DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/24/2025. Claims 1-18 are presently pending. Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are withdrawn, and claims 5-9 and 14-18 are rejected as cited below.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1-4 & 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. A telephone interview was conducted on 06/24/2026 and an oral election has been made by attorney JOSEPH KEATING (37368) to claims 1-4 and 10-13 without traverse.
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 parent Application No. JP2024-071401, filed on 04/25/2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2025 and 04/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: AUTOMATED WATERCRAFT PROPULSION CONTROL DURING THROTTLE VALVE FAULT DETECTION.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-7, 9, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanno et al. (US 20040069271 A1; hereafter Kanno).
Regarding claim 5, Kanno discloses an automated watercraft operating system for a watercraft including a marine propulsion device including an internal combustion engine, the automated watercraft operating system comprising:
a controller disposed in the watercraft and configured or programmed to control the marine propulsion device; ([0242]; “For example, the ECU 90 can control an engine to slow down the engine speed when the ECU 90 determines that such an abnormal state occurs and the watercraft 37 is berthing.”)
a throttle sensor configured to detect an opening degree of an electronic throttle valve of the internal combustion engine ([0253]; “The throttle valve position sensor 218 is located at the valve shaft of the throttle valve 84A to provide an actual valve position .theta.r to the ECU 90.”); and
an actuator configured to regulate the opening degree of the electronic throttle valve of the internal combustion engine in accordance with a control signal transmitted thereto from the controller ([0254]; “Additionally, the throttle valve 84A is actuated by the servo motor 88A.”); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to limit a velocity of the watercraft when it is determined by the controller that the opening degree of the electronic throttle valve detected by the throttle sensor is greater than the opening degree of the electronic throttle valve corresponding to the control signal. ([0242]; “This embodiment is particularly useful when the large opening degree side binding phenomenon has occurred. For example, the ECU 90 can control an engine to slow down the engine speed when the ECU 90 determines that such an abnormal state occurs and the watercraft 37 is berthing.”)
Regarding claim 6, Kanno discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, kanno discloses the controller is configured or programmed to limit the velocity of the watercraft by alternately switching the marine propulsion device between a shifted-in state and a neutral state. ([0229]; “In the event such that an abnormal state occurs at the servo motor 88, the throttle valves 84 automatically return to the mechanical neutral position as follows due to the malfunction of the servo motor 88.”)
Regarding claim 7, Kanno discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, kanno discloses the controller is configured or programmed to limit the velocity of the watercraft by limiting an amount of fuel to be injected into the internal combustion engine. ([0304]; “In another alternative, the ECU 90 can disable one or more cylinders based upon the actual throttle valve position .theta.r to slow down the engine speed if the engine has multiple cylinders. The disabling of the cylinders can be practiced by, for example, stopping fuel supply to those cylinders.”)
Regarding claim 9, Kanno discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, kanno discloses the controller is configured or programmed to limit the velocity of the watercraft to be a target velocity set in accordance with a target navigation route for the watercraft when limiting the velocity of the watercraft. ([0265]; “The ECU 90, at the step S45, calculates a target relative angular position for abnormal state VTa of the oil pressure control valve 484 using a target relative angular position calculation map for abnormal state (not shown). The target relative angular position for abnormal state VTa preferably corresponds to the engine speed that is sufficiently slow enough for the dog clutch unit 206 to readily engage the reverse bevel gear 202. As noted above, such an engine speed is, for example, approximately 1,500 rpm or less.”)
Claim 14 recites a method to operate the system of claim 5. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 15 recites a method to operate the system of claim 6. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 16 recites a method to operate the system of claim 7. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 18 recites a method to operate the system of claim 9. Therefore, is rejected for the same reasoning.
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Kanno as evidenced by Isao (US 20020137405 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kanno discloses all the limitations of claim 5. Additionally Isao discloses the controller is configured or programmed to limit the velocity of the watercraft by cutting off ignition in the internal combustion engine. ([0167]; “At the step S34, ignition and or fuel injection is disabled for one of the cylinders of the engine 44.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kanno with Isao. This modification would have been obvious because both Kanno and Isao cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (watercraft control during throttle value malfunction) and it would have been beneficial to disable the ignition to slow/stop movement the velocity of the watercraft.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Kado et al. (US 20080160845 A1) teaches controlling the watercraft when a fault is detected in the engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 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, James Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights