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 the application filed on October 31, 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on January 8, 2025 and September 19, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Request for priority to Provisional App. No. 63/441,106 dated January 25, 2023 is acknowledged. Examiner notes Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application the date of the provisional application. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Additionally, Applicant’s request for priority to U.S. App. No. 18/422,236 dated January 25, 2024 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 8, 20, and 24-26 are of poor quality and are difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 less than the minimum requirement of 50 words. 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”).
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”).
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
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
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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