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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on June 10, 2024. Claims 1-11 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on June 10, 2024 and January 24, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for JP2023-101381 dated June 21, 2023.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation the period of time. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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 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 1-3, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 11,091,243 (hereinafter, “Gable”).
Regarding claim 1, Gable discloses A steering control device for a marine vessel including a steering wheel having a rotatable angle in a left rotation direction limited to a first angle position, and a rotatable angle in a right rotation direction limited to a second angle position, the marine vessel including steering modes including a normal steering mode and an automatic steering mode (see at least Col. 3, Ln. 1-23, Col. 5, Ln. 11-22, and the publication generally), the steering control device comprising:
at least one memory to store a set of instructions (see at least Col. 4, Ln. 54-Col. 5, Ln. 10 and Col. 6, Ln. 28-42; the controller having a memory/processor storing software instructions); and
at least one processor configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions (see at least Col. 4, Ln. 54-Col. 5, Ln. 10 and Col. 6, Ln. 28-42; the controller having a memory/processor storing software instructions) to:
acquire a rotation angle position of the steering wheel (see at least Col.8, Ln. 28-43; the rotational angle of the steering wheel may be acquired by one or more sensors);
acquire a start instruction of the automatic steering mode to allow the marine vessel to be automatically steered without depending on a rotation operation of the steering wheel (see at least Col.8, Ln. 28-43; the boat may be automatically steered using another input device that does not depend on operating the steering wheel and requires autonomous movement of the propellers for turning); and
perform a control operation to shift the steering mode to the automatic steering mode in response to acquisition of the start instruction in the normal steering mode, and to shift the steering mode to the normal steering mode in response to a change in the rotation angle position of the steering wheel beyond a threshold angle in the automatic steering mode (see at least Col. 8, Ln. 28-43; as long as the wheel is centered, the automatic steering may be engaged, and if the wheel angle is changed, the automatic steering may be disengaged);
wherein during the control operation, in the normal steering mode, the at least one processor is configured or programmed to not shift the steering mode to the automatic steering mode even when the start instruction is acquired in a case where a difference between the acquired rotation angle position of the steering wheel and the first angle position is smaller than a first predetermined angle amount, or in a case where a difference between the acquired rotation angle position of the steering wheel and the second angle position is smaller than a second predetermined angle amount (see at least Col.4, Ln. 37-52, Col. 5, Ln. 11-22, and Col. 8, Ln. 28-43; if the wheel is not centered, or not within a center range, the user input into automatic steering devices is ineffective).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under essentially the same reasoning as claim 1. Examiner notes that the steering device may be the controller; see at least Gable at Col. 4, Ln. 54-Col. 5, Ln. 10 and Col. 6, Ln. 28-42; the controller having a memory/processor storing software instructions.
Regarding claim 2, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Gable discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions to:
in a case where the start instruction is acquired and the steering mode is not shifted to the automatic steering mode, provide notification that the steering mode is not shifted to the automatic steering mode (see at least Col. 5, Ln. 5-10 and Col. 9, Ln. 56-Col. 10, Ln. 12; the system communicates with the user to center the steering wheel and prevents the steering mode from shifting until it is centered).
Regarding claim 3, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Gable discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions to:
when providing notification that the steering mode is not shifted to the automatic steering mode, issue a notification to return the steering wheel to a neutral position between the first angle position and the second angle position (see at least Col. 5, Ln. 5-10 and Col. 9, Ln. 56-Col. 10, Ln. 12; the system communicates with the user to center the steering wheel and prevents the steering mode from shifting until it is centered).
Regarding claim 6, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Gable discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions to:
in a case where the steering mode is shifted to the automatic steering mode, provide notification that the steering mode is shifted to the automatic steering mode (see at least Col. 10, Ln. 42-Col. 11, Ln. 2; a light may indicate enablement of the automatic steering mode is engaged).
Regarding claim 7, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Gable discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to executes the set of instructions to:
when notifying that the steering mode is shifted to the automatic steering mode, issue a notification to return the steering wheel to a neutral position between the first angle position and the second angle position (see at least Col. 5, Ln. 5-10 and Col. 9, Ln. 56-Col. 10, Ln. 12; the system communicates with the user to center the steering wheel and prevents the steering mode from shifting until it is centered).
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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gable.
Regarding claim 4, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Additionally, Gable discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions to:
shift the steering mode to the automatic steering mode in a case in which the difference between the acquired rotation angle position of the steering wheel and the first angle position is equal to or greater than the first predetermined angle amount and the difference between the acquired rotation angle position of the steering wheel and the second angle position is equal to or greater than the second predetermined angle amount within the predetermined period of time after issuing the notification to return the steering wheel to the neutral position (see at least Col. 5, Ln. 5-10 and Col. 9, Ln. 56-Col. 10, Ln. 12; the system communicates with the user to center the steering wheel and prevents the steering mode from shifting until it is centered, and the shift occurs after the wheel is returned to center).
Gable does not explicitly teach a timeout after communication to a user without a feedback response. However, Examiner takes official notice that timeouts due to user inactivity are old and well-known in the art. Examiner asserts that implementing a timeout due to user inactivity would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date and with a reasonable likelihood of success, in order to, for example, prevent software resource holdups. Therefore, claim 4 is obvious over Gable.
Regarding claim 5, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Gable discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions to:
determine the first predetermined angle amount and the second predetermined angle amount based on at least one of a vessel speed and a rotation speed of a drive source in a propulsion device to propel the marine vessel (see at least Col. 3, Ln. 24-35; Examiner asserts that the means for determining the position and angle(s) of the steering wheel is considered at least an obvious variant to the claimed process).
Gable fails to explicitly teach the particular way the angle amounts are determined. However, Gable still discloses determining the angle amounts using a number of sensors. Examiner asserts that the disclosed methods of determining the angle amounts are obvious variants to the required method required by claim 5. Therefore claim 5 is obvious over Gable.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable, as applied to independent claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0064770 (hereinafter, “Roos”).
Regarding claim 8, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Gable does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8. Roos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
a load generator to generate a load acting on the steering wheel performing the rotation operation thereof (see at least [0015]; the center detent is a load acting on the steering wheel);
wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions to:
after the steering mode is shifted to the automatic steering mode, in a case where the steering wheel is located in a predetermined range having a neutral position as a reference position, which is located between the first angle position and the second angle position, control the load generator so that a load acting on the steering wheel performing the rotation operation thereof becomes larger than that in a case where the steering wheel is not located in the predetermined range (see at least [0015]-[0018]; the wheel resistance increases moving away from center and decreases toward center).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Gable with the teachings of Roos, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve an operator’s awareness of the rotational position of a marine vessel steering wheel; see at least Roos at [0006].
Regarding claim 9, Gable discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. However, Gable does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9. Roos, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising:
a load generator to generate a load acting on the steering wheel performing the rotation operation thereof (see at least [0015]; the center detent is a load acting on the steering wheel);
wherein the at least one processor is further configured or programmed to execute the set of instructions to:
after the steering mode is shifted to the automatic steering mode, in a case where the steering wheel is rotationally operated in a direction away from a predetermined range having a neutral position as a reference position, which is located between the first angle position and the second angle position, control the load generator so that a load to be generated becomes larger than that in a case where the steering wheel is rotationally operated in a direction approaching the predetermined range (see at least [0015]-[0018]; the wheel resistance increases moving away from center and decreases toward center).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Gable with the teachings of Roos, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve an operator’s awareness of the rotational position of a marine vessel steering wheel; see at least Roos at [0006].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pat. No. 9,733,645 relating to controlling the steering of a marine vessel between manual and autopilot control; and
U.S. Pat. No. 9,809,292 which relates to steering wheel correction for a marine vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666