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 is the second Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-140858, filed on 08/31/2023.
Response to Amendment
No amendments have been made.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viggiano et al. (US7497181B2) in view of Goodwin et al. (US8392049B2), hereinafter Viggiano and Goodwin.
Regarding claim 1, Viggiano teaches of a system for controlling a watercraft including a marine propulsion device and a watercraft operator operable by a watercraft user of the watercraft at a watercraft operating position in the watercraft ("A safety system, which stops the motion of a sail boat when a person falls off the boat…and a separable member which ordinarily holds a sail or a sail assembly in its working position", Abstract, implicit that the sail is the watercraft operator, "…stopping operation of the power source of a vehicle, in particular the engine or sail of a water craft, when the operator or other person falls off", Col. 1 line 10-13), the system comprising: a sensor to detect a location of the watercraft user ("portable transmitter is carried by the operator or other person on the water craft and continuously sends a wireless signal to a receiver mounted on the watercraft", Col. 3 line 9-10); and a controller ("receiver-controller 24", Col. 4 line 46) configured or programmed to: determine whether the watercraft user is in an allowed area that includes the watercraft operating position ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1); stop the marine propulsion device or control the marine propulsion device to decelerate the watercraft when the watercraft user is not in the allowed area ("the engine of a motorized water craft is stopped when a person falls off the craft by means of an actuator, which acts in response to a predetermined diminution of a wireless signal from a transmitter carried by the person", Col. 2 line 51-55); determine whether the watercraft user is in a first region within the allowed area ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1, "The threshold can be fixed, or settable according to the dimensions of the boat or other user-factors", Col. 9 line 1-3, being able to set the threshold for where for the transmitter signal is considered allowable allows us to define the area that is allowable (i.e., the first region)); and control the marine propulsion device in accordance with how the watercraft operator is operated when the watercraft user is in the first region ("when sufficient radio signal from the transmitter is being received…things are normal and the operator is in the boat", Col. 6 line 10-12, implicit that this includes all operations of the watercraft).
However, Viggiano does not teach of determine whether the watercraft user is in a second region farther from the watercraft operating position than the first region but within the allowed area; lock the watercraft operator when the watercraft user is in the second region; and disable an operation performed on the watercraft operator while the watercraft operator is locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of determine whether the watercraft user is in a second region farther from the watercraft operating position than the first region but within the allowed area ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to determine a first and second position of the operator", Col. 7 line 65-66, shows that the determination of the user in a position other than the primary operating position but is still within the vehicle); lock the watercraft operator when the watercraft user is in the second region ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18); and disable an operation performed on the watercraft operator while the watercraft operator is locked ("Input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84 may process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87", Col. 7 line 58-62).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the system controlling a watercraft of Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin of monitoring an operator presence at one or more control handles of a vehicle with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58).
Regarding claim 2, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein even if the watercraft operator is operated after being locked, the controller is configured or programmed to maintain a state of the marine propulsion device controlled in accordance with how the watercraft operator has been operated before being locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein even if the watercraft operator is operated after being locked, the controller is configured or programmed to maintain a state of the marine propulsion device controlled in accordance with how the watercraft operator has been operated before being locked ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to activate or deactivate certain vehicle controls depending if the operator's hand is sensed or not, respectively…In this manner, only one of two directional controls may be activated at any one give(n) time, and inadvertent actuation of a control may be avoided", Col. 8 line 11-23, implies that when the system is deactivated (locked) then incoming operator inputs are ignored (i.e., the system maintains the state it was in), "input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84…processor 84 my process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87". Col. 7 line 58-62).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the watercraft system of modified Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin to lock the vehicle controls while maintaining its state of operation with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58), and increase the efficiency of the system by maintaining the last intended operation from the user rather that completely stopping the watercraft.
Regarding claim 3, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, in addition to, the controller is configured or programmed to stop the marine propulsion device or control the marine propulsion device to decelerate the watercraft ("the engine of the motorized water craft is stopped when a person falls off the craft by means of an actuator, which acts in response to a predetermined diminution of a wireless signal from a transmitter carried by the person", Col. 2 line 51-55).
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein, when the watercraft operator is operated while locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein, when the watercraft operator is operated while locked ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to activate or deactivate certain vehicle controls depending if the operator's hand is sensed or not, respectively…In this manner, only one of two directional controls may be activated at any one give(n) time, and inadvertent actuation of a control may be avoided", Col. 8 line 11-23, "input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84…processor 84 my process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87", Col. 7 line 58-62).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Viggiano to decelerate or stop the water craft with the teachings of Goodwin to lock the vehicle operator with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58), as well as, allow recovery from any overboard accidents by allowing any passenger to swim back to the watercraft (Viggiano, Col. 3 line 23).
Regarding claim 4, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein when the watercraft user is returned to the first region after the watercraft operator is locked, the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein when the watercraft user is returned to the first region after the watercraft operator is locked ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to activate or deactivate certain vehicle controls depending if the operator's hand is sensed or not, respectively…In this manner, only one of two directional controls may be activated at any one give(n) time, and inadvertent actuation of a control may be avoided", Col. 8 line 11-23, "input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84…processor 84 my process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87". Col. 7 line 58-62), the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator ("processor is further configured to enable either the first control or the second control and select a vehicle operating parameter associated with the vehicle operating request", Col. 1 line 58-61).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the watercraft system of modified Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin to unlock the controls once the user returns with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by only allowing controls that anticipates the operator’s intent (Goodwin, Col. 17 line 21).
Regarding claim 5, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 4 as stated above, specifically, while the watercraft user is in the first region ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1, "The threshold can be fixed, or settable according to the dimensions of the boat or other user-factors", Col. 9 line 1-3, being able to set the threshold for where for the transmitter signal is considered allowable allows us to define the area that is allowable (i.e., the first region)).
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein the watercraft operator includes a throttle lever operable from a neutral position; and after the throttle lever is operated while the watercraft operator is locked, the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator when the throttle lever is returned to the neutral position.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the watercraft operator includes a throttle lever ("…first and second controls 101, 102 may send one or more inputs comprising…throttle", Col. 11 line 60-61) operable from a neutral position ("…determine that the active control is in a ready state when the throttle request is zero, or when the vehicle traction system is in neutral", Col. 12 line 3-5); and after the throttle lever is operated while the watercraft operator is locked ("if the operator presence has not been restored at operation 2454, the sensing logic 200 ignore the input and continues to monitor for a valid input at operation 255", Col. 15 line 28-31), the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator ("processor is further configured to enable either the first control or the second control and select a vehicle operating parameter associated with the vehicle operating request", Col. 1 line 58-61) when the throttle lever is returned to the neutral position ("…determine that the active control is in a ready state when the throttle request is zero, or when the vehicle traction system is in neutral", Col. 12 line 3-5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the first region of modified Viggiano with the throttle of Goodwin to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements on order to increase the performance of the system by allowing the user to manually unlock the watercraft by using a throttle. Additionally, having a throttle to unlock the watercraft acts as another layer of security by increasing the number of steps or checkpoints needed to unlock the watercraft.
Regarding claim 6, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein the watercraft includes a display; and when the watercraft operator is locked, the controller is configured or programmed to cause the display to output a representation indicating that the watercraft operator is locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the watercraft includes a display ("The vehicle may make an audible alert or visual indication", Col. 15 line 44-45); and when the watercraft operator is locked ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18), the controller is configured or programmed to cause the display to output a representation indicating that the watercraft operator is locked ("The vehicle may make an audible alert or visual indication when the sensing logic 200 transitions to, or from, the enabled state 250", Col. 15 line 44-47, when transitioning from the enabled state (i.e., enters the disabled or "locked" state)).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the watercraft system of modified Viggiano with the display of Goodwin to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements in order to increase the efficiency of the system by immediately providing feedback to users onboard the watercraft of whether or not the watercraft is locked (i.e., accepts or rejects user controls) (Goodwin, Col. 14 line 21).
Regarding claim 7, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein the watercraft includes an unlocking device; and when the unlocking device is operated while the watercraft operator is locked, the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the watercraft includes an unlocking device ("activation of an enablement mechanism. For example, a switch or button may be provided on one or both of the controls 101, 102…The enablement mechanism (e.g., switch or button) may also provide the functionality to indicate the operator’s presence", Col. 14 line 14-24); and when the unlocking device is operated while the watercraft operator is locked ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18), the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator ("The conditions for vehicle operation may comprise the activation of an enablement mechanism. For example, a switch or button", Col. 14 line 14-15).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the system for controlling a watercraft of modified Viggiano with the unlocking device of Goodwin with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58).
Regarding claim 8, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, further comprising: a first transmitter to be worn by the watercraft user; wherein the sensor is operable to receive wireless signals transmitted from the first transmitter at the watercraft operating position ("portable transmitter is carried by the operator or other person on the water craft and continuously sends a wireless signal to a receiver mounted on the watercraft", Col. 3 line 9-12); and the controller is configured or programmed to detect a location of the first transmitter as the location of the watercraft user based on a communication between the sensor and the first transmitter ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, further comprising: a second transmitter to be worn by another watercraft user ("portable transmitter is carried by the operator or other person on the water craft and continuously sends a wireless signal to a receiver mounted on the watercraft…More than one transmitter carried by more than one person may be used in the invention", Col. 3 line 9-37); wherein when the second transmitter is in the first region ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1, "The threshold can be fixed, or settable according to the dimensions of the boat or other user-factors", Col. 9 line 1-3, being able to set the threshold for where for the transmitter signal is considered allowable allows us to define the area that is allowable (i.e., the first region)).
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of after the watercraft operator is locked, the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of after the watercraft operator is locked ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18), the controller is configured or programmed to unlock the watercraft operator ("processor is further configured to enable either the first control or the second control and select a vehicle operating parameter associated with the vehicle operating request", Col. 1 line 58-62).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of the second transmitter of modified Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin to unlock the operator with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources, for example users who do not possess the second transmitter or any subsequent transmitter, as well as conflicting inputs while the operator(s) are not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58).
Regarding claim 10, Viggiano teaches of a method of controlling a watercraft including a marine propulsion device and a watercraft operator operable by a watercraft user of the watercraft at a watercraft operating position in the watercraft ("A method of altering the of a sail powered water craft", Claim 10, "A safety system, which stops the motion of a sail boat when a person falls off the boat…and a separable member which ordinarily holds a sail or a sail assembly in its working position", Abstract, implicit that the sail is the watercraft operator, "…stopping operation of the power source of a vehicle, in particular the engine or sail of a water craft, when the operator or other person falls off", Col. 1 line 10-13, the method comprising: detecting a location of the watercraft user ("portable transmitter is carried by the operator or other person on the water craft and continuously sends a wireless signal to a receiver mounted on the watercraft", Col. 3 line 9-12); determining whether the watercraft user is in an allowed area including the watercraft operating position ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1); stopping the marine propulsion device or controlling the marine propulsion device to decelerate the watercraft when the watercraft user is not in the allowed area ("the engine of a motorized water craft is stopped when a person falls off the craft by means of an actuator, which acts in response to a predetermined diminution of a wireless signal from a transmitter carried by the person", Col. 2 line 51-55); determining whether the watercraft user is in a first region within the allowed area ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1, "The threshold can be fixed, or settable according to the dimensions of the boat or other user-factors", Col. 9 line 1-3, being able to set the threshold for where for the transmitter signal is considered allowable allows us to define the area that is allowable (i.e., the first region)); and controlling the marine propulsion device in accordance with how the watercraft operator is operated when the watercraft user is in the first region ("when sufficient radio signal from the transmitter is being received…things are normal and the operator is in the boat", Col. 6 line 10-12, implicit that this includes all operations of the watercraft).
However, Viggiano does not teach of determining whether the watercraft user is in a second region farther from the watercraft operating position than the first region but within the allowed area; locking the watercraft operator when the watercraft user is in the second region; and disabling an operation performed on the watercraft operator while the watercraft operator is locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of determining whether the watercraft user is in a second region farther from the watercraft operating position than the first region but within the allowed area ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to determine a first and second position of the operator", Col. 7 line 65-66, shows that the determination of the user in a position other than the primary operating position but is still within the vehicle); locking the watercraft operator when the watercraft user is in the second region ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18); and disabling an operation performed on the watercraft operator while the watercraft operator is locked ("Input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84 may process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87", Col. 7 line 58-62).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of controlling a watercraft of Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin of monitoring an operator presence at one or more control handles of a vehicle with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58).
Regarding claim 11, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of further comprising: even if the watercraft operator is operated after being locked, maintaining a state of the marine propulsion device controlled in accordance with how the watercraft operator has been operated before being locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further comprising: even if the watercraft operator is operated after being locked, maintaining a state of the marine propulsion device controlled in accordance with how the watercraft operator has been operated before being locked ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to activate or deactivate certain vehicle controls depending if the operator's hand is sensed or not, respectively…In this manner, only one of two directional controls may be activated at any one give(n) time, and inadvertent actuation of a control may be avoided", Col. 8 line 11-23, implies that when the system is deactivated (locked) then incoming operator inputs are ignored (i.e., the system maintains the state it was in), "input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84…processor 84 my process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87". Col. 7 line 58-62).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of controlling a watercraft of modified Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin to lock the vehicle controls while maintaining its state of operation with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58), and increase the efficiency of the system by maintaining the last intended operation from the user rather that completely stopping the watercraft.
Regarding claim 12, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above, further comprising: stopping the marine propulsion device or controlling the marine propulsion device to decelerate the watercraft ("the engine of the motorized water craft is stopped when a person falls off the craft by means of an actuator, which acts in response to a predetermined diminution of a wireless signal from a transmitter carried by the person", Col. 2 line 51-55).
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of when the watercraft operator is operated while locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of when the watercraft operator is operated while locked ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to activate or deactivate certain vehicle controls depending if the operator's hand is sensed or not, respectively…In this manner, only one of two directional controls may be activated at any one give(n) time, and inadvertent actuation of a control may be avoided", Col. 8 line 11-23, implies that when the system is deactivated (locked) then incoming operator inputs are ignored (i.e., the system maintains the state it was in), "input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84…processor 84 my process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87". Col. 7 line 58-62).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of modified Viggiano to decelerate or stop the watercraft with the teachings of Goodwin to lock the vehicle operator with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58), as well as, allow recovery from any overboard accidents by allowing any passenger to swim back to the watercraft (Viggiano, Col. 3 line 23).
Regarding claim 13, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of further comprising: when the watercraft user has returned to the first region after the watercraft operator is operated while locked, unlocking the watercraft operator.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of further comprising: when the watercraft user has returned to the first region after the watercraft operator is operated while locked ("the operator presence sensors P1, P2 may be used to activate or deactivate certain vehicle controls depending if the operator's hand is sensed or not, respectively…In this manner, only one of two directional controls may be activated at any one give(n) time, and inadvertent actuation of a control may be avoided", Col. 8 line 11-23, "input from the operator presence sensors P1, P2…may be provided to an onboard vehicle processor 84…processor 84 my process the input to control or modify operation of…a vehicle steer motor 87". Col. 7 line 58-62), unlocking the watercraft operator ("processor is further configured to enable either the first control or the second control and select a vehicle operating parameter associated with the vehicle operating request", Col. 1 line 58-61).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method of controlling a watercraft of modified Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin to unlock the controls once the user returns with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by only allowing controls that anticipates the operator’s intent (Goodwin, Col. 17 line 21).
Regarding claim 14, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 13 as stated above, specifically, while the watercraft user is in the first region ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1, "The threshold can be fixed, or settable according to the dimensions of the boat or other user-factors", Col. 9 line 1-3, being able to set the threshold for where for the transmitter signal is considered allowable allows us to define the area that is allowable (i.e., the first region)).
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the watercraft operator includes a throttle lever ("…first and second controls 101, 102 may send one or more inputs comprising…throttle", Col. 11 line 60-61) operable from a neutral position ("…determine that the active control is in a ready state when the throttle request is zero, or when the vehicle traction system is in neutral", Col. 12 line 3-5), the method further comprising: after the throttle lever is operated while the watercraft operator is locked ("if the operator presence has not been restored at operation 2454, the sensing logic 200 ignore the input and continues to monitor for a valid input at operation 255", Col. 15 line 28-31), unlocking the watercraft operator ("processor is further configured to enable either the first control or the second control and select a vehicle operating parameter associated with the vehicle operating request", Col. 1 line 58-61) when the throttle lever is returned to the neutral position ("…determine that the active control is in a ready state when the throttle request is zero, or when the vehicle traction system is in neutral", Col. 12 line 3-5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the first region of modified Viggiano with the throttle of Goodwin to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements on order to increase the performance of the system by allowing the user to manually unlock the watercraft by using a throttle. Additionally, having a throttle to unlock the watercraft acts as another layer of security by increasing the number of steps or checkpoints needed to unlock the watercraft.
Regarding claim 15, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein the watercraft includes a display, the method further comprising: when the watercraft operator is locked, causing the display to output a representation indicating that the watercraft operator is locked.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the watercraft includes a display ("The vehicle may make an audible alert or visual indication", Col. 15 line 44-45), the method further comprising: when the watercraft operator is locked ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18), causing the display to output a representation indicating that the watercraft operator is locked ("The vehicle may make an audible alert or visual indication when the sensing logic 200 transitions to, or from, the enabled state 250", Col. 15 line 44-47, when transitioning from the enabled state (i.e., enters the disabled or "locked" state)).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined the watercraft of modified Viggiano with the display of Goodwin to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these elements in order to increase the efficiency of the system by immediately providing feedback to users onboard the watercraft of whether or not the watercraft is locked (i.e., accepts or rejects user controls) (Goodwin, Col. 14 line 21).
Regarding claim 16, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above.
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of wherein the watercraft includes an unlocking device, the method further comprising: when the unlocking device is operated while the watercraft operator is locked, unlocking the watercraft operator.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the watercraft includes an unlocking device ("activation of an enablement mechanism. For example, a switch or button may be provided on one or both of the controls 101, 102…The enablement mechanism (e.g., switch or button) may also provide the functionality to indicate the operator’s presence", Col. 14 line 14-24), the method further comprising: when the unlocking device is operated while the watercraft operator is locked ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18), unlocking the watercraft operator ("The conditions for vehicle operation may comprise the activation of an enablement mechanism. For example, a switch or button", Col. 14 line 14-15, "Once the conditions for vehicle operation have been met at operation 235, the sensing logic 200 transitions to operation 240…Once the vehicle operating conditions have been verified, selected, configured, or reconfigured at operation 240, the sensing logic 200 transitions to the enabled state 250, and the ready control becomes the enabled controls", Col. 14 line 34-68).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the method for controlling a watercraft of modified Viggiano with the unlocking device of Goodwin with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources as well as conflicting inputs while the operator is not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58).
Regarding claim 17, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above, further comprising: receiving wireless signals transmitted from a first transmitter to be worn by the watercraft user ("portable transmitter is carried by the operator or other person on the water craft and continuously sends a wireless signal to a receiver mounted on the watercraft", Col. 3 line 9-12); and detecting a position of the first transmitter as the location of the watercraft user based on the wireless signals transmitted from the first transmitter ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Viggiano teaches of all limitations of claim 17 as stated above, further comprising: receiving wireless signals transmitted from a second transmitter to be worn by another watercraft user ("portable transmitter is carried by the operator or other person on the water craft and continuously sends a wireless signal to a receiver mounted on the watercraft…More than one transmitter carried by more than one person may be used in the invention", Col. 3 line 9-37); and when the second transmitter is in the first region ("…the controller commands the actuator to pull the latch key from the switch when the signal from the transmitter received by the receiver diminishes beneath a certain predetermined threshold. The diminution in signal can be due to increased physical separation of the operator from the receiver", Col. 8 line 63 - Col. 9 line 1, "The threshold can be fixed, or settable according to the dimensions of the boat or other user-factors", Col. 9 line 1-3, being able to set the threshold for where for the transmitter signal is considered allowable allows us to define the area that is allowable (i.e., the first region)).
However, modified Viggiano does not teach of after the watercraft operator is locked, unlocking the watercraft operator.
Goodwin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of after the watercraft operator is locked ("when the second sensor P2 senses the operator's hand on the secondary control 50…functions associated with the primary control 40 may be deactivated", Col. 8 line 15-18), unlocking the watercraft operator ("processor is further configured to enable either the first control or the second control and select a vehicle operating parameter associated with the vehicle operating request", Col. 1 line 58-61).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teachings of the second transmitter of modified Viggiano with the teachings of Goodwin to unlock the operator with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the safety of the system by preventing inputs from unauthorized sources, for example users who do not possess the second transmitter or any subsequent transmitter, as well as conflicting inputs while the operator(s) are not present (Goodwin, Col. 7 line 58).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Viggiano teaches of detecting a location of a watercraft user based on wireless signal strength and controlling propulsion when the user is outside an allowable area, while Goodwin teaches of selectively disabling and enabling operator controls based on detected operator presence. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived to combine these teachings to prevent unintended operation of a watercraft when the operator is not properly positioned, as previously discussed above.
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 ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657