BOAT CONTROL SYSTEM AND BOAT

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 action is in reply to the Application Number 19/015,794 filed on 01/10/2025. • Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. • This action is made FINAL in response to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 07/24/2026. • The amendments have overcome the claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 19/015,794 filed on 01/10/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US8113892B1) in view of Mercury, “Joystick Piloting for Outboards Manual” of 2014, further in view of Asberg (US5755605A). Regarding claims 1 and 18: Gable teaches: A boat control system for controlling a boat including a boat body, the boat control system comprising: (Gable, Abstract, “A marine propulsion control system ... The controllers cause first, second, and third actuators to move control devices”, and Fig.4 depicts a boat body) PNG media_image1.png 430 544 media_image1.png Greyscale a plurality of boat propulsion devices each being steerable by 180 degrees or more about a steering axis; (Gable, Fig.4 depicts a marine vessel 100 with three propulsion drive units, 101-103, and Fig.5 shows that each of the driving units is able to make rotation from zero to 180 degrees, Col.6, line 33,” rotatable about a generally vertical steering axis”) PNG media_image2.png 489 637 media_image2.png Greyscale a controller configured or programmed to control a thrust and a steering angle of each of the plurality of boat propulsion devices; (Gable,Col.2, line 24, “thrust of outboard motors can be controlled”, claim 14, “first steering actuator is configured to cause an outside port propulsion drive to rotate about a first generally vertical steering axis”) an operator… to move the boat body and output an operation signal to the controller; (Gable,Col.4, lines 8-14, “The manually operable device can be a hand operated steering wheel, a plurality of manually manipulated trim switches, or any other device which are moved by an operator of a marine vessel and cause a plurality of actuators to move in response to those commands”, and Col.3, lines 24-26, “command signal … to a helm control unit from an operator.”) and a sensor to detect a turning of the boat body and output a detection signal to the controller; (Gable,Col.5, lines 18-21, “the second controller is configured to receive the first signal… receipt of the first signal from the first sensor, such as a rotation sensor associated with a steering wheel ”) Gable does not explicitly teach, but Mercury teaches: an operator to accept an operation request (Mercury teaches a trackpad as an operator device to accept an operation request such as Autopilot , page 27, “The autopilot will hold the compass heading that the boat was following when AUTO HEADING was pressed.”) wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform, when the sensor detects a turning of the boat body ( Mercury teaches using an electronic compass to detect turning of boat, page 49, “Perform IMU (compass) calibration and zero heading correction”, page 27, “If the wind or current forces the vessel away from the position where Skyhook was set, Skyhook will start to turn the bow of the vessel back to the original set point.”) Examiner note: Mercury teaches using an electronic compass to detect turning of boat in a situation such as wind or current cause the boat turning away from the position. and no operation request is input to the operator to turn the boat body, (Mercury, page 27, “If the wind or current forces the vessel away from the position where Skyhook was set”) a steering angle change process to change the steering angle of at least one of the plurality of boat propulsion devices to cancel the turning of the boat body. (Mercury, page 25, “Ensure that at least two engines are operating”, page 20, “The computer control system automatically calculates the steering angle of each engine, the throttle level, and the proper gear to push or rotate the boat”, page 27, “If the wind or current forces the vessel away from the position where Skyhook was set, Skyhook will start to turn the bow of the vessel back to the original set point.” and page 26, “If at any time in this process Skyhook is able to overcome the conditions enough to hold a position, it will cease turning the bow”) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings of Mercury to modify Gable, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of include a sensor to detect a turning of the boat body and output a detection signal to the controller; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform, when the sensor detects a turning of the boat body in a status where the operator is not accepting an operation request to turn the boat body, a steering angle change process to change the steering angle of at least one of the plurality of boat propulsion devices to cancel the turning of the boat body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “This feature can be helpful when waiting for space near a fuel dock, waiting for bridges to open, or when the water is too deep for an anchor” (Mercury, page 24) Gable does not explicitly teach, but Asberg teaches: in a status where the steering angle of a first boat propulsion device and the steering angle of a second boat propulsion device are at a default steering angle at which the thrust generated by the first boat propulsion device and the thrust generated by the second boat propulsion device cancel each other out, (Asberg, Fig. 1 and Col.3, lines 47-55, “In a twin drive installation with the drive unit embodiment described above with a leg 6 rotatably mounted in the gear housing 10, the drives are disposed inclined towards each other as can be seen in FIG. 1 … From the helm position, the legs 6 and 7 of the drive units can be turned not only in parallel for steering but also away from each other… so that the steering forces will cancel each other”) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have considered the teachings of Asberg to modify Gable, with a reasonable expectation of success, to implement the technique of include in a status where the steering angle of a first boat propulsion device and the steering angle of a second boat propulsion device are at a default steering angle at which the thrust generated by the first boat propulsion device and the thrust generated by the second boat propulsion device cancel each other out. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it lets the boat automatically cancel drift or spin caused by wind, tide, or hull/motor arrangement. PNG media_image3.png 412 683 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claims 3, 20: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Mercury teaches: The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the steering angle change process while performing a holding control to hold the boat body in a specific orientation. (Mercury, page 27, “Auto heading allows the boat to automatically maintain a compass heading while the boat is underway”, page 24, “The autopilot includes several modes that can steer your vessel to a specific compass heading”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Mercury in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the steering angle change process while performing a holding control to hold the boat body in a specific orientation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “This feature can be helpful when waiting for space near a fuel dock, waiting for bridges to open, or when the water is too deep for an anchor” (Mercury, page 24) Regarding claim 5: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Mercury teaches: The boat control system according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: store an initial azimuth which is an orientation of the boat body when the holding control is started; and terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has returned to the initial azimuth after the steering angle change process has started. (Mercury, Fig.51882 on page 28 depicts that the controller is configured to store an initial azimuth (350°) which is an orientation of the boat body when the auto heading holding control is started, page 27, “Auto heading allows the boat to automatically maintain a compass heading while the boat is underway”, and page 26, “If at any time in this process Skyhook is able to overcome the conditions enough to hold a position, it will cease turning the bow”) PNG media_image4.png 586 797 media_image4.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Mercury in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: store an initial azimuth which is an orientation of the boat body when the holding control is started; and terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has returned to the initial azimuth after the steering angle change process has started. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “This feature can be helpful when waiting for space near a fuel dock, waiting for bridges to open, or when the water is too deep for an anchor” (Mercury, page 24) Regarding claims 7 and 9: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1 and 3. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Mercury teaches: The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has stopped turning. (Mercury, page 24, “This system uses global positioning system (GPS) technology and an electronic compass to automatically control … steering to maintain heading and approximate position.” and page 26, “If at any time in this process Skyhook is able to overcome the conditions enough to hold a position, it will cease turning the bow”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Mercury in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has stopped turning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “This feature can be helpful when waiting for space near a fuel dock, waiting for bridges to open, or when the water is too deep for an anchor” (Mercury, page 24) Regarding claim 16: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gable teaches: The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of boat propulsion devices include: a third boat propulsion device between the first boat propulsion device and the second boat propulsion device; wherein the steering angle change process changes the steering angle of at least one of the first boat propulsion device and the second boat propulsion device. (Gable, Fig.4 depicts a marine vessel 100 with three propulsion drive units, and Col.11, line 1-2,” drive units which are each independently steerable about their individual vertical steering axes”) PNG media_image1.png 430 544 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 17: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 16. Gable teaches: The boat control system according to claim 16, wherein, during the steering angle change process, the controller is configured or programmed to steer the third boat propulsion device in a direction in which the boat body is turning. (Gable, Fig.4 depicts a marine vessel 100 with three propulsion drive units, and Col.11, line 1-2,” drive units which are each independently steerable about their individual vertical steering axes”) Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US8113892B1) in view of Mercury, “Joystick Piloting for Outboards Manual”, 2014, further in view of Asberg (US5755605A) and Yamaha, “Introducing Yamaha's Fully Integrated Boat Control System for Yamaha Outboard-Powered Boats”, 2012. Regarding claims 2, 19: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Yamaha teaches: The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the operator includes: a joystick; and a mode switch to accept an operation request to switch on and off a joystick mode in which the joystick is able to accept an operation request to move the boat body;(Yamaha, page 5, “The Helm Master™ Joystick is the device that allows for side-to-side and rotational movement of the vessel…The Helm Master™ Joystick Control has two control selectors. The Joystick selector is used to activate the joystick.”) wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the steering angle change process. (Yamaha, page 5, “It integrates control of the throttle, shift and steering.”) when the mode switch accepts an operation request to switch the joystick mode from off to on(Yamaha, page 5, “The Joystick selector is used to activate the joystick.”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Yamaha in order to include wherein the operator includes: a joystick; and a mode switch to accept an operation request to switch on and off a joystick mode in which the joystick is able to accept an operation request to move the boat body, and wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the steering angle change process when the mode switch accepts an operation request to switch the joystick mode from off to on. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maneuver the boat intuitively. Regarding claim 4: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, Yamaha, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Mercury teaches: The boat control system according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the steering angle change process while performing a holding control to hold the boat body in a specific orientation. (Mercury, page 27, “Auto heading allows the boat to automatically maintain a compass heading while the boat is underway”, page 24, “automatically control … steering to maintain heading”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Mercury in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the steering angle change process while performing a holding control to hold the boat body in a specific orientation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “This feature can be helpful when waiting for space near a fuel dock, waiting for bridges to open, or when the water is too deep for an anchor” (Mercury, page 24) Regarding claim 6: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, Yamaha, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Mercury teaches: The boat control system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: store an initial azimuth which is an orientation of the boat body when the holding control is started; and terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has returned to the initial azimuth after the steering angle change process has started. (Mercury, Fig.51882 on page 28 depicts that the controller is configured to store an initial azimuth (350°) which is an orientation of the boat body when the auto heading holding control is started, page 27, “Auto heading allows the boat to automatically maintain a compass heading while the boat is underway”, page 24, “automatically control … steering to maintain heading”) PNG media_image5.png 462 626 media_image5.png Greyscale Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Mercury in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to: store an initial azimuth which is an orientation of the boat body when the holding control is started; and terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has returned to the initial azimuth after the steering angle change process has started. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “This feature can be helpful when waiting for space near a fuel dock, waiting for bridges to open, or when the water is too deep for an anchor” (Mercury, page 24) Regarding claim 8: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, Yamaha, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Mercury teaches: The boat control system according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has stopped turning. (Mercury, page 24, “This system uses global positioning system (GPS) technology and an electronic compass to automatically control … steering to maintain heading and approximate position.” and page 26, “If at any time in this process Skyhook is able to overcome the conditions enough to hold a position, it will cease turning the bow”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Mercury in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to terminate the steering angle change process when the sensor detects that the boat body has stopped turning. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “This feature can be helpful when waiting for space near a fuel dock, waiting for bridges to open, or when the water is too deep for an anchor” (Mercury, page 24) Claim(s) 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US8113892B1) in view of Mercury, “Joystick Piloting for Outboards Manual”, 2014, further in view of Asberg (US5755605A) and Iwata (US 20240067323 A1). Regarding claims 10 and 12: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Iwata teaches: The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control a magnitude of the thrust of the plurality of boat propulsion devices to remain constant during the steering angle change process.( Iwata, para47), “when the steering pattern is set in the setting mode, regardless of the operation amount of the joystick 15, the forward thrust and the reverse thrust are adjusted based on a constant output of the propulsors”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Iwata in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control a magnitude of the thrust of the plurality of boat propulsion devices to remain constant during the steering angle change process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “approaching other ships and obstacles can be quickly avoided even when the steering pattern is set.” (Iwata, Description) Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US8113892B1) in view of Mercury, “Joystick Piloting for Outboards Manual”, 2014, further in view of Asberg (US5755605A) and Yamaha, “Introducing Yamaha's Fully Integrated Boat Control System for Yamaha Outboard-Powered Boats”, 2012 and Iwata (US 20240067323 A1). Regarding claim 11: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, Yamaha, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Iwata teaches: The boat control system according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control a magnitude of the thrust of the plurality of boat propulsion devices to remain constant during the steering angle change process.( Iwata, para47), “when the steering pattern is set in the setting mode, regardless of the operation amount of the joystick 15, the forward thrust and the reverse thrust are adjusted based on a constant output of the propulsors”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Iwata in order to include wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control a magnitude of the thrust of the plurality of boat propulsion devices to remain constant during the steering angle change process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “approaching other ships and obstacles can be quickly avoided even when the steering pattern is set.” (Iwata, Description) Claim(s) 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US8113892B1) in view of Mercury, “Joystick Piloting for Outboards Manual”, 2014, further in view of Asberg (US5755605A) and Koyano (US 20210001971 A1). Regarding claims 13 and 15: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Koyano teaches: The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein, during the steering angle change process, the controller is configured or programmed to change the steering angle so that the steering angle does not exceed a predetermined maximum change amount.( Koyano, para [53], “the steering angle is less than the steering threshold ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Koyano in order to include wherein, during the steering angle change process, the controller is configured or programmed to change the steering angle so that the steering angle does not exceed a predetermined maximum change amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enhance the turning performance of the watercraft. approaching other ships and obstacles can be quickly avoided even when the steering pattern is set.” (Koyano, Description) Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gable (US8113892B1) in view of Mercury, “Joystick Piloting for Outboards Manual”, 2014, further in view of Asberg (US5755605A) and Yamaha, “Introducing Yamaha's Fully Integrated Boat Control System for Yamaha Outboard-Powered Boats”, 2012 and Koyano (US 20210001971 A1). Regarding claim 14: Gable in view of Mercury, Asberg, Yamaha, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Gable does not explicitly teach, but Koyano teaches: The boat control system according to claim 2, wherein, during the steering angle change process, the controller is configured or programmed to change the steering angle so that the steering angle does not exceed a predetermined maximum change amount.( Koyano, para [53], “the steering angle is less than the steering threshold ”) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify marine propulsion control system from Gable to include these above teachings from Koyano in order to include wherein, during the steering angle change process, the controller is configured or programmed to change the steering angle so that the steering angle does not exceed a predetermined maximum change amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “enhance the turning performance of the watercraft. approaching other ships and obstacles can be quickly avoided even when the steering pattern is set.” (Koyano, Description) RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 (See applicant’s response, page 7, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700. 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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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. /KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664