Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP23207291.8, filed on 11/01/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derginer et al. (EP 4309997 A1), hereinafter referred to as Derginer, in view of Kenkel et al. (US 20210340724 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kenkel.
Regarding Claim 1,
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
A maneuvering device
See at least: "a joystick (40)" ([0053]).
Rationale: The joystick is the maneuvering device.
for controlling navigation of a marine vessel,
See at least: "a control system (33) configured to... control propulsion of the marine vessel based on joystick inputs" ([0053]).
Rationale: The joystick is part of a system for controlling navigation of a marine vessel.
comprising: an input source
See at least: "a joystick (40)" ([0053]).
Rationale: The joystick is the input source.
movable between an equilibrium position and at least one displaced position;
See at least: "the joystick remains in the centered position" ([0058]); "the joystick is deflected" ([0064]).
Rationale: The joystick has a centered position (equilibrium) and can be deflected to a displaced position.
and a control unit
See at least: "a control system (33)" ([0053]).
Rationale: The control system is the control unit.
by obtaining a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel,
See at least: "receive a vessel speed parameter" (Claim 1); "vessel speed sensor 120" ([0070]).
Rationale: The control unit is configured to receive a vessel speed parameter, which is obtaining a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
a variable resistance device adapted to adjust a movement resistance of the input source;
configured to control the variable resistance device
by obtaining a requested release input of the input source
to move from the displaced position towards the equilibrium position,
and 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.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
a variable resistance device
See at least: "an MRF joystick resistance mechanism" ([0005]).
Rationale: The MRF joystick resistance mechanism is a variable resistance device.
adapted to adjust a movement resistance of the input source;
See at least: "controllable to vary an MRF resistance force resisting movement of the joystick" ([0005]).
Rationale: The mechanism is adapted to adjust a movement resistance (the MRF resistance force) of the input source.
configured to control the variable resistance device
See at least: "the controller architecture 50 may selectively command the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56" ([0028]).
Rationale: The controller architecture is configured to control the variable resistance device.
by obtaining a requested release input of the input source
See at least: "Monitor joystick position / movement" (FIG. 5, Step 196); "returning to a centered position" ([0066]).
Rationale: The system monitors joystick movement to detect when it is returning to a centered position, which constitutes obtaining a requested release input.
to move from the displaced position towards the equilibrium position,
See at least: "returning to a centered position after displacement therefrom" ([0066]).
Rationale: This phrase explicitly describes the joystick moving from the displaced position back towards the equilibrium position (the centered position).
and by controlling the variable resistance device
See at least: "selectively impeding joystick motion" ([0066]).
Rationale: The controller acts by controlling the variable resistance device to achieve this impeding of motion.
to adjust said movement resistance of the input source
See at least: "selectively impeding joystick motion" ([0066]); "vary an MRF resistance force" ([0005]).
Rationale: The act of impeding joystick motion by varying the MRF force is to adjust said movement resistance of the input source.
based on the requested release input
See at least: "when returning to a centered position" ([0066]).
Rationale: The resistance adjustment (impeding motion) is triggered specifically when returning to a centered position, i.e., based on the requested release input.
and the longitudinal speed.
See at least: "based, at least in part, on the current ground speed" ([0006]).
Rationale: The reference explicitly teaches adjusting resistance based on the current ground speed. In the marine context of the primary reference, this is the longitudinal speed.
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 the variable resistance haptic feedback system of Kenkel into the marine joystick control system of Derginer. A person of ordinary skill seeking to enhance operator control, prevent inadvertent inputs, and provide speed-appropriate tactile feedback in a marine vessel would be motivated to adapt the known and commercially implemented variable-resistance joystick technology from work vehicles (Kenkel) to the marine control environment. Using vessel speed (a key control parameter in Derginer) to modulate the joystick's return-to-center resistance is a predictable application of combining these established teachings to achieve stable and intuitive control across different operating speeds.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 2.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the control unit is configured
Rationale: The control system (33) is the control unit and is inherently configured to execute logic.
to set a longitudinal speed threshold value,
See at least: "a first speed threshold 194" ([0087]); "a maximum speed threshold 196" ([0093]).
Rationale: The system defines and uses specific speed limits, such as a first speed threshold, which constitutes setting a longitudinal speed threshold value.
in relation to 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... is provided" ([0091]); "Above the first speed threshold 194, the maximum allowable lateral output decreases" ([0092]).
Rationale: System behavior is defined and changes in relation to whether the speed parameter is below or above a speed threshold. This is evaluation in relation to the longitudinal speed threshold value.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
the movement resistance being adjusted
depending on a value of the longitudinal speed in relation to the longitudinal speed threshold value.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
the movement resistance being adjusted
See at least: "adjust the MRF resistance force" ([0005]).
Rationale: The force impeding joystick motion is the movement resistance, and the system acts to adjust it.
depending on a value of the longitudinal speed in relation to the longitudinal speed threshold value.
See at least: "based, at least in part, on the current ground speed" ([0006]); "compare a monitored load to a predetermined threshold value (e.g., a particular minimum load value stored in the memory 48) and implement the above-described MRF resistance force modifications only after a currently monitored load surpasses the threshold value" ([0060]); "A similar approach may be utilized to assist operators in piloting a work vehicle" ([0060]).
Rationale: The system adjusts resistance depending on a value of vehicle speed (ground speed). It explicitly teaches a control logic that compares a monitored parameter (e.g., load) to a predetermined threshold value and implements resistance adjustments based on whether the parameter is above or below that threshold. This is a general control strategy taught by the reference. Applying this same similar approach to the parameter of ground speed (i.e., comparing speed to a speed threshold to condition resistance adjustment) would be an obvious application of the disclosed control logic to a different monitored parameter, yielding adjustment depending on a value of the longitudinal speed in relation to the longitudinal speed threshold 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 integrate the threshold-based speed logic of the marine control system (Derginer) with the variable resistance haptic feedback system and its disclosed threshold-based control methodology (Kenkel). A person of ordinary skill seeking to provide a consistent and safe operator experience across different vessel speeds would be motivated to use a defined speed threshold (as taught by Derginer) as the specific predetermined threshold value to condition the adjustment of the joystick's physical resistance (as generically taught by Kenkel for other parameters). This combination, applying the known threshold-comparison control strategy from one parameter (load) to another (speed), yields the predictable result of a joystick whose resistance adjustment is triggered based on whether the vessel's longitudinal speed is above or below a set threshold.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 2, which is the basis for Claim 3.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the longitudinal speed threshold value indicates a docking mode or a cruising mode of the marine vessel.
See at least: "low-speed docking control mode" ([0066]); "the control system may default to a low-speed control mode when the full vessel control mode is not engaged, such as a docking control mode" ([0062]); "the full vessel control mode to enable user control of vessel velocity and direction when the marine vessel is traveling at relatively high speeds" ([0057]).
Rationale: The reference explicitly defines operational modes based on speed. A low-speed docking control mode corresponds to a docking mode. A full vessel control mode for high speeds corresponds to a cruising mode. The transition between these modes is governed by a speed threshold (e.g., first speed threshold 194), meaning the longitudinal speed threshold value indicates which mode is active.
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 apply the mode-indication logic inherent to Derginer's marine control system (where a speed threshold indicates a docking or cruising mode) to the combined maneuvering device established in Claim 2. The person of ordinary skill, already motivated to create a speed-threshold-controlled haptic joystick for marine use, would naturally utilize the vessel's own predefined operational modes (docking vs. cruising) as the contextual framework for applying the appropriate resistance adjustments. This is a predictable design choice to align the haptic feedback system with the vessel's existing control architecture.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 3, which is the basis for Claim 4.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein in the docking mode:
See at least: “a docking control mode…”
Rationale: The reference discloses a docking control mode, which is the docking mode.
the longitudinal speed is 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... is provided" ([0091]); "when the vessel speed is less than a threshold, such as less than 15 mph or less than 10 mph" ([0075]).
Rationale: The docking mode (low-speed control mode) is active when the vessel speed (longitudinal speed) is below a defined threshold value.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
and the movement resistance is adjusted to an amount that allows the input source to move from the displaced position to the equilibrium position.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
and the movement resistance is adjusted to an amount
See at least: "adjust the MRF resistance force" ([0005]).
Rationale: The system is capable of setting the resistance to a specific amount.
that allows the input source to move
See at least: "allowing the rheology of the magnetorheological fluid... to revert to its normal, unstimulated state" ([0049]); "the joystick 60 will return to the neutral or home position under the influence of the return spring" ([0039]).
Rationale: By reducing or removing the applied MRF resistance force, the system allows the joystick to be moved by the return spring.
from the displaced position to the equilibrium position.
See at least: "returning to a centered position" ([0066]); "joystick 60 will return to the neutral or home position" ([0039]).
Rationale: The described motion is from the displaced position to the... home position (equilibrium).
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 haptic joystick system such that in the docking mode (a low-speed mode explicitly defined by Derginer), the variable resistance is set to a low level that allows the joystick to return to center when released. This is a predictable design choice because docking operations require precise, low-speed control where an unobstructed, self-centering joystick is beneficial for intuitive and safe maneuvering. The person of ordinary skill would be motivated to implement the known, default spring-return behavior of a joystick (as in Kenkel) specifically when the vessel is in the docking mode identified by the marine control system (Derginer).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 3, which is the basis for Claim 5.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein in the cruising mode:
See at least: "a full vessel control mode to enable user control of vessel velocity and direction when the marine vessel is traveling at relatively high speeds" ([0057]).
Rationale: The full vessel control mode for high-speed operation corresponds to the cruising mode.
the longitudinal speed is equal to or above the longitudinal speed threshold value,
See at least: "Above the first speed threshold 194, the maximum allowable lateral output decreases" ([0092]); "when the speed parameter exceeds the maximum speed threshold 196" ([0093]).
Rationale: Derginer expressly teaches operating "Above" a speed threshold and when the speed parameter "exceeds" a threshold value. A person of ordinary skill would understand that threshold comparisons inherently include the boundary condition; treating "at/above" as including "equal to" is a routine implementation of a threshold comparison.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
and the movement resistance is adjusted to an amount that locks movement of the input source in the displaced position.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
and the movement resistance is adjusted
See at least: "the controller architecture may command the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to increase the MRF resistance force (and, therefore, joystick stiffness)" ([0019]).
Rationale: This describes the controller commanding changes to the resistance force, which is the movement resistance is adjusted.
to an amount that locks movement of the input source in the displaced position.
See at least: "assume the form a friction-hold joystick remaining at a particular position absent an operator-applied force moving the joystick from the position" ([0040]).
Rationale: A "friction-hold joystick remaining at a particular position absent an operator-applied force" describes a condition where resistance is set to an amount sufficient to lock movement of the input source in the displaced position against the return spring's force, preventing motion unless sufficient user force is applied.
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 marine joystick system such that, when operating in the high-speed cruising regime (defined by EP's speed threshold), the controller commands the variable-resistance mechanism to increase joystick stiffness to a friction-hold level. This predictable design choice leverages known MRF-based resistance control to provide a "lock" feel at cruising speeds, thereby preventing inadvertent command changes and improving operator comfort and safety during high-speed operation.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 6.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
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 ... enables the controller architecture 50 to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force inhibiting joystick movement ... to generate the desired MRF resistance effects." ([0054])
Rationale: The controller architecture 50 performs control actions (increase/decrease) over the MRF resistance force, which is the variable resistance device behavior being controlled.
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
See at least: "controllable to vary an MRF resistance force resisting movement of the joystick relative to the base housing." ([0005])
Rationale: Varying the MRF resistance force resisting movement of the joystick is adjusting the resistance of movements of the input source.
by a fixed force value.
See at least: "any operator preference settings, such as desired MRF resistance force intensity settings, be recalled from the memory 48 ..." ([0052])
Rationale: Desired MRF resistance force intensity settings stored in memory and recalled for application constitute selectable, predefined fixed force value setpoints that the controller can apply.
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 combined marine joystick system with the capability to apply a fixed force value for resistance adjustment. The reference Kenkel explicitly teaches storing user-preferred resistance "intensity settings" (fixed values) and applying them. A person of ordinary skill seeking to provide consistent, user-customizable haptic feedback in the marine joystick system would be motivated to utilize this straightforward feature—applying a stored, constant resistance value—as a simple and predictable implementation choice within the variable resistance system's capabilities.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 7.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
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 ... enables the controller architecture 50 to rapidly increase or decrease the MRF resistance force inhibiting joystick movement ... to generate the desired MRF resistance effects." ([0053]).
Rationale: The controller architecture 50 performs control actions (increase/decrease) over the MRF resistance force, which is the variable resistance device behavior being controlled.
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
See at least: "controllable to vary an MRF resistance force resisting movement of the joystick relative to the base housing." ([0005]); "apply various different resistive effects selectively impeding joystick rotation ... through the application of varying magnitudes of resistive force" ([0018]).
Rationale: Varying the MRF resistance force resisting movement of the joystick using varying magnitudes of resistive force is adjusting the resistance of movements of the input source.
by a variable force value.
See at least: "the controller architecture may command the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to increase the MRF resistance force (and, therefore, joystick stiffness) as a monitored parameter, such as ... work vehicle ground speed, increases in magnitude." ([0019]); "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" ([0049]).
Rationale: The reference teaches that the commanded resistance force changes continuously or stepwise in response to a changing parameter like ground speed, utilizing a continuous range of strengths. This constitutes adjusting resistance by 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 combined marine joystick system with the capability to apply a variable force value for resistance adjustment. The reference Kenkel explicitly teaches dynamically varying the applied resistance force across a continuous range of strengths in response to changing operational parameters. A person of ordinary skill seeking to provide context-aware haptic feedback in the marine joystick system—where resistance should appropriately reflect real-time conditions like vessel speed—would be motivated to utilize this fundamental capability of the variable resistance system, as it is the direct and intended application of the disclosed technology.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 11.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein in the equilibrium position
See at least: "the joystick remains in the centered position" ([0058]); "the centered position" ([0064])
Rationale: The reference describes a centered position for the joystick, which is the equilibrium position from which it is deflected.
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" ([0058])
Rationale: This phrase explicitly links the user's action of releasing the joystick (ceasing to apply force) with the joystick's return to the centered (equilibrium) position. It defines the state of the equilibrium position as one where no user-applied forces are exerted on the input source.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel further reinforces:
wherein in the equilibrium position
See at least: "the home position" ([0027]); "the neutral or home position shown in FIG. 3" ([0039])
Rationale: The reference explicitly describes a home position or neutral position, which is the equilibrium position.
no user-applied forces are exerted on the input source.
See at least: "joystick 60 will return to the neutral or home position shown in FIG. 3 under the influence of the return spring 124 should the work vehicle operator subsequently release the joystick handle 110" ([0039])
Rationale: This teaches that the home position (equilibrium) is achieved specifically when the operator releases the joystick handle. At that moment, the acting force is from the return spring, not the user. This condition defines when no user-applied forces are exerted.
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 a marine joystick with a defined equilibrium position that exists when no user force is applied. A person of ordinary skill, designing the marine joystick control system of Derginer, would be motivated to employ a conventional self-centering joystick mechanism, as exemplified in Kenkel. Such a mechanism is fundamental to predictable control interfaces and provides the clear equilibrium position that is maintained when no user-applied forces are exerted.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 12.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the requested release input
See at least: "the user lets go of the joystick" ([0101])
Rationale: The user's action of letting go of the joystick is the requested release input.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
is preceded by
a user-applied force exertion
on the input source.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
is preceded by
See at least: "When the joystick ... is displaced from the neutral or home position ... should the work vehicle operator subsequently release the joystick handle" ([0039])
Rationale: This establishes the temporal sequence: displacement (which requires force) occurs first, and release subsequently occurs. Therefore, the release is preceded by the displacement event.
a user-applied force exertion
See at least: "operator has moved the joystick handle 110 in an operator input direction" ([0044])
Rationale: Moving the joystick handle requires a user-applied force exertion.
on the input source.
See at least: "operator has moved the joystick handle 110" ([0044])
Rationale: The force is exerted directly on the input source (the joystick handle).
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 understand that the operation of a manual joystick inherently involves a user applying force to displace it, which precedes the release action. A person of ordinary skill, designing or operating the marine joystick system of Derginer, would recognize that a requested release input (letting go of the joystick) is an event that logically and temporally follows a user-applied force exertion (the act of moving and holding the joystick away from its center). The secondary reference (US) makes explicit this fundamental and inherent operational sequence of any manually actuated control stick.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 13.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the requested release input
See at least: "the user lets go of the joystick" ([0101])
Rationale: The act of "letting go" is the requested release input.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
is a release of a user-applied force exertion on the input source.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
is a release of a user-applied force exertion on the input source.
See at least: "a friction-hold joystick remaining at a particular position absent an operator-applied force moving the joystick from the position" ([0039]); "should the work vehicle operator subsequently release the joystick handle 110" ([0039]).
Rationale: The reference expressly defines the state of the joystick when absent an operator-applied force. It then describes the operator's action to end that state as a release of the handle. Together, these teachings explicitly define the requested release input as the release of a user-applied force exertion that was being applied on the input source (the joystick handle).
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 recognize that the "requested release input" in a marine joystick system is the user's act of releasing an applied force. A person of ordinary skill, implementing the marine control system of Derginer, would understand from the explicit mechanical description in Kenkel that a manual joystick is held in a displaced position by a user-applied force, and its return to equilibrium is initiated by the release of that force.
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 14.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses/teaches:
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 that senses movement of the joystick with respect to the horizontal plane" ([0079])
Rationale: The 3-axis joystick sensor module is a positional sensor that detects movement.
to determine positional data of the input source,
See at least: "produces a signal accordingly to indicate a position of the joystick" ([0079])
Rationale: The sensor produces a signal indicating the joystick's position, which is positional data of the input source.
the control unit being configured to obtain the positional data
See at least: "The control system (33) ... receive a joystick position from the joystick" ([0053]); "receive a joystick position" (Claim 1)
Rationale: The control system (control unit) is configured to receive the signal indicating joystick position, which is obtaining the positional data.
for determining whether the input source is in the displaced position.
See at least: "the joystick remains in the centered position" ([0058]); "a purely linear movement ... is commanded when the joystick is moved along line 58, or ... as would correspond with the direction of movement of the joystick with respect to the centered position" ([0082])
Rationale: The system distinguishes between the centered position (equilibrium) and movement away from it. To command different movements based on joystick direction relative to the centered position, the control unit must determine whether the input source is in the displaced position by comparing the received positional data to the known centered position reference.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel further reinforces:
further comprising a positional sensor
See at least: "one or more joystick position sensors 66 for monitoring the current position and movement of the joystick" ([0027])
Rationale: The joystick position sensors are positional sensors.
to determine positional data of the input source,
See at least: "configured to monitor movement of the joystick relative to the base housing" ([0005])
Rationale: Monitoring movement and position generates positional data of the input source.
the control unit being configured to obtain the positional data
See at least: "The controller architecture is coupled to the joystick position sensor" ([0005]); "Monitor joystick position / movement" (FIG. 5, Step 196)
Rationale: The controller architecture (control unit) is connected to and obtains data from the position sensor.
for determining whether the input source is in the displaced position.
See at least: "determine when motion of the joystick in an operator input direction ... will result in an undesirably abrupt change" ([0063]); "when the joystick is displaced from the neutral or home position" ([0039])
Rationale: To execute these determinations, the controller must first determine whether the input source is in the displaced position by comparing current position data to the known neutral/home (equilibrium) 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 implement a marine joystick system with positional sensing for determining displacement state. A person of ordinary skill, designing the marine control system of Derginer, would be motivated to incorporate standard joystick position sensors (as explicitly taught by both references) to enable the fundamental control function of detecting when the joystick is displaced from its center position. This integration is a predictable and necessary design choice for any joystick-based control system to translate user input into commanded actions.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 15.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the longitudinal speed of the marine vessel is obtained from one or more of 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: "The controller 34 receives ... an input from a vessel speed sensor 120" ([0070]); "provided with rotational speed sensors 123, 124, such as but not limited to tachometers" ([0070]); "the vessel speed may be obtained by taking readings from a GPS device 27" ([0070]); "navigation sensor system" and "inertial navigation system (INS)" ([0071])
Rationale: The system is configured to obtain a vessel speed parameter. This parameter (the longitudinal speed) is explicitly taught to be obtainable from multiple sources, including: a speed sensor (vessel speed sensor 120, pitot tube, paddle wheel), an engine revolution sensor *(rotational speed sensor/tachometer 123, 124 on the marine drives), a* positioning system (GPS device 27), and a navigation system (INS/navigation sensor system). The claim requires the speed to be obtained from one or more of the listed sources; the primary reference discloses obtaining it from several of them.
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 marine maneuvering device to use standard marine vessel speed inputs as explicitly taught by Derginer. A person of ordinary skill, implementing the marine control system of Derginer with the haptic feedback system of Kenkel, would be motivated to utilize the vessel's existing speed data sources—such as a speed sensor, engine tachometer, GPS, or inertial navigation system—as the longitudinal speed input for the haptic feedback controller. This is a predictable integration, as the speed parameter is a fundamental control input for both the vessel's propulsion system (Derginer) and the speed-dependent resistance logic (Kenkel).
Regarding Claim 16,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 16.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
A marine vessel comprising the maneuvering device.
See at least: "A marine propulsion system (100) for a marine vessel (10) includes a joystick (40), at least one steerable marine drive (21, 22), and a control system (33) config ured to receive a user input to engage full vessel control mode, receive a vessel speed parameter, and receive a joystick position" (Abstract)
Rationale: The primary reference is explicitly directed to a marine vessel (10) that includes a marine propulsion system with a joystick *(40) as a control input device. This joystick, when combined with the variable resistance device and control logic from Kenkel (as established for Claim 1), constitutes the* maneuvering device according to claim 1. Therefore, Derginer discloses a marine vessel comprising 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 incorporate the improved haptic feedback joystick system (the maneuvering device of Claim 1) into the marine vessel of Derginer. A person of ordinary skill, seeking to enhance operator control and safety in the marine vessel control system of Derginer, would be motivated to integrate the commercially proven, variable-resistance haptic feedback technology from Kenkel as a direct replacement for or enhancement of the existing joystick input device. This integration yields the predictable result of a marine vessel with a maneuvering device that provides speed- and condition-responsive tactile feedback to the operator.
Regarding Claim 17,
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses/teaches:
A computer-implemented method
See at least: "A method of controlling propulsion of a marine vessel" ([0036]); "control system (33)" ([0053])
Rationale: The reference teaches a method executed by a control system, which constitutes a* computer-implemented method.
for controlling a maneuvering device of a marine vessel,
See at least: "for controlling propulsion of a marine vessel" ([0036]); "controlling a marine vessel (10)" ([0011])
Rationale: The method is for controlling a marine vessel, and specifically controls its propulsion system which includes a joystick maneuvering device.
comprising: obtaining a requested release input of an input source of the maneuvering device 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" ([0058])
Rationale: The described action of a user releasing the joystick, causing it to return to the centered position, is obtaining a requested release input of an input source... to move from a displaced position towards an equilibrium position.
obtaining a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel;
See at least: "receiving a vessel speed parameter" ([0053]); "input from a vessel speed sensor 120" ([0070])
Rationale: Receiving a vessel speed parameter is obtaining a longitudinal speed of the marine vessel.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
and controlling adjustment of a movement resistance of the input source based on the requested release input and the longitudinal speed.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
and controlling adjustment of a movement resistance of the input source
See at least: "command the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to adjust the MRF resistance force" ([0005])
Rationale: Commanding adjustment of the MRF resistance force impeding joystick motion is controlling adjustment of a movement resistance of the input source.
based on the requested release input and the longitudinal speed.
See at least: "provide tactile feedback ... by selectively commanding the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to adjust the MRF resistance force based, at least in part, on variations in the operational parameter" ([0005]); "based, at least in part, on the current ground speed of the work vehicle" ([0006]); "selectively impeding joystick motion when returning to a centered position after displacement therefrom" ([0066])
Rationale: The system teaches adjusting resistance force based on an operational parameter, explicitly including current ground speed (the longitudinal speed). It further teaches selectively impeding joystick motion specifically when returning to a centered position (the requested release input). A person of ordinary skill would understand that applying the disclosed speed-based control logic to the disclosed return-to-center resistance behavior yields adjustment based on the requested release input and the longitudinal speed.
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 modify the computer-implemented marine vessel control method of Derginer to include haptic feedback control based on joystick release and vessel speed. A person of ordinary skill, seeking to improve operator control and safety by providing speed-appropriate tactile feedback through the joystick, would be motivated to integrate the method of controlling a variable resistance mechanism based on joystick release and vehicle speed—as explicitly taught by Kenkel for work vehicles—into the marine vessel control method of Derginer. Applying the speed-based resistance control law to the specific context of the joystick returning to center (as taught by both references) yields a predictable result: a computer-implemented method that adjusts joystick return resistance based on both release input and vessel speed.
Regarding Claim 18,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is provided in the method of Claim 18.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer teaches:
A method for controlling navigation of a marine vessel,
See at least: "A method of controlling propulsion of a marine vessel" ([0036]); "the full vessel control mode to enable user control of vessel velocity and direction" ([0057])
Rationale: Derginer expressly discloses a method for controlling a marine vessel, including controlling velocity and direction, which constitutes controlling navigation of the marine vessel.
comprising: providing a maneuvering device according to claim 1;
See at least: "A marine propulsion system (100) for a marine vessel (10) includes a joystick (40) ... and a control system (33)" (Abstract); "a joystick (40)" ([0053])
Rationale: Derginer discloses a marine vessel control system that includes a joystick-based maneuvering device. The maneuvering device according to claim 1 (with its variable resistance features) is established by the prior combination with Kenkel, thereby providing such a device in the method.
and controlling navigation of the marine vessel
See at least: "the full vessel control mode to enable user control of vessel velocity and direction" ([0057])
Rationale: Controlling vessel velocity and direction is controlling navigation of the marine vessel.
by navigational commands
See at least: "The control system (33) [is] configured to ... receive a joystick position" (Abstract); "receive a joystick position" (Claim 1); "receive a joystick position from the joystick" ([0053])
Rationale: The joystick position received by the control system constitutes a control command used to control vessel motion, i.e., navigational commands.
from the maneuvering device.
See at least: "a joystick (40)" ([0053]); "receive a joystick position from the joystick" ([0053])
Rationale: The navigational commands (joystick position signals) are received from the joystick, i.e., 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 implement the marine vessel navigation control method of Derginer using the maneuvering device of Claim 1 (as established by incorporating Kenkel's variable-resistance joystick teachings). A person of ordinary skill, seeking to improve operator interface and control precision in the known method of controlling marine vessel navigation via a joystick, would be motivated to integrate the commercially proven, variable-resistance haptic feedback technology from Kenkel to provide enhanced tactile feedback. This integration yields the predictable result of a method where navigation is controlled by commands from a maneuvering device that provides speed- and condition-responsive tactile feedback.
Regarding Claim 19,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the method of Claim 17, which is the basis for Claim 19.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
A computer program product
See at least: "control system (33)" ([0053]); "controller 34" ([0073])
Rationale: A control system with a controller for executing programmed instructions constitutes a computer program product in the form of executable control logic.
comprising program code
See at least: "control system (33)" ([0053]); "controller 34" ([0073])
Rationale: The programmed control logic executed by the controller constitutes program code.
for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry.
See at least: "control system (33)" ([0053]); "controller 34" ([0073])
Rationale: The controller is processing circuitry that executes the control logic (program code) to perform control functions.
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 combined method of Claim 17 as a computer program product. A person of ordinary skill, designing the marine vessel control system of Derginer with the haptic feedback control of Kenkel, would be motivated to implement the integrated control method as software (program code) stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium (as explicitly taught by Kenkel) and executed by the processing circuitry of the vessel's control system (as taught by Derginer). This yields the predictable result of a computer program product that performs the method of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 20,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the method of Claim 17, which is the basis for Claim 20.
Disclosure by Kenkel
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
See at least: “storage media suitable for storing computer-readable code or instructions” ([0034]); “Such computer-readable instructions may be stored within a non-volatile sector of memory 48 … or … in other storage media …” ([0034]).
Rationale: The reference expressly discloses storage media for computer-readable instructions, including non-volatile storage, which corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
comprising instructions,
See at least: “Such computer-readable instructions may be stored …” ([0034])
Rationale: The “computer-readable instructions” are the claimed “instructions.”
which when executed by the processing circuitry,
See at least: “the controller architecture includes a processing subsystem 46 and memory 48” ([0034]); and the above “computer-readable instructions” stored in memory/storage media ([0034]).
Rationale: The processing subsystem is the claimed processing circuitry that executes the stored instructions.
cause the processing circuitry to perform the method.
See at least: “Such computer-readable instructions may be stored … designed to carry-out the various previously-described functions.” ([0034]).
Rationale: The “previously-described functions” include the disclosed control functionality (monitoring joystick position/movement and selectively commanding resistance force based on an operational parameter such as ground speed) as part of the controller architecture’s operations.
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 combined marine-vessel control method of Claim 17 as software embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claims 8-10 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 referred to as Walker.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Derginer and Kenkel establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 1, which is the basis for Claim 8.
Disclosure by Derginer
Derginer discloses:
wherein the control unit is further configured
See at least: "a control system (33) configured to" (Abstract)
Rationale: The control system (33) in Derginer is the control unit that executes configured control logic.
where the marine vessel is travelling.
See at least: "controlling propulsion of the marine vessel" ([0053]); "vessel speed sensor 120" ([0070])
Rationale: The system operates where the marine vessel is travelling, as it controls propulsion and uses a vessel speed sensor to measure travel speed.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
to control the variable resistance device
based on navigable water conditions
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
to control the variable resistance device
See at least: "the controller architecture 50 may selectively command the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56" ([0028])
Rationale: The controller architecture 50 is the control unit, and it is configured to control the variable resistance device (MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56).
based on conditions
See at least: "provide tactile feedback...by selectively commanding the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to adjust the MRF resistance force based, at least in part, on variations in the operational parameter." ([0005])
Rationale: Kenkel explicitly teaches that the control unit adjusts the variable resistance based on sensor data indicative of an operational parameter. This establishes the generic control framework of adjusting resistance based on a sensed condition.
Claim Limitation Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Derginer and Kenkel
After combining the teachings of Derginer and Kenkel, the following is not explicitly disclosed:
based on navigable water conditions
Disclosure by Walker
Walker discloses:
navigable water conditions
See at least: "metocean conditions" (Page 3 of 28, ll. 26); "The metocean data used to vary vessel speed may include, but is not limited to:…" (Page 13 of 28, line 12)
Rationale: Walker defines the environmental factors constituting navigable water conditions, namely meteorological and oceanographic (metocean) data including wind speeds, wave heights, and tidal currents. It teaches that these conditions are monitored and used as decision inputs for marine operations.
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 control unit to adjust joystick resistance based on navigable water conditions. A person of ordinary skill, designing haptic feedback for the marine joystick system of Derginer, would understand that vessel control and safety are directly influenced by environmental factors such as wind, waves, and current. Walker confirms that these navigable water conditions are the standard metocean parameters monitored and used for operational decisions in marine contexts. The haptic control system of Kenkel provides a proven framework for adjusting joystick resistance based on a variable operational parameter. It would have been a predictable and logical design choice for the PHOSITA to select the most relevant marine environmental parameters—navigable water conditions, as the input "operational parameter" to the haptic control framework of Kenkel, thereby providing the operator with tactile feedback responsive to the actual sea state for improved control and safety. This integration represents the straightforward application of a known control strategy (parameter-based haptic adjustment) to a new domain using that domain's well-known and critical operational parameters.
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination of Derginer, Kenkel, and Walker establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 8, which is the basis for Claim 9.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the requested release input is ignored
in response to said navigable water conditions
indicating one of more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
being above respective predefined threshold values.
Disclosure by Kenkel
Kenkel discloses:
wherein the requested release input is ignored
See at least: "the controller architecture may command the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to increase the MRF resistance force to impede continued movement of the joystick" ([0063])
Rationale: Commanding the mechanism to increase resistance to impede continued movement of the joystick as it returns to center constitutes ignoring the user's requested release input to allow that return.
in response to said navigable water conditions
See at least: "provide tactile feedback... by selectively commanding the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to adjust the MRF resistance force based, at least in part, on variations in the operational parameter." ([0005])
Rationale: This teaches the control unit acts in response to a monitored condition (an operational parameter). Here, navigable water conditions are that parameter.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Derginer and Kenkel
After combining the teachings of Derginer and Kenkel, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
indicating one of more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
being above respective predefined threshold values.
Disclosure by Walker
Walker discloses:
indicating one of more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
See at least: "wind speeds and wave heights" (Page 6, line 12); "tidal currents" (Page 6, line 13)
Rationale: Walker explicitly identifies wind speed, wave height and current strength as the specific parameters that define navigable water conditions.
being above respective predefined threshold values.
See at least: "metocean limits" (Page 6, line 11); "the metocean conditions in which it is able to transit" (Page 6, line 16-17)
Rationale: The reference teaches that operations are governed by predefined threshold values (limits) for these metocean conditions, and decisions are made based on whether conditions are above or below these thresholds.
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 marine maneuvering device to ignore a release input when hazardous sea conditions are detected. A person of ordinary skill, designing for safety in the marine control system of Derginer, would seek to prevent unintended vessel maneuvers due to sudden joystick return in dangerous weather. Kenkel teaches a haptic control system that can negate a joystick's return-to-center motion by increasing resistance in response to a sensor input. Walker establishes that wind speed, wave height, and current strength are the critical safety parameters for marine operations and defines the practice of using predefined threshold values to gate operational decisions. It would have been a predictable and logical integration to use the threshold comparison logic of Walker to trigger the release-input-ignoring (resistance-increasing) function of Kenkel within the marine joystick system of Derginer, thereby enhancing safety by maintaining a set command in poor sea conditions.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Derginer, Kenkel, and Walker establishes the maneuvering device of Claim 9, which is the basis for Claim 10.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by Derginer
Derginer does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control unit is configured to control the variable resistance device
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
in response to said navigable water conditions
indicating one of 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 may selectively command the MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56" ([0028])
Rationale: The controller architecture 50 is the control unit, and it is configured to control the variable resistance device (MRF joystick resistance mechanism 56).
to adjust the resistance of movements of the input source
See at least: "controllable to vary an MRF resistance force resisting movement of the joystick" ([0005])
Rationale: Varying the MRF resistance force is adjusting the resistance of movements of the input source (joystick).
in response to said navigable water conditions
See at least: "provide tactile feedback... by selectively commanding the MRF joystick resistance mechanism to adjust the MRF resistance force based, at least in part, on variations in the operational parameter." ([0005])
Rationale: This teaches the control unit acts in response to a monitored condition (an operational parameter). Here, navigable water conditions are that parameter.
Claim Limitations Not Explicitly Disclosed by the Combination of Derginer and Kenkel
After combining the teachings of Derginer and Kenkel, the following are not explicitly disclosed:
indicating one of more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
being below said respective predefined threshold values.
Disclosure by Walker
Walker discloses:
indicating one of more of a wind speed, wave height and current strength
See at least: "wind speeds and wave heights" (Page 6, line 12); "tidal currents" (Page 6, line 13)
Rationale: Walker explicitly identifies wind speed, wave height and current strength as the specific parameters that define navigable water conditions.
being below said respective predefined threshold values.
See at least: "metocean limits" (Page 6, line 11); "the metocean conditions in which it is able to transit" (Page 6, line 16-17)
Rationale: The reference teaches that operations are governed by predefined threshold values (limits) for these metocean conditions, and decisions are made based on whether conditions are above or below these thresholds. The condition of being below a threshold is the logical complement to being above, and both are inherent in any threshold-based control system.
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 control unit to adjust joystick resistance when navigable water conditions are below predefined thresholds. A person of ordinary skill, designing the marine control system of Derginer, would seek to optimize operator control and comfort across varying sea states. Kenkel teaches a haptic control system that adjusts joystick resistance in response to a sensor input. Walker establishes that wind speed, wave height, and current strength are critical marine parameters with predefined threshold values used to gate operational decisions. It would have been a predictable and logical extension to use the threshold comparison logic of Walker (including both above- and below-threshold conditions) to trigger appropriate resistance adjustments from the system of Kenkel within the marine joystick system of Derginer. Specifically, adjusting resistance (e.g., reducing it to allow easier joystick return) when conditions are below safety thresholds is an obvious design choice to enhance operator control in favorable conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Andrasko (US 10,703,456 B1)
Andrasko is in the same marine navigation-control field and discloses a manually rotatable steering wheel coupled to a controllable resistance device. A controller receives vessel speed (e.g., from speed/engine sensors) and commands the resistance device to vary the resistance force felt at the wheel, enabling speed-dependent steering feel and mode behaviors. These teachings map directly to Claims 1–3’s variable-resistance logic.
Kirchhoff (US 9,248,898 B1)
Kirchhoff discloses marine vessel maneuvering using input devices having neutral and non-neutral detent positions plus a joystick that commands propulsion changes to control vessel speed. It ties control actions to the joystick being released and to lever/joystick position states, providing prior-art support for “requested release input,” equilibrium/displaced positions, and speed-related operating modes in the claimed maneuvering device and overall methods.
Thiel (US 8,836,493 B2)
Thiel teaches a haptic control input (pedal/lever) movable between closed and open positions, with an actuator (e.g., torque motor) and controller that apply controlled forces to change resistance and bias the input back toward equilibrium. It states the approach applies to hand-operated levers, making it analogous art for marine maneuvering controls and for Claims 1, 6–7, 11–13 as design guidance.
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