DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has augmented the prior art rejections in light of Applicant's amendments and/or arguments, as indicated below.
Applicant argues that “neither Malouf nor Chino, nor the combination, discloses a steering system comprising two steering sensors configured to sense the steering position of the marine drive, nor a controller configured to calculate a steering position for a marine drive based on two steering position values from two different sensors on one drive”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As provided in the previous office action, Examiner acknowledges that Malouf fails to teach a second steering sensor configured to sense the steering position of the marine drive and output a second sensed value and calculate a measured steering position for the marine drive based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value. The combination of Malouf and Chino is relied upon for these teachings.
More specifically, Malouf teaches a first steering sensor for a first marine drive and a second steering sensor for a second marine drive to output the sensed value (para 0053). Chino teaches having first and second sensor to measure the same measurement parameter in order to realize measurement with high accuracy of the target parameter that is applicable to ships and vehicles (para 0072, 0182). Chino further teaches calculating a measured value based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value (para 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Malouf’s teachings of having a steering system for a marine drive comprising a first sensor to incorporate Chino’s teachings of having first and second sensor to measure the same measurement parameter and calculating a measured value based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value for control operations in order to have a first and a second steering sensor configured to sense the steering position of the marine drive and calculate a measured steering position for the marine drive based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value. Doing so would enable realizing higher accuracy of information during control (Chino, 0072) such as control of the steering actuator.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malouf (US 20220144401 A1) in view of Chino (US 20190285663 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Malouf teaches a steering system for a marine drive (Abstract, 0015), the steering system comprising:
the marine drive, wherein the marine drive is steerable about a steering axis (Fig 2-4);
a steering actuator (at least in 0053 “Execution of the code allows the control system 32 to control a series of actuators (for example steering actuators 50a, 50b and trim actuators 48a, 48b) of the marine drives 12a, 12b”) configured to steer the marine drive to a range of steering positions within a permitted steering range (at least in Fig. 5, para 0055 wherein “[0055] The allowable steering angle range is a maximum steering angle range where no additional constraints are placed on the permitted steering angles beyond those normally in place for steering the drives on the marine vessel”);
a first steering sensor configured to sense the steering position of the marine drive and output a first sensed value (at least in 0053 wherein “The control system 32 may also obtain data from sensors aboard the vessel (e.g., trim position sensors 35a and 35b and steering position sensors 55a and 55b, and the processor 37 may save or interpret the data as described herein below”);
a controller (at least in 0053 “The control system 32 may also obtain data from sensors aboard the vessel (e.g., trim position sensors 35a and 35b and steering position sensors 55a and 55b, and the processor 37 may save or interpret the data as described herein below”) configured to:
determine a measured steering position for the marine drive based on the first sensed value (at least in 0076 wherein “A steering position adjustment is then determined, as indicated at 226, such as based on the current steering position sensed by the steering position sensor 55a, 55b”); and
control the steering actuator based on the measured steering position (at least in 0076 wherein “A steering position adjustment is then determined, as indicated at 226, such as based on the current steering position sensed by the steering position sensor 55a, 55b”).
However, Malouf fails to teach a second steering sensor configured to sense the steering position of the marine drive and output a second sensed value and calculate a measured steering position for the marine drive based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value.
Malouf further teaches a second steering sensor configured to sense the steering position of a marine drive and output a second sensed value (0053 “The control system 32 may also obtain data from sensors aboard the vessel (e.g., trim position sensors 35a and 35b and steering position sensors 55a and 55b, and the processor 37 may save or interpret the data as described herein below”).
Chino teaches a first sensor and a second sensor and calculating a measured sensing parameter based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value (0072 wherein “[0072] According to the configuration in which a plurality of acceleration sensor devices are provided as in FIG. 2, an average value or the like which is a statistical value of acceleration data from the plurality of acceleration sensor devices is calculated in the microcontroller 80, and thus high accuracy of acceleration data can be realized. For example, the microcontroller 80 obtains an average value of X-axis acceleration data from the first acceleration sensor device 40A and X-axis acceleration data from the second acceleration sensor device 40B, and outputs the obtained average value to a host device 210 or the like as final X-axis acceleration data … Consequently, measurement accuracy of acceleration data can be achieved, and, for example, in a case where information such as position information of a measurement target object is obtained by using acceleration data or the like from the sensor module 10, high accuracy of the obtained position information can be achieved”).
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 Malouf’s teachings of having a steering system for a marine drive comprising a first sensor and controlling the steering actuator based on the measured steering position according to sensor data to incorporate Chino’s teachings of a first sensor and a second sensor and calculating a measured sensing parameter based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value for control operations in order to have a first and a second steering sensor configured to sense the steering position of the marine drive and calculate a measured steering position for the marine drive based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value and control the steering actuator based on the measured steering position. Doing so would enable realizing higher accuracy of information during control (Chino, 0072) such as control of the steering actuator.
Regarding claim 2, modified Malouf teaches wherein the measured steering position is calculated as an average of the first sensed value and the second sensed value (As modified in claim 1, wherein average of the first sensed value and the second sensed value is calculated).
Regarding claim 3, modified Malouf teaches wherein the measured steering position is a value between the first sensed value and the second sensed value. (As modified in claim 1, wherein average of the first sensed value and the second sensed value is calculated).
Regarding claim 13, modified Malouf teaches wherein each of the first steering sensor and the second steering sensor is a Hall Effect sensor (0005 wherein “[0005] The disclosure of U.S. Pat. No. 6,322,404 is hereby incorporated herein by reference and discloses a Hall effect rotational position sensor is mounted on a pivotable member of a marine propulsion system).
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 1
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 2
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 3
mutandis mutatis.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 10, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malouf (US 20220144401 A1) and Chino (US 20190285663 A1) in view of Brady (US 20110172950 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Malouf teaches all the limitations of claim 1 including the controller, the first steering sensor, the second steering sensor and determine the measured steering position based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value. Malouf further teaches to adjust the steering position of the marine drive based on the determined measured steering position (at least in 0076 wherein “A steering position adjustment is then determined, as indicated at 226, such as based on the current steering position sensed by the steering position sensor 55a, 55b”).
However, modified Malouf fails to teach in response to detecting a fault condition of the first steering sensor or the second steering sensor, redetermine the measured steering position based on only the first sensed value or the second sensed value; and adjust the steering position of the marine drive based on the redetermined measured steering position.
Brady teaches in response to detecting a fault condition of the first sensor or the second sensor (0012-0013 wherein “Upon detecting a difference, the processor determines whether the first and/or second inertial measurement units has failed by comparing each of the first and second rate streams to the inertial parameter”), redetermine the measured information based on only the first sensed value or the second sensed value (para 0012-0013, 0036 wherein “[0013] The vehicle may be a spacecraft, a satellite, an aircraft, a boat, and/or a ground-based vehicle. The processor may disable a failed inertial measurement unit”; “in an alternative embodiment, the IRIS system 106 automatically switches the fault-tolerant system 100 to the non-failing IMU channel (i.e., disables the failing IMU 102, 104)”).
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 further modified Malouf’s teachings of determining the measured steering position based on the first sensed value and the second sensed value and to adjust the steering position of the marine drive based on the determined measured steering position to incorporate Brady’s teachings of in response to detecting a fault condition of the first sensor or the second sensor and redetermine the measured information based on only the first sensed value or the second sensed value in order to have in response to detecting a fault condition of the first steering sensor or the second steering sensor, redetermine the measured steering position based on only the first sensed value or the second sensed value; and adjust the steering position of the marine drive based on the redetermined measured steering position. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, modified Malouf teaches all the limitations of claim 5 including the controller, the first sensed value, and the second sensed value.
However, modified Malouf fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to detect the fault condition when a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value exceeds a difference threshold.
Brady teaches to detect the fault condition when a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value exceeds a difference threshold (para 0014-0015, 0028 wherein “A processor receives a first data stream from a first inertial measurement unit and a second data stream from a second inertial measurement unit. If one exists, a difference between the first and second data streams exists is detected. Upon detecting a difference, if the first and/or second inertial measurement units have failed…”; “The detected difference may be compared to a threshold …”; “[0028] The processor 114 detects whether or not a difference exists between the data streams 108, 110 in Step 204. In one embodiment, the data streams 108, 110 are monitored until they differ by more than a predetermined or a user-defined failure threshold”).
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 further modified Malouf’s teachings of controller, the first sensed value, and the second sensed value regarding the steering position to incorporate Brady’s teachings to detect the fault condition when a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value exceeds a difference threshold in order to have a controller configured to detect the fault condition when a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value exceeds a difference threshold. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, modified Malouf teaches all the limitations of claim 1 including the controller, the first sensed value, the second sensed value.
However, modified Malouf fails to teach to determine a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value; compare the difference to a difference threshold; and detect a fault condition if the difference exceeds the difference threshold.
Brady teaches to determine a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value; compare the difference to a difference threshold; and detect a fault condition if the difference exceeds the difference threshold (para 0014-0015, 0028 wherein “A processor receives a first data stream from a first inertial measurement unit and a second data stream from a second inertial measurement unit. If one exists, a difference between the first and second data streams exists is detected. Upon detecting a difference, if the first and/or second inertial measurement units have failed…”; “The detected difference may be compared to a threshold …”; “[0028] The processor 114 detects whether or not a difference exists between the data streams 108, 110 in Step 204. In one embodiment, the data streams 108, 110 are monitored until they differ by more than a predetermined or a user-defined failure threshold”).
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 further modified Malouf’s teachings of controller, the first sensed value, the second sensed value regarding the steering position to incorporate Brady’s teachings to determine a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value; compare the difference to a difference threshold; and detect a fault condition if the difference exceeds the difference threshold in order to determine a difference between the first sensed value and the second sensed value; compare the difference to a difference threshold; and detect a fault condition if the difference exceeds the difference threshold. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 5
mutandis mutatis.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malouf (US 20220144401 A1), Chino (US 20190285663 A1) and Brady (US 20110172950 A1) in view of Kato (US 20250242901 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Malouf teaches wherein the controller is configured to detect the fault condition (Brady, para 0014-0015, 0028) and steering actuator (Malouf, 0015).
However, modified Malouf fails to teach the controller is further configured to disable the steering actuator in response to the detection of the fault condition.
Kato teaches the controller is further configured to disable the actuator in response to the detection of the fault condition (0007 wherein the full actuator function is disabled in response to the detection of the fault condition; “Since the operation of the actuator is restricted when a failure in the trim angle sensor is detected, the actual trim angle is prevented from changing to an inappropriate value”).
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 further modified Malouf’s teachings to detect the fault condition of sensor to incorporate Kato’s teachings of the controller is further configured to disable the actuator in response to the detection of the fault condition in order to disable the steering actuator in response to the detection of the fault condition. Doing so would prevent the actuator from being actuated improperly based on faulty sensor values.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-9, 12, 17 and 19-21 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
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 SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
