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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 6/18/2026) in the reply filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-IV (as identified in the Requirement for Restriction dated 6/18/2026), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/27/2026.
Specification Objections
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Applicant is reminded that the Abstract is required to clearly and concisely surmise applicants claimed subject matter in under 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawing Objections
Fig. 29 of the drawings is objected to as it uses a scheme where numbers are inserted into the drawings to represent items instead of descriptive labels. This makes the drawings useless without a key, a legend, or a specification. The drawings submitted with a patent application are supposed to help describe and set the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and when the meaning of the drawings cannot be easily or clearly derived without a specification, key, or legend, the value of the drawings and use is diminished.
Please use descriptive worded labels next to the element numbers or inside the boxes, especially where the drawing element cannot be easily understandable. Proper action is requested.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, “of marine unit” should read “of the marine vessel”. Examiner has interpreted this limitation to mean “of the marine vessel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input unit” in claim 1; “a control unit” in claims 1, 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “an input unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is disclosed that the input unit is arranged at the marine vessel or at the drive unit, however the specification is devoid of any description of structure of what the input unit is physically made of. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 16-18, these claims depend from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 noted above.
Regarding claim 1 and 9, claim limitation “a control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is disclosed that the control unit may be arranged at the marine vessel or at the drive unit, however the specification is devoid of any description of structure of what the control unit is physically made of. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10, and 16-18, these claims depend from one of claims 1 and 9 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as one of claims 1 and 9 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of one of claims 1 and 9 noted above.
Regarding claim 4, “the automatically generated activation message” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the automatically generated activation message” to mean any automatically generated activation message.
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites “and others”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “and others” are, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “and others” to mean and any condition of the marine vessel.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites “a marine vessel comprising a marine propulsion control system”. It is unclear if “a marine vessel” and “a marine propulsion control system” in claim 16 refers to “a marine vessel” and “a marine propulsion control system” in claim 1 or are new separate unclaimed recitation of “a marine vessel” and “a marine propulsion control system”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a marine vessel” and “a marine propulsion control system” in claim 16 to mean any marine vessel and any marine propulsion control system.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites “a marine propulsion control system”, “a marine vessel”, “an activation message”, “a predetermined operation mode”, “a position”, and “a rearward facing position”. It is unclear if “a marine propulsion control system”, “a marine vessel”, “an activation message”, “a predetermined operation mode”, “a position”, and “a rearward facing position” in claim 17 refers to “a marine propulsion control system”, “a marine vessel”, “an activation message”, “a predetermined operation mode”, “a position”, and “a rearward facing position” in claim 1 or are new separate unclaimed recitations of “a marine propulsion control system”, “a marine vessel”, “an activation message”, “a predetermined operation mode”, “a position”, and “a rearward facing position”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a marine propulsion control system”, “a marine vessel”, “an activation message”, “a predetermined operation mode”, “a position”, and “a rearward facing position” in claim 17 to mean anything of these limitations.
Regarding claim 18, this claim depends from claim 17 and is therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 17 above, as it does not cure the deficiencies of claim 17 noted above.
Regarding claim 18, “the trim” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the trim” to mean any trim.
35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because controlling the driving unit with different operation modes such as a swim mode is a practical application.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotter (US 20240067321 A1) in view of De Masi (US 20080096447 A1).
Claim 1
Trotter teaches:
A marine propulsion control system for a marine vessel, comprising a drive unit adapted to be connected with the marine vessel (Trotter - Abstract, Paragraphs 0020, 0024) “A safety system for a boat, watercraft or other vehicle includes a kill switch connected to the motor”
an input unit configured to obtain an activation message indicative of an operation mode for the drive unit (Trotter - Paragraphs 0024-0025) “wirelessly communicates with the fob 12, as described above, and also receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”; Input unit is mapped to communication unit of kill switch; Operation modes are mapped to a running engine mode and a stopped engine mode.
a control unit being operatively connected with the drive unit and the input unit (Trotter - Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0027) “kill switch 10 includes a receiver and transmitter that wirelessly communicates with the fob 12, as described above, and also receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”
the control unit is configured to control the drive unit on basis of the activation message obtained from the input unit (Trotter - Paragraph 0024-0025) “the kill switch 10 includes a receiver and transmitter that wirelessly communicates with the fob 12, as described above, and also receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”
wherein the control unit, based on at least the activation message, is configured to control the drive unit within different predetermined operation modes (Trotter - Paragraphs 0014, 0024-0025) “the kill switch 10 to allow the motor 20 to start and run… in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”
wherein one of the predetermined operation modes is a swim mode (Trotter - Paragraph 0014, 0029) “detect if swimmers or other objects are in the water near the propeller, and may automatically prevent the motor from starting”
in which the control unit is configured to (Trotter - Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0027) “kill switch 10 includes a receiver and transmitter that wirelessly communicates with the fob 12, as described above, and also receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”
wherein the control unit is configured to ensure no thrust force and/or rotation of the one or more propellers in the swim mode (Trotter - Paragraph 0014, 0029) “detect if swimmers or other objects are in the water near the propeller, and may automatically prevent the motor from starting”
Trotter does not teach:
The drive unit comprises an upper pivotably connected with the marine vessel and a lower part that is rotatable in relation to the upper part, and rotating the propellers to face forward.
However, De Masi teaches:
the drive unit comprises an upper part being pivotable connected with the marine vessel and a lower part having one or more propellers providing a thrust force (De Masi - Paragraphs 0027-0029, 0034-0037, Figs. 1-2, 8-10) “the propeller blade (06)… pushing the complete stern drive unit (08) back and up”
the lower part is rotatable in relation to the upper part (De Masi - Paragraphs 0027-0029, Figs. 1-2) “the lower unit (11) has rotate 180 degrees (40) to go in to reverse (14)”
rotate the lower part of the drive unit so that the one or more propellers is/are facing forward in a position of minimum 90 degrees compared to a rearward facing position of the one or more propellers (De Masi - Paragraphs 0027-0029, Figs. 1-2) “the lower unit (11) has rotate 180 degrees (40) to go in to reverse (14)”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Trotter with the drive unit comprises an upper pivotably connected with the marine vessel and a lower part that is rotatable in relation to the upper part, and rotating the propellers to face forward in a swim mode of De Masi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Trotter and De Masi both want to achieve safety of humans near boat propeller. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the safety of humans and animals near the boat propeller (De Masi – Paragraph 0014).
Claim 3
Trotter teaches:
the activation message is activated by an operator or captain and/or is an automatically generated activation message (Trotter - Paragraphs 0014, 0024-0025) “Proximity sensors may be deployed around the stern area of the boat to detect if swimmers or other objects are in the water near the propeller, and may automatically prevent the motor from starting”
Claim 4
Trotter teaches:
the automatically generated activation message is sensor data obtained from one or more sensor(s) (Trotter - Paragraphs 0014, 0024-0025) “wirelessly communicates with the fob 12, as described above, and also receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”;
Claim 5
Trotter teaches:
one or more sensor(s), the one or more sensors is/are configured to detect one or more condition(s) of the marine vessel, the drive unit and/or a surrounding of the marine vessel (Trotter - Paragraphs 0014, 0024-0025) “wirelessly communicates with the fob 12, as described above, and also receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”;
Claim 6
Trotter teaches:
the one or more conditions of the marine vessel is load, movement, components on the marine vessel, position of a bathing platform, and/or position of a bathing ladder (Trotter - Paragraph 0031) “The ladder sensor 28 may take many forms”
Claim 7
Trotter teaches:
the one or more conditions of marine unit is the position of one or more propellers, rpm of the propellers, trim angles, tilt angles, torque, consumption, position of the lower part compared to the upper part, height position, and others (Trotter - Paragraph 0025, 0031-0032) “gate sensors 28 may be employed on any or all doorways or gates 36”
Claim 8
Trotter teaches:
the surroundings is detection of persons and/or objects around the marine vessel, depth, waves, and/or direction of the waves (Trotter - Abstract, Paragraphs 0014, 0029) “Proximity sensors may be deployed around the stern area of the boat to detect if swimmers or other objects are in the water near the propeller”
Claim 16
Trotter teaches:
A marine vessel comprising a marine propulsion control system of claim 1 (Trotter - Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0027) “receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”
Claim 17
Trotter teaches:
A method of operating a marine propulsion control system of claim 1, comprising (Trotter - Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0027) “a boat safety system that includes a kill switch 10 that is operatively connected to a boat 14 or watercraft motor”
providing the marine propulsion control system on a marine vessel (Trotter - Paragraphs 0024-0025, 0027) “a boat safety system that includes a kill switch 10 that is operatively connected to a boat 14 or watercraft motor”
obtaining an activation message indicative of a predetermined operation mode for the drive unit, controlling the drive unit on basis of the activation message (Trotter - Paragraph 0024-0025) “the kill switch 10 includes a receiver and transmitter that wirelessly communicates with the fob 12, as described above, and also receives signals from the proximity sensors 26 and ladder and gate sensors 28 wirelessly, in order to prevent the propeller 30 from spinning”
obtaining a swim mode activation message (Trotter - Paragraph 0014, 0029) “detect if swimmers or other objects are in the water near the propeller, and may automatically prevent the motor from starting”
in response to obtaining the swim mode activation message (Trotter - Paragraph 0014, 0029) “detect if swimmers or other objects are in the water near the propeller, and may automatically prevent the motor from starting”
ensuring that no thrust force and/or rotation of the one or more propellers in the swim mode (Trotter - Paragraph 0014, 0029) “detect if swimmers or other objects are in the water near the propeller, and may automatically prevent the motor from starting”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotter and De Masi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasl (US 20160090164 A1).
Claim 2
Trotter does not teach:
a tilt and trim arrangement, the control unit is operatively connected with the tilt and trim arrangement.
However, Hasl teaches:
a tilt and trim arrangement, the control unit is operatively connected with the tilt and trim arrangement (Hasl - Paragraphs 0018, 0021) “the drive housing 120 pivots relative to the gimbal ring on the tilt/trim axis T”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Trotter with a tilt and trim arrangement of the motor of Hasl with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Trotter and Hasl both describe a marine vessel with motor control. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves propulsion of the boat (Hasl – Paragraph 0018).
Claims 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trotter and De Masi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Derginer (US 20240025528 A1) and Hoitsupuru (JP H05193570 A).
Claim 9
Trotter does not teach:
A normal/high speed mode where the trim and steering is set with limitations.
However, Derginer teaches:
one of the predetermined operation modes is a normal/high speed mode in which the control unit is configured to control the drive unit, a steering unit, and/or the tilt and trim arrangement so that the trim of the drive unit and steering is set with limitations (Derginer - Paragraph 0083, 0093) “trim and steering actions is limited in the full vessel control mode to prevent overly aggressive adjustments when the vessel is traveling at high speed”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Trotter with a normal/high speed mode where the trim and steering is set with limitations of Derginer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Trotter and Derginer both discuss a marine vessel with motor control. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves safe and stable vessel control at high vessel speed (Derginer – Paragraph 0083, 0093).
Trotter does not teach:
no tilt capability of the drive unit under the normal/high speed mode.
However, Hoitsupuru teaches:
no tilt capability of the drive unit (Hoitsupuru - Page 12 Paragraph 5 – Page 13 Paragraph 1) “Maintain propulsion unit 22 trim operation to prevent propeller ventilation”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Trotter with no tilt capability of the drive unit under normal/high speed mode of Hoitsupuru with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Trotter and Hoitsupuru both discuss a marine vessel with motor control. One would have been motivated to combine as this maintains the propellers under water for maximized ship speed (Hoitsupuru – Page 13 Paragraph 1).
Claim 10
Trotter does not teach:
the limitation is that the trim of the drive unit cannot exceed ±10 degrees compared to neutral trim, and that rotation of the lower part of the drive unit is limited to 30 degrees.
However, Derginer teaches:
the limitation is that the trim of the drive unit cannot exceed ±10 degrees compared to neutral trim, and that rotation of the lower part of the drive unit is limited to 30 degrees (Derginer - Paragraph 0096) “the trim and steering may be limited to a narrowed range of steering angles and trim positions”; Additionally or alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set specific degree limits in the claimed manner since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Trotter with setting trim degree and steering degree limitations of Derginer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Trotter and Derginer both discuss a marine vessel with motor control. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves safe and stable vessel control at high vessel speed (Derginer – Paragraph 0083, 0093).
Claim 18
Trotter does not teach:
Obtaining a normal/high speed mode activation message, and setting, in response to the activation message, limitations to the trim and steering.
However, Derginer teaches:
obtaining a normal/high speed mode activation message (Derginer - Paragraph 0070) “full vessel control mode can be engaged and disengaged by a user, such as via a button or trigger on the joystick”
setting, in response to obtaining the normal/high speed mode activation message, limitations to the trim of the drive unit and steering (Derginer - Paragraph 0083, 0093) “trim and steering actions is limited in the full vessel control mode to prevent overly aggressive adjustments when the vessel is traveling at high speed”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Trotter with obtaining a normal/high speed mode activation message, and setting, in response to the activation message, limitations to the trim and steering of Derginer with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Trotter and Derginer both discuss a marine vessel with motor control. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves safe and stable vessel control at high vessel speed (Derginer – Paragraph 0083, 0093).
Trotter does not teach:
no tilt capability of the drive unit under the normal/high speed mode.
However, Hoitsupuru teaches:
setting no tilt capability of the drive unit (Hoitsupuru - Page 12 Paragraph 5 – Page 13 Paragraph 1) “Maintain propulsion unit 22 trim operation to prevent propeller ventilation”
Motivation:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Trotter with setting no tilt capability of the drive unit under normal/high speed mode of Hoitsupuru with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Trotter and Hoitsupuru both discuss a marine vessel with motor control. One would have been motivated to combine as this maintains the propellers under water for maximized ship speed (Hoitsupuru – Page 13 Paragraph 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:30-6:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights