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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 19/016,206, with an effective filing date of 1/10/2025. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Specification in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.7, and subsequently withdraws objection to said section.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 13 and 14 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to containing unclear terminology, the Applicant argues, see pg.7, and that the boats are indeed the same but it would be exceedingly difficult to phrase the limitations as to illustrate this relationship as they alleged that it would cause conflict with the scope of the claims. However, the Examiner submits that the limitation is still unclear as written and the Applicant is advised to rewrite the claims to overcome the rejection or cancel the claims altogether.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Examiner acknowledges the arguments made regarding the rejection of claim(s) 13 and 14 under 35 USC § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends in Applicant’s arguments, see pg.8, as claim 1 does not recite the system is located on the boat which is construed as a further limitation of the claim. Subsequently, the Examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 112(d) rejection to said claims.
Regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 as being anticipated by / unpatentable over Koetsier (US Pat. No. 12,263,915 B1) [hereinafter referred to as Koetsier] in view of Terada et al. (US Pat. No. 10,300,998 B2) [hereinafter referred to as Terada] and Byford (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0340280 A1), the Applicant has elected to amend claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 103 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Lindeborg (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2020/069750 A1) has been necessitated. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues, see pg. , that Koetsier, as modified by Terada and Byford, does not disclose the limitation the steering angles of the first boat propulsion device and the second boat propulsion device are default steering angles at which a thrust generated by the first boat propulsion device and a thrust generated by the second boat propulsion device cancel each other out. However, Lindeborg teaches on pg. 14 ln 22-25 that the main propulsion units are initially operated to generate thrust vectors having equal and opposite magnitudes in the longitudinal direction of the vessel, and as they pass through the mass center of the vessel zero net moment is generated about the mass center. This is construed as the thrust generated by the first boat propulsion device and a thrust generated by the second boat propulsion device cancels each other out.
Therefore, this argument is moot.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are 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.
Regarding claim 13 line 1 and claim 14 line 1 the limitations recite a boat and it is unclear whether this is the same boat including a boat body as claimed in claim 1 lines 1-2 or a different boat altogether.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koetsier et al. (US Pat. No. 12,263,915 B1), hereinafter referred to as Koetsier, in view of Terada et al. (US Pat. No. 10,300,998 B2), hereinafter referred to as Terada, Byford (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0340280 A1), and Lindeborg (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2020/069750 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koetsier discloses:
A boat control system for controlling a boat including a boat body (column (col) 4 line(s) (ln) 13 system for a marine vessel, which is interpreted to comprise that of a boat and a boat body), the boat control system comprising:
a plurality of boat propulsion devices each steerable about a steering axis see Fig. 1 below and col 4 ln 15-19 where an electronical anchoring system that dynamically and automatically maintains a boat at a selected anchoring location within water without the use of a conventional anchor by using a steerable thruster whose thrust and steering direction, col 6 ln 66-col 7 ln 2 each propulsion unit is steerable about its respective steering axis and produces thrust by causing rotation of its respective
propeller or other propulsor, and col 7 ln 45-48 controller in turn sends signals to activate steering actuators to achieve desired orientations of the first and second propulsion units about their respective steering axes);
PNG
media_image1.png
629
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller configured or programmed to control a thrust and a steering angle of each of the plurality of boat propulsion devices (col 7 ln 45-48 as discussed above, col 4 ln 26-29 controller is configured to activate the electronic anchoring system to maintain the marine vessel at the target location in the body of water in response to the single user-selected option input (which is utilizes thrust to maintain position), and col 7 ln 49-52 the computer controlling thrust of each of units 12 and 14.); and
an operator to accept an operation request to move the boat body and output an operation signal to the controller (col 7 ln 37-38 controller controls the vessel by means of signals sent by a joystick, and/or steering wheel).
However, Koetsier does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of boat propulsion devices including:
a first boat propulsion device including a first drive source to generate power to propel the boat body and a first output sensor to detect an output of the first
drive source and output a detection signal to the controller;
a second boat propulsion device including a second drive source to generate a power to propel the boat body and a second output sensor to detect an output of the second drive source and output a detection signal to the controller; and
the controller is configured or programmed to perform, when the controller determines that the output of the first drive source and the output of the second drive source have a difference when the operator is not accepting an operation request to turn the boat body an output adjustment process to change the output of at least one of the first drive source and the second drive source so as to cancel the difference in the outputs.
However, Terada teaches in Fig. 22 (below) and in col 12 ln 62-64 the main controller can calculate motor speeds of the motors based on detection signals from the speed sensors which are construed as output sensors for the respective motors. Furthermore, in Fig. 18 below and col 15 ln 13- that the main controller is programmed to use the first and second motor data to control the speeds of the first and second motors of the first and second submersible propulsion units to be substantially equal upon determining an operator's intention to go straight in either a forward direction or a backward direction, which is construed as determining a difference in the outputs while not accepting a turning request by an operator and performing an adjustment to cancel the difference in outputs.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of marine vessel controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the boat control system of Koetsier, by incorporating the propulsion equalization teachings of Terada, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of effectively controlling multiple motors to ensure equal outputs and prevent undesired turns.
PNG
media_image2.png
866
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
892
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, disclose steerable boat propulsion as discussed above, the references do not explicitly disclose:
boat propulsion devices each steerable 180 degrees or more about a steering axis.
However, Byford teaches in Fig. 2 (below) a propulsion device steerable 180 degrees about a steering axis. Furthermore, in [0006] s.2 the propulsion leg being rotatable relative to the main body for steering when submerged. Lastly, in [0019] allow the rotation of a propulsion leg to be determined by lateral limits, e.g. +/−90 degrees (to amount to 180 degrees range).
[AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image4.png
255
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of marine vessel controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the boat control system of Koetsier, as already modified by the propulsion equalization teachings of Terada, by incorporating the steerability teachings of Byford, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of turning the boat more effectively by ensuring at least 180 degree movement of the propulsion device.
However, Koetsier, as modified by Terada and Byford, does not explicitly disclose:
the steering angles of the first boat propulsion device and the second boat propulsion device are default steering angles at which a thrust generated by the first boat propulsion device and a thrust generated by the second boat propulsion device cancel each other out.
However, Lindeborg teaches on pg. 14 ln 22-25 that the main propulsion units are initially operated to generate thrust vectors having equal and opposite magnitudes in the longitudinal direction of the vessel, and as they pass through the mass center of the vessel zero net moment is generated about the mass center. This is construed as the thrust generated by the first boat propulsion device and a thrust generated by the second boat propulsion device cancels each other out.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of marine vessel controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the boat control system of Koetsier, as already modified by the propulsion equalization teachings of Terada and the steerability teachings of Byford, by incorporating the thrust cancellation teachings of Lindeborg, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of effectively controlling multiple motors to ensure equal outputs and prevent undesired turns.
Regarding claim 3, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, Byford, and Lindeborg, discloses:
The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is
configured or programmed to perform the output adjustment process while performing a holding control to hold the boat body in a specific orientation (see claim 1 regarding electronic anchoring system which is a form of holding control to hold the boat body in a specific orientation).
Regarding claim 5, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, Byford, and Lindeborg, discloses:
The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the output adjustment process increases the output of one of the first drive source and the second drive source having a lower output until the output becomes equal to the output of the other of the first drive source and the second drive source (see claim 1 Fig. 18 above regarding the increase and decrease of respective motors).
Regarding claim 7, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, Byford, and Lindeborg, discloses:
The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the output adjustment process increases the output of one of the first drive source and the second drive source having a lower output and decreases the output of the other one of the first drive source and the second drive source (see claim 1 Fig. 18 above regarding the increase and decrease of respective motors).
Regarding claim 9, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, Byford, and Lindeborg, discloses:
The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of boat
propulsion devices further include a third boat propulsion device between the first boat propulsion device and the second boat propulsion device (see Fig. 1 below and col 6 ln 58-60 marine vessel has first and second propulsion units located at its stern and a third propulsion unit located at its bow and col 6 ln 66 - col 7 ln 2 Each propulsion unit is steerable about its respective steering axis and produces thrust by causing rotation of its respective propeller or other propulsor).
[AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: textbox (3rd Propulsion unit between 1st and 2nd )][AltContent: textbox (2nd Propulsion units)][AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: textbox (1st Propulsion units)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 1)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image5.png
903
460
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, Byford, and Lindeborg, discloses:
The boat control system according to claim 9, further comprising:
a turning sensor to detect a turning of the boat body and output a detection signal to the controller (col 9 ln 43-44 which describe positional and directional sensors, which are construed as turning sensors as well as claim 1 which discloses steering angle sensors); wherein in the output adjustment process, the controller is configured or programmed to steer the third boat propulsion device in a direction in which the boat body is turning (see claim 9 above where third propulsion unit is described as a trolling motor which is construed as necessarily steering the boat).
Regarding claim 13, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, Byford, and Lindeborg, discloses:
A boat comprising:
the boat control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
_____________________________________
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koetsier et al. (US Pat. No. 12,263,915 B1), hereinafter referred to as Koetsier, in view of Terada et al. (US Pat. No. 10,300,998 B2), hereinafter referred to as Terada, Byford (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0340280 A1), Lindeborg (WIPO Pat. Pub. No. 2020/069750 A1), and Bradley et al. (US Pat. No. 7,305,928 B2), hereinafter referred to as Bradley.
Regarding claim 2, Koetsier, as modified by Terada, Byford, and Lindeborg, discloses:
The boat control system according to claim 1, wherein the operator includes:
a joystick (see claim 1 regarding utilization of a joystick); and
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the output adjustment process when the mode switch accepts an operation request to switch the joystick mode from off to on (see claim 1 regarding output adjustments which necessarily occur when the joystick is in active mode).
However, Koetsier, as modified by Terada and Byford, does not explicitly disclose:
a mode switch to accept an operation request to switch on and off a joystick mode in which the joystick is able to accept operation requests to move the boat body.
However, Bradley teaches in col 16 ln 64- col 17 ln 5 where the operator of the marine vessel can place the system in a station keeping enabled mode and the system then maintains the desired position obtained upon the initial change in the joystick from an active mode to an inactive mode. This is interpreted as a joystick mode that comprises a switch to accept an operation request to move the boat body.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of marine vessel controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the boat control system of Koetsier, as already modified by the as already modified by the propulsion equalization teachings of Terada and the steerability teachings of Byford, by incorporating the joystick active/inactive mode teachings of Bradley, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of not allowing the joystick or steering device to affect the movement of the boat while in a station keeping mode.
Claim 4 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 6 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 8 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 7 above, therefore claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 10 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 9 above, therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim 12 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 11 above, therefore claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim 14 recites a system having substantially the same features of claim 13 above, therefore claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-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, Erin D. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights