DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The present application is a continuation of Application No. 18/360,952, which is now U.S. Patent No. 12,162,581, which is a continuation of Application No. 17/417,081, which is now U.S. Patent No. 11,738,846.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 30, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,581. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4 and 7 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1, 12 and 19 of US 12,162,581. In other words, claims 1, 12 and 19 of US 12,162,581 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 1, 4 and 7 and therefore anticipate claims 1, 4 and 7. Since claims 1, 4 and 7 are anticipated by claims 1, 12 and 19 of US 12,162,581, claims 1, 4 and 7 are not patentably distinct from claims 1, 12 and 19 of US 12,162,581, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1, 12 and 19 of US 12,162,581.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,738,846. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 are generic to all that is recited in claims 1 and 13-15 of US 11,738,846. In other words, claims 1 and 13-15 of US 11,738,846 fully encompass the subject matter of claims 1-3 and therefore anticipate claims 1-3. Since claims 1-3 are anticipated by claims 1 and 13-15 of US 11,738,846, claims 1-3 are not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 13-15 of US 11,738,846, regardless of any additional subject matter present in claims 1 and 13-15 of US 11,738,846.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 depend from independent claim 1, and are thus also rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the at least one sensor" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-6 depend from independent claim 4, and are thus also rendered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 9,650,121) in view of Mizutani (US 2005/0199169 A1).
Kinoshita et al. discloses a personal watercraft, as shown in Figures 1-4, which is comprised of a watercraft, defined as Part #1, having a jet powered propulsion mechanism, defined as Part #5, a steering system which includes a steering handle, defined as Part #8, for adjusting an angle of said jet powered propulsion mechanism relative to a longitudinal axis of said watercraft, as shown in Figures 2A-C, a steering sensor, defined as Part #43, and a control unit, defined as Part #48, where said control unit has a controller that is configured to receive a navigation direction from a GNSS receiver, defined as Part #41, and determine a steering angle with a determining unit, defined as Part #484, based on said navigation direction, as shown in Figure 3.
Kinoshita et al., as set forth above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the use of a control unit which includes an electrically actuated device for applying a torque to a steering system for providing enhanced steering control.
Mizutani discloses a steering assist system and method for a boat, as shown in Figures 1-2, which is comprised of a personal watercraft with a steering wheel, defined as Part #7, a steering wheel operation angle sensor, defined as Part #9, a controller, defined as Part #12, with a steering angle calculating circuit, defined as Part #21, and a reaction torque calculating circuit, defined as Part #17, and a reaction torque motor, defined as Part #11, for applying a calculated reaction torque to said steering wheel, as shown in Figure 2, where said reaction torque is applied only by said reaction torque motor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize a watercraft with a controller to calculate a steering angle and a reaction torque, and a torque motor that applies said reaction torque to a steering wheel to enhance steering control, as taught by Mizutani, in combination with the personal watercraft as disclosed by Kinoshita et al. for the purpose of providing a personal watercraft and method with a controller to calculate a steering angle and a reaction torque, and a torque motor that applies said calculated reaction torque to a steering handle in order to enhance steering control of said watercraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
August 13, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights