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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir.1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,077,273 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following:
The reference claim 1 and the examined application claim 1 include the following common features: “the remote control unit for docking a marine vessel, comprising: a processor; a memory operably coupled to the processor, a plurality of docking maneuver profiles stored in the memory, each of profile of the plurality of docking maneuver profiles indicating a maximum vessel system setting for a respective vessel system, and a ramp up time; a radio transceiver operably coupled to the processor that is configured to communicate with a helm receiver; a WiFi transceiver operably coupled to the processor; at least one actuator operably coupled to the processor; responsive to actuating the at least one actuator, the radio transceiver transmits control signals to the helm receiver in accordance with a selected one of the plurality of docking maneuver profiles to cause the respective vessel system to increase output over a duration equal to the ramp up time period to the maximum vessel system setting.”
The difference between the claims is minor and patentably indistinct. For example, the reference claim 1 recites “when the at least one actuator is actuated” while the currently examined claim 1 is reciting “actuating the at least one actuator; and response to actuating the at least one actuator.” These make the claims at issue are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For at least the reasons set forth herein above, the current claims 1-9 would have been obvious over the reference claims 1-9 of the patent ‘273 B1.
The reference claim 10 and the examined application claim 10 include the following common features: “a helm control that is operably coupled to the engine; a helm receiver that is operably coupled to the helm control; and a remote control unit comprising: a processor; a memory operably coupled to the processor, a plurality of docking maneuver profiles stored in the memory, each of profile of the plurality of docking maneuver profiles indicating a maximum vessel system setting for a respective vessel system, and a ramp up time; a radio transceiver operably coupled to the processor that is configured to communicate with a helm receiver; a WiFi transceiver operably coupled to the processor; at least one actuator operably coupled to the processor; responsive to actuating the at least one actuator, the radio transceiver transmits control signals to the helm receiver in accordance with a selected one of the plurality of docking maneuver profiles to cause the respective vessel system to increase output over a duration equal to the ramp up time period to the maximum vessel system setting.”
The difference between the claims is minor and patentably indistinct. For example, the reference claim 10 recites “when the at least one actuator is actuated” while the currently examined claim 10 is reciting “actuating the at least one actuator; and response to actuating the at least one actuator.” These make the claims at issue are not identical, but they are not patentably distinct from each other.
For at least the reasons set forth herein above, the current claims 10-18 would have been obvious over the reference claims 10-18 of the patent ‘273 B1.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 2025/0236377 A1 by Iwata which discloses a system/method for automatically docking a boat; US 12,332,646 B1 by Ito et al. which discloses a steering control system for a marine vessel; US 2024/0034451 A1 by Tsuchiya which discloses a boat maneuvering system; US 2013/0096742 A1 by Nose et al. which discloses a marine vessel propulsion system that consists of two propulsion devise, two operation levers, two lever position sensors, and a control unit; US 2011/0166724 A1 by Hiramatsu which discloses a marine vessel propulsion control system; EP-3098159-A1 by Makoto which discloses a boat maneuvering system and method for control switching a shift state to a shift-in state and a neutral state by a shift actuator; GB-2512865-A by Huxley-Reynard which discloses a marine vessel dynamic positioning control system for controlling the vessel propulsion and steering systems; The non-patent document NPL1 by Chen et al. which discloses a system for automatically docking of maritime autonomous surface ship; The non-patent document NPL2 by Lee et al. which discloses a docking and control system for an autonomous underwater vehicle.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Vivek D Koppikar, can be reached on (571) 272-5109.
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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights