DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 11/22/2024 and 06/30/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-4 are pending in this application. In the claim set filed 11/22/2024:
Claim(s) 1 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Title Objection
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 DEVICE FOR REMOTELY CONTROLLING PROPULSION OF A SHIP
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIMPARA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0363360 A1) referenced as Kimpara moving forward.
With respect 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 installed on an installation surface provided in the ship; and a remote control lever attached to the main body case” [Kimpara; In Fig. 3, Kimpara discloses a remote control device(denoted 11) comprising a case body(denoted 82) that forms a connection between an operation lever(denoted 16) and a base portion(denoted 83) that connects to the ship, wherein the operator may increase/decrease rotation speed of the ship's engine using the operation lever(¶: 0041); See also: Fig. 6; ¶: 0049, 0062, 0063];
“a display unit provided outside the main body case, and including a display case and a display provided in the display case” [Kimpara; In Fig. 6, Kimpara discloses a gauge housing(denoted 34) and display device(denoted 32) provided therein; See also: ¶: 0049, 0062, 0063];
“and a support mechanism that couples the display unit and the remote control device main body to each other, and that supports the display unit such that the display unit is disposed at a position separated from the remote control device main body” [Kimpara; In Fig. 3, Kimpara discloses that the base portion(denoted 83) forms a connection between the display device(denoted 32) and the case body(denoted 82) of the remote control device such that the display device and remote control device are connected but at separate positions from one another; See also: Fig. 6; ¶: 0049, 0061, 0062, 0063].
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 of this title, 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimpara in view of CHEN et al. (Chinese Patent Publication 215851825 U) referenced as Chen moving forward.
With respect to claim 2, Kimpara does not specifically state: “wherein the support mechanism couples the display unit and the remote control device main body such that the display unit is configured to be moved with respect to the remote control device main body.”
Chen, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling watercrafts, teaches: “wherein the support mechanism couples the display unit and the remote control device main body such that the display unit is configured to be moved with respect to the remote control device main body” [Chen; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Chen discloses a plurality of linkages(denoted 2.4.1 - 2.4.6 in Fig. 5) that form a support mechanism to enable a display device to flip up or down and thereby rotate with respect to a flat surface connected to a remote control device for a ship using the process illustrated in at least Fig. 7; Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0036-0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for remotely controlling propulsion of a ship as disclosed by Kimpara to incorporate the teachings regarding integrating a foldable display specifically in a remote-control station used to remotely control a ship as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for remotely controlling propulsion of a ship that is more robust in its ability to enable a user to remotely pilot a ship while simultaneously preventing obstructions to the driver, through the foldable display interface, due to the display blocking a ship’s porthole [Chen; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 3, Kimpara does not specifically state: “wherein, in a case where a direction perpendicular to the installation surface is defined as an up-down direction and a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction is defined as a front-back direction, the support mechanism couples the display unit and the remote control device main body such that: the support mechanism is configured to move the display unit from an upper side of the remote control device main body to a front side of the remote control device main body; or the support mechanism is configured to move the display unit from the upper side of the remote control device main body to a back side of the remote control device main body.”
Chen, teaches: “wherein, in a case where a direction perpendicular to the installation surface is defined as an up-down direction and a direction perpendicular to the up-down direction is defined as a front-back direction, the support mechanism couples the display unit and the remote control device main body such that: the support mechanism is configured to move the display unit from an upper side of the remote control device main body to a front side of the remote control device main body; or the support mechanism is configured to move the display unit from the upper side of the remote control device main body to a back side of the remote control device main body” [Chen; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Chen discloses that the foldable display may be stowed such that the display moves from a fixed position, demonstrated in the final step of Fig. 7, to a flat position demonstrated in the first step of Fig. 7. The process of folding the display in the reverse direction disclosed in Fig. 7 has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited: "or the support mechanism is configured to move the display unit from the upper side of the remote-control device main body to a back side of the remote-control device main body;" Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0036-0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for remotely controlling propulsion of a ship as disclosed by Kimpara to incorporate the teachings regarding integrating a foldable display specifically in a remote-control station used to remotely control a ship as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for remotely controlling propulsion of a ship that is more robust in its ability to enable a user to remotely pilot a ship while simultaneously preventing obstructions to the driver, through the foldable display interface, due to the display blocking a ship’s porthole [Chen; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 4, Kimpara does not specifically state: “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, a length of the display case in the left-right direction is longer than a length of a lower surface of the main body case facing the installation surface in the left-right direction.”
Chen, teaches: “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, a length of the display case in the left-right direction is longer than a length of a lower surface of the main body case facing the installation surface in the left-right direction” [Chen; In at least Fig. 1, Chen discloses a "vehicle telegraph"(denoted 1.3 and illustrated comprising two levers) for remotely controlling a vehicle with a central console display(denoted 1.2) that is clearly wider(i.e. has a longer length) than the width of the levers/connection between the levers and station. The Examiner has interpreted the disclosed ratio of widths between the respective console display and the "vehicle telegraph" as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's recited: "a length of the display case in the left-right direction is longer than a length of a lower surface of the main body case facing the installation surface in the left-right direction," in view of at least definitions set forth by Applicant's Fig. 3A; See also: ¶: 0026, 0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for remotely controlling propulsion of a ship as disclosed by Kimpara to incorporate the teachings regarding integrating a foldable display specifically in a remote-control station used to remotely control a ship as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for remotely controlling propulsion of a ship that is more robust in its ability to enable a user to remotely pilot a ship while simultaneously preventing obstructions to the driver, through the foldable display interface, due to the display blocking a ship’s porthole [Chen; ¶: 0002-0004].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Watanabe et al. (United States Patent Publication 2007/0249244 A1) discloses: A remote control unit can be used for a boat having a plurality of propulsion units to perform output adjustment and tilt/trim angle adjustment of the propulsion units. Operating levers can be capable of forward and backward rotational movement to effect shift operation and throttle operation of the propulsion units and can be respectively provided upright on a left side surface and right side surface of a body. A plurality of tilt/trim angle adjustment switches can correspond to respective propulsion units and can be provided at positions where they can be operated with fingertips of a hand resting on a palm portion of a top surface of the body with the fingertips pointing generally forward. The palm portion of the top surface can be free of switches.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666