Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 21, 2026
Application No. 19/091,356

DUAL STEERING SYSTEM AND RELATED BOAT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 26, 2025
Priority
Mar 27, 2024 — provisional 63/570,466
Examiner
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Scout Boats Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
39%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
Est. Remaining
56%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 39% of cases
39%
Career Allowance Rate
265 granted / 675 resolved
-20.7% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
717
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§103
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 675 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Prosecution History Summary Claims 1-20 are pending. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dougherty et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,446,818). As per claim 1, Dougherty teaches a boat comprising: -a hull at least partially covered by a main deck (Dougherty: figure 1); -a lower steering station (Dougherty:204) located on the main deck (Dougherty: 208), the lower steering station comprising a frame extending from the main deck and a lower control console disposed on and attached to the frame (Dougherty: figure 1); -a support being arranged on the main deck and having at least a first surface elevated above the main deck and behind the lower control console toward an aft side of the hull (Dougherty: 200); -a superstructure (Dougherty: 130) comprising a bottom surface (Dougherty: 114) and an opposing top surface (Dougherty: 113), wherein the bottom surface of the superstructure is attached to the frame above the lower control console (Dougherty: figure 4a) and an opening extends through the bottom and top surfaces of the superstructure and aligns with the first surface of the support (Dougherty: figure 4a); and -an upper steering station (Dougherty: 130) comprising an upper control console disposed on and attached to the top surface of the superstructure, the upper control console arranged above and behind the lower control console toward the aft side of the hull (Dougherty: figure 4a), -wherein the first surface of the support is arranged for a person to stand on the first surface in an elevated position above and behind the lower control console while surrounded by the opening and in a position to operate the upper control console (Dougherty: figure 4c). Examiner states that it would have been obvious to place the superstructure behind the lower control console because it is a design choice that performs the same function in the same way as shown in prior art. According to Dougherty, the upper console placed on the side does not change the usage of the upper console and therefore, it is simply a design choice to place it on the side or behind. PNG media_image1.png 500 585 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 426 685 media_image2.png Greyscale As per claim 2, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Dougherty teaches further comprising a cover arrangeable over the opening in the superstructure (Dougherty: col. 5, 7-12). As per claim 3, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Dougherty teaches wherein the support comprises a second surface arranged below and in front of the first surface, the second surface of the support being arranged for the person to sit on the second surface and in a position to operate the lower control console disposed on and attached to the frame (Dougherty: figure 1). As per claim 4, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Dougherty teaches further comprising pipework including two poles extending in parallel to one another from the main deck or the support and to the superstructure, wherein the pipework comprises at least one step extending between the two poles to allow the person to climb onto the first surface therefrom (Dougherty: 152, 153). PNG media_image3.png 535 679 media_image3.png Greyscale As per claim 5, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Dougherty teaches wherein a perimeter of the top surface of the superstructure is at least partially surrounded by a railing (Dougherty: 108). As per claim 6, the boat of claim 5 is as described. Dougherty teaches wherein a rocket launcher is attached or coupled to a portion of the railing (Dougherty: 106). As per claim 7, the boat of claim 6 is as described. Dougherty teaches wherein the rocket launcher is attached or coupled to the portion of the railing that is behind the opening toward the aft side of the hull (Dougherty: figure 3c). As per claim 8, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Dougherty teaches wherein the upper control console of the upper steering station comprises one or more peripheral accessories including one or more of a display, an on/off switch, a navigation system, electronic control components, a steering element, engine throttle control, and any combination thereof (Dougherty: col. 8, 67 to col. 9, 12; figure 3c). As per claim 9, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Dougherty teaches further comprising an engine in communication with the lower control console (Dougherty: 205) and the upper control console (Dougherty: 120). As per claim 10, the boat of claim 9 is as described. Dougherty teaches wherein the boat is configured to be controlled by either the lower control console or the upper control console upon receipt of an operational control signal at the engine from one of the lower control console and the upper control console (Dougherty: col. 5, 56 to col. 6, 7). As per claim 11, the boat of claim 1 is as described. Dougherty teaches further comprising an upper seat with a bottom portion movable relative to a top portion between an open position that allows for sitting thereon and a closed position that allows for standing on the first surface in which the bottom portion is moved adjacent to the top portion (Dougherty: figure 1, figure 4a). Claims 12-20 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 1-8 and 11, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okuyama et al. – U.S. Patent No. 7,674,145 – Teaches an upper and lower control console for a boat. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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. /SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 26, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12728961
ADJUSTABLE DEPTH DATA BUOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12700488
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR SOUND DETECTION FROM MEDICAMENT OR TEST DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12694963
METHODS AND SYSTEMS OF EMBODIMENT TRAINING IN A VIRTUAL-REALITY ENVIRONMENT
7y 3m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12688914
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR IMPLEMENTING PERSONALIZED HEALTH APPLICATION
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12676222
Tracking Use of Medical Device
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
39%
Grant Probability
56%
With Interview (+16.5%)
4y 4m (~2y 9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 675 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month