DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 23 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-16 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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:
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 1-2, 4, 7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg (US Pub. No. 2020/0247518) in view of Reitter (US Pub. No. 2014/0187200).
As per Claim 1, Dannenberg discloses a vessel steering system (20) (Fig. 1; ¶28-31) comprising:
a boat controller (24) configured or programmed to include an automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) and a manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) as vessel steering modes (as per functionality of center key 116) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106); wherein
when the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is set to the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C), the boat controller (24) is configured or programmed to place a marine vessel (10) including the vessel steering system (20) in a locked state (as per “engage auto-docking” in ¶92) in which the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is fixed in the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106); and
when a disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) is received, the boat controller (24) is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) to the manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106).
Dannenberg further discloses wherein the user input device (100) includes a touchscreen display (29) (¶89, 95). Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state.
Reitter discloses a mobile device (141/400) that includes: an input/output subsystem (406) in the form of a touch-sensitive display having a screen lock; a location context module (428) that analyzes location aspects to determine a location context of the mobile device (141/400); and a security module (430) that determines what level of security is required to use the mobile device (141/400) in view of a list of security locations (Figs. 1, 4; ¶3, 27, 58, 71-72, 75-77). A user may set up location-based security for the linking security level for controlling access to the mobile device (141/400) to various location contexts (Figs. 5A-C; ¶79-90). In this way, the user may set up a security setting in which a passcode is required to unlock the screen of the mobile device (141/400) at a particular location (Figs. 8A-B, 9A-C, 10A-B; ¶101-107). In one embodiment, the mobile device (141/400) having a touch-sensitive display is linked to a boat (210) (Fig. 2; ¶44). In this way, the user may configure the touch-sensitive display of the mobile device (141/400) to prevent unauthorized access (¶2). Like Dannenberg, Reitter is concerned with user interface systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg further discloses wherein the boat controller (24) is configured or programmed to receive (as per “When the operator wants to suspend, or override, maintenance of the buffer distance … the operator provides input via a user input … via the user input devices described herein (see FIGS. 11-13)” in ¶61) the disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) when the marine vessel (10) is in an emergency situation (as per “The user-generated instruction to suspend maintenance of the buffer distance 50 may be by any user input device or system that allows the operator to provide an intentional input that acknowledged that the marine vessel is near an object and that the operator intends to override the collision avoidance algorithm to allow the marine vessel to approach and impact the object O” in ¶61).
Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command involves the unlock key.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves the unlock key” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg further discloses a manual operator (116) to receive the disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) (Figs. 11, 12A-C; ¶89-95).
Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command involves the unlock key.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves the unlock key” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg further discloses marine vessel steering equipment (32) operable after the disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) is received and the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) is shifted to the manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) (Figs. 1, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 89-95).
Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command involves the unlock key.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves the unlock key” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the unlock key is a password, a passcode, a barcode, or a quick response code.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the unlock key is {a password}, a passcode, {a barcode}, or {a quick response code}” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
As per Claim 14, Dannenberg discloses a method (160) for controlling a vessel steering system (20) including an automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) and a manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) as vessel steering modes (as per functionality of center key 116) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106), the method (160) comprising:
placing a marine vessel (10) including the vessel steering system (20) in a locked state (as per “engage auto-docking” in ¶92) in which the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is fixed in the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) when the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is set to the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106); and
shifting the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) to the manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) when a disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) is received (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106).
Dannenberg further discloses wherein the user input device (100) includes a touchscreen display (29) (¶89, 95). Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
As per Claim 15, Dannenberg discloses a marine vessel (10) (Fig. 1; ¶28) comprising:
a vessel steering system (20) including a boat controller (24) configured or programmed to include an automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) and a manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) as vessel steering modes (as per functionality of center key 116) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106); wherein
when the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is set to the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C), the boat controller (24) is configured or programmed to place the marine vessel (10) in a locked state (as per “engage auto-docking” in ¶92) in which the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is fixed in the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106); and
when a disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) is received, the boat controller (24) is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) to the manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106).
Dannenberg further discloses wherein the user input device (100) includes a touchscreen display (29) (¶89, 95). Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
As per Claim 16, Dannenberg discloses a vessel steering system (20) (Fig. 1; ¶28-31) comprising:
a boat controller (24) configured or programmed to include an automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) and a manual vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12B) as vessel steering modes (as per functionality of center key 116) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106); wherein
when the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is set to the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C), the boat controller (24) is configured or programmed to place a marine vessel (10) including the vessel steering system (20) in a locked state (as per “engage auto-docking” in ¶92) in which the vessel steering mode (as per functionality of center key 116) is fixed in the automatic vessel steering mode (as per Fig. 12C) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106); and
when an disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) is received, the boat controller (24) is configured or programmed to release (as per 176 via 172) the locked state (as per “engage auto-docking” in ¶92) (Figs. 1, 4, 9, 10A-B, 11, 12A-C; ¶28-31, 53-56, 89-95, 98-106).
Dannenberg further discloses wherein the user input device (100) includes a touchscreen display (29) (¶89, 95). Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg and Reitter, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by preventing unauthorized access at specified locations. Applying the teachings of Reitter to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key received while the marine vessel is in the locked state” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg (US Pub. No. 2020/0247518) in view of Reitter (US Pub. No. 2014/0187200), further in view of Zhu (US Pub. No. 2014/0324266).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 2. Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the emergency situation includes stranding of the marine vessel, unnavigability of the marine vessel due to poor visibility, or entry into a sea area where the marine vessel is likely to be stranded.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Zhu discloses a boat (100) (¶23) in which a computer system (112) receives information from a sensor system (104) and peripherals (108) (Fig. 1; ¶24-26). Information from sensor system (104) is evaluated by computer system (112) to detect an indication that a weather condition includes fog (Fig. 3; ¶84-99). Information from peripherals (108) is evaluated by computer system (112) for agreement with the weather conditions indicated by sensor system (104) (Fig. 4; ¶100-111). In response to a determination that fog is present, an alert is provided to the driver and the vehicle (100) is switched from autonomous mode to manual mode (¶97). In this way, vehicle (100) is configured to respond to conditions in which the vehicle does not operate as well (¶71). Like Dannenberg, Zhu is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Zhu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Zhu to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and adapting the system to appropriately respond to detected conditions. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Zhu to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the emergency situation includes {stranding of the marine vessel}, unnavigability of the marine vessel due to poor visibility, or {entry into a sea area where the marine vessel is likely to be stranded}” in that the input device (100) of Dannenberg would be adapted to include an unlock process as per Reitter and adapted to respond to detected weather conditions as per Zhu.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg (US Pub. No. 2020/0247518) in view of Reitter (US Pub. No. 2014/0187200), further in view of Matuk (US Pub. No. 2020/0122716).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg further discloses a communicator (as per line from 22 to 24) (Fig. 1, 11; ¶29-30, 89); wherein the disengage command (as per “disengage the docking control functionality” in ¶90) is received via the communicator (as per line from 22 to 24) (Fig. 1, 11, 12A-C; ¶29-30, 89-94).
Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key that is received from outside the marine vessel.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Matuk discloses a vehicle (100) that includes a communication module (106) configured for wireless communication with a mobile device (108) (Fig. 1; ¶21-23). The vehicle (100) also includes an autonomy unit (112) configured to control performance of autonomous and/or semi-autonomous maneuvers of the vehicle (100) and a park-assist controller (114) configured to initiate operation of the autonomy unit (112) based on signals received by the communication module (106) from the mobile device (108) (Fig. 1; ¶25). In one embodiment, the mobile device (108) sends the signal to direct the vehicle (100) to perform maneuvers while the operator is located outside the vehicle (¶20). In this way, the system enables a user to initiate autonomous motive functions remotely (¶2). Like Dannenberg, Matuk is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Matuk, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Matuk to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and enabling a user to initiate autonomous motive functions remotely. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Matuk to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein the disengage command involves an unlock key that is received from outside the marine vessel” in that the system of Dannenberg would be adapted to receive signals to direct the vehicle to perform maneuvers from a device having a touchscreen display as per Dannenberg informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter and located outside the vehicle as per Matuk.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Matuk teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 5. Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein in a case where the unlock key is received from the outside of the marine vessel via the communicator, the boat controller is configured or programmed to enable remote control of the marine vessel in the manual vessel steering mode.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
See rejection of Claim 5 for discussion of teachings of Matuk.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Matuk, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Matuk to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and enabling a user to initiate autonomous motive functions remotely. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Matuk to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein in a case where the unlock key is received from the outside of the marine vessel via the communicator, the boat controller is configured or programmed to enable remote control of the marine vessel in the manual vessel steering mode” in that the system of Dannenberg would be adapted to receive signals to direct the vehicle to perform maneuvers from a device having a touchscreen display as per Dannenberg informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter and located outside the vehicle as per Matuk.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg (US Pub. No. 2020/0247518) in view of Reitter (US Pub. No. 2014/0187200), further in view of Ueno (US Pub. No. 2020/0407034).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 7. Dannenberg further discloses wherein
the marine vessel steering equipment (32) includes a remote controller (22) including a lever (34) (Fig. 1; ¶28-30).
Dannenberg does not expressly disclose:
when the unlock key is received, the boat controller is configured or programmed to:
in a case where the lever is located at a neutral position where a thrust is not applied to the marine vessel, immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode; and
in a case where the lever is not located at the neutral position, shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode after the lever is shifted to the neutral position.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Ueno discloses a ship body control device (10) that includes a main part (101), a remote control lever (102), and a propelling force controller (50) (Fig. 1; ¶17). The main part (101) includes an autopilot controller (20) and an autopilot interface (21) that accepts an input relevant to autopilot (Fig. 1; ¶17). The remote control lever (102) includes a control lever (200) that governs the propelling force controller (50) in accordance with forward (ReF), neutral, (Pn), and reverse (ReR) positions of the control lever (200) as detected by an operating state detector (201) (Fig. 1; ¶17-18, 26-34). Switching between automatic (S104) and manual control (S108) involves detecting the position (S105, S107) of the control lever (200) (Fig. 4; ¶42-50). If the control lever (200) is in a neutral position (YES at S107), control passes to manual control (S108). In this way, sudden speed changes associated with switching to manual control can be avoided (¶4, 5, 8). Like Dannenberg, Ueno is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Ueno, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Ueno to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and avoiding sudden speed changes. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Ueno to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates:
“when the unlock key is received, the boat controller is configured or programmed to” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter;
“in a case where the lever is located at a neutral position where a thrust is not applied to the marine vessel, immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode” in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by lever position control as per Ueno; and
“in a case where the lever is not located at the neutral position, shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode after the lever is shifted to the neutral position” in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by lever position control as per Ueno.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 7. Dannenberg further discloses wherein the marine vessel steering equipment (32) includes a remote controller (22) including a lever (34) (Fig. 1; ¶28-30).
Dannenberg does not expressly disclose:
when the unlock key is received in a case where the lever is located at a forward position that advances the marine vessel or a backward position that reverses the marine vessel, the boat controller is configured or programmed to not shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode; and
when the lever is moved to a neutral position that does not apply thrust to the marine vessel, the boat controller is configured or programmed to immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode, or when the lever is once moved to the neutral position and then moved to the forward position or the backward position, the boat controller is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
See rejection of Claim 8 for discussion of teachings of Ueno.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Ueno, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Ueno to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and avoiding sudden speed changes. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Ueno to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates:
“when the unlock key is received in a case where the lever is located at a forward position that advances the marine vessel or a backward position that reverses the marine vessel, the boat controller is configured or programmed to not shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter and in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by lever position control as per Ueno; and
“when the lever is moved to a neutral position that does not apply thrust to the marine vessel, the boat controller is configured or programmed to immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode, or {when the lever is once moved to the neutral position and then moved to the forward position or the backward position, the boat controller is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode}” in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by lever position control as per Ueno.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dannenberg (US Pub. No. 2020/0247518) in view of Reitter (US Pub. No. 2014/0187200), further in view of Karnick (US Pub. No. 2022/0306260).
As per Claim 10, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein when the unlock key is received in a case where a rudder angle position of the marine vessel is located at a straight advancing rudder angle position that moves the marine vessel straight, the boat controller is configured or programmed to immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode, or shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode after the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is changed to a turning rudder angle position that turns the marine vessel leftward or rightward.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
Karnick discloses a control system (10) for a vessel (12), the vessel (12) rotatable about a vertical steering axis (19) to desired angles to affect the direction of travel of the vessel (12) (Fig. 1; ¶26). The control system (10) includes an operator console (24) that includes a steering wheel (30) having a sensor (36) that generates input signals corresponding to positions of the steering wheel (30) and transmits such signals to a controller (34) (Fig. 1; ¶27). The controller (34) also receives input from a vessel direction sensor (56) and controls the vessel (12) in accordance with a quick steer mode (as per 220) or based on user input (as per 234) (Figs. 1, 6B; ¶28-29, 58-59). When the vessel (12) operates in the quick steer mode (as per 220), the controller (34) determines whether a user demand into the steering wheel (30) is in the direction of travel (as per 228) (Fig. 6B; ¶58-59). If the demand is in the direction of travel (YES at 228), the controller (34) maintains operation in quick steer mode (as per 230) (Fig. 6B; ¶58-59). If the demand is not in the direction of travel (NO at 223), the controller switches operation to user demand mode (as per 227) (Fig. 6B; ¶58-59). In this way, the system facilitates docking maneuvers (¶21-23). Like Dannenberg, Karnick is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Karnick, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Karnick to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and facilitating docking maneuvers. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Karnick to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates: “wherein when the unlock key is received in a case where a rudder angle position of a marine vessel including the vessel steering system is located at a straight advancing rudder angle position that moves the marine vessel straight, the boat controller is configured or programmed to immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode, or {shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode after the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is changed to a turning rudder angle position that turns the marine vessel leftward or rightward}” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter and in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by determinations of direction of travel as per Karnick.
As per Claim 11, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein
when the unlock key is received, the boat controller is configured or programmed to not shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode when a rudder angle position of the marine vessel is at a turning rudder angle position that turns the marine vessel to leftward or rightward; and
when the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is changed to a straight advancing rudder angle position that moves the marine vessel straight, the boat controller is configured or programmed to immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode, or when the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is once changed to the straight advancing rudder angle position and then changed to the turning rudder angle position, the boat controller is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
See rejection of Claim 10 for discussion of teachings of Karnick.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Karnick, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Karnick to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and facilitating docking maneuvers. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Karnick to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates wherein:
“when the unlock key is received, the boat controller is configured or programmed to not shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode when a rudder angle position of the marine vessel is at a turning rudder angle position that turns the marine vessel to leftward or rightward” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter and in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by determinations of demand and direction of travel as per Karnick; and
“when the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is changed to a straight advancing rudder angle position that moves the marine vessel straight, the boat controller is configured or programmed to immediately shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode, or {when the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is once changed to the straight advancing rudder angle position and then changed to the turning rudder angle position, the boat controller is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode}” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter and in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by determinations of demand and direction of travel as per Karnick.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Dannenberg and Reitter teaches or suggest all limitations of Claim 1. Dannenberg does not expressly disclose wherein when the unlock key is received in a case where a rudder angle position of a-the marine vessel including the vessel steering system is a turning rudder angle position that turns the marine vessel to leftward or rightward, the boat controller is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode after the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is changed to a straight advancing rudder angle position that moves the marine vessel straight.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Reitter.
See rejection of Claim 10 for discussion of teachings of Karnick.
Therefore, from these teachings of Dannenberg, Reitter, and Karnick, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Reitter and Karnick to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by: preventing unauthorized access at specified locations; and facilitating docking maneuvers. Applying the teachings of Reitter and Karnick to the system of Dannenberg would result in a system that operates “wherein when the unlock key is received in a case where a rudder angle position of a-the marine vessel including the vessel steering system is a turning rudder angle position that turns the marine vessel to leftward or rightward, the boat controller is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode after the rudder angle position of the marine vessel is changed to a straight advancing rudder angle position that moves the marine vessel straight” in that the touchscreen display of Dannenberg would be informed by user settings for unlocking the lock screen via passcode as per Reitter and in that mode switching as per Dannenberg would be informed by determinations of demand and direction of travel as per Karnick.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Dannenberg in view of Kanno in the manner alleged by the Examiner, and even assuming arguendo that there would have been some proper motivation to combine the teachings of Dannenberg and Kanno, any proper and logical combination of Dannenberg and Kanno still fails to teach or suggest all of the features and method steps recited in Applicant's claims 1 and 14-16” (page 8 of Amendment).
As a preliminary matter, rejections involving Kanno are not maintained in view of the amended claim language. As such, Applicant’s arguments involving Kanno are moot.
Further, as set forth in the previous rejection (see page 4-5 of 23 March 2026 Office action), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kanno to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by requiring valid authorization before receiving commands. As such, Applicant’s argument is not consistent with the written record.
Accordingly, in addition to being moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above, Applicant’s argument is not consistent with the written record. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 10 of Amendment):
In contrast to the invention of Dannenberg, the invention of Kanno is directed to authenticating a user before the user is able to use any of the controls on the marine vessel, i.e., before starting the marine vessel. This is evident from paragraph [0047] of Kanno which discloses that the authentication is performed as the user "approaches the watercraft 102." Assuming arguendo that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Dannenberg in view of Kanno, one of ordinary skill in the art would have required the user of the marine vessel of Dannenberg to be authenticated before starting the marine vessel, and not when switching between various steering modes during operation of the marine vessel using the center key 116. If Dannenberg would have been modified in view of the teachings of Kanno, the resulting modified marine vessel of Dannenberg would have been inoperative (turned off) before receiving the unlock key and, thus, could not possibly have already been set to the automatic vessel steering mode, as required by each of Applicant's claims 1 and 14-16. In other words, it would have made no sense to have modified Dannenberg to require an unlock key to start the marine vessel, as taught by Kanno, and also require an unlock key to switch between various steering modes.
As a preliminary matter, rejections involving Kanno are not maintained in view of the amended claim language. As such, Applicant’s arguments involving Kanno are moot.
Further, Applicant’s assertion that “the invention of Kanno is directed to authenticating a user before the user is able to use any of the controls on the marine vessel, i.e., before starting the marine vessel” is not consistent with expressly cited portions of Kanno (see page 4-5 of 23 March 2026 Office action identifying ¶47 and 56-57 of Kanno) in which “When a match is found, the processor 128 outputs an unlock signal to, for example, one or more of the steering control 118, the throttle control 108, and the key control 130, thereby readying the watercraft for use” and “Based on the foregoing disclosure of the unlocking … process 500, the watercraft 102 is brought to a condition of readiness for maneuvering when a user approaches …”. In this way, the rejections previously identified embodiments of Kanno in which the ID code of Kanno is directed to unlocking steering control (118) for maneuvering. As such, Applicant’s assertion that Kanno’s teachings are limited to activity “before starting the marine vessel” involves an improperly narrow interpretation of Kanno.
Accordingly, in addition to being moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above, Applicant’s argument involves an improper interpretation of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues (page 9-10 of Amendment):
… the Examiner has not provided any logical reasoning as to why it would have been desirable to require authentication when switching between steering modes in the invention of Dannenberg. In addition to the explanation above in which any logical combination of Dannenberg and Kanno would have resulted in authentication before starting the marine vessel, it would have been redundant and possibly even dangerous in the invention of Dannenberg to require authentication each time the steering mode is changed. For example, if the user of the marine vessel of Dannenberg needed to quickly take control of the marine vessel during a docking process (e.g., another marine vessel entered the docking path or a person fell overboard), requiring authentication to enter the manual steering mode could have very undesirable and dangerous consequences.
As a preliminary matter, rejections involving Kanno are not maintained in view of the amended claim language. As such, Applicant’s arguments involving Kanno are moot.
Further, as discussed above and as set forth in the previous rejection (see page 4-5 of 23 March 2026 Office action), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Kanno to the system of Dannenberg since doing so would enhance the system by requiring valid authorization before receiving commands. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not consistent with the written record.
In addition, as discussed above and as identified in the previous rejections (see page 4-5 of 23 March 2026 Office action identifying ¶47 and 56-57 of Kanno), the rejections previously identified embodiments of Kanno in which the ID code of Kanno functions to unlock steering control (118) for maneuvering. As such, Applicant’s assertion that Kanno’s teachings are limited to activity “before starting the marine vessel” involves an improperly narrow interpretation of Kanno.
Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion that it would have been “redundant and possibly even dangerous … to require authentication each time the steering mode is changed”, this assertion is speculative in nature and involves limitations (e.g., “another marine vessel”, “docking path”, “person fell overboard”) not found in the claim language at issue. Further, Applicant’s assertions as to “very undesirable and dangerous consequences” of “requiring authentication to enter the manual steering mode” describes consequences of Applicant’s “locked state” (see ¶34 of Applicant’s Specification as filed) as much as it describes consequences of the system resulting from applying the teachings of Kanno to Dannenberg as per the previous rejections. As such, these assertions do not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Accordingly, in addition to being moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above, Applicant’s arguments are not consistent with the written record, involve an improper interpretation of the cited references, are speculative in nature, and do not identify a difference between limitations in the claims and the teachings of the cited references. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “any logical and proper combination of Dannenberg and Kanno clearly fails to teach or suggest the features of ‘when the vessel steering mode is set to the automatic vessel steering mode, the boat controller is configured or programmed to place a marine vessel including the vessel steering system in a locked state in which the vessel steering mode is fixed in the automatic vessel steering mode’ and ‘when an unlock key is received while the marine vessel is in the locked state, the boat controller is configured or programmed to shift the automatic vessel steering mode to the manual vessel steering mode,’ as recited in Applicant's claim 1, and similarly recited in each of Applicant's claims 14-16” (page 10 of Amendment).
Rejections under 35 USC 103 involving Dannenberg and Kanno are not maintained in view of the amendments. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments concerning the amended claim language are moot. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Zhu, Ueno, and Karnick also fail to teach or suggest the features and method steps of Applicant's claims 1 and 14-16 discussed above” and “Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that Zhu, Ueno, and Karnick fail to cure the deficiencies of Dannenberg and Kanno described above” (page 10 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Zhu, Ueno, and Karnick teach or suggest features of Claims 1 and 14-16. Further, as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments regarding Kanno are moot. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Singh (US Patent No. 5,235,927) discloses an autopilot system. Lash (US Patent No. 6,469,641) discloses a marine vessel monitoring system and method. Estabrook (US Pub. No. 2017/0205828) discloses autopilot features for marine navigation.
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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights