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 the Application
Claims 1-9 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 11/21/2024 and 07/02/2025 has/have been taken into account.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Remote Control Device And Display Support Mechanism”.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/956,572 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 is encompassed by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/962,114 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claim 1 is encompassed by the claim of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/962,114 in view of Hwang et al. (US 8,011,623). The scope of claim 1 is encompassed by the claim of the reference application however the reference application fails to recite a support mechanism having an arm structure as recited in claims 2-9 of the instant application. However, Hwang teaches an arm (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300, 500) having the recited arm pieces and rotational connections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arm of the reference application with the arm in Hwang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a support mechanism that provides a wide range of movement but takes up a small volume when stowed (Hwang: Col. 1, Ln. 23-49), thereby improving adjustability without causing unwanted obstructions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites “a base end portion of the support arm is coupled to the main body case such that the support arm is configured to be rotated about the rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the remote control device main body, and a distal end portion of the support arm is coupled to the display case such that the display unit is configured to be rotated about the rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the support arm” (emphasis added). – It is unclear how a base end and distal end of an arm can rotate about the same axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2007/0249244) in view of Ullman (US 2018/0141632).
In regards to Claim 1, Watanabe discloses a remote control device for remotely controlling a ship propulsion device provided in a ship, the remote control device comprising: a remote control device main body including: a main body case (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 2) installed on an installation surface provided in the ship; and a remote control lever (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 5, 12 - left) attached to the main body case; a unit provided outside the main body case, and including a case (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 12 - right); and a support mechanism (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 5 - right) that couples the unit and the remote control device main body to each other and that supports the display unit, wherein, in a case where a direction perpendicular to the installation surface is defined as an up-down direction, a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction is defined as a front-back direction, and a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction and the front-back direction is defined as a left-right direction, the support mechanism couples the display unit and the remote control device main body such that the display unit is configured to be rotated with respect to the remote control device main body about a rotation axis extending in the left-right direction (Watanabe: Fig. 3).
Watanabe fails to disclose a display unit provided outside the main body case, and including a display case and a display provided in the display case. However, Ullman teaches a display unit (Ullman: Fig. 9; 1) provided outside a main body case, and including a display case and a display (Ullman: Fig. 9; 20) provided in the display case.
Watanabe and Ullman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. control devices and display supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the case in Watanabe with the display and mode functionality from Ullman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means of graphically depicting and selecting different throttle modes for the device, thereby improving the device’s functionality (Ullman: [0026]).
In regards to Claim 2, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 1, wherein the support mechanism is a support arm (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 5 - right) extending in a direction intersecting with the left-right direction, a base end portion of the support arm is coupled to the main body case (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 2) such that the support arm is configured to be rotated about the rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the remote control device main body, and a distal end portion of the support arm is coupled to the display case (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 12 - right).
In regards to Claim 7, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 2, wherein an upper surface (Watanabe: Annotated Fig. 3; U) of the main body case is curved such that the upper surface draws an arc centered on the rotation axis about which a base end portion of the support arm (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 5 - right) rotates with respect to the remote control device main body.
In regards to Claim 8, Watanabe, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 2, wherein the rotation axis about which a base end portion of the support arm (Watanabe: Fig. 1-3; 5 - right) rotates with respect to the remote control device main body is in alignment with a rotation axis of the remote control lever (Watanabe: Fig. 3; shows aligned axes).
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimpara et al. (US 2022/0363360) and Hwang et al. (US 8,011,623).
In regards to Claim 1, Kimpara discloses a remote control device for remotely controlling a ship propulsion device provided in a ship, the remote control device comprising: a remote control device main body including: a main body case (Kimpara: Fig. 3-6; 84) installed on an installation surface provided in the ship; and a remote control lever (Kimpara: Fig. 3-6; 11) attached to the main body case; a display unit (Kimpara: Fig. 6; 31) provided outside the main body case, and including a display case and a display (Kimpara: Fig. 6; 32) provided in the display case; a support means (Kimpara: Fig. 3, 6; 83, 90) that couples the display unit and the remote control device main body to each other and that supports the display unit.
Kimpara fails to disclose a support mechanism that couples the display unit and the remote control device main body to each other and that supports the display unit, wherein, in a case where a direction perpendicular to the installation surface is defined as an up-down direction, a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction is defined as a front-back direction, and a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction and the front-back direction is defined as a left-right direction, the support mechanism couples the display unit and the remote control device main body such that the display unit is configured to be rotated with respect to the remote control device main body about a rotation axis extending in the left-right direction. However, Hwang teaches a support mechanism (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300, 500) that couples a display unit (Hwang: Fig. 1, 5; 100) and a main body (Hwang: Fig. 1, 5; 800) to each other and that supports the display unit, wherein, in a case where a direction perpendicular to the installation surface is defined as an up-down direction, a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction is defined as a front-back direction, and a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction and the front-back direction is defined as a left-right direction, the support mechanism couples the display unit and the device main body such that the display unit is configured to be rotated with respect to the device main body about a rotation axis extending in the left-right direction.
Kimpara and Hwang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. display supports. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display support means and housings in Kimpara with the support mechanism from Hwang, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a support mechanism that provides a wide range of movement but takes up a small volume when stowed (Hwang: Col. 1, Ln. 23-49), thereby improving adjustability of the display without causing unwanted obstructions.
In regards to Claim 2, Kimpara, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 1, wherein the support mechanism (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300, 500) is a support arm extending in a direction intersecting with the left-right direction, a base end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 531, 533, 633) of the support arm is coupled to the main body case such that the support arm is configured to be rotated about the rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the remote control device main body, and a distal end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101) of the support arm is coupled to the display case.
In regards to Claim 3, Kimpara, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 1, wherein the support mechanism (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300, 500) is a support arm extending in a direction intersecting with the left-right direction, a base end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 531, 533, 633) of the support arm is coupled to the main body case, and a distal end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101) of the support arm is coupled to the display case such that the display unit is configured to be rotated about the rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the support arm.
In regards to Claim 4, Kimpara, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 1, wherein the support mechanism (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300, 500) is a support arm extending in a direction intersecting with the left-right direction, a base end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 531, 533, 633) of the support arm is coupled to the main body case such that the support arm is configured to be rotated about the rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the remote control device main body, and a distal end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101) of the support arm is coupled to the display case such that the display unit is configured to be rotated about the rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the support arm.
In regards to Claim 5, Kimpara, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 1, wherein the support mechanism (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300, 500) is a support arm extending in a direction intersecting with the left-right direction, the support arm includes: a first arm piece (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 500) forming a base end side portion of the support arm; and a second arm piece (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300) forming a distal end side portion of the support arm, a base end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 340) of the second arm piece is coupled to a distal end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 521, 523) of the first arm piece such that the second arm piece is configured to be rotated about a rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the first arm piece, a base end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 531, 533, 633) of the first arm piece is coupled to the main body case, and the distal end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101) of the second arm piece is coupled to the display case.
In regards to Claim 6, Kimpara, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 2, wherein the support arm includes: a first arm piece (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 500) forming a base end side portion of the support arm; and a second arm piece (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101, 300) forming a distal end side portion of the support arm, and a base end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 340) of the second arm piece is coupled to a distal end portion of the first arm piece such that the second arm piece is configured to be rotated around a rotation axis extending in the left-right direction with respect to the first arm piece.
In regards to Claim 9, Kimpara, as modified, teaches the remote control device according to claim 2, wherein the display unit (Kimpara: Fig. 6; 31) is coupled to a distal end portion (Hwang: Fig. 4-5; 101) of the support arm such that the display unit is configured to be rotated about a rotation axis extending in a direction perpendicular to a screen of the display (Hwang: Fig. 6A; Col. 11, Ln. 10-14).
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
672
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Watanabe; Fig. 3
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights