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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derginer et al. (EP 4 309 997 A1) (hereinafter “Derginer”) in view of Kenkel et al. (US 2021/0340724 A1) (hereinafter “Kenkel”).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derginer in view of Kenkel, and further in view of Walker et al. (WO 2016/001656 A1) (hereinafter “Walker”).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
A maneuvering device for controlling navigation of a marine vessel, comprising:
See at least:
“a marine propulsion system for a marine vessel includes a joystick, at least one steerable marine drive, and a control system configured to receive a user input to engage full vessel control mode, receive a vessel speed parameter, and receive a joystick position.” (Derginer, paragraph [0014])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses a joystick 40 and control system 33 that together convert operator input into thrust and steering commands for the marine drives, and therefore control the direction and speed of travel, i.e., the navigation, of marine vessel 10. The joystick and control system together constitute a maneuvering device for controlling navigation of a marine vessel.
an input source
See at least:
“Movement of the joystick is detected by one or more sensors, such as a 3-axis joystick sensor module that senses movement of the joystick with respect to the horizontal plane and rotational movement of the joystick about its vertical axis and produces a signal accordingly to indicate a position of the joystick.” (Derginer, paragraph [0079])
Rationale:
Joystick 40 is a manually manipulated element whose sensed position is the source of the operator’s navigational input to the control system. It is expressly an input source.
movable between an equilibrium position and at least one displaced position;
See at least:
“if the handle 66 is moved slightly toward one side or the other away from the neutral position (which is generally the centered and vertically upright position with respect to the base portion 68), the commanded thrust or change in that direction is less than if, alternatively, the handle 66 was moved by a greater magnitude away from its neutral position.” (Derginer, paragraph [0081])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses a “neutral position,” which is the centered, upright position of the handle, and positions “away from the neutral position” by varying magnitudes. The neutral/centered position is the position the joystick assumes when not deflected and to which it returns when released (Derginer, paragraph [0058]), and therefore corresponds to the claimed equilibrium position. Each position moved away from neutral corresponds to at least one displaced position.
a control unit
See at least:
“The control system 33 includes a central controller 34 communicatively connected to the drive control module (DCM) 41, 42 for each of the rear marine drives 21 and 22” (Derginer, paragraph [0073])
Rationale:
Central controller 34 of control system 33 is a control unit. This is express.
obtaining a requested release input of the input source
See at least:
“Once the desired speed and heading are achieved, the user lets go of the joystick and/or trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input), as illustrated at step 222. When the joystick is in the centered position and/or when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released, the control system 33 operates the propulsion system to hold the current commanded vessel velocity and heading.” (Derginer, paragraph [0101])
Rationale:
The user “lets go of the joystick,” which is a request that the joystick be released. Derginer’s control system 33 expressly acts “when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released.” Trigger 210b is on joystick handle 66 (paragraph [0096]), so its release is a release input of the input source that the control unit directly detects and responds to by entering hold mode 214’. The control unit also obtains the joystick’s return to the centered position through the joystick position signals (paragraph [0079]). Obtaining a requested release input of the input source is therefore disclosed. It is further corroborated by Kenkel, which expressly teaches sensors “capable of determining when an operator grasps or other contacts the joystick 60” (Kenkel, paragraph [0033]). Determining that such detected contact has ceased, and thereby that the operator has released the joystick, would have been an ordinary and predictable use of the disclosed contact sensor.
to move from the displaced position towards the equilibrium position,
See at least:
“Once the joystick is released by the user so that it returns to the centered position, then the control system maintains the last-updated velocity and heading command.” (Derginer, paragraph [0058])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses that, upon release, the joystick “returns to the centered position,” i.e., it moves from the deflected (displaced) position towards the neutral (equilibrium) position.
obtaining a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel, and
See at least:
“The controller 34 is provided with an input from a vessel speed sensor 120. The vessel speed sensor 120 may be, for example, a pitot tube sensor 120a, a paddle wheel type sensor 120b, or any other speed sensor appropriate for sensing the actual speed of the marine vessel.” (Derginer, paragraph [0070])
Rationale:
Pitot tube and paddle wheel sensors measure the flow of water along the hull, i.e., the speed at which the vessel moves forward or backward along its length (speed through water). That speed is a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel, and controller 34 expressly obtains it as an input. Derginer’s control method further resolves vessel velocity into its “surge (fore/aft)” component (Derginer, paragraph [0103]), confirming that the vessel speed Derginer controls on is the longitudinal (fore/aft) component.
wherein the control unit is further configured to set a longitudinal speed threshold value, and
See at least:
“the control system 33 may implement a maximum speed threshold requirement prior to permitting activation of a particular joysticking control mode. For instance, a low-speed joysticking mode may be only activatable when the vessel speed is less than a threshold, such as less than 15 mph or less than 10 mph, such as based on vessel speed measurements from one or more vessel speed sensors 120.” (Derginer, paragraph [0075])
Rationale:
Control system 33 expressly implements a speed threshold (e.g., 15 mph or 10 mph) against which the measured vessel speed is compared. The control unit is therefore configured to set a longitudinal speed threshold value.
wherein in response to the longitudinal speed being equal to or above the longitudinal speed threshold value,
See at least:
“Above that threshold, only a high-speed joysticking mode may be activatable where the control system 33 is configured to steer the rear drives in parallel and limit user authority over steering and trim movements for safe vessel control at high vessel speed.” (Derginer, paragraph [0075])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly teaches a high-speed regime above the threshold, and a low-speed regime available only when the speed is “less than” the threshold. In the high-speed regime the control unit changes how the joystick input is treated, limiting user authority “for safe vessel control at high vessel speed.” The response to speed above the threshold is express. A person of ordinary skill implementing the threshold comparison necessarily assigns the equality condition to one of the two adjacent regimes. Assigning equality to the high-speed regime, i.e., responding to the longitudinal speed being equal to or above the threshold, would have been an obvious boundary-selection implementation. Kenkel supplies the specific resistance response.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
a variable resistance device
adapted to adjust a movement resistance of the input source; and
configured to control the variable resistance device by:
controlling the variable resistance device to adjust said movement resistance of the input source
based on the requested release input and the longitudinal speed,
the movement resistance of the input source is adjusted to an amount that locks movement of the input source
in the displaced position.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
a variable resistance device
See at least:
“An MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 is at least partially integrated into the base housing 62 of the MRF joystick device 52.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0028])
Rationale:
Kenkel’s magnetorheological-fluid (MRF) joystick resistance mechanism 56 produces a resistance force whose magnitude is varied by changing the fluid rheology. It is expressly a variable resistance device.
adapted to adjust a movement resistance of the input source; and
See at least:
“The MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 can be controlled to adjust the MRF resistance force and, therefore, joystick stiffness resisting joystick motion relative to the base housing 62 in at least one DOF.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0028])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses that the mechanism adjusts the resistance to joystick motion, i.e., a movement resistance of the input source.
configured to control the variable resistance device by:
See at least:
“The controller architecture 50 then advances to STEP 206 and applies the newly-determined MRF resistance force by transmitting appropriate commands to the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 to vary the rheology (viscosity) of the MRF fluid body (or bodies) in a manner achieving the desired resistance effect.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Controller architecture 50 expressly controls the resistance mechanism by transmitting commands to it. When Kenkel’s mechanism is incorporated into Derginer’s joystick, Derginer’s controller 34 is the control unit configured to control the variable resistance device.
controlling the variable resistance device to adjust said movement resistance of the input source
See at least:
“Such data enables the controller architecture 50 to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force inhibiting joystick movement (e.g., joystick rotation about a particular axis) in correlation to the current joystick position and movement characteristics.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0053])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses the controller increasing or decreasing the resistance to joystick movement in correlation with joystick position and movement. Kenkel further discloses varying that resistance “based upon work vehicle ground speed” (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). This is controlling the variable resistance device to adjust the movement resistance of the input source.
based on the requested release input and the longitudinal speed,
See at least:
“the MRF resistance force may be progressively increased or otherwise varied to substantially match increases in a monitored parameter (e.g., a ground speed, a component position, a load, or a hydraulic pressure of the work vehicle); or the MRF resistance force may be lessened or removed when appropriate based upon joystick movement and the state of the monitored parameter.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly bases the resistance adjustment on joystick movement and on the vehicle’s ground speed. The joystick movement Kenkel accounts for includes the joystick’s return toward center after displacement (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). Derginer supplies the requested release input, i.e., the operator letting go of the joystick, which the control unit acts upon (Derginer, paragraph [0101]), and the longitudinal speed (Derginer, paragraph [0070]). Kenkel does not expressly recite a release input, and Derginer does not adjust a resistance. Basing the resistance adjustment on both the requested release input and the longitudinal speed is therefore rendered obvious by the combined teachings: the combined controller uses the inputs Derginer already obtains as the joystick-state and speed parameters on which Kenkel teaches the resistance is to be based. The reasons are set forth in the motivation below.
the movement resistance of the input source is adjusted to an amount that locks movement of the input source
See at least:
“the usage of MRF technology to selectively generate a variable MRF resistance force or joystick stiffness impeding (resisting or preventing) targeted joystick motions provides several advantages.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0049])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses selectively generating a resistance force that is “preventing” targeted joystick motion, and that the force is available over “a continuous range of strengths or intensities” (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]). A resistance amount that prevents joystick motion is an amount that locks movement of the input source. Selecting that amount under the claimed speed condition is obvious for the reasons set forth in the motivation below.
in the displaced position.
See at least:
“In other embodiments, the MRF joystick device 52 may not be self-centering and may, instead, assume the form a friction-hold joystick remaining at a particular position absent an operator-applied force moving the joystick from the position.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0039])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly recognizes a joystick that remains at the position to which the operator displaced it, absent operator force. Kenkel further teaches resistance mechanisms “capable of selectively impeding joystick motion when returning to a centered position after displacement therefrom” (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). Applying Kenkel’s motion-preventing resistance (paragraph [0049]) to the targeted motion of returning from the displaced position toward center necessarily holds the joystick in the displaced position. The locking in the displaced position is therefore rendered obvious by Kenkel’s express building blocks.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to incorporate Kenkel’s controller-commanded MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 into joystick 40 of Derginer’s marine propulsion control system, and to configure Derginer’s controller 34 to select the joystick’s resistance behavior using the same vessel-speed threshold that Derginer already uses to switch joystick behavior. At or above the threshold, the resistance opposing the joystick’s return from its displaced position is set to Kenkel’s motion-preventing level, holding the joystick in the displaced position. Below the threshold, the resistance is lessened so that the joystick self-centers. The rational underpinning is as follows. First, Derginer already treats the joystick differently above and below a longitudinal vessel speed threshold (Derginer, paragraph [0060], paragraph [0075]). It restricts joystick-induced changes at high speed “to prevent overly aggressive adjustments when the vessel is traveling at high speed” (Derginer, paragraph [0085]). It also seeks to reduce “the chance of a user inadvertently providing propulsion adjustment inputs” (Derginer, paragraph [0096]). Second, Kenkel teaches the known technique of selecting joystick resistance as a function of vehicle speed, and increasing it at higher speeds. This improves precision, provides a better indicator of operator intent, and reduces “the likelihood of inadvertent joystick motions due to oscillations or other effects in the presence of high vibratory forces often occurring during work vehicle travel” (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). That resistance is available up to a level “preventing” targeted joystick motion (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]), and Kenkel specifically contemplates resistance that impedes the joystick’s return toward center after displacement (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). Third, Kenkel expressly identifies two known joystick behaviors: a self-centering joystick that returns home when released, and a friction-hold joystick “remaining at a particular position absent an operator-applied force” (Kenkel, paragraph [0039]). Kenkel’s controllable MRF resistance can prevent targeted joystick motion (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]) and can impede the joystick’s return toward center (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have recognized that sufficiently increasing that controllable resistance against the return direction predictably emulates the position-retaining behavior of the friction-hold joystick, while lessening it restores self-centering (Kenkel, paragraph [0055]). Applying Kenkel’s known speed-dependent resistance technique to Derginer’s speed-thresholded joystick in this manner would have yielded the following predictable behavior in each of Derginer’s two speed regimes. Self-centering would be retained in the low-speed/docking regime, where Derginer determines the commanded velocity from the magnitude and direction of the joystick’s deflection from the centered position (Derginer, paragraph [0064]), so that the centered position corresponds to no commanded translational velocity. Position retention would be used at or above the threshold, where Kenkel teaches increased resistance to suppress unintended joystick motion caused by oscillations and vibratory forces during travel, which the combination applies to the vessel operating environment, so that the joystick moves only under deliberate operator force. Allocating the equality condition (speed equal to the threshold) to the high-speed regime is an obvious boundary-selection choice, since any threshold comparison must assign equality to one of the two adjacent regimes. The modification does not change Derginer’s principle of operation or render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In Derginer’s high-speed full vessel control mode, the control system holds the commanded velocity and heading “[w]hen the joystick is in the centered position and/or when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released” (Derginer, paragraph [0101]). Adjustment inputs are accepted only when the user pushes the trigger “in conjunction with a handle 66 movement” (Derginer, paragraph [0096]). The combination employs this disclosed Derginer embodiment, in which acceptance of adjustment commands is governed by the trigger 210b confirmation input. Because, in that embodiment, the hold function is expressly triggerable by release of the confirmation input alone, a joystick retained in its displaced position does not produce continued acceleration or turning, and Derginer’s hold mode, closed-loop control, and speed-dependent authority limits continue to operate as disclosed. The result is predictable because Kenkel’s MRF mechanism generates a continuous range of resistance up to a motion-preventing level, and applies or removes it within roughly one millisecond (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]). The combination therefore applies a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and combines known elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results, yielding improved control precision and resistance to inadvertent joystick motion at high vessel speed. Kenkel further expressly teaches sensors “capable of determining when an operator grasps or other contacts the joystick 60” (Kenkel, paragraph [0033]). Using such a sensor to determine that contact has ceased, i.e., that the operator has released the joystick, would have been an ordinary and predictable use of it, so the combined controller has the release input and the vessel speed available as the inputs on which the resistance adjustment is based. Kenkel is analogous art. Although Kenkel concerns work vehicles rather than marine vessels, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. As reflected in the specification, that problem is improving the precision, safety, and usability of joystick-based vehicle control as vehicle speed changes, including reducing the risk of responding to unintended joystick inputs (Specification, paragraph [0002], paragraph [0003], paragraph [0011]). Kenkel addresses that same problem: it uses speed-dependent joystick resistance to improve the precision of vehicle control, provide a better indicator of operator intent, and reduce inadvertent joystick motions during vehicle travel (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). Kenkel therefore logically would have commended itself to the inventor’s attention in considering the problem. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020); MPEP § 2141.01(a). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (C).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 4. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein in response to the longitudinal speed being below the longitudinal speed threshold value,
See at least:
“The lower speed range may be defined based on a first speed threshold 194 below which full output authority over steering and trim is granted.” (Derginer, paragraph [0087])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses a distinct control response when the vessel speed is below the speed threshold (full joystick authority, low-speed/docking behavior). This is a response to the longitudinal speed being below the longitudinal speed threshold value.
that allows the input source to move from the displaced position to the equilibrium position.
See at least:
“Once the joystick is released by the user so that it returns to the centered position, then the control system maintains the last-updated velocity and heading command.” (Derginer, paragraph [0058])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses that the released joystick returns from its deflected position to the centered position. That is movement of the input source from the displaced position to the equilibrium position.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
the movement resistance of the input source is adjusted to an amount
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
the movement resistance of the input source is adjusted to an amount
See at least:
“the MRF resistance force may be lessened or removed when appropriate based upon joystick movement and the state of the monitored parameter.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses adjusting the resistance to a lessened or removed amount depending on the state of the monitored parameter, which includes ground speed (Kenkel, paragraph [0055], paragraph [0062]). With the resistance lessened or removed, Kenkel’s joystick bias mechanisms return the joystick to its home position (Kenkel, paragraph [0027]). This is an adjustment of the movement resistance to an amount that allows the claimed return movement.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to configure the combined Derginer/Kenkel controller so that, when the vessel speed is below Derginer’s speed threshold, the MRF resistance is lessened or removed as Kenkel teaches so that the released joystick returns to center. This is the logical complement of the high-speed hold discussed for claim 1. Below the threshold, Derginer’s low-speed mode determines the commanded velocity from the magnitude and direction of joystick deflection from the centered position (Derginer, paragraph [0064]), so a joystick that self-centers upon release returns to the position corresponding to no commanded translational velocity during docking and other close-quarters maneuvering. This is the safe, expected behavior Derginer describes for low-speed and docking operation (Derginer, paragraph [0062]). Kenkel’s mechanism can remove its resistance “with an equal rapidity” (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]), so the result is predictable and improves control and safety.
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the control unit is configured to control the variable resistance device
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
by a fixed force value.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to control the variable resistance device
See at least:
“The controller architecture 50 then advances to STEP 206 and applies the newly-determined MRF resistance force by transmitting appropriate commands to the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 to vary the rheology (viscosity) of the MRF fluid body (or bodies) in a manner achieving the desired resistance effect.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Controller architecture 50 expressly commands the MRF resistance mechanism. In the combination, this is Derginer’s control unit configured to control the variable resistance device.
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
See at least:
“Such data enables the controller architecture 50 to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force inhibiting joystick movement (e.g., joystick rotation about a particular axis) in correlation to the current joystick position and movement characteristics.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0053])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses increasing or decreasing the resistance force inhibiting joystick movement, i.e., adjusting the resistance of movements of the input source.
by a fixed force value.
See at least:
“with such an increase potentially performed gradually (continually) or in a step-wise fashion with any number of discrete resistance increase intervals.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0062])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses step-wise resistance control in “discrete resistance increase intervals.” The claim’s “fixed force value” is not recited verbatim. A person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Kenkel’s expressly disclosed step-wise resistance control would, however, have predictably maintained a selected resistance magnitude during each discrete interval, thereby providing a fixed force value during that interval. The limitation is therefore rendered obvious.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to implement the resistance adjustment of the Derginer/Kenkel device using Kenkel’s step-wise, discrete resistance values. Fixed force values give the operator a consistent, repeatable haptic feel and simplify controller calibration. Kenkel further teaches that operator-preferred resistance “intensity settings” may be stored and recalled (Kenkel, paragraph [0052]). Holding a selected resistance magnitude within each of Kenkel’s discrete intervals is a predictable implementation of Kenkel’s disclosed step-wise control.
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the control unit is configured to control the variable resistance device
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
by a variable force value.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to control the variable resistance device
See at least:
“The controller architecture 50 then advances to STEP 206 and applies the newly-determined MRF resistance force by transmitting appropriate commands to the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 to vary the rheology (viscosity) of the MRF fluid body (or bodies) in a manner achieving the desired resistance effect.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Controller architecture 50 expressly commands the MRF resistance mechanism. In the combination, this is Derginer’s control unit configured to control the variable resistance device.
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
See at least:
“Such data enables the controller architecture 50 to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force inhibiting joystick movement (e.g., joystick rotation about a particular axis) in correlation to the current joystick position and movement characteristics.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0053])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses increasing or decreasing the resistance force inhibiting joystick movement, i.e., adjusting the resistance of movements of the input source.
by a variable force value.
See at least:
“The controller architecture 50 can further control the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 to generate the MRF resistance force to have a continuous range of strengths or intensities, within limits, through corresponding changes in the strength of the EM field generated utilizing the EM coils 166.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0049])
Rationale:
A resistance force selectable over “a continuous range of strengths or intensities” is expressly a variable force value.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to implement the resistance adjustment of the Derginer/Kenkel device using Kenkel’s continuously variable resistance force. This lets the resistance track the monitored parameter smoothly (Kenkel, paragraph [0055]: the force “may be progressively increased or otherwise varied to substantially match increases in a monitored parameter (e.g., a ground speed…)”), which improves the fidelity of the haptic feedback and the precision of control. This is a predictable use of Kenkel’s mechanism according to its established function.
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
based on navigable water conditions where the marine vessel is travelling.
See at least:
“The controller 276 is configured to utilize such information to refine the thrust command values to accurately effectuate the desired velocity and acceleration, accounting for inaccuracies in the model design, malfunctions or sub-par performance of the marine drives, disturbances in the environment (e.g., wind, waves, and current), and other interferences.” (Derginer, paragraph [0114])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses that its control unit accounts for environmental disturbances, namely wind, waves, and current, i.e., navigable water conditions where the marine vessel is travelling, and bases its control on them (see also Derginer, paragraph [0103]). Kenkel, below, supplies that the element controlled is the variable resistance device.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the control unit is further configured to control the variable resistance device
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
wherein the control unit is further configured to control the variable resistance device
See at least:
“During STEP 204, the controller architecture 50 determines the appropriate manner in which to vary the MRF resistance force to achieve a desired joystick stiffness indicative of the monitored machine state or parameter.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses that the controller further controls the resistance device as a function of monitored operating parameters and conditions. In the combination, Derginer’s control unit is thereby further configured to control the variable resistance device.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to configure the combined controller to vary the joystick resistance based on the wind, wave, and current conditions that Derginer’s controller already accounts for. Kenkel teaches that the resistance may be varied as a function of any monitored operating parameter (Kenkel, paragraph [0055]), and that increased resistance reduces “inadvertent joystick motions due to oscillations or other effects in the presence of high vibratory forces” (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). Derginer itself expressly recognizes wind, waves, and current as “disturbances in the environment” that act on the vessel’s motion and must be compensated by the controller (Derginer, paragraph [0114]). Those disturbances are the marine counterpart of the travel-induced oscillations and vibratory forces that Kenkel teaches produce inadvertent joystick motion. Using those conditions as a further input to the resistance control is therefore a predictable application of Kenkel’s technique that improves safety and control.
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 8 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 8 and its parent claim(s) are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
in response to said navigable water conditions
See at least:
“The controller 276 is configured to utilize such information to refine the thrust command values to accurately effectuate the desired velocity and acceleration, accounting for inaccuracies in the model design, malfunctions or sub-par performance of the marine drives, disturbances in the environment (e.g., wind, waves, and current), and other interferences.” (Derginer, paragraph [0114])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses that its control unit accounts for wind, waves, and current as disturbances to the vessel’s motion in the water in which it travels. These are navigable water conditions, and the control unit acts in response to them. Derginer names these environmental phenomena but does not expressly recite the quantified parameters (wind speed, wave height, current strength) or thresholds for them, which are addressed below.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the requested release input is ignored
indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
being above respective predefined threshold values.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel provides teachings relevant to rendering obvious:
wherein the requested release input is ignored
See at least:
“Generally, increasing MRF joystick resistance at higher vehicle speeds may advantageously improve the precision with which an operator may steer the work vehicle and provide a better indicator of operator intent as an operator need overcome a greater force to move the joystick in an intended manner (thus reducing the likelihood of inadvertent joystick motions due to oscillations or other effects in the presence of high vibratory forces often occurring during work vehicle travel).” (Kenkel, paragraph [0062])
Rationale:
Kenkel does not expressly teach ignoring a release input, but teaches the following features that render the limitation obvious in combination with Derginer. Kenkel expressly teaches using controllable joystick resistance to suppress joystick-state changes that are not operator-intended but are caused by oscillations and vibratory forces during vehicle travel. Kenkel also expressly teaches sensors “capable of determining when an operator grasps or other contacts the joystick 60” (Kenkel, paragraph [0033]). Using such a sensor to determine that contact has ceased, i.e., the requested release, would have been an ordinary and predictable use of it. Neither Kenkel nor Derginer expressly discloses ignoring a release input. Derginer, however, expressly teaches the input-validation principle of disregarding joystick inputs that are likely inadvertent (“This reduces the chance of a user inadvertently providing propulsion adjustment inputs, such as by accidentally bumping the joystick,” Derginer, paragraph [0096]). In the combined device, the return of the joystick toward center is the joystick-state transition that results from honoring a detected release. Applying Derginer’s input-validation principle together with Kenkel’s motion-induced-transition suppression yields maintaining the current resistance, and thereby disregarding the detected release, when operating conditions make an unintended joystick-state transition likely. Ignoring the requested release input is therefore rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Derginer and Kenkel.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to configure the combined controller to disregard a detected release input, by maintaining the current joystick resistance, when operating conditions make an unintended joystick-state transition likely. Kenkel identifies the problem of unintended joystick-state changes caused by oscillations and vibratory forces during vehicle travel and addresses it with increased, controllable resistance (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). Derginer teaches that a maneuvering control unit should disregard inputs likely to be inadvertent (Derginer, paragraph [0096]). Combining these teachings is the application of a known input-filtering principle to a known controllable-resistance joystick, with the predictable result that motion-induced joystick-state transitions do not alter the maneuvering input, improving safety and reliability.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Derginer and Kenkel
After combining the teachings of Derginer and Kenkel, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
being above respective predefined threshold values.
Disclosure by Walker
Walker discloses:
indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
See at least:
“The metocean data used to vary vessel speed may include, but is not limited to: Wave Height; Wave Period; Tidal Current Speed; Tidal Current Direction; Ocean Currents; Wind Speed; Wind Direction” (Walker, p. 11, ll. 12-19)
Rationale:
Walker expressly identifies the quantified metocean parameters wave height, current speed, and wind speed as the measured conditions of the operating environment (the bulleted list is rendered here separated by semicolons). These are navigable water conditions indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength. Derginer identifies the underlying phenomena (wind, waves, and current), and Walker supplies the quantified parameters by which those conditions are indicated.
being above respective predefined threshold values.
See at least:
“At this point, it is important to understand what metocean limits may be imposed due to the limits of the marine operation. For example, a lift may only be possible in certain wind speeds; operations on deck may become difficult or dangerous if the wave heights are too high or if the combination of wave height and period cause undesirable motion.” (Walker, p. 6, ll. 2-6)
Rationale:
The limitation is disjunctive (“one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength”), so a predefined threshold for any one of the recited conditions satisfies it. Walker expressly discloses predefined, parameter-specific limits: Table 3 immediately following sets a “MAX. WIND SPEED” (e.g., 12 m/s) and a “MAX. CURRENT SPEED” (e.g., 0.5 m/s) for individual operation steps (Walker, p. 6, ll. 10-14). Wind speed or current strength exceeding these predefined maxima is a navigable water condition being above a respective predefined threshold value. Walker’s wave-height discussion is cited only as further context and is not relied upon for a numerical threshold.
Motivation to Combine Derginer, Kenkel, and Walker
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer, Kenkel, and Walker before them, to use Walker’s predefined wind-speed and/or current-speed limits as the objective conditions under which the combined Derginer/Kenkel controller maintains resistance and disregards the requested release input. Walker does not itself address joysticks. Walker identifies, with predefined numerical thresholds, adverse marine conditions in which vessel motion becomes “undesirable” and operations become “difficult or dangerous” (Walker, p. 6, ll. 2-6). Kenkel teaches suppressing unintended joystick-state transitions caused by vehicle motion (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). Derginer expressly recognizes that wind, waves, and current are environmental disturbances acting on the vessel’s motion (Derginer, paragraph [0114]), and Walker quantifies, with predefined limits, when such conditions become severe enough to constrain safe operation. Together, these teachings provide a reason to use Walker’s thresholds as objective, measurable conditions for preventing unintended joystick-state transitions caused by vessel motion during adverse operating conditions: the combined controller maintains the resistance, and thus ignores the requested release, when wind speed and/or current strength exceed Walker’s predefined limits. This is a known threshold-comparison technique applied to a known input-suppression function, with predictable results, and it improves safety and reliability. Walker is analogous art. It is reasonably pertinent to the problem of safely conducting or controlling marine operations under environmental conditions subject to predefined wind and current operating limits. A person deciding when a marine controller should invoke an adverse-condition control state would logically have looked to Walker’s objective, predefined metocean limits, which therefore would have commended themselves to that person’s attention. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020); MPEP § 2141.01(a).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Derginer, Kenkel, and Walker establishes the apparatus of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 9 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 9 and its parent claim(s) are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
in response to said navigable water conditions
See at least:
“The controller 276 is configured to utilize such information to refine the thrust command values to accurately effectuate the desired velocity and acceleration, accounting for inaccuracies in the model design, malfunctions or sub-par performance of the marine drives, disturbances in the environment (e.g., wind, waves, and current), and other interferences.” (Derginer, paragraph [0114])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses a control unit that responds to wind, waves, and current as disturbances in the water in which the vessel travels, i.e., in response to navigable water conditions. Derginer does not expressly recite the quantified parameters or thresholds, which are addressed below.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
wherein the control unit is configured to control the variable resistance device
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
being below said respective predefined threshold values.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured to control the variable resistance device
See at least:
“The controller architecture 50 then advances to STEP 206 and applies the newly-determined MRF resistance force by transmitting appropriate commands to the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 to vary the rheology (viscosity) of the MRF fluid body (or bodies) in a manner achieving the desired resistance effect.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Controller architecture 50 expressly commands the MRF resistance mechanism. In the combination, this is Derginer’s control unit configured to control the variable resistance device.
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
See at least:
“Such data enables the controller architecture 50 to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force inhibiting joystick movement (e.g., joystick rotation about a particular axis) in correlation to the current joystick position and movement characteristics.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0053])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses increasing or decreasing the resistance force inhibiting joystick movement, i.e., adjusting the resistance of movements of the input source.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to have the combined controller adjust the joystick resistance in response to the prevailing water conditions, for the reasons set forth for claim 8, namely that Kenkel varies resistance as a function of monitored conditions to reduce inadvertent inputs (Kenkel, paragraph [0055], paragraph [0062]).
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Derginer and Kenkel
After combining the teachings of Derginer and Kenkel, the following claim limitations are not explicitly disclosed:
indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
being below said respective predefined threshold values.
Disclosure by Walker
Walker discloses:
indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
See at least:
“MAX. WIND SPEED” (Walker, p. 6, l. 11, Table 3 column heading)
“MAX. CURRENT SPEED” (Walker, p. 6, l. 11, Table 3 column heading)
Rationale:
Walker expressly parameterizes the metocean conditions as wind speed and current speed, each with a per-step maximum. Because the limitation is disjunctive, wind speed or current strength alone satisfies navigable water conditions indicating one or more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength.
being below said respective predefined threshold values.
See at least:
“The present method therefore looks for these windows of time with metocean conditions within a range specified before simulating the set of tasks that are required to be performed within the windows.” (Walker, p. 14, ll. 3-5)
Rationale:
Walker expressly distinguishes conditions “within a range specified,” i.e., below the respective predefined maximum wind-speed and current-speed limits (Walker, p. 6, ll. 10-14), in which operations are permitted to proceed normally, from conditions exceeding those limits. These are conditions being below said respective predefined threshold values.
Motivation to Combine Derginer, Kenkel, and Walker
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer, Kenkel, and Walker before them, to configure the combined controller so that, when the wind speed and/or current strength are below Walker’s respective predefined limits, the release input is not ignored and the joystick resistance is adjusted in the normal manner (e.g., per claims 1 and 4). This is the logical complement of the above-threshold behavior of claim 9. Walker teaches that operations proceed normally when conditions are within the specified limits, and Kenkel teaches that resistance may be lessened or removed when the monitored parameter so warrants (Kenkel, paragraph [0055]). Restoring normal joystick behavior in benign conditions avoids unnecessarily restricting the operator, which improves usability while preserving safety. The result is predictable.
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 11. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein in the equilibrium position
See at least:
“if the handle 66 is moved slightly toward one side or the other away from the neutral position (which is generally the centered and vertically upright position with respect to the base portion 68), the commanded thrust or change in that direction is less than if, alternatively, the handle 66 was moved by a greater magnitude away from its neutral position.” (Derginer, paragraph [0081])
Rationale:
The neutral, centered, upright position of the handle is the equilibrium position.
no user-applied forces are exerted on the input source.
See at least:
“Once the joystick is released by the user so that it returns to the centered position, then the control system maintains the last-updated velocity and heading command.” (Derginer, paragraph [0058])
Rationale:
The joystick reaches the centered position because it has been “released by the user.” The centered (equilibrium) position is therefore the position the joystick assumes when no user-applied forces are exerted on it. The disclosed released-and-centered state satisfies the limitation because, after the joystick has been released by the user, no user-applied force is being exerted on the joystick as it returns to and occupies the centered position.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to retain, in the combined Derginer/Kenkel device of claim 1, Derginer’s equilibrium (centered) position as the position the joystick occupies when the user has released it and no user-applied force acts on it. Kenkel likewise describes a joystick that returns to a “home position” under its bias mechanism when the operator releases the handle (Kenkel, paragraph [0039]), so both references define the equilibrium position the same way. Defining the equilibrium position as the unforced rest position is also what gives meaning to Kenkel’s resistance against return from a displaced position (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]), which is applied in the combination at or above the threshold. The combination therefore uses Derginer’s and Kenkel’s shared definition of the equilibrium position according to its established function, with predictable results.
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 12. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the requested release input is preceded by
See at least:
“Once the desired speed and heading are achieved, the user lets go of the joystick and/or trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input), as illustrated at step 222. When the joystick is in the centered position and/or when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released, the control system 33 operates the propulsion system to hold the current commanded vessel velocity and heading.” (Derginer, paragraph [0101])
Rationale:
The user “lets go of the joystick” only “[o]nce the desired speed and heading are achieved,” i.e., after having manipulated the joystick to command the adjustment. The release is therefore preceded by that manipulation.
a user-applied force exertion on the input source.
See at least:
“For example, the system may be configured to require that the user push the trigger 210b in conjunction with a handle 66 movement to provide an adjustment input.” (Derginer, paragraph [0096])
Rationale:
Moving handle 66 to provide an adjustment input is a user-applied force exertion on the input source. This is express.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to treat, in the combined Derginer/Kenkel device of claim 1, the requested release input as following a user-applied force on the joystick, as Derginer teaches (Derginer, paragraphs [0096], [0101]). Kenkel’s controller likewise monitors the operator’s movement of the joystick and detects operator contact with it (Kenkel, paragraphs [0033], [0053]), so a release is naturally identified as the end of a preceding force exertion. Using that sequence in the combination lets the controller apply Kenkel’s speed-dependent resistance at the moment the operator lets go of a joystick the operator has displaced, which is the situation in which the resistance selected for the speed regime determines whether the joystick self-centers or is held. This is a predictable use of the known elements according to their established functions.
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 13. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the requested release input is a release of
See at least:
“Once the desired speed and heading are achieved, the user lets go of the joystick and/or trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input), as illustrated at step 222. When the joystick is in the centered position and/or when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released, the control system 33 operates the propulsion system to hold the current commanded vessel velocity and heading.” (Derginer, paragraph [0101])
Rationale:
The user “lets go of the joystick.” The requested release input is a release by the user.
a user-applied force exertion on the input source.
See at least:
“a signal that is representative of a desired movement of the vessel 10, as expressed by the operator of the marine vessel through movement of the handle 66.” (Derginer, paragraph [0079])
Rationale:
The operator moves handle 66, which is a user-applied force exertion on the input source. Letting go of the joystick is the release of that force exertion. This is express.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to treat, in the combined Derginer/Kenkel device of claim 1, the requested release input as the release of the user’s force on the joystick, as Derginer teaches when the user “lets go of the joystick” (Derginer, paragraph [0101]). Kenkel expressly teaches sensors capable of determining when an operator grasps or other contacts the joystick (Kenkel, paragraph [0033]), and determining that such contact has ceased is an ordinary and predictable use of that sensor. Identifying the release input as the release of the user’s force therefore gives the combined controller a directly detectable event on which to base the speed-dependent resistance adjustment of claim 1, with predictable results and improved control.
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 14. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
further comprising a positional sensor
See at least:
“Movement of the joystick is detected by one or more sensors, such as a 3-axis joystick sensor module” (Derginer, paragraph [0079])
Rationale:
The 3-axis joystick sensor module is a positional sensor. This is express.
to determine positional data of the input source,
See at least:
“produces a signal accordingly to indicate a position of the joystick.” (Derginer, paragraph [0079])
Rationale:
The sensor module expressly determines positional data of the input source.
the control unit being configured to obtain the positional data
See at least:
“Signals from the joystick 40 (e.g., a percent deflection +/-100% in each of the axis directions) are provided to the command model 272” (Derginer, paragraph [0104])
Rationale:
Command model 272 is part of control method 200 “implemented at the controller 34” (Derginer, paragraph [0103]). The control unit therefore expressly obtains the positional data.
for determining whether the input source is in the displaced position.
See at least:
“the system may maintain vessel speed and heading while the joystick remains in the centered position and may interpret a josytick [sic] movement (deflection and/or twist) as an instruction to adjust the heading or speed” (Derginer, paragraph [0057])
Rationale:
The control unit uses the positional data to distinguish whether the joystick “remains in the centered position” or has been deflected. That is, it determines whether the input source is in the displaced position. This is express.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to use Derginer’s joystick position sensor, whose signals are provided to the controller (Derginer, paragraphs [0079], [0104]), as the source of positional data in the combined Derginer/Kenkel device. Kenkel likewise provides joystick position sensors whose data enable the controller “to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force … in correlation to the current joystick position” (Kenkel, paragraphs [0046], [0053]). Determining whether the joystick is in the displaced position is necessary for the combined controller to know when Kenkel’s resistance against return from a displaced position should be applied. Using the position data that both references already provide for that purpose is a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions, and it improves the accuracy of the resistance control.
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 15. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the longitudinal speed of the marine vessel is obtained from one or more of
See at least:
“one or more vessel speed sensors 120 may be provided, such as a pitot tube or paddle wheel, to measure vessel speed over water.” (Derginer, paragraph [0071])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly discloses that the longitudinal (through-water) speed of the vessel is obtained from one or more sources.
a speed sensor, an engine revolution sensor, a positioning system, a navigation system, a fleet management system, a light detection system, a radio detection system, a sonar detection system, or a nautical chart.
See at least:
“Alternatively or additionally, the vessel speed may be obtained by taking readings from a GPS device 27, which calculates speed by determining how far the vessel has traveled in a given amount of time.” (Derginer, paragraph [0070])
Rationale:
The claim recites alternatives, so disclosure of any one satisfies it. Derginer expressly discloses a positioning system (GPS device 27). The same paragraph also discloses a speed sensor (vessel speed sensor 120) and engine revolution sensors (“rotational speed sensors 123, 124, such as but not limited to tachometers”). Paragraph [0071] further discloses navigation systems (IMU, AHRS, GNSS, INS).
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to obtain the longitudinal speed used by the combined Derginer/Kenkel device of claim 1 from Derginer’s speed sensor, GPS positioning system, or engine revolution sensors (Derginer, paragraphs [0070]-[0071]). Kenkel teaches that its controller varies the resistance based on data from onboard sensors, including ground speed (Kenkel, paragraphs [0052], [0062]). Using Derginer’s existing marine speed sources as the speed input for Kenkel’s speed-dependent resistance control is the substitution of a known marine speed source for Kenkel’s land-vehicle speed source, each performing the same function of reporting vehicle speed, with predictable results.
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 16. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
A marine vessel
See at least:
“FIGS. 1A and 1B are schematic representations of a marine vessel 10 equipped with propulsion system 100.” (Derginer, paragraph [0065])
Rationale:
Marine vessel 10 is expressly a marine vessel.
comprising the maneuvering device according to claim 1.
See at least:
“the controller 34 can communicate instructions to the DCM 41, 42 of the rear drives to effectuate a commanded magnitude of thrust and a commanded direction of thrust (forward or reverse), as is necessary to effectuate the lateral and/or rotational steering inputs commanded at the joystick 40.” (Derginer, paragraph [0073])
Rationale:
Vessel 10 is equipped with joystick 40 and controller 34. As modified by Kenkel for claim 1, these constitute the maneuvering device according to claim 1, so vessel 10 comprises that device.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to provide the combined Derginer/Kenkel maneuvering device of claim 1 on Derginer’s marine vessel 10 (Derginer, paragraph [0065]). Derginer’s joystick and controller are disclosed as installed aboard the vessel to control its navigation, and the combination modifies only that joystick by adding Kenkel’s controllable resistance mechanism, which Kenkel teaches is integrated into the joystick’s base housing (Kenkel, paragraph [0028]). Installing the modified device aboard the vessel for which it was designed is the predictable use of the combination for its intended purpose, for the reasons set forth for claim 1.
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17,
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer teaches:
A computer-implemented method for controlling a maneuvering device of a marine vessel, comprising:
See at least:
“FIG. 6 is a flowchart schematically depicting one embodiment of a control method 200, such as implemented at the controller 34, for controlling propulsion of the marine vessel in the full vessel control mode.” (Derginer, paragraph [0103])
Rationale:
Method 200 is implemented at controller 34, a computer, and is therefore computer-implemented. It controls the joystick-based maneuvering system of the marine vessel. The preamble is expressly taught.
setting a longitudinal speed threshold value;
See at least:
“The lower speed range may be defined based on a first speed threshold 194 below which full output authority over steering and trim is granted.” (Derginer, paragraph [0087])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly teaches defining a first speed threshold 194 against which the vessel speed parameter is compared, i.e., setting a longitudinal speed threshold value.
obtaining a requested release input of an input source of the maneuvering device
See at least:
“Once the desired speed and heading are achieved, the user lets go of the joystick and/or trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input), as illustrated at step 222. When the joystick is in the centered position and/or when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released, the control system 33 operates the propulsion system to hold the current commanded vessel velocity and heading.” (Derginer, paragraph [0101])
Rationale:
The user “lets go of the joystick,” and the control system expressly acts “when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released.” Trigger 210b is on handle 66 of joystick 40 (paragraph [0096]), so its release is a release input of the input source of the maneuvering device that the control unit directly detects and responds to. This is further corroborated by Kenkel’s sensors “capable of determining when an operator grasps or other contacts the joystick 60” (Kenkel, paragraph [0033]). Determining that such detected contact has ceased, and thereby that the operator has released the joystick, would have been an ordinary and predictable use of the disclosed contact sensor.
to move from a displaced position towards an equilibrium position;
See at least:
“Once the joystick is released by the user so that it returns to the centered position, then the control system maintains the last-updated velocity and heading command.” (Derginer, paragraph [0058])
Rationale:
Upon release, the joystick “returns to the centered position,” moving from the deflected (displaced) position towards the centered (equilibrium) position. This is express.
obtaining a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel,
See at least:
“one or more vessel speed sensors 120 may be provided, such as a pitot tube or paddle wheel, to measure vessel speed over water.” (Derginer, paragraph [0071])
Rationale:
Speed over water measured by pitot tube or paddle wheel is the vessel’s speed along its length, i.e., a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel, which is obtained. Derginer’s control method further resolves vessel velocity into its “surge (fore/aft)” component (Derginer, paragraph [0103]). This is express.
in response to the longitudinal speed being equal to or above the longitudinal speed threshold value.
See at least:
“Above the first speed threshold 194, the joystick authority over trim and/or steering decreases, and may be configured as shown by line 182 in FIG. 4A such that the maximum allowable trim and/or steering positions and/or adjustment rates progressively decreased as the speed parameter increases toward the maximum speed 198.” (Derginer, paragraph [0088])
Rationale:
Derginer expressly teaches changing the treatment of joystick input when the vessel speed is above threshold 194, with the full-authority range defined as speeds “below” that threshold (paragraph [0087]). Responding to speed above the threshold is express. Because any threshold comparison must assign the equality condition to one of the two adjacent regimes, assigning equality to the above-threshold response, i.e., responding to the longitudinal speed being equal to or above the threshold, would have been an obvious boundary-selection implementation.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly teach the following claim limitations:
controlling adjustment of a movement resistance of the input source
based on the requested release input and the longitudinal speed; and
adjusting the movement resistance of the input source to an amount that locks movement of the input source
in the displaced position
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel teaches:
controlling adjustment of a movement resistance of the input source
See at least:
“During STEP 204, the controller architecture 50 determines the appropriate manner in which to vary the MRF resistance force to achieve a desired joystick stiffness indicative of the monitored machine state or parameter.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly teaches controlling adjustment of the resistance to joystick movement, i.e., a movement resistance of the input source, as a function of joystick position and the monitored parameter, including ground speed (paragraph [0062]).
based on the requested release input and the longitudinal speed; and
See at least:
“the MRF resistance force may be progressively increased or otherwise varied to substantially match increases in a monitored parameter (e.g., a ground speed, a component position, a load, or a hydraulic pressure of the work vehicle); or the MRF resistance force may be lessened or removed when appropriate based upon joystick movement and the state of the monitored parameter.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0055])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly bases the resistance adjustment on joystick movement and on the vehicle’s ground speed. The joystick movement Kenkel accounts for includes the joystick’s return toward center after displacement (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). Derginer supplies the requested release input, i.e., the operator letting go of the joystick, which the control unit acts upon (Derginer, paragraph [0101]), and the longitudinal speed (Derginer, paragraph [0070]). Kenkel does not expressly recite a release input, and Derginer does not adjust a resistance. Basing the resistance adjustment on both the requested release input and the longitudinal speed is therefore rendered obvious by the combined teachings: the combined controller uses the inputs Derginer already obtains as the joystick-state and speed parameters on which Kenkel teaches the resistance is to be based. The reasons are set forth in the motivation below.
adjusting the movement resistance of the input source to an amount that locks movement of the input source
See at least:
“the usage of MRF technology to selectively generate a variable MRF resistance force or joystick stiffness impeding (resisting or preventing) targeted joystick motions provides several advantages.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0049])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly teaches generating a resistance that is “preventing” targeted joystick motion. A resistance amount preventing joystick motion is an amount that locks movement of the input source.
in the displaced position
See at least:
“Further benefits are achieved through the usage of MRF technology itself as opposed to the usage of other resistance mechanisms, such as actuated friction or brake mechanisms, also capable of selectively impeding joystick motion when returning to a centered position after displacement therefrom.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0066])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly teaches resistance mechanisms capable of impeding the joystick’s return to center after it has been displaced, and a joystick that remains at a displaced position absent operator force (paragraph [0039]). Applying Kenkel’s motion-preventing resistance (paragraph [0049]) to that return motion necessarily retains the joystick in the displaced position. This is PHOSITA-obvious from Kenkel’s express teachings.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to incorporate Kenkel’s controller-commanded MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56 into joystick 40 of Derginer’s marine propulsion control system, and to configure Derginer’s controller 34 to select the joystick’s resistance behavior using the same vessel-speed threshold that Derginer already uses to switch joystick behavior. At or above the threshold, the resistance opposing the joystick’s return from its displaced position is set to Kenkel’s motion-preventing level, holding the joystick in the displaced position. Below the threshold, the resistance is lessened so that the joystick self-centers. The rational underpinning is as follows. First, Derginer already treats the joystick differently above and below a longitudinal vessel speed threshold (Derginer, paragraph [0060], paragraph [0075]). It restricts joystick-induced changes at high speed “to prevent overly aggressive adjustments when the vessel is traveling at high speed” (Derginer, paragraph [0085]). It also seeks to reduce “the chance of a user inadvertently providing propulsion adjustment inputs” (Derginer, paragraph [0096]). Second, Kenkel teaches the known technique of selecting joystick resistance as a function of vehicle speed, and increasing it at higher speeds. This improves precision, provides a better indicator of operator intent, and reduces “the likelihood of inadvertent joystick motions due to oscillations or other effects in the presence of high vibratory forces often occurring during work vehicle travel” (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). That resistance is available up to a level “preventing” targeted joystick motion (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]), and Kenkel specifically contemplates resistance that impedes the joystick’s return toward center after displacement (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). Third, Kenkel expressly identifies two known joystick behaviors: a self-centering joystick that returns home when released, and a friction-hold joystick “remaining at a particular position absent an operator-applied force” (Kenkel, paragraph [0039]). Kenkel’s controllable MRF resistance can prevent targeted joystick motion (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]) and can impede the joystick’s return toward center (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have recognized that sufficiently increasing that controllable resistance against the return direction predictably emulates the position-retaining behavior of the friction-hold joystick, while lessening it restores self-centering (Kenkel, paragraph [0055]). Applying Kenkel’s known speed-dependent resistance technique to Derginer’s speed-thresholded joystick in this manner would have yielded the following predictable behavior in each of Derginer’s two speed regimes. Self-centering would be retained in the low-speed/docking regime, where Derginer determines the commanded velocity from the magnitude and direction of the joystick’s deflection from the centered position (Derginer, paragraph [0064]), so that the centered position corresponds to no commanded translational velocity. Position retention would be used at or above the threshold, where Kenkel teaches increased resistance to suppress unintended joystick motion caused by oscillations and vibratory forces during travel, which the combination applies to the vessel operating environment, so that the joystick moves only under deliberate operator force. Allocating the equality condition (speed equal to the threshold) to the high-speed regime is an obvious boundary-selection choice, since any threshold comparison must assign equality to one of the two adjacent regimes. The modification does not change Derginer’s principle of operation or render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. In Derginer’s high-speed full vessel control mode, the control system holds the commanded velocity and heading “[w]hen the joystick is in the centered position and/or when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released” (Derginer, paragraph [0101]). Adjustment inputs are accepted only when the user pushes the trigger “in conjunction with a handle 66 movement” (Derginer, paragraph [0096]). The combination employs this disclosed Derginer embodiment, in which acceptance of adjustment commands is governed by the trigger 210b confirmation input. Because, in that embodiment, the hold function is expressly triggerable by release of the confirmation input alone, a joystick retained in its displaced position does not produce continued acceleration or turning, and Derginer’s hold mode, closed-loop control, and speed-dependent authority limits continue to operate as disclosed. The result is predictable because Kenkel’s MRF mechanism generates a continuous range of resistance up to a motion-preventing level, and applies or removes it within roughly one millisecond (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]). The combination therefore applies a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and combines known elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results, yielding improved control precision and resistance to inadvertent joystick motion at high vessel speed. Kenkel further expressly teaches sensors “capable of determining when an operator grasps or other contacts the joystick 60” (Kenkel, paragraph [0033]). Using such a sensor to determine that contact has ceased, i.e., that the operator has released the joystick, would have been an ordinary and predictable use of it, so the combined controller has the release input and the vessel speed available as the inputs on which the resistance adjustment is based. Kenkel is analogous art. Although Kenkel concerns work vehicles rather than marine vessels, it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. As reflected in the specification, that problem is improving the precision, safety, and usability of joystick-based vehicle control as vehicle speed changes, including reducing the risk of responding to unintended joystick inputs (Specification, paragraph [0002], paragraph [0003], paragraph [0011]). Kenkel addresses that same problem: it uses speed-dependent joystick resistance to improve the precision of vehicle control, provide a better indicator of operator intent, and reduce inadvertent joystick motions during vehicle travel (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). Kenkel therefore logically would have commended itself to the inventor’s attention in considering the problem. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020); MPEP § 2141.01(a). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17 (2007); MPEP § 2143(I)(A), (C).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the apparatus of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 18. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 1 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer teaches:
A method for controlling navigation of a marine vessel, comprising:
See at least:
“a method of controlling propulsion of a marine vessel includes receiving a user input to engage full vessel control mode, receiving a vessel speed parameter, receiving a joystick position, and determining a thrust command and a steering command based on the joystick position and the vessel speed parameter.” (Derginer, paragraph [0024])
Rationale:
Controlling the thrust and steering of the vessel is controlling its navigation. The preamble is expressly taught.
providing a maneuvering device according to claim 1; and
See at least:
“FIGS. 1A and 1B are schematic representations of a marine vessel 10 equipped with propulsion system 100.” (Derginer, paragraph [0065])
Rationale:
Equipping vessel 10 with propulsion system 100, including joystick 40 and controller 34, is providing the maneuvering device. As modified by Kenkel for claim 1, that device is the maneuvering device according to claim 1.
controlling navigation of the marine vessel
See at least:
“the controller 34 can communicate instructions to the DCM 41, 42 of the rear drives to effectuate a commanded magnitude of thrust and a commanded direction of thrust (forward or reverse), as is necessary to effectuate the lateral and/or rotational steering inputs commanded at the joystick 40.” (Derginer, paragraph [0073])
Rationale:
Commanding thrust magnitude, thrust direction, and steering expressly controls navigation of the marine vessel.
by navigational commands from the maneuvering device.
See at least:
“A slight rotation of the handle 66 about axis 48 would represent a command for a slight rotational thrust about a preselected point on the vessel 10 or a slight change in vessel heading.” (Derginer, paragraph [0081])
Rationale:
Joystick handle positions are expressly commands for thrust and heading changes, i.e., navigational commands from the maneuvering device.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to control navigation of Derginer’s marine vessel using navigational commands from the combined Derginer/Kenkel maneuvering device of claim 1. Derginer teaches that joystick handle positions are commands for thrust and heading changes that the controller uses to control the marine drives (Derginer, paragraphs [0073], [0081]). The combination modifies only the physical resistance of that joystick with Kenkel’s controllable resistance mechanism (Kenkel, paragraphs [0028], [0055]) and leaves Derginer’s navigational command path unchanged. Using the combined device to issue navigational commands is therefore its predictable, intended use, and provides the improved control precision and resistance to inadvertent joystick motion set forth for claim 1.
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the method of Claim 17, which is the basis for Claim 20. Each reference relied upon to establish Claim 17 remains part of this rejection, and the reasons for combining those references set forth with respect to Claim 17 and its parent claim(s) are incorporated herein.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions,
which when executed by the processing circuitry,
cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 17.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions,
See at least:
“The controller architecture 50 may also include or cooperate with any number of firmware and software programs or computer-readable instructions designed to carry-out the various process tasks, calculations, and control functions described herein. Such computer readable instructions may be stored within a non-volatile sector of the memory 48 associated with (accessible to) the controller architecture 50.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0034])
Rationale:
Non-volatile memory 48 storing computer-readable instructions is expressly a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions.
which when executed by the processing circuitry,
See at least:
“the controller architecture 50 can encompass or may be associated with any practical number of processors, individual controllers, computer-readable memories, power supplies, storage devices, interface cards, and other standardized components.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0034])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly teaches processors and stored computer-readable instructions “designed to carry-out the various process tasks, calculations, and control functions described herein” (Kenkel, paragraph [0034]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that those processors execute the stored instructions to perform the control functions, i.e., instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry.
cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 17.
See at least:
“Advancing next to FIG. 5, presented is an example process 190 suitably carried-out by the controller architecture 50 of the above-described MRF joystick system 22 to vary one or more MRF resistance forces selectively impeding joystick motion” (Kenkel, paragraph [0050])
Rationale:
Kenkel expressly discloses the stored instructions carrying out a joystick-resistance control process on the controller architecture. The method of claim 17 has already been established by the combination of Derginer and Kenkel. Storing instructions that implement that established method, so that the processing circuitry performs it, is the application of Kenkel’s disclosed instruction-and-processor architecture to the combined method, as set forth in the motivation below.
Motivation to Combine Derginer and Kenkel
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Derginer and Kenkel before them, to store the instructions implementing the combined Derginer/Kenkel control method in non-volatile memory accessible to Derginer’s controller 34, as Kenkel teaches for its own control functions. Storing the instructions implementing the combined Derginer/Kenkel control method in Kenkel’s disclosed non-volatile memory architecture would have been a predictable use of that architecture according to its established function, and improves reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 19 have been cancelled, and claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of former claims 2, 3, and 5. Claims 1, 4, 6-18, and 20 are pending. In view of the amendment, the rejections have been updated. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Derginer (EP 4 309 997 A1) in view of Kenkel (US 2021/0340724 A1), and claims 9 and 10 are rejected over Derginer in view of Kenkel and further in view of Walker (WO 2016/001656 A1). To the extent Applicant’s remarks are directed to rationale set forth in the prior Office action that is not relied upon in the present rejection, the remarks are moot. The Examiner nonetheless responds to each of Applicant’s substantive contentions below, because they are equally directed to the rejection as now set forth.
I. The combination does not change Derginer’s principle of operation or render Derginer unsatisfactory for its intended purpose
Applicant argues that Derginer “is explicitly designed around a self-centering joystick control law,” that the joystick must return “to the center position required to maintain velocity,” and that the claimed lock would therefore render Derginer inoperative, citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959), and In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for four reasons.
A. Applicant’s factual premise is not supported by Derginer read as a whole.
Applicant relies solely on Derginer paragraph [0058]. A reference, however, must be considered for everything it teaches, including alternative and non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); MPEP § 2123. Derginer expressly discloses that the hold function is not conditioned on the joystick returning to center. In the trigger-confirmation embodiment, Derginer states:
“For example, the system may be configured to require that the user push the trigger 210b in conjunction with a handle 66 movement to provide an adjustment input.” (Derginer, paragraph [0096])
“When the joystick is in the centered position and/or when the trigger 210b (or other adjustment confirmation input) is released, the control system 33 operates the propulsion system to hold the current commanded vessel velocity and heading.” (Derginer, paragraph [0101]) (emphasis added)
Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the centered position is not “required to maintain velocity.” Derginer expressly discloses that release of the confirmation input alone places the control system in its hold mode. In that embodiment, a joystick retained in a displaced position does not generate a continuing acceleration or turn-rate command, because adjustment inputs are accepted only in conjunction with the trigger. The combination relies on this disclosed embodiment. Derginer’s hold mode, closed-loop velocity and heading control, and speed-dependent authority limits all continue to operate exactly as Derginer describes.
B. The combination retains Derginer’s self-centering behavior where Derginer relies on it.
The rejection does not eliminate self-centering. Consistent with claim 4, the combined device lessens the resistance below the speed threshold so that the joystick returns to center in Derginer’s low-speed mode, where commanded velocity is determined from the magnitude and direction of deflection from the centered position (Derginer, paragraph [0064]; Kenkel, paragraph [0055]: the resistance force “may be lessened or removed when appropriate based upon joystick movement and the state of the monitored parameter”). The position-retaining resistance is applied only at or above the threshold, i.e., in the high-speed regime, where Derginer already restricts joystick authority “to prevent overly aggressive adjustments when the vessel is traveling at high speed” (Derginer, paragraph [0085]).
C. The modification does not require the “substantial reconstruction and redesign” that Ratti addresses.
Ratti applies where the proposed combination “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.” Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813; MPEP § 2143.01(VI). Similarly, Gordon applies where the modification renders the reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. MPEP § 2143.01(V). (The Examiner notes that these principles are set forth in MPEP § 2143.01(V)-(VI), rather than MPEP § 2142.01 as cited by Applicant.)
Neither circumstance is present. Derginer’s basic principle of operation is joystick-based control of propulsion and steering across all vessel speeds, with speed-dependent limits on joystick authority (Derginer, paragraphs [0054]-[0055], [0060]). The combination adds Kenkel’s controllable resistance mechanism to Derginer’s existing joystick. Derginer’s joystick sensing, command model, drive control, and hold mode are unchanged. Adding a controllable resistance to a joystick does not reconstruct Derginer’s propulsion control system. Further, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference,” but what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); accord In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
D. A trade-off does not negate motivation to combine.
Even assuming that retaining the joystick in a displaced position at high speed involved some trade-off relative to a purely self-centering design, “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The motivation articulated in the rejection is grounded in the references themselves: Kenkel teaches that increased joystick resistance at higher speeds improves precision, provides a better indicator of operator intent, and reduces “the likelihood of inadvertent joystick motions due to oscillations or other effects in the presence of high vibratory forces” (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]), and Derginer seeks to reduce “the chance of a user inadvertently providing propulsion adjustment inputs” at high speed (Derginer, paragraph [0096]).
II. The “inertial lag” and “vessel speed parameter” arguments are not commensurate with the claims and are unsupported by evidence
Applicant argues that tying resistance “strictly to resultant vessel speed” or “actual longitudinal speed (GPS speed)” would produce delayed and confusing feedback because of marine inertial lag, and that claim 1 solves this problem “by using a ‘vessel speed parameter’ to trigger a discrete mode change (the lock), providing immediate haptic confirmation.” This argument is not persuasive.
First, the argued features are not recited in the claims. Claim 1 does not recite a “vessel speed parameter,” a throttle command, compensation for inertial lag, or “immediate haptic confirmation.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP § 2145(VI).
Second, the argument is contrary to the claims and the specification. Claim 1 expressly triggers the lock “in response to the longitudinal speed being equal to or above the longitudinal speed threshold value.” Claim 15 recites that the longitudinal speed is obtained from, inter alia, “a speed sensor” or “a positioning system.” The specification defines the longitudinal speed as “the speed at which the marine vessel 100 moves forward or backward along its length, as is also known as the speed-through-water” (Specification, paragraph [0048]). The claimed invention therefore uses the very resultant vessel speed that Applicant characterizes as problematic. An argument that the prior art is deficient for relying on resultant vessel speed cannot distinguish claims that themselves rely on resultant vessel speed. The Examiner further notes that the original disclosure does not describe the asserted inertial-lag problem.
Third, the argument is unsupported attorney argument. Assertions regarding haptic delay, operator confusion, and inertial lag are not accompanied by any declaration or other evidence. “Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP §§ 716.01(c), 2145(I).
Fourth, the rejection does not tie resistance continuously to resultant speed. The rejection relies on Derginer’s discrete speed-threshold regimes (Derginer, paragraph [0075]: a low-speed mode activatable only “when the vessel speed is less than a threshold, such as less than 15 mph or less than 10 mph,” and “[a]bove that threshold, only a high-speed joysticking mode may be activatable”; see also paragraphs [0087]-[0088]). The combined device therefore effects precisely the threshold-triggered “discrete mode change” that Applicant describes. Even accepting Applicant’s alleged inertial lag, the argument does not distinguish the claim, because the claim itself expressly conditions the lock on the obtained longitudinal speed reaching the threshold.
III. The rejection does not mischaracterize Kenkel, and Applicant’s argument attacks Kenkel individually
Applicant argues that Kenkel’s friction-hold joystick is “a separate hardware embodiment or a static alternative to a self-centering joystick (Kenkel [0040], described as a ‘different’ MRF cylinder configuration),” and that Kenkel does not teach a joystick that dynamically switches from self-centering to friction-locked based on a marine speed threshold. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant’s citation does not support the characterization. The friction-hold joystick is described at Kenkel paragraph [0039]. The “different MRF cylinder configuration” language at paragraph [0040] refers to embodiments that “include a greater or lesser number of MRF cylinders”; it does not address friction-hold behavior.
Second, the rejection does not rely on switching Kenkel’s friction-hold hardware. The locking limitation is met by Kenkel’s controllable MRF resistance, which Kenkel expressly teaches can be varied dynamically, up to a motion-preventing level, in real time:
“[T]he usage of MRF technology to selectively generate a variable MRF resistance force or joystick stiffness impeding (resisting or preventing) targeted joystick motions provides several advantages.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0049])
“Such data enables the controller architecture 50 to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force inhibiting joystick movement … in correlation to the current joystick position and movement characteristics.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0053])
“[O]ther resistance mechanisms, such as actuated friction or brake mechanisms, [are] also capable of selectively impeding joystick motion when returning to a centered position after displacement therefrom.” (Kenkel, paragraph [0066])
Kenkel further teaches varying this resistance based on vehicle ground speed (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]) and generating it over “a continuous range of strengths or intensities” within roughly one millisecond (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]). Kenkel paragraph [0039] is cited as evidence that a position-retaining joystick behavior was known in the art, not as the mechanism relied upon.
The Examiner agrees that Kenkel does not expressly recite, in a single embodiment, a joystick whose resistance is switched between self-centering and position-retaining behavior according to a marine speed threshold. Such an express disclosure by Kenkel alone, however, is not the basis of the rejection and is not required under 35 U.S.C. 103. The switching behavior results from the combined teachings: Derginer already divides joystick operation into regimes according to vessel-speed thresholds (Derginer, paragraphs [0075], [0087]-[0088]), and Kenkel teaches dynamically commanding the magnitude of joystick resistance, including as a function of vehicle speed (Kenkel, paragraphs [0053], [0062]), up to a level preventing targeted joystick motion (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]), and recognizes resistance opposing a joystick’s return toward center after displacement (Kenkel, paragraph [0066]). A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore had reason to use Derginer’s existing speed regimes as the condition for commanding Kenkel’s resistance: lessened resistance below the threshold to permit self-centering, and motion-preventing resistance at or above the threshold to oppose return from the displaced position, as set forth in the rejection.
Third, the speed threshold is supplied by Derginer. Applicant’s argument that Kenkel does not teach switching “based on a marine speed threshold” addresses Kenkel alone. The rejection relies on Derginer for the marine vessel, the longitudinal speed, and the speed threshold, and on Kenkel for the controllable resistance. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2145(IV).
Fourth, Kenkel’s work-vehicle context does not remove it from consideration. Kenkel is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected in the specification: improving the precision, safety, and usability of joystick-based vehicle control as vehicle speed changes, including reducing the risk of responding to unintended inputs (Specification, paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0011]). Kenkel addresses that same problem using speed-dependent joystick resistance (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]). In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020); MPEP § 2141.01(a). “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Applying a speed-dependent joystick resistance technique from land vehicles to a marine vessel joystick is well within that skill; Applicant has not argued otherwise.
IV. Applicant has not established unexpected results
Applicant asserts that the claimed threshold-triggered lock provides “set-and-forget” cruise functionality with “instantaneous feedback,” and that this “constitutes unexpected results.” This assertion is not persuasive.
The burden of establishing unexpected results rests with Applicant, and it must be met with factual evidence, not argument. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1175, 1180 (CCPA 1972); In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995); MPEP §§ 716.01(c), 716.02(b). Evidence of unexpected results must show that the results are actually unexpected, not merely superior, In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art, MPEP § 716.02(e); and must be commensurate in scope with the claims, MPEP § 716.02(d). No such evidence is of record.
Moreover, the asserted advantages are precisely those that the prior art would lead one to expect. “Set-and-forget” cruise functionality is expressly taught by Derginer, whose control system operates in a hold mode “to hold the current commanded vessel velocity and heading” once the user lets go (Derginer, paragraph [0101]). “Instantaneous” haptic response is expressly taught by Kenkel, whose MRF mechanism effects changes in joystick stiffness “in highly abbreviated time periods; e.g., time periods on the order of 1 millisecond” (Kenkel, paragraph [0049]). “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.” Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985); MPEP § 2145(II).
V. All claim limitations have been considered
Citing In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995), and CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Applicant asserts that obviousness requires a suggestion of all claim limitations. The Examiner agrees with the legal standard. The rejection sets forth an element-by-element mapping of every limitation of each claim, identifies which limitations are expressly disclosed by each reference and which are rendered obvious by the combined teachings, and articulates the reasoning for each. Applicant has not identified any specific limitation of amended claim 1 that the rejection fails to address.
VI. The references do not teach away
Citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013), Applicant asserts that the references teach away. Applicant does not, however, identify any passage in Derginer, Kenkel, or Walker that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages retaining a joystick in a displaced position at high speed. As Galderma itself explains, a reference “does not teach away … if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” 737 F.3d at 738 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); see also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2141.02(VI). Derginer’s disclosure of a self-centering joystick in one embodiment is, at most, a disclosed alternative. It does not discourage the claimed combination, particularly where Derginer’s own trigger-confirmation embodiment holds velocity independent of joystick centering (Derginer, paragraph [0101]). Kenkel, for its part, affirmatively teaches increasing joystick resistance at higher speeds (Kenkel, paragraph [0062]).
VII. Remaining claims
Applicant presents no separate arguments directed to the additional limitations of claims 4, 6-18, and 20. Accordingly, those claims remain rejected for the reasons set forth above.
The Examiner further notes that the environmental-condition limitations of claims 8-10 are not inferred solely from Derginer. Derginer supplies wind, waves, and current as environmental disturbances acting on the vessel, to which its control unit responds (Derginer, paragraph [0114]). For claims 9 and 10, Walker supplies the quantified wind-speed, wave-height, and current-speed parameters (Walker, p. 11, ll. 12-19) and predefined operating maxima for wind speed and current speed (Walker, p. 6, ll. 2-14). Kenkel supplies the controllable joystick resistance (Kenkel, paragraphs [0049], [0055]). Applicant has not identified any error in those mappings.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the rejections of claims 1, 4, 6-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained as set forth above.
Conclusion
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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
