Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments file June 22, 2026 regarding rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Eichinger (US 6113443 A) have been fully considered and are moot.
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 regarding rejection of claims 25 and 28 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 22, 2026 regarding newly added claims 34-42 as not taught by Eichinger have been fully considered and are moot.
3. Applicant argues that amended independent claim 1 recites an interceptor being attached to a port or starboard side of steering nozzle of the steerable propulsor and that Eichinger’s trim tab is not attached to a port or starboard side of a steering nozzle, and therefore rejection under 35 USC 102 should be withdrawn.
However, the amended independent claim 1 requires further search and consideration and therefore the argument is moot. In addition, upon further search and consideration, examiner found Schulze (WO 9318964A1) to teach amended independent claim 1.
Schulze teaches a swivel nozzle, which is a steering nozzle, with control flaps on the inner side wall of the nozzle, i.e. port or starboard side of a nozzle, to additionally deflect the water flowing in the nozzle body, i.e. interceptor to deflect at least a portion of a stream produced by a propulsor to further the effective steering angle (see [0001], [0007], and Figs 1-3).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of amended independent claim 1 is moot due to amended claim 1 requiring further search and consideration, and claim 1 is still rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Schulze.
In addition, as shown below, amended dependent claims 4-7, 9-10, 13, and 19 also requires further consideration and search, and found to be rejected due to their dependency of amended independent claim 1 and each are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Schulze.
4. With regards to claim 25 and 28, applicant argues that Eichinger does not teach positioning an interceptor away from the stream and that Fradeley (US 6453835B2) does not cure this deficiency and that Fradeley does not describe an interceptor. However, the rejection is based on the combined teaching of Eichinger and Fradeley, not Eichinger or Fradeley alone.
As shown in previous Office Action, Eichinger teaches a trim tab, which is an interceptor, attached to a steering nozzle as shown in [col 6 ln 33 thru col 7 ln 8] and refers to figures 5-6 that show partial extension of the trim tab across the nozzle, not the entirety of the nozzle. Fradeley then teaches an operator adjusted nozzle position that corresponds to zero twist of a joystick, such that a zero steering command corresponds to an offset physical nozzle position, (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9). It would then have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Eichinger’s waterjet nozzle, i.e. steering nozzle, and interceptor by incorporating teaching of Fradeley such that Fradeley’s neutral zero twist control is applied to Eichinger’s steering nozzle to predictably slightly angle and offset the steering nozzle and move the partial width interceptor in a direction away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle. Note also that the claim language states, “away from a stream”, not that the interceptor be completely outside the stream. In addition, the motivation to incorporate zero steering nozzle angle defined by an operator is that, as indicated by Fadeley, this would allow for an operator to reliably put a boat in neutral and compensate for effect of crosswind or current without having to maintain a slight twist on a joystick (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]). Hence, the motivation to combine derives directly from the prior art itself.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claim 25 under 35 USC 103 are unpersuasive.
Also, applicant argues that claim 28 recites similar limitations and that it is distinguished over Eichinger and Fradeley for at least the same reason as claim 25. However, as stated above, claim 25 is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Therefore, applicant’s argument regarding rejection of claim 28 under 35 USC 103 is unpersuasive.
5. Applicant argues that new independent claim 34 patentably distinguishes over Eichinger as Eichinger does not describe a deflector configured to be positioned within the stream after the stream has exited the steerable propulsor.
However, examiner argues that new independent claim 34 requires further search and consideration due to new claim. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot because new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Upon further search and consideration, Fuller (US 3961591A) is found to teach deflector rudders fitted with guide fins or straightening vanes that are located at the after end of a nozzle and also used with a pivoted steering nozzle, i.e. steerable propulsor, to improve directional control when going astern, i.e. a deflector positioned within the stream after the stream has exited the steerable propulsor wherein at least a portion of the stream is deflected by the deflector (see [col 1 lns 27-32], [col 2 lns 36-40]). Note also that deflectors are normally placed parallel, i.e. first angle, and deflector rudders are turned to divert the propeller race, or the stream, i.e. divert the stream from first angle at which the stream is received by the deflector to a second angle different from the first (see [col 2 lns 22-35]). In addition, Figs 1-8 show that there is no reverse direction deflectors and do not provide angles to do so.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding claim 34 are moot.
Applicant further argues that newly added dependent claims 35-42 are also patentably distinguished over Eichinger for the same reason as claim 34 as they are dependent on claim 34. However, newly added claims need further search and consideration and have been found to be rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 34 and through each considered limitations by prior arts found as shown in rejection below.
Therefore, the applicant’s argument regarding claims 35-42 are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, 13, and 19 are rejected under pre 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Schulze (WO 9318964A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schulze teaches an apparatus for modifying an effective steering angle of a steerable propulsor of a marine vessel (see [0017]-[0021] in general where water jet flows through a nozzle that is deflected using control flaps, i.e. interceptor), the apparatus comprising:
an interceptor configured to deflect at least a portion of a stream produced by the steerable propulsor to modify the effective steering angle, the interceptor being attached to a port or starboard side of a steering nozzle of the steerable propulsor (see Figs 1-3, [0018]-[0021] where control flaps, i.e. interceptors, are mounted on the side walls of the swivel nozzle, i.e. port or starboard of a steering nozzle, and are pivoted to different angles to deflect water jet, i.e. water stream produced by the propulsor, to make a correspondingly effective turn, i.e. modify the effective steering angle.).
Regarding claim 4, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interceptor is configured to move to change the effective steering angle of the steerable propulsor (see [0020] where control flaps, i.e. interceptors, are pivoted to different angles to deflect water jet, i.e. water stream produced by the propulsor, to make a correspondingly effective turn, i.e. change the effective steering angle.).
Regarding claim 5, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interceptor is configured to move in a direction toward or away from the stream (see Figs 2-3 and [0019]-[0020] where control flaps, i.e. interceptors, are flat or away when at rest or going straight and move or pivoted toward the stream when changing direction.).
Regarding claim 6, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the interceptor is configured to be actuated in a direction toward or away from the stream (see Figs 2-3 and [0019]-[0020] where control flaps, i.e. interceptors, are flat or away when at rest or going straight and actuated or pivoted toward the stream when changing direction.).
Regarding claim 7, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interceptor is configured to be permanently attached to the steering nozzle or detachable (see Figs 1-3 and [0019] where the control flaps, i.e. the interceptors, are pivotally mounted in the nozzle body, i.e. permanently attached to the steering nozzle.).
Regarding claim 9, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 1, where in the interceptor is configured to move with the steering nozzle (see Figs 1-3 and [0019] where the control flaps, i.e. the interceptors, are pivotally mounted in the nozzle body, i.e. permanently attached to the steering nozzle to be moving with the steering nozzle.).
Regarding claim 10, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 1, where in the interceptor is configured to be attached to an inside of the steering nozzle (see Figs 1-3 and [0019] where the control flaps, i.e. the interceptors, are pivotally mounted in the nozzle body, i.e. attached to the inside of the steering.).
Regarding claim 13, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interceptor is curved or straight (see Figs 1-3 and [0019] where control flaps, which are interceptors, are designed to be flat, i.e. straight.).
Regarding claim 19, Schulze teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interceptor maintains a forward-aft directional component of the at least a portion of the stream primarily in the aft direction of the marine vessel (see [0017], [0019] and Figs 2-3 where a flow channel, i.e. water stream, is arranged in a forward direction, which is aft direction, of a watercraft or marine vessel and control flaps are in their rest position flat against the inner surfaces of the nozzle walls when not in use and maintains a forward-aft direction of the stream in the aft direction.).
7. Claims 34-42 are rejected under pre 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Fuller (US 3961591A).
Regarding claim 34, Fuller teaches an apparatus for modifying an effective steering angle of a steerable propulsor of a marine vessel (see [col 2 ln 22-35] in general where deflector rudders used to improve, i.e. modify, directional control), the apparatus comprising:
a deflector configured to deflect at least a portion of a stream produced by the steerable propulsor to modify the effective steering angle, the deflector being configured to be positioned within the stream after the stream has exited the steerable propulsor, wherein the at least a portion of the stream deflected by the deflector has a directional component in an aft direction of the marine vessel, wherein the deflector is configured to divert the stream from a first angle at which the stream is received by the deflector to a second angle different from the first angle, wherein the deflector does not include a reversing deflector (see [col 2 lns 22-35] where deflector rudders fitted with guide fins or straightening vanes that are located at the after end of a nozzle and also used with a pivoted steering nozzle, i.e. steerable propulsor, to improve directional control when going astern, i.e. a deflector positioned within the stream after the stream has exited the steerable propulsor wherein at least a portion of the stream is deflected by the deflector. Note also in [col 2 lns 22-35] that deflectors are normally placed parallel, i.e. first angle, when proceeding on a straight course and deflector rudders are turned to divert the propeller race, or the stream, i.e. divert the stream from first angle at which the stream is received to have a forward aft direction by the deflector to a second angle different from the first. In addition, Figs 1-8 show that there is no reverse direction deflectors and do not provide angles to do so.)
Regarding claim 35, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the deflector includes at least one vane (see Fig. 6 and [col 1 lns 66-68] where deflector rudders are fitted with straightening vanes.).
Regarding claim 36, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the at least one vane comprises a plurality of vanes (see Figs 1-6 and [col 1 lns 66-68] where deflector rudders have more than one, i.e. plurality, of vanes.).
Regarding claim 37, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the at least one vane has at least one surface that transitions from the first angle to the second angle (see Figs 3-4 and [col 2 lns 22-35] where the figures show changes of vanes’ angles from first angle to another, second angle, and states that deflector rudders are normally placed parallel to the nozzle when proceeding on a straight course, i.e. first angle, and are turned in the desired direction to divert the propeller race, or stream, i.e. second angle transition of vane.).
Regarding claim 38, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 35, wherein the at least one vane is curved (see Fig. 6 and [col 1 lns 66-68] where deflector rudders are fitted with straightening vanes. Note that vanes are defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (cited in prior art in conclusion below) as “thin flat or curved object that is rotated about an axis by a flow of fluid or that rotates to cause a fluid or that redirects a flow of fluid”, hence standard straightening vanes of the rudder of the art includes both flat and curved vanes.).
Regarding claim 39, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the deflector is configured to move to change the effective steering angle of the steerable propulsor (see Figs 3-4 and [col 2 lns 22-35] where the figures show changes of vanes’ angles from first angle to another, second angle, and states that deflector rudders are normally placed parallel to the nozzle when proceeding on a straight course and are turned in the desired direction to divert the propeller race, or stream, i.e. change the effective steering angle of the propulsor.).
Regarding claim 40, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the deflector is configured to be permanently attached to the marine vessel or detachable (see Figs 1-6 and [col 2 lns 8-21] where deflector rudders are installed using pintle bearing carried on bosses and by means of spindle extension to permanently attached to a swivel nozzle that is part of the marine vessel.).
Regarding claim 42, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 34, wherein the deflector maintains a forward-aft directional component of the at least a portion of the stream primarily in the aft direction of the marine vessel (see [col 2 lns 22-35] where deflector rudders are normally placed parallel to a nozzle centerline and to one another when proceeding on a straight course, i.e. deflector maintains a forward-aft direction through parallel alignment of a stream primarily in an aft direction of the marine vessel.).
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.
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.
8. Claim 41 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of Cleary et al. (US 3991700A).
Regarding claim 41, Fuller teaches the apparatus of claim 34,
Fuller does not specifically teach: wherein the deflector is configured to be attached to a transom of the marine vessel.
However, Cleary teaches an outboard motor constituting a combined rudder, which is a vane, steering propeller, and gear housing, in which outboard motor is a propulsion system attached to the transom of a marine vessel (see [col 1 lns 52-62]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify nozzle with a deflector rudder that have vanes of Fuller by incorporating teaching of Cleary such that an outboard motor that is attached to the transom of a marine vessel to constitute a steering propeller and deflector rudders.
The motivation to have an outboard motor with deflector rudders and steering propeller is that, as indicated by Cleary, this would allow for maintaining a true course without having to adjust a course every few minutes, which allows for one person to troll without having to constantly handle a steering arm (see [col 1 lns 7-19]).
9. Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichinger (US 6113443 A) in view of Fradeley et al. (US 6453835B2).
Regarding claim 25, Eichinger teaches a control system for a marine vessel, comprising: (see [col 6 lns 10-47], Figs 6A and 8A in general where second nozzle is a steering nozzle that changes steering angle of a jet propulsion system.)
Eichinger does teach a trim tab, which is an interceptor, within a steering nozzle (see [col 6 ln 33 thru col 7 ln 8]).
Eichinger does not teach:
a processor configured to receive a steering command for the marine vessel, and, when the steering command commands zero steering angle or a steering angle below a threshold, the processor is configured to control a steering nozzle to angle the steering nozzle such that an interceptor of the steering nozzle is positioned in a direction away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
However, Fradeley teaches an operator adjusted nozzle position that corresponds to zero twist of a joystick, i.e. an operator defined zero steering angle (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]). Note also in Fig. 4 and [col 5 lns 11-26] it shows a control system with multiple circuits, i.e. having processors, that includes comparison circuits which sends command signals to jet depending on position of joystick.
It would have been obvious to modify Eichinger’s waterjet nozzle and interceptor arrangement to incorporate Fradeley’s neutral zero twist control such that, when a steering command is neutral, zero steering angel, or near zero steering angle, which is a zero twist of a joystick, a controller commands the steering nozzle to a slight offset angle as adjusted an operator to place the interceptor away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
The motivation to incorporate zero steering nozzle angle defined by an operator is that, as indicated by Fradeley, this would allow for an operator to reliably put a boat in neutral and compensate for effect of crosswind or current without having to maintain a slight twist on a joystick (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]).
Regarding claim 28, Eichinger teaches a method of operating a control system of a marine vessel, comprising: (see [col 6 lns 10-47] ], Figs 6A and 8A in general where second nozzle is a steering nozzle that changes steering angle of a jet propulsion system.)
Eichinger does teach a trim tab, which is an interceptor, within a steering nozzle (see [col 6 ln 33 thru col 7 ln 8]).
Eichinger does not teach:
receiving, by a processor, a steering command for the marine vessel; and
when the steering command commands zero steering angle or a steering angle below a threshold, controlling, by the processor, a steering nozzle to angle the steering nozzle such that an interceptor of the steering nozzle is positioned in a direction away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
However, Fradeley teaches an operator adjusted nozzle position that corresponds to zero twist of a joystick, i.e. an operator defined zero steering angle (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]). Note also in Fig. 4 and [col 5 lns 11-26] it shows a control system with multiple circuits, i.e. having processors, that includes comparison circuits which sends command signals to jet depending on position of joystick.
It would have been obvious to modify Eichinger’s waterjet nozzle and interceptor arrangement to incorporate Fradeley’s neutral zero twist control such that, when a steering command is neutral, zero steering angel, or near zero steering angle, which is a zero twist of a joystick, a controller commands the steering nozzle to a slight offset angle as adjusted an operator to place the interceptor away from a stream flowing through the steering nozzle.
The motivation to incorporate zero steering nozzle angle defined by an operator is that, as indicated by Fradeley, this would allow for an operator to reliably put a boat in neutral and compensate for effect of crosswind or current without having to maintain a slight twist on a joystick (see [col 7 ln 61 thru col 8 ln 9]).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. “Vane” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vane), teaches definition of vane as “a thin flat or curved object that is rotated about an axis by a flow of fluid or that rotates to cause a fluid or that redirects a flow of fluid.”
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
