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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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.
(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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naega et al. (WO 2022/113754 A1).
As per claim 1, Naega teaches a ship comprising:
-a plurality of hybrid systems that drives a propelling machine (Naega: figure 1; pg. 2; Hybrid system drives a propulsion machine that propels the ship.); and
-a control device that controls the plurality of hybrid systems (Naega: pg. 2; The display device enables the user to switch operation mode of the ship.),
-wherein the control device sets the plurality of hybrid systems to an identical operation mode (Naega: pg. 5; In hybrid mode, the power of the engine and motor are combined and transmitted to the propulsion machine.).
As per claim 2, the ship of claim 1 is as described. Naega teaches wherein when there is an unusable operation mode in even one of the plurality of hybrid systems, the control device prohibits shift to the unusable operation mode for all the hybrid systems (Naega: pg. 6; figure 13; The non-selectable operation modes are grayed out on the display screen to distinguish between usable and non-usable modes.).
As per claim 3, the ship of claim 1 is as described. Naega teaches wherein the control device detects a charging rate of a battery for each hybrid system, and stops charging of a hybrid system having a charging rate of a predetermined value or more (Naega: figure 5A, 24c; pg. 5; Display SOC (charging rate) of the battery and display warning when the SOC of the battery becomes lower than the preset threshold value.).
As per claim 4, the ship of claim 1 is as described. Naega teaches wherein the control device causes a display device to display a minimum charging rate among charging rates of batteries in the plurality of hybrid systems (Naega: figure 5A, 24c; pg. 5; Display SOC (charging rate) of the battery and display warning when the SOC of the battery becomes lower than the preset threshold value.).
As per claim 5, the ship of claim 1 is as described. Naega teaches wherein when there is a battery which needs to be charged in even one of the plurality of hybrid systems, the control device performs notification processing of notifying insufficient charging (Naega: figure 5A, 24c; pg. 5; Display warning).
As per claim 7, the ship of claim 1 is as described. Naega teaches wherein the control device does not permit ship steering using a shift operation unit unless the shift operation unit is returned to a neutral position after stop (Naega: figure 6B; pg. 5; Power is not transmitted to the propulsion machine even when the engine is in operation.).
As per claim 8, the ship of claim 1 is as described. Naega teaches wherein
-the control device includes
-a first control device capable of controlling navigation using an engine (Naega: pg. 4; different modes on the display to select from; eng mode is used for navigation.), and
-a second control device provided communicably with the first control device and being capable of controlling navigation using the hybrid systems (Naega: pg. 4; different modes on the display to select from.).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Naega et al. (WO 2022/113754A1) in view of Sawano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0020778).
The applied reference has a common assignee (Yanmar Holdings Co., Ltd.) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claim 6, the ship of claim 1 is as described. Naega does not explicitly teach the following, however Sawano teaches wherein when it is estimated that thrust is unbalanced among the plurality of hybrid systems, the control device performs notification processing of notifying the unbalance, and causes the plurality of hybrid systems to decelerate or stop (Sawano: para. 121-122; The output of first power source is equal or higher than a predetermined value, the system switches and displays and allocates to a different mode.).
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to combine the teachings since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the equalization of the thrust of Sawano for the different modes of the hybrid system of Naega. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another produces a predictable result rendering the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kohnen – WO 97/20732 – Teaches a hybrid boat with a three-point stabilization system.
Hayashi – U.S. Publication No. 2021/0300516 – Teaches a marine power supply system to control different modes of the marine vessel.
JP 6263087B2 – Teaches a marine hybrid propulsion system.
Wolfgang et al. – ES 2484242T3 – Teaches a procedure for operating a hybrid propulsion system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights