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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-22 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “the global position system sensor the software module outputs” in line 3 appears to be missing a comma and should be “the global position system sensor, the software module outputs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “the steering actuator the plurality of water engagement devices and the gyroscopic stabilization device” appears to be a typographical error and should be “the steering actuator, the plurality of water engagement devices, and the gyroscopic stabilization device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “a desired heading of the marine vessel and in response thereto adjusts” appears to be a typographical error and should be “a desired heading of the marine vessel, and in response thereto, adjusts”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
In claim 1, the recited limitations “the WED position” in step b are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “the actuator for each of the plurality of water engagement devices” in step d is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “dynamic motions of the marine vessel” in step d is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the dynamic motions recited previously or if this is different dynamic motions.
In claim 3, the claim labels new steps (a), (b), and (c) and are different steps then previously steps (a), (b), and (c). It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the previous steps or are different steps. Further, the recited limitation “the torque of the gyroscopic stabilizer” and “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 4, the claim labels new steps (a), (b), and (c) and are different steps then previously steps (a), (b), and (c). It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the previous steps or are different steps. Further, the recited limitation “the torque of the gyroscopic stabilizer” and “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 5, the recited limitation “the adjustment of the steering angle” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claims 9 and 10, the recited limitation “a water engagement device delta position” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the engagement device delta position recited previously or if this is a different limitation.
In claim 11, the recited limitation “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 14, the recited limitation “the gyroscopic stabilization device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 15, the claim labels new steps (a), (b), and (c) and are different steps then previously steps (a), (b), and (c). It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the previous steps or are different steps. Further, the recited limitation “the torque of the gyroscopic stabilizer” and “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 16, the claim labels new steps (a), (b), and (c) and are different steps then previously steps (a), (b), and (c). It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the previous steps or are different steps. Further, the recited limitation “the torque of the gyroscopic stabilizer” and “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 19, the recited limitation “the average of the WED position” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the recited limitation “the respective water engagement device” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 6-8, 12-13, 17-18, and 20-22 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10-16, 33-36, and 38-45 of application No.17871861 (filed on 07/22/2022, now U.S. patent No. 12326735). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example,, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claim 1of the related application. The breadth of the instant application claims (e.g. claim 1) would read on the narrower claims of the related application. These changes, in view of the related application, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and the corresponding claims they are contained within.
Furthermore, the same analysis applies to the dependent claims of the instant application which are seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of the claims of the related application and are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application.
Claims 1-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 19/232,683 and claims 1-19 of copending application No. 19/232,758. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claim 1of the related applications. The claims of the instant application would read on the claims of the related application. These changes, in view of the related application, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and the corresponding claims they are contained within.
Furthermore, the same analysis applies to the dependent claims of the instant application which are seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of the claims of the related application and are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and double patenting, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights