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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 9/17/2025 has been entered. Claim 22 is newly added. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-16, 18-19, 21-22 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, 13-16, 18-19, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinogi (US 20110137500 A1), and further in view of Kuroda (US 20070273497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 3-4, 13-14, Shinogi discloses a control method for a watercraft that includes a device associated with authentication of identification information for activation, the control method comprising:
executing reading processing configured to read the identification information from an electronic key by a reading section that is mounted on a hull of the watercraft, wherein the device is associated with the reading section; executing authentication processing configured to authenticate, based on authentication information, the identification information read in the reading processing; and executing activation permission processing configured to bring the device into an activatable state in the case where the identification information, which is read by the reading section, is successfully authenticated (via authentication ECU 26 including reader to performs authentication check of an electronic key so as to prevent the outboard motor from theft. The authentication ECU 26 similarly comprises a microcomputer having a CPU, ROM, memory, input/output circuit and the like. Upon the manipulation of the electronic key, the authentication ECU 26 acquires ID information stored in the key, determines whether the ID acquired information corresponds with authentication ID information of the outboard motor 12, and when they are determined to correspond with each other, allows the engine 16 of the outboard motor 12 to start, Para. 15, 21-26, Fig. 1).
Shinogi fails to disclose a second device further associated with authentication of identification information; and the second device is associated with a second reading section; wherein the first device and the second device are brought to the activatable state when authenticated identification information is read by the first or second reading sections.
Section VI of MPEP 2144.04 states that duplication of parts is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Kuroda teaches a system can be configured to include two devices associated with authentication of identification information (entry/exit including readers 62a, 62b); and the two devices are associated with two reading section; wherein the first device and the second device (entry/exit) are brought to the activatable state (unlocked) when authenticated identification information is read by the first or second reading sections (via readers 62a or 62b reading an authenticated ID to unlock electronic door 63 to allow opening of door D, Para. 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shinogi to include the limitations cited above in order to provide redundancy in case a device for reading and authentication fails, thereby improve reliability.
Regarding claims 11, 16, 18-19, 21, 15, Shinogi discloses a control method for a watercraft includes a device, the device being associated with authentication of identification information for activation, the control method comprising:
executing reading processing configured to read the identification information by a reading section that is mounted on a hull of the watercraft, the identification information from an electronic key, wherein the reading section is associated with the device; executing authentication processing configured to authenticate, based on authentication information, the identification information read in the reading processing; registration processing, by a main control section, configured to register the identification information read by the reading section as authentication information such that the authentication information is stored in a switch panel including the reading section (via ECU 26 stores information from reader to be verified with stored information, Para. 24-26) and executing activation permission processing configured to bring the device into an activatable state in the case where the identification information, which is read by the reading section, is successfully authenticated via the switch panel (via authentication ECU 26 including reader to performs authentication check of an electronic key so as to prevent the outboard motor from theft. The authentication ECU 26 similarly comprises a microcomputer having a CPU, ROM, memory, input/output circuit and the like. Upon the manipulation of the electronic key, the authentication ECU 26 acquires ID information stored in the key, determines whether the ID acquired information corresponds with authentication ID information of the outboard motor 12, and when they are determined to correspond with each other, allows the engine 16 of the outboard motor 12 to start via ECU 26 comprising a starter switch 26b, Para. 15, 21-27, Fig. 1).
Shinogi fails to disclose a second device further associated with authentication of identification information; and the second device is associated with a second reading section, wherein the reading sections are on a left (port) side and a right (starboard) side of the watercraft; more than one control section, a first control section in communication with the left reading section, a second control section in communication with the right reading section; and more than one switch panel, each reading section included in the switch panels.
Section 2144.04 of the MPEP states that mere duplication of parts and/or rearrangement of parts have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Kuroda teaches a system can be configured to include two devices associated with authentication of identification information (entry/exit including readers 62a, 62b); and the two devices are associated with two reading section; wherein the first device and the second device (entry/exit) are brought to the activatable state (unlocked) when authenticated identification information is read by the first or second reading sections (via readers 62a or 62b reading an authenticated ID to unlock electronic door 63 to allow opening of door D, Para. 70).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shinogi to include the limitations cited above in order to provide redundancy in case one of the devices fails, thereby improve reliability.
Regarding claim 22, Shinogi teaches the first reading section is positioned within a casing of a first switch panel (via ECU 26 stores information from reader to be verified with stored information, Para. 24-26), but fails to specifically disclose the first switch panel is separate and distinct from both the first device and the second device, and the second reading section is positioned within a casing of a second switch panel that is separate and distinct from both the first device and the second device.
Section 2144.04 of the MPEP states that mere duplication of parts, rearrangement of parts, and to make parts integral/separate have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shinogi to include the first switch panel is separate and distinct from both the first device and the second device, and the second reading section is positioned within a casing of a second switch panel that is separate and distinct from both the first device and the second device as parts of a system can be duplicated to provide a backup to improve reliability and rearranged/separated as a design choice.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinogi in view of Kuroda, and further in view of Lee (US 20220135003 A1).
Regarding claims 5, Shinogi and Kuroda fails to disclose executing registration processing configured to register the identification information as the authentication information, wherein the registration processing is configured to register plural pieces of the authentication information.
Lee teaches a method to authenticate a user, including executing registration processing configured to register the identification information as the authentication information, wherein the registration processing is configured to register the authentication information (via registering fingerprint for authentication to use a vehicle, Para. 84, 97, 102, 113, 116).
And MPEP 2143 states that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is considered obvious.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shinogi and Kuroda to include biometric authentication instead of authentication using a key device, and executing registration processing configured to register the identification information as the authentication information, wherein the registration processing is configured to register the authentication information in order to make authentication easier to perform.
Shinogi and Kuroda fails to disclose register plural pieces of the authentication information.
Section 2144.04 of the MPEP states that mere duplication of parts and/or rearrangement of parts have no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shinogi and Kuroda to include register plural pieces of the authentication information in order to make authentication more accurate via authentication based on reading of fingerprints from more than one fingers registered.
Regarding claim 6, Shinogi, Kuroda, Lee discloses the claimed invention, wherein Lee teaches in the registration processing, the identification information is configured to be read by any one of the plural reading sections, and the read identification information is thereby registered as the authentication information (Para. 113, 116).
Regarding claim 7, Shinogi, Kuroda, Lee discloses the claimed invention, wherein Lee teaches wherein the plural pieces of the authentication information that are registered in the registration processing are configured to be deleted all at once (Para. 17, 117).
Regarding claim 8, Shinogi, Kuroda, Lee discloses the claimed invention, wherein Lee teaches wherein, when a specific mode switching operation is accepted, a registration mode associated with execution of the registration processing is started (via user registration through starting an application, indicating switching of operation mode, Para. 72).
Regarding claim 9, Shinogi, Kuroda, Lee discloses the claimed invention, wherein Lee teaches at a start of execution of the registration processing, determining whether a status of the watercraft satisfies a registration enable condition, and in the case where the registration enable condition is satisfied, initiating execution of the registration processing (the first controller 112, in response to a fingerprint registration command being received from the inputter of the vehicle terminal 130 or the inputter provided in the vehicle 1 and security information being received from the driving device 120 of the vehicle 1, may activate the recognizer 111, Para. 113).
Regarding claim 10, Shinogi, Kuroda, Lee discloses the claimed invention, wherein Shinogi discloses the device includes: a power source configured to propel the hull (via engine 16, Para. 16); and a non-power source, and in a forced activation mode in which the device is brought into the activatable state without executing the authentication processing, only the non-power source of the device is brought into the activatable state (via manual rowing the boat, Para. 51).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the 3rd paragraph of page 8 that the electron lock 63a is a single component. And Kuroda does not disclose that reading and authenticating an ID by the reader 62a or reader 62b brings both a first device and a second device into an activatable state. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The first device for entry comprising door D, electron lock 63 and reader 62a is brought to an activatable state to permit entry upon reading of an authenticated ID by readers 62a or 62b. The second device for exit comprising door D, electron lock 63 and reader 62b is brought to an activatable state to permit exit upon reading of an authenticated ID by readers 62a or 62b (Para. 70). Therefore, the teachings of Kuroda cures the deficiencies of Shinogi.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YONG HANG JIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6 EST.
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, Davetta Goins Feild can be reached at (571)272-2957. 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.
/YONG HANG JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights