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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 05/14/2024 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-2 and 4-22 are pending.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 11/26/2025.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “control system” coupled with functional language “automatically control steering and thrust …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-2 and 4-10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-2 and 4-10 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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:
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure that corresponds to “control system” is a generic computer ([00055]).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20250050999-A1 to Moromi et. al. (“Moromi”) in view of US-9126667-B2 (“Mizutani”).
Regarding claim 1, Moromi teaches a marine propulsion system for a marine vessel comprising (Moromi Claim 1):
one steerable rear marine drive positioned along a centerline of the marine vessel and configured to generate forward and reverse thrusts (Moromi Fig. 1 ref 4),
wherein the one steerable rear marine drive is steerable about a vertical steering axis to a range of steering angles (Moromi [0004] – [0005] and claims 7 & 9);
a lateral marine drive positioned at a bow region of the marine vessel (Moromi Fig. 1 ref 5), wherein the lateral marine drive is configured to generate lateral thrust on the marine vessel (Moromi Fig. 6A - 6B);
a user input device operable by a user to provide a sway demand input commanding sway movement of the marine vessel (Moromi Fig. 3 and [0045]);
and a control system configured to automatically control steering and thrust of the one steerable rear marine drive and thrust of the lateral marine drive based on the sway demand input to generate the sway movement commanded by the user (Moromi [0046] – [0047] and Claim 1).
Moromi does not teach that the control system is further configured to, while the sway demand input is continually received, automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to alternate between generating a forward thrust at a first steering position in the range of steering angles and generating a reverse thrust at a second steering position in the range of steering angles to effectuate the commanded sway movement of the marine vessel. However, Mizutani teaches that the control system is further configured to, while the sway demand input is continually received (Mizutani Fig. 6 and (58) “a non-limiting example of a marine vessel maneuvering pattern when the lateral lever 102 is tilted to the right side is shown. More specifically, a plurality of non-limiting examples of a drive pattern that correspond to an operation to tilt the lateral lever 102 to the right side and a hull behavior corresponding thereto are shown in a plurality of frames in the lower section of FIG. 6”), automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to alternate between generating a forward thrust at a first steering position in the range of steering angles and generating a reverse thrust at a second steering position in the range of steering angles to effectuate the commanded sway movement of the marine vessel (Mizutani Claim 1 and Figs. 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Moromi to incorporate the teachings of Mizutani such that the control system is further configured to, while the sway demand input is continually received, automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to alternate between generating a forward thrust at a first steering position in the range of steering angles and generating a reverse thrust at a second steering position in the range of steering angles to effectuate the commanded sway movement of the marine vessel. Doing so would allow an operator to choose a plurality of marine vessel maneuvering patterns corresponding to different operations (Mizutani (14)).
Regarding claim 2, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. Moromi further discloses that the user input device is a joystick (Moromi Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. Moromi further discloses that the first steering position is a maximum steering position in a first steering direction, and wherein the second steering position is a maximum steering position in a second steering direction opposite the first steering direction (Moromi Fig. 6A – 6B and [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. Moromi further discloses that the control system is further configured to automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to stop generating thrust output when the one steerable marine drive is moved between the first steering position and the second steering position (Moromi [0075] – [0080]).
Regarding claim 11, Moromi teaches a method of controlling a marine propulsion system for a marine vessel (Moromi Claim 15),
wherein the marine propulsion system includes only one steerable rear marine drive positioned along a centerline of the marine vessel and configured to generate forward and reverse thrusts (Moromi Fig. 1 ref 4),
wherein the one steerable rear marine drive is steerable about a vertical steering axis to a range of steering angles (Moromi [0004] – [0005] and claims 7 & 9), the method comprising:
receiving a sway demand input commanding sway movement of the marine vessel (Moromi Fig. 3 and [0045]);
Moromi does not teach that in response to the sway demand input, automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to alternate between generating a forward thrust at a first steering position in the range of steering angles and generating a reverse thrust at a second steering position in the range of steering angles to effectuate the commanded sway movement of the marine vessel. However, Mizutani teaches that in response to the sway demand input (Mizutani Fig. 6 and (58) “a non-limiting example of a marine vessel maneuvering pattern when the lateral lever 102 is tilted to the right side is shown. More specifically, a plurality of non-limiting examples of a drive pattern that correspond to an operation to tilt the lateral lever 102 to the right side and a hull behavior corresponding thereto are shown in a plurality of frames in the lower section of FIG. 6”), automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to alternate between generating a forward thrust at a first steering position in the range of steering angles and generating a reverse thrust at a second steering position in the range of steering angles to effectuate the commanded sway movement of the marine vessel (Mizutani Claim 1 and Figs. 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Moromi to incorporate the teachings of Mizutani such that in response to the sway demand input, automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to alternate between generating a forward thrust at a first steering position in the range of steering angles and generating a reverse thrust at a second steering position in the range of steering angles to effectuate the commanded sway movement of the marine vessel. Doing so would allow an operator to choose a plurality of marine vessel maneuvering patterns corresponding to different operations (Mizutani (14)).
Regarding claim 12, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 11. Moromi further discloses that the sway demand input is a user input at a joystick (Moromi Fig. 3), and wherein the method further includes, while the sway demand input is continually received from the joystick (Moromi [0045]), automatically controlling the one steerable rear marine drive to alternate between generating the forward thrust at the first steering position and generating the reverse thrust at the second steering position to effectuate the commanded sway movement of the marine vessel (Moromi [0046] – [0047] & [0063] – [0064] and Claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 11. Moromi further discloses that the first steering position is a maximum steering position in a first steering direction, and wherein the second steering position is a maximum steering position in a second steering direction opposite the first steering direction (Moromi Fig. 6A – 6B and [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 11. Moromi further discloses that the first steering position is in a first steering direction with respect to a centered position and the second steering position is in a second steering direction with respect to the centered position, wherein the second steering direction is opposite the first steering direction (Moromi Fig. 6A – 6B).
Regarding claim 15, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 11. Moromi further discloses automatically controlling the one steerable marine drive to stop generating any thrust output when the one steerable marine drive is moved between the first steering position and the second steering position (Moromi [0075] – [0080]).
Regarding claim 16, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 11. Moromi further discloses that the marine propulsion system includes at least one lateral marine drive positioned at a bow region of the marine vessel (Moromi Fig. 1 ref 5) and configured to generate lateral thrust on the marine vessel (Moromi Fig. 6A - 6B), wherein the method further includes controlling the lateral marine drive to generate the lateral thrust based on the sway demand input to generate the commanded sway movement (Moromi [0046] – [0047] and Claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 16. Moromi further discloses controlling the lateral marine drive to generate the lateral thrust when the one steerable rear marine drive is generating the forward thrust or the reverse thrust (Moromi [0063] – [0064]).
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moromi in view of Mizutani, further in view of US-20070089660-A1 to Bradley et. al. (“Bradley”).
Regarding claim 9, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. Moromi as modified by Mizutani does not teach that the control system is further configured to automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first distance in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first distance in a backward direction. However, Bradley teaches that the control system is further configured to automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first distance in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first distance in a backward direction (Bradley [0085] – [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Moromi as modified by Mizutani to incorporate the teachings of Bradley such that the control system is further configured to automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first distance in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first distance in a backward direction. Doing so would allow the marine vessel to go to a desired position (Bradley Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 11. Moromi as modified by Mizutani does not teach that the method further comprises, in response to the sway demand input, automatically controlling the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first distance forward, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first distance backward. However, Bradley teaches that the method further comprises, in response to the sway demand input, automatically controlling the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first distance forward, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first distance backward (Bradley [0085] – [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Moromi as modified by Mizutani to incorporate the teachings of Bradley such that the method further comprises, in response to the sway demand input, automatically controlling the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first distance forward, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first distance backward. Doing so would allow the marine vessel to go to a desired position (Bradley Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moromi in view of Mizutani, further in view of US-9039468-B1 to Arbuckle et. al. (“Arbuckle”).
Regarding claim 10, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 1. Moromi as modified by Mizutani does not teach that the control system is further configured to automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first speed magnitude in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first speed magnitude in a backward direction. However, Arbuckle teaches that the control system is further configured to automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first speed magnitude in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first speed magnitude in a backward direction (Arbuckle col 2 line 22 – col 3 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Moromi as modified by Mizutani to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle such that the control system is further configured to automatically control the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first speed magnitude in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first speed magnitude in a backward direction. Doing so would allow the vessel to be propelled in a desired direction at a certain speed (Arbuckle col 2 lines 59 - 65).
Regarding claim 22, Moromi as modified by Mizutani teaches all the elements of the claimed invention in claim 11. Moromi as modified by Mizutani does not teach that the method further comprises, in response to the sway demand input, automatically controlling the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first speed magnitude in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first speed magnitude in a backward direction. However, Arbuckle teaches that the method further comprises, in response to the sway demand input, automatically controlling the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first speed magnitude in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first speed magnitude in a backward direction (Arbuckle col 2 line 22 – col 3 line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Moromi as modified by Mizutani to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle such that the method further comprises, in response to the sway demand input, automatically controlling the one steerable rear marine drive to generate the forward thrust at the first steering position such that the marine vessel travels a first speed magnitude in a forward direction, and to generate the reverse thrust at the second steering position such that the marine vessel travels the first speed magnitude in a backward direction. Doing so would allow the vessel to be propelled in a desired direction at a certain speed (Arbuckle col 2 lines 59 - 65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 8 and 18 – 20 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.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/26/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Double Patenting Rejection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
In response to applicant’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 amendments and remarks including a new IDS with relevant art; the office is withdrawing its previous rejections thus applicants’ remarks are now moot. However, based on applicants’ amendments, remarks, and the new IDS, new grounds of rejection are mapped out above in the FINAL office action.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666 /SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666