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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response dated May 12, 2026. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated May 12, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous drawing objections; maintains the previous specification objections; maintains the previous abstract objections; and maintains the previous prior art rejections
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In contrast to Applicant’s assertions, the MPEP does require specific paragraph numbering including “at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001])”; see MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.52(b)(6). Examiner notes that the rule specifically says “should” rather than the commonly used optional term “may” pertaining to this rule. For at least these reasons, Examiner is maintaining the paragraph numbering objection.
Examiner notes that while the minimum word requirement for the Abstract has been remedied, the way in which it was remedied created a new objectionable issue, as discussed further below.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claims 1 and 2 (see Response at p. 11), Karnick explicitly discloses the control of a steering device based on an estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft; see at least [0049] and [0059]. Specifically, Karnick takes into account the speed of the vessel when determining the steering device control required (i.e., a non-steering influence). Examiner notes that it appears that Applicant is insinuating that vehicle speed should not be considered a non-steering influence. However, the speed of the vehicle is a non-steering influence and is taken into account when determining the steering ratio (i.e., movement of the steering device relative to the watercraft). Furthermore, Examiner notes that, for argument sake, even if the speed was not considered a non-steering influence, the speed is based on a reaction to external forces (e.g., wind and currents) and the steering ratio is based on the speed meaning that the steering ration is based at least indirectly on the external forces. For at least these reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
In contrast to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 6 (see Response at p. 12), the mere recitation of something not being needed doesn’t negate the fact that it is still taught that it may be used. For at least these reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
In contrast to Applicant’s assertions pertaining to claims 10 and 11 (see Response at p. 13), Examiner asserts that the manipulation of the trim tabs/ballast either directly or indirectly takes into account the non-steering influences of the surroundings such as wind and current. In other words, the external forces impact the manipulation of the trim tabs/ballast which are taken into account when determining the speed of the watercraft which, as the primary reference indicates, impacts the steering control of the watercraft. Examiner notes that the claims must include additional language to limit this interpretation. For at least these reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains the corresponding rejections.
The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraph numbering should include an additional leading zero for the ones that have only three digits such that all paragraph numbers include the same number of digits. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in claim-like format rather than in narrative form. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0306260 (hereinafter, “Karnick”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 1, Karnick discloses A method of controlling movement, relative to a watercraft, of at least one steering device on the watercraft (see at least Fig. 6A, [0025], and [0027]), the method comprising:
causing the at least one steering device to move relative to the watercraft in response to (see at least [0027]; the control system comprises one or more controllers and may cause a steering device, such as the steering actuator 38, to move relative to the marine vessel), at least:
a steering-input position of a steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0025], [0049] and [0059]; an input position for the steering actuator may be received via, for example, a steering wheel or other input device, and the relative position may be automatically updated based on the input); and
an estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft (see at least [0049] and [0059]; the wind and/or current may be taken into account for steering and navigating purposes. Additionally/alternatively the speed of the vessel may likewise be taken into consideration).
Regarding claim 2, Karnick discloses An apparatus for controlling movement, relative to a watercraft, of at least one steering device on the watercraft (see at least Fig. 2, Fig. 6A, [0025], and [0027]), the apparatus comprising:
at least one controller configured to, at least, cause the at least one steering device to move relative to the watercraft in response to (see at least [0027]; the control system comprises one or more controllers and may cause a steering device, such as the steering actuator 38, to move relative to the marine vessel), at least:
a steering-input position of a steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0025], [0049] and [0059]; an input position for the steering actuator may be received via, for example, a steering wheel or other input device, and the relative position may be automatically updated based on the input); and
an estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft (see at least [0049] and [0059]; the wind and/or current may be taken into account for steering and navigating purposes. Furthermore, the speed of the vessel may likewise be taken into consideration).
Regarding claim 3, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft comprises an estimated non-steering influence on a direction of movement of the watercraft (see at least [0059]; the non-steering influence may be current in the same direction of the marine vessel).
Regarding claim 4, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft comprises an estimated non-steering influence on a rate of change over time of a direction of movement of the watercraft (see at least [0022]-[0024]; the speed, including slowing and accelerating, is estimated and used to determine marine vessel movement).
Regarding claim 5, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the at least one controller is further configured to, at least, estimate the estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft (see at least Fig. 6B and [0059]; direction of travel and speed of the marine vessel are both estimated).
Regarding claim 12, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the at least one controller is further configured to, at least, cause the at least one steering device to move in response to, at least:
the steering-input position of the steering input relative to the watercraft (see at least [0025], [0049] and [0059]; an input position for the steering actuator may be received via, for example, a steering wheel or other input device, and the relative position may be automatically updated based on the input); and
an association between steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft and respective target quantities related to direction of the watercraft (see at least Fig. 6B, [0025], and [0035]; the steering input is associated with target threshold speeds and relative direction of the watercraft and the water).
Regarding claim 13, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein causing the at least one steering device to move comprises causing the at least one steering device to move in response to, at least, a direction difference between:
a measured direction quantity related to the direction of travel of the watercraft (see at least Fig. 6B and [0058]; the direction of travel relative to the current is determined); and
a desired direction quantity related to the direction of travel of the watercraft (see at least Fig. 6B, [0045], and [0058]; it is determined whether the marine vessel is going with or against the current and a steering input is received determining the direction relative to the direction of travel of the marine vessel).
Regarding claim 14, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the at least one controller is further configured to, at least, identify the desired direction quantity according to, at least:
the steering-input position of the steering input (see at least [0045]; the steering angle input may be determined); and
the association between steering-input positions of the steering input relative to the watercraft and respective target quantities (see at least Fig. 6B, [0045], and [0058]; the desired direction is based on the steering input and, for example, speed value and turn angle of the watercraft).
Regarding claim 15, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the target, measured, and desired quantities are respective directions of travel of the watercraft (see at least Fig. 6B, [0045], and [0058]; the target, measured, and derived quantities depend on relative directions of the marine vessel and the water).
Regarding claim 16, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the target, measured, and desired quantities are respective rates of change over time of the direction of travel of the watercraft (see at least Fig. 6, [0022]-[0024], [0045], and [0058]; the speed, including slowing and accelerating, is estimated and used to determine marine vessel movement).
Regarding claim 17, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the at least one controller is further configured to, at least, cause the at least one steering device to move in response to, at least, a heading difference between:
a measured heading quantity related to a heading of the watercraft (see at least [0029]; the heading is used to determine direction of travel); and
a measured direction quantity related to a direction of travel of the watercraft (see at least [0029]; the heading is used to determine direction of travel relative to the heading for determining whether the marine vessel is moving forward or in reverse).
Regarding claim 18, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the measured heading quantity is a measured heading of the watercraft, and the measured direction quantity is a measured direction of travel of the watercraft (see at least [0029]; the heading is used to determine direction of travel relative to the heading for determining whether the marine vessel is moving forward or in reverse).
Regarding claim 19, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Additionally, Karnick discloses wherein the measured heading quantity is a measured rate of change over time of heading of the watercraft, and the measured direction quantity is a measured rate of change over time of direction of travel of the watercraft (see at least [0021] and [0024]; the rate of change of the heading and travel direction is determined when slowing and turning the marine vessel. The information is used for navigating the marine vessel).
Regarding claim 20, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Karnick discloses A system comprising:
the apparatus of claim 2 (see at least the citations above pertaining to claim 2);
the watercraft, wherein the apparatus is on the watercraft (see at least Fig. 1);
the at least one steering device, wherein the at least one steering device comprises at least one steering actuator operable to steer the watercraft, and the at least one steering actuator is coupled to at least one engine or to at least one rudder on the watercraft and operable to change a steering angle of the at least one engine or of the at least one rudder relative to the watercraft to steer the watercraft in response to movement of the at least one steering actuator relative to the watercraft (see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and [0026]-[0027]; a steering actuator may operate via the steering wheel and a servo motor for adjusting a marine vessel rudder relative to the watercraft for steering purposes); and
the steering input, wherein the steering input comprises an electronic helm on the watercraft (see at least [0027]; the steering input may be located at an electronic help of the marine vessel).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnick as applied to claim 5 above, in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0089259 (hereinafter, “Williams”; previously of record).
Regarding claim 6, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. However, Karnick does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6. Williams, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to estimate the estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft in response to at least an estimation of a mass of the watercraft (see at least [0037], [0041], and [0184]; the weight of the watercraft, including cargo, may be taken into account when determining influences on the movement of the watercraft).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Karnick with the teachings of Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve recreational safety of a watercraft; see at least Williams at [0002].
Regarding claim 10, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. However, Karnick does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10. Williams, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to estimate the estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft in response to at least estimated positions of trim tabs of the watercraft (see at least [0041]; the trim tabs of the watercraft may be taken into account when determining influences on the movement of the watercraft).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Karnick with the teachings of Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve recreational safety of a watercraft; see at least Williams at [0002].
Regarding claim 11, Karnick discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. However, Karnick does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 11. Williams, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one controller is configured to estimate the estimated non-steering influence on movement of the watercraft in response to at least a ballast configuration of a ballast system of the watercraft (see at least [0041]; the ballast of the watercraft may be taken into account when determining influences on the movement of the watercraft).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Karnick with the teachings of Williams, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve recreational safety of a watercraft; see at least Williams at [0002].
Additional Relevant Art (Previously of Record)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0038771 which pertains to navigation control of a marine vessel having a ballast, trim tabs, and a defined weight.
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 TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 PM.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights