel of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura et al, (US 2014/0023503 A1) is directed to a damper unit for vessel propulsion apparatus for preventing damper breaking, deformation or slip.
Divljakovic et al. (US 6,285,947 B1) is directed to a marine vessel configured to detect damaged propeller.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant 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, Khoi H. Tran can be reached at 571 272 6919. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
