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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-27 are pending.
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 1-6, 8-11, 15-20, and 22-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0108902).
As per claim 1, Wong teaches a boat (Wong: figure 1, 10) comprising:
-a propulsion system including:
-a port propulsion unit (Wong: figure 8, 12) positioned on a port side of a centerline of the boat, the port propulsion unit including a port propulsor that is trimmable and capable of being positioned in a plurality of trim positions (Wong: para. 13); and
-a starboard propulsion unit (Wong: figure 8, 16) positioned on a starboard side of the centerline of the boat, the starboard propulsion unit including a starboard propulsor that is trimmable and capable of being positioned in a plurality of trim positions (Wong: para. 13);
-a user input device (Wong: para. 43; figure 1, 62, 64, 68; Input device in communication with the controller.) including at least one of a first user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the port side of the centerline of the boat or a second user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the starboard side of the centerline of the boat (Wong: para. 45-46),
-wherein if the first user-selectable option is selected, the port side of the boat is the surf side of the boat and the starboard side of the boat is a non-surf side of the boat (Wong: para. 45-46), and
-wherein if the second user-selectable option is selected, the starboard side of the boat is the surf side of the boat and the port side of the boat is the non-surf side of the boat (Wong: para. 45-46); and
-a controller (Wong: para. 41-43) communicatively coupled to the user input device and configured such that when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected, the controller causes the propulsor on the surf side of the boat to be positioned in a first trim position and causes the propulsor on the non-surf side of the boat to be positioned in a second trim position, the first trim position being higher than the second trim position (Wong: para. 45-46).
As per claim 2, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the user input device includes both the first user-selectable option and the second user-selectable option (Wong: para. 44).
As per claim 3, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein each of the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor is trimmable between a fully tucked position and a fully raised position, and the second trim position is a fully tucked position (Wong: para. 12; Controller controlling raising and lowering propulsion units.).
As per claim 4, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further wherein each of the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor is trimmable from a neutral position to a plurality of tucked positions and a plurality of raised positions, and the second trim position is a tucked position (Wong: para. 12).
As per claim 5, the boat of claim 4 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the first trim position is a raised position (Wong: figure 11, 40).
As per claim 6, the boat of claim 4 is as described. Wong further teaches further comprising a trim input control for adjusting the trim of the propulsion system, the trim input control being communicatively coupled to the controller to transmit a trim adjustment input (Wong: para. 12), wherein the controller is configured to operate the boat in a surf mode and, when operating in the surf mode, the controller adjusts the trim of the propulsor of the surf side of the boat in response to the trim adjustment input and leaves the propulsor on the non-surf side of the boat in the tucked position (Wong: figure 11).
As per claim 8, the boat of claim 4 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the controller includes a memory having stored therein a trim offset that is a difference in the trim position of the propulsor on the surf side of the boat and the propulsor on the non-surf side of the boat, the controller causing the propulsor on the surf side and the propulsor on the non-surf side to be positioned based on the trim offset (Wong: para. 43).
As per claim 9, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further teaches further comprising a trim input control for adjusting the trim of the propulsion system, the trim input control being communicatively coupled to the controller to transmit a trim adjustment input, wherein the controller is configured to operate the boat in a surf mode and, when operating in the surf mode, the controller adjusts the trim of both the surf-side propulsor and the non-surf-side propulsor to maintain the trim offset between the surf-side propulsor and the non-surf-side propulsor in response to the trim adjustment input (Wong: para. 43).
As per claim 10, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the port propulsion unit includes a port motor operatively coupled to the port propulsor and the starboard propulsion unit includes a starboard motor operatively coupled to the starboard propulsor (Wong: para. 37), and
-wherein the controller is configured such that, when either the first or second user selectable option is selected, the controller causes the motor on the surf side of the boat to operate at a first speed and causes the motor on the non-surf side of the boat to operate at a second speed, the first speed and the second speed being different from each other (Wong: para. 44).
As per claim 11, the boat of claim 10 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the first speed is greater than the second speed (Wong: para. 44).
As per claim 15, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein each of the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor is pivotable in the port and starboard direction (Wong: para. 12; The controller controls the propulsion unit and controlling the swivel bracket supporting the propulsion unit.), and
-wherein the controller causes at least one of the port propulsor or the starboard propulsor to pivot in the port and starboard direction to set an angle of toe between the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected (Wong: para. 12; The controller controls the propulsion unit and controlling the swivel bracket supporting the propulsion unit.).
As per claim 16, the boat of claim 15 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the controller is configured such that when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected, the controller causes both the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor to pivot in the port and starboard direction relative to their corresponding neutral position to set the angle of toe (Wong: para. 49; Deploy or retract port or starboard trim tab to position degree of steering angle or rate of change, speed, etc.).
As per claim 17, the boat of claim 15 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the controller is configured such that when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected, the controller causes the propulsor on the surf side to be positioned with a toed-out angle of toe relative to its neutral position (Wong: para. 49; Deploy or retract port or starboard trim tab to position degree of steering angle or rate of change, speed, etc.).
As per claim 18, the boat of claim 17 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the controller is configured such that when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected, the controller causes the propulsor on the non-surf side to remain in its neutral position (Wong: para. 39; para. 43; The controller inputs the propulsion units to be lifted and put the other engines in neutral position.).
As per claim 19, the boat of claim 15 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the controller is configured such that when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected, the controller causes the propulsor on the non-surf side to be positioned with a toed-in angle of toe relative to its neutral position (Wong: para. 49; Deploy or retract port or starboard trim tab to position degree of steering angle or rate of change, speed, etc.).
As per claim 20, the boat of claim 19 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the controller is configured such that when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected, the controller causes the propulsor on the surf side to remain in its neutral position (Wong: para. 39; para. 43; The controller inputs the propulsion units to be lifted and put the other engines in neutral position.).
As per claim 22, the boat of claim 15 is as described. Wong further teaches further comprising a steering control, wherein the controller is configured to operate the boat in a surf mode and, when operating in the surf mode, the steering control adjusts a steering angle of both the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor to maintain the angle of toe between the surf-side propulsor and the non-surf-side propulsor (Wong: para. 49; Controlled based on sensor information.).
As per claim 23, the boat of claim 15 is as described. Wong further teaches further comprising a steering control to receive a steering input to turn the boat in a direction of turn, one of the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor being an inboard propulsor relative to the direction of turn and the other one of the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor being an outboard propulsor relative to the direction of turn, wherein the controller is configured to operate the boat in a surf mode and, when operating in the surf mode, the steering control adjusts a steering angle of the inboard propulsor at a turning rate different from the outboard propulsor (Wong: para. 49; Use the steering wheel to deploy or retract trim tabs to induce roll motion of the marine vessel.).
As per claim 24, the boat of claim 23 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the turning rate for the outboard propulsor is greater than the turning rate for the inboard propulsor (Wong: para. 49-50).
As per claim 25, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further teaches further comprising:
-a port-side surf device positioned on a port side of the centerline of the boat, the port-side surf device being movable between a deployed position and a non-deployed position (Wong: para. 13); and
-a starboard-side surf device positioned on a starboard side of the centerline of the boat, the starboard-side surf device being movable between a deployed position and a non-deployed position (Wong: para. 13), and
-wherein the controller is configured such that when either the first or second user-selectable option is selected, the controller causes the surf device on the non-surf side to be positioned in the deployed position (Wong: para. 49; Controlled based on sensor information.).
Claim 26 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 27, Wong teaches a boat (Wong: figure 1, 10) comprising:
-a propulsion system including:
-a port propulsion unit (Wong: figure 8, 12) positioned on a port side of a centerline of the boat, the port propulsion unit including a port propulsor that is pivotable in the port and starboard direction; and
-a starboard propulsion unit (Wong: figure 8, 16) positioned on a starboard side of the centerline of the boat, the starboard propulsion unit including a starboard propulsor pivotable in the port and starboard direction (Wong: para. 44);
-a user input device including a user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat (Wong: para. 43; figure 1, 62, 64, 68; Input device in communication with the controller.); and
-a controller communicatively coupled to the user input device (Wong: para. 41-43) and configured such that when the user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat, the controller causes at least one of the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor to pivot in the port and starboard direction to set an angle of toe between the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor (Wong: para. 45-46).
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 (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 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 7, 12-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0108902) in view of Green et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,067,979).
As per claim 7, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the user input device includes a third user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the port side of the centerline of the boat when the user input device includes the first user-selectable option, and the user input device includes a fourth user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the port side of the centerline of the boat when the user input device includes the second user-selectable option (Wong: para. 49),
-wherein the controller causes each of the propulsor on the surf side of the boat and the propulsor on the non-surf side of the boat to be positioned based on the first trim offset when the first wake surf setting is selected, based on the second trim offset when the second wake surf setting is selected, based on the third trim offset when the third wake surf setting is selected, and based on the fourth trim offset when the fourth wake surf setting is selected (Wong: para. 49).
Wong does not explicitly teach the following, however, Green teaches:
-wherein the controller includes a memory having stored therein at least one of a first trim offset for the first user-selectable option and a second trim offset for the second user-selectable option and stored therein at least one of a third trim offset for the third user-selectable option and a fourth trim offset for the fourth user-selectable option, the first trim offset being greater than the third trim offset, the second trim offset being greater than the forth trim offset, each of the first trim offset the second trim offset, the third trim offset, and the fourth trim offset is a difference in the trim position of the propulsor on the surf side of the boat and the propulsor on the non-surf side of the boat (Green: col. 36, 39-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Green to Wong to provide a faster and better watercraft maintenance.
As per claim 12, the boat of claim 10 is as described. Wong further teaches wherein the user input device includes a third user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the port side of the centerline of the boat when the user input device includes the first user-selectable option, and the user input device includes a fourth user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the port side of the centerline of the boat when the user input device includes the second user-selectable option (Wong: para. 49),
-wherein the controller causes the motor on the surf side of the boat and the motor on the non-surf side of the boat to operate based on the first offset motor speed when the first user-selectable option is selected, based on the second offset motor speed when the second user-selectable option is selected, based on the third offset motor speed when the third user-selectable option is selected, and based on the fourth offset motor speed when the fourth user-selectable option is selected (Wong: para. 49).
Wong does not explicitly teach the following, however, Green teaches:
-wherein the controller includes a memory having stored therein at least one of a first offset motor speed for the first user-selectable option and a second offset motor speed for the second user-selectable option and stored therein at least one of a third offset motor speed for the third user-selectable option and a fourth offset motor speed for the fourth user-selectable option, the first offset motor speed being greater than the third offset motor speed, the second offset motor speed being greater than the fourth offset motor speed, and each of the first offset motor speed, the second offset motor speed, the third offset motor speed, and the fourth offset motor speed is a difference between the speed of the surf-side motor and the speed of the non-surf-side motor (Green: col. 36, 39-67).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 7.
As per claim 13, the boat of claim 10 is as described. Wong does not teach the following, however, Green teaches wherein the controller includes a memory having stored therein an offset motor speed that is a difference between the speed of the motor on the surf side of the boat and the speed of the motor on the non-surf side of the boat, the controller causing motor on the surf side of the boat and the motor on the non-surf side of the boat to operate based on the offset motor speed (Green: col. 36, 39-67).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 7.
As per claim 14, the boat of claim 13 is as described. Wong further teaches further comprising a speed input control to set the speed of the boat, the speed input control being communicatively coupled to the controller to transmit a speed input (Wong: para. 44), and
-wherein the controller is configured to operate the boat in a surf mode and, when operating in the surf mode, the controller adjusts the speed of both the surf-side motor and the non-surf-side motor to maintain the offset motor speed between the surf-side motor and the non-surf-side motor in response to the speed input (Wong: para. 44).
As per claim 21, the boat of claim 15 is as described. Wong does not explicitly teach the following, however, Green teaches wherein the user input device includes a third user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the port side of the centerline of the boat when the user input device includes the first user-selectable option, and the user input device includes a fourth user-selectable option for wake surfing behind the boat on the port side of the centerline of the boat when the user input device includes the second user-selectable option (Green: col. 2, 36-41; Wake surf system configured to allow a wake surf rider to switch a wake from port-side surf to starboard-side surf.),
-wherein the controller includes a memory having stored therein at least one of a first angle of toe for the first user-selectable option or a second angle of toe for the second user-selectable option and stored therein at least one of a third angle of toe for the third user-selectable option or a fourth angle of toe for the fourth user-selectable option, the first angle of toe being greater than the third angle of toe, and the second angle of toe being greater than the fourth angle of toe (Green: col. 37, 9-30; Receive instructions from memory corresponding to operations.), and
-wherein the controller causes the port propulsor and the starboard propulsor to be positioned based on the first angle of toe when the first user-selectable option is selected, based on the second angle of toe when the second user-selectable option is selected, based on the third angle of toe when the third user-selectable option is selected, and based on the fourth angle of toe when the fourth user-selectable option is selected (Green: col. 37, 9-30; Receive instructions from memory corresponding to operations.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wong does not teach a boat configured for wake surfing where a controller causes specific actions to the propulsion system when a user-selectable wake surfing option is selected. Examiner disagrees. Wong teaches a controller for controlling starboard or port side wake gates, which is known in the art to create and shape a surf wake for wakesurfing or wakeboarding. Wong figure 16, 114 and 116 show the port and starboard wake gates. Wong para. 56 teaches that at least one of the port wake gate or the starboard wake gate are deployed (i.e. surf side and non-surf side) based on commands, therefore teaching the limitations of Wong.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lundgren – U.S. Patent No. 7,780,490 – Teaches a watercraft with a control system. with two propulsion units.
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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
