DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 19 March 2026. Therein, Applicant amended the claims for formatting purposes. Applicant did not newly add or cancel any claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references. Specifically, Applicant asserts that “[B]ecause Arbuckle contains no disclosure or suggestion of abnormality determination after a shift, and no need to compare the rotational speeds of a power source and a propeller, there is no motivation to apply Suzuki's abnormality-determination technique to Arbuckle. The references address different problems at different stages of operation using fundamentally different control logic.” Examiner does not agree.
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, and in response to Applicant’s quote above, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings). Further, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2144.
In the previous rejection and below, Examiner determined that both Suzuki and Arbuckle are reasonably related to Applicant’s technology and field of endeavor. Additionally, Examiner outlined the strongest type of rationale to modify the references with an express recognition of an expected benefit would have been produced (“improve a marine propulsion system which compensates for a shift position switching mechanism failure (see para. 0006)”).
The motivation outlined by the Examiner is proper to support the conclusion of Obviousness. The rejection is maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuckle, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,454,402) in view of Suzuki, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0215334).
For claim 1, Arbuckle teaches a method for controlling a ship that has a plurality of power sources including a first power source and a second power source and that propels a hull by transmitting power from at least one of the plurality of power sources through a power transmitter to a propulsive force generator (see col. 1:20-50), the method comprising: determining at least two of the first power source, the second power source, and the propulsive force generator as comparison targets (see col. 9:23-10:64) and comparing rotation speeds of the comparison targets with each other targets (see col. 9:23-10:64). Arbuckle does not explicitly disclose the last limitation.
A teaching from Suzuki discloses determining an abnormality of at least one of an actuator that drives the power transmitter and the power transmitter based on a result of the comparison between the rotation speeds (see paras. 0330-0309). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Arbuckle to include the teachings of Suzuki based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a marine propulsion system which compensates for a shift position switching mechanism failure (see para. 0006).
Referring to claim 2, Suzuki further teaches wherein the rotation speeds are compared with each other in a determination period after the actuator drives the power transmitter (see paras. 0292, 0297).
With regards to claim 3, Suzuki further teaches wherein the determination period is within a predetermined period of time since the actuator drives the power transmitter (see paras. 0292, 0297).
Pertaining to claim 4, Suzuki further discloses performing additional control on at least one of the comparison targets so that a difference between the rotation speeds of the comparison targets is increased when the comparison between the rotation speeds is performed (see paras. 0242-0246).
With reference to claim 5, Suzuki further teaches wherein the additional control includes control for increasing at least one of the rotation speeds of the first power source and the second power source (see paras. 0242-0246).
For claim 6, Suzuki further discloses wherein the additional control includes control for reducing at least one of the rotation speeds of the first power source and the second power source (see para. 0348, increasing force increases difference).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki further teaches determining whether the additional control is required in accordance with a determination condition (see paras. 0237-0248), wherein the additional control is performed when the additional control is required (see paras. 0237-0248, output of engine increased when predetermined speed needs matched).
For claim 8, Suzuki further discloses wherein the determination condition includes a load condition associated with a rotation speed of the propulsive force generator (see para. 0338, water sensor; para. 0330).
With regards to claim 9, Suzuki further discloses wherein the load condition includes the rotation speed of the propulsive force generator which is smaller than a threshold value (see para. 0343).
Referring to claim 10, Suzuki further discloses wherein the additional control is performed in accordance with content of an operation of the actuator (see paras. 0346, 0359, 0389, control depending on position of actuator).
With reference to claim 11, the combination of Arbuckle and Suzuki teach a non-transitory, computer- readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute the method for controlling a ship according to claim 1 (see Suzuki, Fig. 5, #86; see Suzuki citations for claim 1 above).
For claim 12, Arbuckle teaches a ship control system (see col. 9:23-10:64) comprising: a comparison processor (see col. 5:36-60; cols. 9:23-10:64). Arbuckle does not explicitly disclose an abnormality determination processor. A teaching from Suzuki teaches an abnormality determination processor (see para. 0300, #86a). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Arbuckle to include the teachings of Suzuki based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a marine propulsion system which compensates for a shift position switching mechanism failure (see para. 0006).
With regards to claim 13, Arbuckle and Suzuki teach the ship control system according to Claim 12 (see claim 12 citations above); and the hull (see Arbuckle, Fig. 1, #10).
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663