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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3 December 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 11, 20, 23, and 26 have been amended.
Claim 27 has been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-20, 22-27 are pending. Claims 1, 11, 20, and 23 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
cloud-based database... configured to provide, user selection, share in claim(s) 1.
cloud-based database... configured for user selection in claim(s) 1, 11, 23.
Interface…configured to receive in claim(s) 1
User interface configured for user selection in claim(s) 25
cloud-based database... configured to select in claim(s) 27
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-19, 23-26 remain and 27 is 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.
As per claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-19, 23-27, the claim limitation containing “…database/interface… configured to”. invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of each limitation containing “…database/interface… configured to”. Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed unit(s)/means. This is required as described in MPEP 2181 II.B. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-20, 22-27 are/remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “wherein the cloud-based database is configured for user selection of the other vessels” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “cloud-based database” and “vessels”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “user selection” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “cloud-based database” and “vessels”, “user selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…a selected radius relative to the first vessel…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determine a particular length/distance between two objects.
Similarly, the limitation “…wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “ocean-based fishing gear” , “plan” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to determine the directions to their destination mentally or using a pen and paper writing down the directions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
wherein the radio antenna and/or the satellite modem are configured to receive position information of ocean-based fishing gear from the ocean-based fishing gear
wherein the radio antenna and/or the satellite modem are configured to provide the position information to the cloud-based database,
wherein the cloud-based database is configured to provide the position information to other vessels including a second vessel;
the cloud-based database is configured to share, based on the user selection, the position information only with the other vessels such that the position information is not shared with vessels not part of the other vessels
wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery
wherein the interface is configured to receive the position information from the radio antenna and/or the satellite modem and
is further connectable to a plotter application or program so that the position information is provided to the plotter application or program on the first vessel.
Each of the “receive” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each of the “provide” and “share(s)/shared” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The radio antenna, the satellite modem, cloud-based data base, vessels, and interface in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the radio antenna, the satellite modem, and interface is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – radio antenna, the satellite modem, cloud-based data base, vessels, ocean-based fishing gear, plotter application/program and interface to perform all the receive, provide, selection, share(s), selecting steps. The radio antenna, the satellite modem, cloud-based data base, vessels, user, ocean-based fishing gear, plotter application/program and interface in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receive, provide, selection, share(s), selecting, plan functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
The recitation of “wherein the interface …is further connectable to a plotter application or program” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “wherein the interface …is further connectable to a plotter application or program” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (marine fishing) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each of the “provide”, “share(s)” and “receiving” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of the radio antenna, satellite modem, cloud-based database, and/or user in the provide, share, and receive steps and the use of an ocean-based fishing gear, vessels, and/or plotter application/program in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a radio antenna, satellite modem, cloud-based database, and/or user (or use of a ocean-based fishing gear, vessels, and/or plotter application/program) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the – radio antenna, the satellite modem, cloud-based data base, vessels, ocean-based fishing gear, plotter application/program and interface to perform the receive, provide, selection, share(s), selecting, plan steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “establishing, with a user interface by an entity of the first vessel, other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “user interface”, “vessel”, “other vessels”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “establishing” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but “user interface”, “vessel”, “other vessels”, “establishing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user making a judgement to linking a number of vessels together to share data with.
Similarly, the limitation “wherein the database is configured for user selection of the other vessels” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “database” and “vessels”, “user selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…a selected radius relative to the first vessel…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually choosing a particular length/distance between two objects.
Similarly, the limitation “…wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “ocean-based fishing gear” , “plan” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to determine the directions to their destination mentally or using a pen and paper writing down the directions.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
receiving, via first electronic communications, the fishing gear data from the fishing gear of a first vessel
sharing, via second electronic communications through a database, the fishing gear data with the other vessels.
a user shares, based on the user selection, the position information only with the other vessels such that the position information is not shared with vessels not part of the other vessels,
wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery.
“establishing, with a user interface by an entity of the first vessel” and “wherein the interface …is further connectable to a plotter application or program”
The “receive” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each “share(s)/sharing” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The fishing gear, vessel, vessels, and database in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the fishing gear, vessel, vessels, and database is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – fishing gear, vessel, vessels, and, plotter application/program to perform all the receiving, establishing, selection, share(s), sharing, selecting, plan steps. The fishing gear, vessel, vessels, and, plotter application/program in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receive, establishing, selection, share(s), sharing, selecting, plan functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
The recitation of “establishing, with a user interface by an entity of the first vessel” and “wherein the interface …is further connectable to a plotter application or program” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “wherein the interface …is further connectable to a plotter application or program” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (marine fishing) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each of the “sharing”, “share(s)” and “receiving” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of the database, and/or user in the receiving, establishing, selection, share(s), sharing, plan and/or selecting steps and the use of fishing gear, vessels, and/or plotter application/program in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a database, and/or user (or use of a fishing gear, vessels, and/or plotter application/program) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the – fishing gear, vessel, vessels, and, plotter application/program to perform the receiving, establishing, selection, share(s), sharing, plan, and/or selecting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitation of “establishing other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “other vessels”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “establishing” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but “other vessels”, “establishing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user making a judgement to linking a number of vessels together to share data with.
Similarly, the limitation “selection and deselection of which of the fishing gear data to share with which of the other vessels” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels”, “user selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…a selected radius relative to the first vessel…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually choosing a particular length/distance between two objects.
Similarly, the limitation “…selecting the established other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels”, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “ocean-based fishing gear” , “plan” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to determine the directions to their destination mentally or using a pen and paper writing down the directions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
electronically receiving the fishing gear data from the fishing gear of a first vessel at the first vessel
sharing the fishing gear data only with the established other vessels by electronic communication from the first vessel through the cloud-based database and not sharing the fishing gear data with vessels not part of the other vessels.
operating a cloud-based database that allows for selection and deselection of which of the fishing gear data to share with which of the other vessels,
wherein the selection of which of the fishing gear data to share with the other vessels comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery and
selecting the established other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data
“…operating a cloud-based database that allows for selection and deselection of which of the fishing gear data with which of the other vessels
The “receiving” limitation is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each “share”/“sharing” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The fishing gear, vessel, vessels, and cloud-based database in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the fishing gear, vessel, vessels, and cloud-based database is used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “…operating a cloud-based database that allows for selection and deselection of which of the fishing gear data with which of the other vessels” limitation(s) is mere data being selected to be manipulated recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data selected to be manipulated, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitation(s) amount to necessary data selected to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05.
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – fishing gear, vessel, and vessels to perform all the receiving, establishing, operating, selection, deselection, and/or sharing steps. The fishing gear, vessel, and vessels in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, establishing, operating, selection, deselection, plan, and/or sharing functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each of the “sharing” and “receiving” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The use of fishing gear, vessels, and/or cloud database in the receiving, establishing, operating, selection, deselection, plan, and/or sharing steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception (or use of a fishing gear, vessels, and/or plotter application/program) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
The limitation(s) of “operating a cloud-based database that allows for selection and deselection of which of the fishing gear data with which of the other vessels” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP 2106.05(g), subsection II
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the –– fishing gear, vessel, and vessels to perform the receiving, establishing, operating, selection, deselection, plan, and/or sharing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 23
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “wherein the server or database is configured for user selection of the other vessels” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “server or database” and “vessels”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “user selection” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server or database” and “vessels”, “user selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “the user selects the other vessels and deselects additional vessels” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels”, “selects/deselects” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from.
Similarly, the limitation “…a selected radius relative to the first vessel…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually choosing a particular length/distance between two objects.
Similarly, the limitation “…wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “ocean-based fishing gear” , “plan” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to determine the directions to their destination mentally or using a pen and paper writing down the directions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
a first transceiver on a first vessel, the first transceiver configured to receive data from the radio transmitter, the data comprising a position of the ocean-based fishing gear;
a first satellite modem on the first vessel, the first satellite modem configured to transmit the data to a server or database; and
a second transceiver on other vessels including a second vessel, the second transceiver configured to receive the data from the server or database via first satellite internet communications,
wherein the first transceiver is configured to receive the data in a radio frequency;
wherein the first satellite modem is configured to provide the data to the server or database via second satellite internet communications
the user shares the position information only with the other vessels such that the position information is not shared with vessels not part of the other vessels
wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery
Each of the “receive” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Each of the “provide”, “transmit” and “share(s)” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The (first, second) transceivers, radio transmitter, fishing gear, (first, second) satellite modems, (first, second, multiple) vessels, server, database, and/or (first, second) satellite internet communications in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that first, second) transceivers, radio transmitter, fishing gear, (first, second) satellite modems, (first, second, multiple) vessels, server, database, and/or (first, second) satellite internet communications are used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements – (first, second) transceivers, radio transmitter, fishing gear, (first, second) satellite modems, (first, second, multiple) vessels, server, database, and/or (first, second) satellite internet communications to perform all the receive, transmit, provide, selection, share(s), selects/deselects, selecting steps. The (first, second) transceivers, radio transmitter, fishing gear, (first, second) satellite modems, (first, second, multiple) vessels, server, database, and/or (first, second) satellite internet communications in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receive, transmit, provide, selection, share(s), selects/deselects, selecting, plan functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Each of the “provide”, “transmit” “share(s)” and “receiving” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of the (first, second) transceivers, radio transmitter, (first, second) satellite modems and/or user in the provide, transmit, share, and receive steps and the use of an ocean-based fishing gear, vessels, server and/or database in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on the (first, second) transceivers, radio transmitter, (first, second) satellite modems and/or user (or use of a ocean-based fishing gear, vessels, server and/or database) and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the – (first, second) transceivers, radio transmitter, fishing gear, (first, second) satellite modems, (first, second, multiple) vessels, server, database, and/or (first, second) satellite internet communications to perform the receive, transmit, provide, selection, share(s), selects/deselects, selecting, plan steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-19, 22, 24-26
As per dependent claim 2, the limitation(s) of “…receive the position information…” and “…provide the position information” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and providing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 4, the limitation(s) of “…provide the position information” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, providing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 5, the limitation(s) of “…provide the position information” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, providing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 7, the additional limitations of “processor in a housing, the housing having an interface for the radio antenna and housing the satellite modem.” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving comprises receiving by radio communication from the fishing gear to the first vessel, and wherein sharing comprises sharing the fishing gear data via a the database and internet-communications to the other vessels do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 8, the claim(s) do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 9, the limitation(s) of “…receive the position information…” and “…display the position information” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 10, the limitation(s) of “…receive the position information…” and “…cause transmission …of other data” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving and transmitting data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 12, the additional limitations of “receiving and sharing from the first vessel with a vessel transceiver comprising a radio transceiver and a satellite modem” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the receiving and sharing from the first vessel with a vessel transceiver comprising a radio transceiver and a satellite modem do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 13, the additional limitations of “receiving comprises receiving by radio communication from the fishing gear to the first vessel, and wherein sharing comprises sharing the fishing gear data via a the database and internet-communications to the other vessels.” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving comprises receiving by radio communication from the fishing gear to the first vessel, and wherein sharing comprises sharing the fishing gear data via a the database and internet-communications to the other vessels do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 14, the claim(s) do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 11. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 15, the additional limitations of “sharing comprises sharing via short message service.” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of sharing comprises sharing via short message service do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 16, the additional limitations of “receiving via satellite communication and wherein sharing comprises sharing via satellite communication” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving via satellite communication and wherein sharing comprises sharing via satellite communication do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 17, the additional limitations of “sharing comprises sharing by transmission from the first vessel to the other vessels” would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of sharing comprises sharing by transmission from the first vessel to the other vessels do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 18, the limitation(s) of “…sharing a location…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, transmitting/sharing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 19, the limitation of “…planning a route..…” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the “fishing gear” and “vessel”, “planning” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually mentally planning a route when looking at a map
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen/pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 22, the additional limitations of receiving by a radio transceiver of vessel transceiver on the first vessel, and wherein sharing comprises sharing via satellite communications using a satellite modem of the vessel transceiver on the first vessel would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of receiving by a radio transceiver of vessel transceiver on the first vessel, and wherein sharing comprises sharing via satellite communications using a satellite modem of the vessel transceiver on the first vessel integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 24, the additional limitations the second transceiver comprises a second satellite modem would be generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology (e.g. communication between marine vessels). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the second transceiver comprises a second satellite modem do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 25, the limitation(s) of “…generate a user interface” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, receiving data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Display(ing) information has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.).Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 26, the limitation(s) of “…shares the position information…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, transmitting/sharing data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 27, the claim(s) do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 11, 13-14, 17-20, 26 remain and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry (US 20150156998)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 1/12/23) in further view of Shimokawabe (US20210350710, EFD 12/25/2018) in further view of Grant et al (US20200311636, 2020) (Disclosed in IDS filed on 1/12/23)
As per independent claim 1, Terry discloses a system comprising:
a satellite modem on the first vessel (FIG 4B; 0056: discloses satellite receiver. 0056 discloses The satellite receiver sends/receives communications to the network through a satellite; thus, a form of a satellite modem)
a radio antenna on a first vessel; and wherein the radio antenna and/or the satellite modem are configured to receive position information of ocean-based fishing gear from the ocean-based fishing gear (0040, 0042-0043: Discloses a underwater harvesting device (fishing gear) comprising a sensing array. The sensing array sends data to the data processing device on the vessel through a network. FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. Also 0082 discloses the sensing array may be mounted directly to the skiff such the sensory array/skiff relay data to the data processing device of the fishing vessel through the wireless bridge. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. 0054 in more detail states that the sensor data is appended with geospatial coordinates, which is a form of position information. Thus, 0054 discloses the sensor data includes position information. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. It is implicit that in order to communicate via WiFi (radio wave signals), a form of a radio antenna is needed. In addition, 0088 discloses the track data of the sensing array (e.g. as mentioned in 0087 such as GPS positioning of the gear or 0054 such as geospatial coordinates) is transmitted to the data processing device of the fishing vessel. As stated, the data is transmitted as WiFi (radio wave signals) to the vessel, therefore, the vessel must have a form of radio antenna. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel has a radio antenna in order to receive the data from the sensing array of the fishing gear)
Furthermore, Terry discloses an interface (0036) (Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via cellular antenna, satellite, or other wireless communications such as WiFi/RF. (therefore, a radio antenna as explained above)(0056) 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Furthermore, 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using an (radio) antenna and/or a satellite received/modem. Furthermore, 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) In addition, Terry discloses a cloud based database (Abstract, 0034, 0079, 0088) Thus, Terry discloses a form of an interface receiving information from a first vessel via (radio) antenna and/or a satellite received/modem. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose provide the position information to the cloud-based database, wherein the cloud-based database is configured to provide the position information to other vessels including a second vessel; wherein the interface is configured to receive the position information from the radio antenna and/or the satellite modem and is further connectable to a plotter application or program so that the position information is provided to the plotter application or program on the first vessel; and wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information.
However, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels. (0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0265 discloses the obstacle as a net and fishing implement information is fishing equipment information( ocean based gear) . Thus, “ocean based gear” information is transmitted to other vessels. Furthermore, the transmission on information involves the use of a database, such as a cloud-based database. 0169 discloses each terminal acquires and process stored plot information wherein the plot information was stored in a database on the server which is displayed via the plot setting and display module of the user terminal of the vessel (0069, 0169). This is a form of a plotter application/program receiving plot information and having it displayed within the plotter application/program. 0065 discloses the server is arranged on a cloud wherein users can download/share information such as plot information from the cloud/server (0051, 0102, 0162). For example, 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084) 0069 clearly states “to store the information in the plot management information 241 and to display the information on other user terminals 102 using the ship navigational system 1 and/or on the land-based management terminals 103.” Also, the obstacle(net) and/or fishing equipment information is transmitted to other vessels from a first vessel once the information is received by the first vessel. Thus, 0069, 0169 discloses using a user interface to establish connections with other vessels and share obstacle(net)/fishing equipment gear information. 0054-0056 discloses the use of communicating with other vessels/ship via their user terminals over network via satellites or by Wi-FI/mobile telephone communications (radio waves). Data shown in FIG 12 and/or 13 is shared from the display of the first vessel to one or more other vessels having the user terminals.
Furthermore, as explained, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses route plan setting module to accept an input of ship navigation plan from the user. By setting the destination and the transit point on the nautical chart, the route to the destination, the distance thereof, the required time thereof and the like are displayed. 0086 disclose it is possible to configure the plot setting and display module 313 and the route plan setting module 314 as a part of the map display module 311 and the radar display module 312. 0153-0156 discloses the user is able to select points on the nautical chart to plan a route. In addition, 0089 discloses displaying a warning if the planned route of the current vessel would collide with another vessel or the like. It is noted that 0089 does not explicitly limit the collision warnings to just other ships since it states “or the like”. In other words, it does not limit the collision warning to just colliding with another vessel. This enables the collision warning include any objects in danger of collision on/in the sea along the vessel’s planned route. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses collision warnings of objects along a path of the current vessel. Since the user uses the displayed nautical chart, the plot information of fishing gear is displayed, and the collision warning functionality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date that a user would see where the location of the fishing gear is on the nautical chart and select points for a route that avoid these areas. This would prevent the ship from having any conflicts with the gear in the water such sailing into any fishing gear that may result damages to the ship and/or the fishing gear. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses the ability for any vessel to plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Shimokawabe since it would have provided the benefit of providing a Ship Movement-Sharing Navigation Support System utilizing an inexpensive and simple portable user terminal. (0005)
Thus, in conjunction with Terry, the combination discloses radio antenna and/or the satellite modem provide the position information to the cloud-based database, wherein the cloud-based database is configured to provide the position information to other vessels including a second vessel; wherein the interface is configured to receive the position information from the radio antenna and/or the satellite modem and is further connectable to a plotter application or program so that the position information is provided to the plotter application or program on the first vessel and wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information.
Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses only communicating with only certain groups using a designated channel. (0311-0312) In addition, Shimokawabe discloses radio communication may have a set radius of traveling. (0320-0321). Thus, Shimokawabe discloses a radio range having a selected radius. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the cloud-based database is configured for user selection of the other vessels and the cloud-based database is configured to share, based on the user selection, the position information only with the other vessels and such that the position information is not shared with vessels not part of the other vessels, wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selecting to share with other vessels within a fishery.
However, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses with the use of a planning tool, a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove a operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators). Furthermore, 0064 clearly states the planning tool of the user/operator only establishes a connection for operational information to be shared only with remote vessels sails within radio range of the user/operator vessel. The radio range is typically how far the signal travels which is a form of a selected radius from the vessel to the “endpoint” of the range since the range is typically preset. Also 0063 discloses obtaining information of AIS transiting vessels in the vicinity. Thus, Grant discloses only vessels/ships that are within range would be eligible to communicate/shared information with the first vessel. In combination with created operator list explained in 0142-0143, it is at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ship/vessels within radio range of the first vessel and included in the created list of the first vessel would receive the first’s vessel information. This provides the flexibility and customization of data transmission within marine vessel communication. In addition, information of the operators and vessels are stored in a database on a server wherein the operators communicate with the server/database for the information. (0058, 0060) 0049 discloses the database is remote from the vessels/ships. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Therefore, Grant discloses a remote cloud database in which data is obtained and then transmitted to other vessels that are within the first vessel’s radio range and who are also authorized for receiving the transmitted data by the first vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Grant et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide improved sharing and visualization in such a complex marine field having multiple operators performing various operations. (0009)
Therefore, given the functionality a radius of the radio communication being explicitly set as taught by Shimokawabe and the given functionality of only communicating information with selected other vessels within a vessel’s radio range as taught by Grant, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have realized that the combination of these features would disclose the subject matter of wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enhanced safety, improved coordination, and reduced risk of detection for tactical operations.
As per dependent claim 2, Terry discloses the radio antenna is configured to receive the position information in a radio frequency, and wherein the satellite modem is configured to provide the information to a second vessel. (FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. 0054 in more detail states that the sensor data is appended with geospatial coordinates, which is a form of position information. Thus, 0054 discloses the sensor data includes position information. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. It is implicit that in order to communicate via WiFi (radio wave signals), a form of a radio antenna is needed. In addition, 0088 discloses the track data of the sensing array (e.g. as mentioned in 0087 such as GPS positioning of the gear or 0054 such as geospatial coordinates) is transmitted to the data processing device of the fishing vessel. As stated, the data is transmitted as WiFi (radio wave signals) to the vessel, therefore, the vessel must have a form of radio antenna. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel has a radio antenna in order to receive the data from the sensing array of the fishing gear.), Furthermore, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via satellite. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Furthermore, 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using a satellite received/modem. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose provide position information to a second vessel. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084) In conjunction with Terry, the combination of Terry and Shimokawabe discloses using a satellite to transmit position information from one vessel to another.
As per dependent claim 5, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via satellite internet communications. 0056 discloses the establish connection though the satellite receiver may be facilitated by the WWW or another internet protocol or through an internet protocol outside of the WWW. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Furthermore, 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using a satellite received/modem. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose provide position information to a second vessel. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084)In conjunction with Terry, the combination of Terry and Shimokawabe discloses providing the position information to the second vessel via satellite internet communications.
As per dependent claim 8, as explained above, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels. Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the user selection of the other vessels, including the second vessel, with which the position information is shared. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, along with the motivation, incorporated, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove a operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators)
As per independent claim 11, Terry discloses a method comprising:
receiving, via first electronic communications, the fishing gear data from the fishing gear of a first vessel (0040, 0042-0043: Discloses a underwater harvesting device (fishing gear) comprising a sensing array. The sensing array sends data to the data processing device on the vessel through a network. FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. Also 0082 discloses the sensing array may be mounted directly to the skiff such the sensory array/skiff relay data to the data processing device of the fishing vessel through the wireless bridge. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. 0054 in more detail states that the sensor data is appended with geospatial coordinates, which is a form of position information. Thus, 0054 discloses the sensor data includes position information. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. It is implicit that in order to communicate via WiFi (radio wave signals), a form of a radio antenna is needed. In addition, 0088 discloses the track data of the sensing array (e.g. as mentioned in 0087 such as GPS positioning of the gear or 0054 such as geospatial coordinates) is transmitted to the data processing device of the fishing vessel. As stated, the data is transmitted as WiFi (radio wave signals) to the vessel, therefore, the vessel must have a form of radio antenna. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel has a radio antenna in order to receive the data from the sensing array of the fishing gear)
Furthermore, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via cellular antenna, satellite, or other wireless communications such as WiFi/RF. (0056) 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Furthermore, 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using an (radio) antenna and/or a satellite received/modem. Furthermore, 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058). In addition, Terry discloses a cloud based database (Abstract, 0034, 0079, 0088) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose establishing, with a user interface by an entity of the first vessel, other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data; and sharing, via second electronic communications through a database, the fishing gear data with the other vessels; and wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information. However, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels. (0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0265 discloses the obstacle as a net and fishing implement information is fishing equipment information( ocean based gear) . Thus, “ocean based gear” information is transmitted to other vessels. Furthermore, the transmission on information involves the use of a database. 0169 discloses each terminal acquires and process stored plot information wherein the plot information was stored in a database on the server which is displayed via the plot setting and display module of the user terminal of the vessel (0069, 0169). 0065 discloses the server is arranged on a cloud wherein users can download/share information such as plot information from the cloud/server (0051, 0102, 0162 For example, 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084) 0069 clearly states “to store the information in the plot management information 241 and to display the information on other user terminals 102 using the ship navigational system 1 and/or on the land-based management terminals 103.” Also, the obstacle(net) and/or fishing equipment information is transmitted to other vessels from a first vessel once the information is received by the first vessel. Thus, 0069, 0169 discloses using a user interface to establish connections with other vessels and share obstacle(net)/fishing equipment gear information. 0054-0056 discloses the use of communicating with other vessels/ship via their user terminals over network via satellites or by Wi-FI/mobile telephone communications (radio waves). Data shown in FIG 12 and/or 13 is shared from the display of the first vessel to one or more other vessels having the user terminals.
Furthermore, as explained, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses route plan setting module to accept an input of ship navigation plan from the user. By setting the destination and the transit point on the nautical chart, the route to the destination, the distance thereof, the required time thereof and the like are displayed. 0086 disclose it is possible to configure the plot setting and display module 313 and the route plan setting module 314 as a part of the map display module 311 and the radar display module 312. 0153-0156 discloses the user is able to select points on the nautical chart to plan a route. In addition, 0089 discloses displaying a warning if the planned route of the current vessel would collide with another vessel or the like. It is noted that 0089 does not explicitly limit the collision warnings to just other ships since it states “or the like”. In other words, it does not limit the collision warning to just colliding with another vessel. This enables the collision warning include any objects in danger of collision on/in the sea along the vessel’s planned route. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses collision warnings of objects along a path of the current vessel. Since the user uses the displayed nautical chart, the plot information of fishing gear is displayed, and the collision warning functionality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date that a user would see where the location of the fishing gear is on the nautical chart and select points for a route that avoid these areas. This would prevent the ship from having any conflicts with the gear in the water such sailing into any fishing gear that may result damages to the ship and/or the fishing gear. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses the ability for any vessel to plan a route that avoids the fishing gear based on the received fishing gear data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Shimokawabe since it would have provided the benefit of providing a Ship Movement-Sharing Navigation Support System utilizing an inexpensive and simple portable user terminal. (0005)
Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses only communicating with only certain groups using a designated channel. (0311-0312) In addition, Shimokawabe discloses radio communication may have a set radius of traveling. (0320-0321). Thus, Shimokawabe discloses a radio range having a selected radius. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the database is configured for user selection of the other vessels and the user shares, based on the user selection, the position information only with the other vessels and such that the position information is not shared with vessels not part of the other vessels, wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selecting to share with other vessels within a fishery.
However, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses with the use of a planning tool, a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove a operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators). Furthermore, 0064 clearly states the planning tool of the user/operator only establishes a connection for operational information to be shared only with remote vessels sails within radio range of the user/operator vessel. The radio range is typically how far the signal travels which is a form of a radius from the vessel to the “endpoint” of the range. Also 0063 discloses obtaining information of AIS transiting vessels in the vicinity. Thus, Grant discloses only vessels/ships that are within range would be eligible to communicate/shared information with the first vessel. In combination with created operator list explained in 0142-0143, it is at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ship/vessels within radio range of the first vessel and included in the created list of the first vessel would receive the first’s vessel information. This provides the flexibility and customization of data transmission within marine vessel communication. In addition, information of the operators and vessels are stored in a database on a server wherein the operators communicate with the server/database for the information. (0058, 0060) 0049 discloses the database is remote from the vessels/ships. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Therefore, Grant discloses a remote cloud database in which data is obtained and then transmitted to other vessels that are within the first vessel’s radio range and who are also authorized for receiving the transmitted data by the first vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Grant et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide improved sharing and visualization in such a complex marine field having multiple operators performing various operations. (0009)
Therefore, given the functionality a radius of the radio communication being explicitly set as taught by Shimokawabe and the given functionality of only communicating information with selected other vessels within a vessel’s radio range as taught by Grant, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have realized that the combination of these features would disclose the subject matter of wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enhanced safety, improved coordination, and reduced risk of detection for tactical operations.
As per dependent claim 13, Terry discloses receiving by radio communication from the fishing gear to the first vessel 0040, 0042-0043: Discloses a underwater harvesting device (fishing gear) comprising a sensing array. The sensing array sends data to the data processing device on the vessel through a network. FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. It is implicit that in order to communicate via WiFi (radio wave signals), a form of a radio antenna is needed. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel has a radio antenna in order to receive the data from the sensing array of the fishing gear Furthermore, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via satellite internet communications. 0056 discloses the establish connection though the satellite receiver may be facilitated by the WWW or another internet protocol or through an internet protocol outside of the WWW. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. Furthermore, 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using a satellite received/modem. In addition, Terry discloses a cloud based database (Abstract, 0034, 0079, 0088). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 5, and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses sending position information from one vessel to another vessel as explained above. Furthermore, 0167, 0169 discloses the provided plot information is also stored in a database of a management server which is accessed by the user terminals. 0065 discloses the server is arranged on a cloud wherein users can download/share information such as plot information from the cloud/server (0051, 0102, 0162)
As per dependent claim 14, Claim 14 recites similar limitations as in Claim 8 and is rejected similar rationale.
As per dependent claim 17, based on the rejection of Claim 11, and the rationale incorporated, Terry discloses sharing by transmission from the first vessel to the other vessels (0056: discloses the fleet of ships having antennas and can communicate by transmission). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 11 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses sending position information from one vessel to another vessel as explained above. In conjunction with Terry, the combination of Terry and Shimokawabe discloses providing the position information to the second vessel via transmission.
As per dependent claim 18, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via cellular antenna, satellite, or other wireless communications such as WiFi/RF. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Thus, information between the vessels is shared. However, Terry fails to disclose sharing a location of a region oriented around a position of the fishing gear as the fishing gear data. However, based on the rejection of Claim 11 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses sharing a location of a region oriented around a position of the fishing gear as the fishing gear data.(0069, 0084, 0165, 0169) In addition, FIG 13 and FIG 15 along with 0169 and 0175-0176 discloses indicating a region around a location of the fishing gear. 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084) 0055-0056 discloses the user terminals communicate via a network. Data shown in FIG 13 and/or 15 is shared from the display of the first vessel to one or more other vessels having the user terminals.
As per dependent claim 19, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via cellular antenna, satellite, or other wireless communications such as WiFi/RF. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Thus, information between the vessels is shared. Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 11 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses route plan setting module to accept an input of ship navigation plan from the user. By setting the destination and the transit point on the nautical chart, the route to the destination, the distance thereof, the required time thereof and the like are displayed. 0086 disclose it is possible to configure the plot setting and display module 313 and the route plan setting module 314 as a part of the map display module 311 and the radar display module 312. 0153-0156 discloses the user is able to select points on the nautical chart to plan a route. Since the user uses the displayed nautical chart and the plot information of fishing gear is displayed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date that a user would see where the location of the fishing gear is on the nautical chart and select points for a route that avoid these areas. This would prevent the ship from having any conflicts with the gear in the water such sailing into any fishing gear that may result damages to the ship and/or the fishing gear.
As per independent claim 20, Terry discloses a method comprising:
electronically receiving the fishing gear data from the fishing gear of a first vessel at the first vessel (0040, 0042-0043: Discloses a underwater harvesting device (fishing gear) comprising a sensing array. The sensing array sends data to the data processing device on the vessel through a network. FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. Also 0082 discloses the sensing array may be mounted directly to the skiff such the sensory array/skiff relay data to the data processing device of the fishing vessel through the wireless bridge. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. 0054 in more detail states that the sensor data is appended with geospatial coordinates, which is a form of position information. Thus, 0054 discloses the sensor data includes position information. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. In addition, 0088 discloses the track data of the sensing array (e.g. as mentioned in 0087 such as GPS positioning of the gear or 0054 such as geospatial coordinates) is transmitted to the data processing device of the fishing vessel. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel receiving the data from the sensing array of the fishing gear)
Furthermore, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via cellular antenna, satellite, or other wireless communications such as WiFi/RF (0056) 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Furthermore, 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using an (radio) antenna and/or a satellite received/modem. Furthermore, 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) Thus, Terry discloses a form of an interface receiving information from a first vessel via (radio) antenna and/or a satellite received/modem. In addition, Terry discloses a cloud based database (Abstract, 0034, 0079, 0088). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose establishing other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data; wherein establishing comprises operating a cloud-based database and sharing the fishing gear data with the established other vessels by electronic communication from the first vessel through the cloud-based database; wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the fishing gear based on the received fishing gear data. However, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels. (0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0265 discloses the obstacle as a net and fishing implement information is fishing equipment information (ocean-based gear). Thus, “ocean-based gear” information is transmitted to other vessels. Furthermore, the transmission on information involves the use of a database, such as a cloud-based database. 0169 discloses each terminal acquires and process stored plot information wherein the plot information was stored in a database on the server which is displayed via the plot setting and display module of the user terminal of the vessel (0069, 0169). 0065 discloses the server is arranged on a cloud wherein users can download/share information such as plot information from the cloud/server (0051, 0102, 0162). For example, 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084) 0069 clearly states “to store the information in the plot management information 241 and to display the information on other user terminals 102 using the ship navigational system 1 and/or on the land-based management terminals 103.” Also, the obstacle(net) and/or fishing equipment information is transmitted to other vessels from a first vessel once the information is received by the first vessel. Thus, 0069, 0169 discloses using an user interface to establish connections with other vessels and share obstacle(net)/fishing equipment gear information. 0054-0056 discloses the use of communicating with other vessels/ship via their user terminals over network via satellites or by Wi-FI/mobile telephone communications (radio waves). Data shown in FIG 12 and/or 13 is shared from the display of the first vessel to one or more other vessels having the user terminals.
Furthermore, as explained, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses route plan setting module to accept an input of ship navigation plan from the user. By setting the destination and the transit point on the nautical chart, the route to the destination, the distance thereof, the required time thereof and the like are displayed. 0086 disclose it is possible to configure the plot setting and display module 313 and the route plan setting module 314 as a part of the map display module 311 and the radar display module 312. 0153-0156 discloses the user is able to select points on the nautical chart to plan a route. In addition, 0089 discloses displaying a warning if the planned route of the current vessel would collide with another vessel or the like. It is noted that 0089 does not explicitly limit the collision warnings to just other ships since it states “or the like”. In other words, it does not limit the collision warning to just colliding with another vessel. This enables the collision warning include any objects in danger of collision on/in the sea along the vessel’s planned route. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses collision warnings of objects along a path of the current vessel. Since the user uses the displayed nautical chart, the plot information of fishing gear is displayed, and the collision warning functionality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date that a user would see where the location of the fishing gear is on the nautical chart and select points for a route that avoid these areas. This would prevent the ship from having any conflicts with the gear in the water such sailing into any fishing gear that may result damages to the ship and/or the fishing gear. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses the ability for any vessel to plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Shimokawabe since it would have provided the benefit of providing a Ship Movement-Sharing Navigation Support System utilizing an inexpensive and simple portable user terminal. (0005)
As explained, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels. Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) Also, Shimokawabe discloses only communicating with only certain groups using a designated channel. (0311-0312) In addition, Shimokawabe discloses radio communication may have a set radius of traveling. (0320-0321). Thus, Shimokawabe discloses a radio range having a selected radius. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a …database that allows for selection and deselection of which the fishing gear data to share with which of the other vessels, and wherein the selection of which of the fishing gear data to share with the other vessels comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery and selecting the established other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data; sharing the fishing gear data only with the established other vessels by electronic communication from the first vessel…and not sharing the fishing gear data with vessels not part of the other vessels.
However, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses with the use of a planning tool, a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove an operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators). Furthermore, 0064 clearly states the planning tool of the user/operator only establishes a connection for operational information to be shared only with remote vessels sails within radio range of the user/operator vessel. The radio range is typically how far the signal travels which is a form of a radius from the vessel to the “endpoint” of the range. Also 0063 discloses obtaining information of AIS transiting vessels in the vicinity. Thus, Grant discloses only vessels/ships that are within range would be eligible to communicate/shared information with the first vessel. In combination with created operator list explained in 0142-0143, it is at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ship/vessels within radio range of the first vessel and included in the created list of the first vessel would receive the first’s vessel information. This provides the flexibility and customization of data transmission within marine vessel communication. In addition, information of the operators and vessels are stored in a database on a server wherein the operators communicate with the server/database for the information. (0058, 0060) 0049 discloses the database is remote from the vessels/ships. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Therefore, Grant discloses a remote cloud database in which data is obtained and then transmitted to other vessels that are within the first vessel’s radio range and who are also authorized for receiving the transmitted data by the first vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Grant et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide improved sharing and visualization in such a complex marine field having multiple operators performing various operations. (0009)
Therefore, given the functionality a radius of the radio communication being explicitly set as taught by Shimokawabe and the given functionality of only communicating information with selected other vessels within a vessel’s radio range as taught by Grant, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have realized that the combination of these features would disclose the subject matter of wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enhanced safety, improved coordination, and reduced risk of detection for tactical operations.
As per dependent claims 26 and 27, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses only communicating with only certain groups using a designated channel. (0311-0312) In addition, Shimokawabe discloses radio communication may have a set radius of traveling. (0320-0321). Thus, Shimokawabe discloses a radio range having a selected radius. Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses with the use of a planning tool, a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove an operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators). Furthermore, 0064 clearly states the planning tool of the user/operator only establishes a connection for operational information to be shared only with remote vessels sails within radio range of the user/operator vessel. The radio range is typically how far the signal travels which is a form of a radius from the vessel to the “endpoint” of the range. Also 0063 discloses obtaining information of AIS transiting vessels in the vicinity. Thus, Grant discloses only vessels/ships that are within range would be eligible to communicate/shared information with the first vessel. In combination with created operator list explained in 0142-0143, it is at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ship/vessels within radio range of the first vessel and included in the created list of the first vessel would receive the first’s vessel information. This provides the flexibility and customization of data transmission within marine vessel communication. Thus, Grant discloses the user shares the position information by selecting to share with other vessels only within the radius. In addition, information of the operators and vessels are stored in a database on a server wherein the operators communicate with the server/database for the information. (0058, 0060) 0049 discloses the database is remote from the vessels/ships. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Therefore, Grant discloses a remote cloud database in which data is obtained and then transmitted to other vessels that are within the first vessel’s radio range and who are also authorized for receiving the transmitted data by the first vessel.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in further view of Shimokawabe in further view of Grant in further view of Tolley (US20220242533, EFD 5/20/2019)
As per dependent claim 4, Claim 4 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and 2. As explained above, Shimokawabe discloses sending positioning information from one mobile terminal to another. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose using short message service (SMS) communication between the terminals/ships. However, Tolley discloses receiver has a SIM card enabling an alarm message to be contemporaneously sent to a mobile telephone by SMS means. (0120) Tolley discloses sending the SMS message via satellite telephone network. (0177)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Tolley since it would have provided the benefit of providing provide a more convenient and cost-effective way of transmitting data since satellite networks provide reliable communication between vessels which is important for when vessels call for assistance during emergencies. In conjunction with Tolley, the combination of the cited art discloses allows sending SMS messages between vessels using satellites.
As per dependent claim 15, Claim 15 recites similar limitations as in Claim 4 and is rejected similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7, 9-10, 12, 22 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in further view of Shimokawabe in further view of Grant in further view of Bak et al (US20190375481) (Disclosed in IDS filed on 1/12/23)
As per dependent claim 7, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a processor in a housing, the housing having an interface for the radio antenna and housing the satellite modem. However, Bak et al discloses a processor in a housing, the housing having an interface for the radio antenna and housing the satellite modem (0043: discloses housing a satellite; (Claims 1, 2, 6, 0049, 0059: a first shell mounted above the deck of the watercraft, the first shell comprising a sealed first interior space that contains the first circuitry wherein the first interior space comprises satellite communications circuitry (satellite) and an antenna in a radome. (radar antenna) The first shell is form of a housing. Circuitry includes a processor. Furthermore, the housing having an interface for the radio antenna (0042, 0056)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Bak et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide improved longer lasting waterproof protection to prevent the ingress of water for an extended period.(0004)
As per dependent claim 9, Claim 9 recites similar limitations as in Claims 1 and 7 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Terry discloses the radio antenna is configured to receive the position information in a radio frequency, and wherein the satellite modem is configured to provide the information to a second vessel. (FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. 0054 in more detail states that the sensor data is appended with geospatial coordinates, which is a form of position information. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. It is implicit that in order to communicate via WiFi (radio wave signals) or a RF, a form of a radio antenna is needed. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel has a radio antenna in order to receive the data from the sensing array of the fishing gear.) Furthermore, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via satellite. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. Furthermore, 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using a satellite received/modem. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose provide position information to a second vessel. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0069 discloses the user can provide this information by the user selecting a position of a nautical chart where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is and inputting information of the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area. The user enters this information on their ship’s user terminal wherein the entered information is stored and transmitted on other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is displayed on other user terminals on other ships/vessels. Therefore, it is implicitly known that if the cited art is capable of performing the functionality once, then it is capable of repeating the function again. Thus, each user on their ship can select a position of a nautical chart where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is and inputting information of the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area. Each user on their ship enters this information on their ship’s user terminal wherein the entered information is stored and transmitted on other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is displayed on other user terminals on other ships/vessels. In conjunction with Terry, the combination of Terry and Shimokawabe discloses the radio antenna and/or satellite modem are configured to receive position information for other ocean-based fishing gear associated with the second vessel, and wherein the processor is configured to display the position information of the other ocean-based fishing gear.
As per dependent claim 10, Claim 10 recites similar limitations as in Claims 1 and 7 and are rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Terry discloses wherein the radio antenna and/or satellite modem are configured to transceiver other data in addition to the position information from the ocean-based fishing gear. (0053, 0087: sensor array data includes other data transmitted). Furthermore, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and 7, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 00165 0169, select a category information such as a useful information, an obstacle, a warning, a map problem, a fishing equipment installation area and the like; 0070: ship’s navigation plan)
As per dependent claim 12, as explained in Claim 11 and the rationale incorporated, Terry discloses a radio transceiver (0056, 0088) and a satellite modem (FIG 4B; 0056). However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the vessel having a single unit comprising both a radio transceiver and a satellite modem. However, based on the rejection of Claim 7 and the rationale incorporated, Bak et al discloses a first shell mounted above the deck of the watercraft, the first shell comprising a sealed first interior space that contains the first circuitry wherein the first interior space comprises satellite communications circuitry (satellite) and an antenna in a radome. (radar antenna) (Claims 1, 2, 6, 0049, 0059)
As per dependent claim 22, Terry discloses receiving by a radio transceiver of vessel on the first vessel, and sharing via satellite communications using a satellite modem. (FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. It is implicit that in order to communicate via WiFi (radio wave signals) or a RF, a form of a radio antenna is needed. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel has a radio antenna in order to receive the data from the sensing array of the fishing gear.), Furthermore, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via satellite. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using a satellite received/modem. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose provide fishing gear data information to a second vessel. However, based on the rejection of Claim 20 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084). In conjunction with Terry, the combination of Terry and Shimokawabe discloses using a satellite to transmit fishing gear information from one vessel to another.
However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose the vessel having a single unit/transceiver comprising both a radio transceiver and a satellite modem. However, based on the rejection of Claim 7 and the rationale, along with the motiviation, incorporated, Bak et al discloses a processor in a housing, the housing having an interface for the radio antenna and housing the satellite modem (0043: discloses housing a satellite; (Claims 1, 2, 6, 0049, 0059: a first shell mounted above the deck of the watercraft, the first shell comprising a sealed first interior space that contains the first circuitry wherein the first interior space comprises satellite communications circuitry (satellite) and an antenna in a radome. (radar antenna) The first shell is form of a housing. Circuitry includes a processor. Furthermore, the housing having an interface for the radio antenna (0042, 0056)
Claim(s) 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in further view of Shimokawabe in further view of Grant in further view of Opshaung (US20200239108, 2020) (Disclosed in IDS filed on 1/12/23)
As per dependent claim 16, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via satellite. 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using a satellite received/modem. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose provide position information to a second vessel. However, based on the rejection of Claim 11 and the rationale incorporated, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0069 discloses the user can provide this information by the user selecting a position of a nautical chart where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is and inputting information of the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area. The user enters this information on their ship’s user terminal wherein the entered information is stored and transmitted on other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is displayed on other user terminals on other ships/vessels. In conjunction with Terry, the combination of Terry and Shimokawabe discloses using a satellite to transmit position information from one vessel to another.
Furthermore, the cited art fails to disclose receiving comprises receiving via satellite communication. However, Opshaug discloses receiving, via first electronic communications, the fishing gear data from the fishing gear of a first vessel via satellite communication (0028, 0062, 0065)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Opshaug since it would have provided the benefit of fishing gear using satellite communication allows fishing gear to be located more quickly, more accurately, and in a more cost-effective manner (0004)
Claim(s) 23-25 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in further view N et al (US 20210287163, EFD 12/6/2018) in further view of Shimokawabe in further view of Grant
As per independent claim 23, Terry discloses a system comprising:
a radio transmitter on ocean-based fishing gear; a first transceiver on a first vessel, the first transceiver configured to receive data from the radio transmitter, wherein the first transceiver is configured to receive the data in a radio frequency, the data comprising position information of ocean-based fishing gear (0040, 0042-0043: Discloses a underwater harvesting device (fishing gear) comprising a sensing array. The sensing array sends data to the data processing device on the vessel through a network. FIG 5D, 0081 discloses the sensing array is mounted to a buoy that is coupled to the fishing gear. The sensing array communicatively coupled to a data processing device aboard the fishing vessel such that data is transmitted though the wireless bridge between the vessel and data processing device. Furthermore, see also 0082 discloses the sensing array may be mounted directly to the skiff such the sensory array/skiff relay data to the data processing device of the fishing vessel through the wireless bridge. In one embodiment, 0048 discloses the data processing device are communicatively coupled to the sensing array through a wireless network connection between router of the device and router of the sensing array. Thus, the device attached to the vessel has a radio transmitter. 0054 and 0087 discloses the data transmitted from the sensing array includes geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning of the fishing gear. Furthermore, 0054 in more detail states that the sensor data is appended with geospatial coordinates, which is a form of position information. Thus, 0054 discloses the sensor data includes position information. Furthermore, 0056, 0088: Discloses wireless communication maybe as WiFi or radio frequency. It is implicit that in order to communicate via WiFi (radio wave signals) or radio frequency, a form of a radio antenna is needed. One of a skilled artisan would have realized that Wi-Fi uses radio frequencies to transmit data. In addition, 0088 discloses the track data of the sensing array (e.g. as mentioned in 0087 such as GPS positioning of the gear or 0054 such as geospatial coordinates) is transmitted to the data processing device of the fishing vessel. As stated, the data is transmitted as WiFi (radio wave signals/frequencies) to the vessel, therefore, the vessel must have a form of radio antenna. Thus, Terry discloses the vessel has a radio antenna (form of a transceiver) in order to receive the data from the transmitter of sensing array of the fishing gear via WiFI/radio frequencies).
Furthermore, Terry discloses a first satellite modem on the first vessel. 0056 discloses each fishing vessel in the fleet have their own satellite receiver…send/receive communications to the network through a satellite. FIG 4B discloses a satellite receiver communities with a network. 0045 discloses the data processing device 204 may be communicatively coupled to a network and may subsequently communicate with server. In addition, Terry discloses that sensor array transmits data to the server through a network using a wireless communication system (0088). However, Terry fails to specifically disclose a first satellite modem is used to send the data to a server or database wherein the first satellite modem is configured to provide the data to the server or database via second satellite internet communications. However, N et al discloses ship’s ship computing device transmits data to a remote server within the computing network (Internet) through satellite communications, form of satellite internet communications. (0033,0036) One of a skilled artisan would have realized that the ship computing device is a form of a satellite modem since it using satellite communications to transmit to the server within Internet computing network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of N et al since it would have provided the intrinsic advantage of satellites allowing ships to connect at sea when mobile networks fade allow data to be transmitted offshore without the need to return to land or close to land in order to transmit data through mobile networks
Furthermore, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via cellular antenna, satellite, or other wireless communications such as WiFi/RF. (therefore, a radio antenna as explained above)(0056) 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Furthermore, 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using an (radio) antenna/transmitter and/or a satellite received/modem. Furthermore, 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) In addition, Terry discloses a cloud based database (Abstract, 0034, 0079, 0088) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose a second transceiver on other vessels including a second vessel, the second transceiver configured to receive the data from the server or database via first satellite internet communications and wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the fishing gear based on the received fishing gear data. However, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels. (0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0265 discloses the obstacle as a net and fishing implement information is fishing equipment information( ocean based gear) . Thus, “ocean based gear” information is transmitted to other vessels. Furthermore, the transmission on information involves the use of a database. 0169 discloses each terminal acquires and process stored plot information wherein the plot information was stored in a database on the server which is displayed via the plot setting and display module of the user terminal of the vessel (0069, 0169). 0065 discloses the server is arranged on a cloud wherein users can download/share information such as plot information from the cloud/server (0051, 0102, 0162). For example, 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084) 0069 clearly states “to store the information in the plot management information 241 and to display the information on other user terminals 102 using the ship navigational system 1 and/or on the land-based management terminals 103.” Also, the obstacle( net) and/or fishing equipment information is transmitted to other vessels from a first vessel once the information is provided via the first vessel. Thus, 0069, 0169 discloses using an user interface to establish connections with other vessels and share obstacle(net)/fishing equipment gear information. 0054-0056 discloses the use of communicating with other vessels/ship via their user terminals over network via satellites or by Wi-FI/mobile telephone communications (radio waves). Data shown in FIG 12 and/or 13 is shared from the display of the first vessel to one or more other vessels having the user terminals. Also, 0056 discloses the user terminal 102 is configured to transmit and receive data to and from the management server 101… and other user terminals 102 based on, for example, the data communication by using the mobile telephone communication. In order for each user terminal to communicate to each other, it is implicit each user terminal has a transceiver. In addition, 0060 discloses each terminal discloses a communication control unit such as a network card, a radio (wireless) communication module, a mobile communication module. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses a device having a form of transceiver that can send/receive data with a server.
Furthermore, as explained, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses route plan setting module to accept an input of ship navigation plan from the user. By setting the destination and the transit point on the nautical chart, the route to the destination, the distance thereof, the required time thereof and the like are displayed. 0086 disclose it is possible to configure the plot setting and display module 313 and the route plan setting module 314 as a part of the map display module 311 and the radar display module 312. 0153-0156 discloses the user is able to select points on the nautical chart to plan a route. In addition, 0089 discloses displaying a warning if the planned route of the current vessel would collide with another vessel or the like. It is noted that 0089 does not explicitly limit the collision warnings to just other ships since it states “or the like”. In other words, it does not limit the collision warning to just colliding with another vessel. This enables the collision warning include any objects in danger of collision on/in the sea along the vessel’s planned route. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses collision warnings of objects along a path of the current vessel. Since the user uses the displayed nautical chart, the plot information of fishing gear is displayed, and the collision warning functionality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date that a user would see where the location of the fishing gear is on the nautical chart and select points for a route that avoid these areas. This would prevent the ship from having any conflicts with the gear in the water such sailing into any fishing gear that may result damages to the ship and/or the fishing gear. Thus, Shimokawabe discloses the ability for any vessel to plan a route that avoids the fishing gear based on the received fishing gear data
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Shimokawabe since it would have provided the benefit of providing a Ship Movement-Sharing Navigation Support System utilizing an inexpensive and simple portable user terminal.
Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses only communicating with only certain groups using a designated channel. (0311-0312) In addition, Shimokawabe discloses radio communication may have a set radius of traveling. (0320-0321). Thus, Shimokawabe discloses a radio range having a selected radius. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose wherein the server or database is configured for user selection of the other vessels and the user shares the position information only with the other such that the position information is not shared with vessels not part of the other vessels, wherein the user selects the other vessels and deselects additional vessels, and wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selecting to share with other vessels within a fishery.
However, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses with the use of a planning tool, a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove a operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators). Furthermore, 0064 clearly states the planning tool of the user/operator only establishes a connection for operational information to be shared only with remote vessels sails within radio range of the user/operator vessel. The radio range is typically how far the signal travels which is a form of a radius from the vessel to the “endpoint” of the range. Also 0063 discloses obtaining information of AIS transiting vessels in the vicinity. Thus, Grant discloses only vessels/ships that are within range would be eligible to communicate/shared information with the first vessel. In combination with created operator list explained in 0142-0143, it is at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ship/vessels within radio range of the first vessel and included in the created list of the first vessel would receive the first’s vessel information. This provides the flexibility and customization of data transmission within marine vessel communication. In addition, information of the operators and vessels are stored in a database on a server wherein the operators communicate with the server/database for the information. (0058, 0060) 0049 discloses the database is remote from the vessels/ships. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Therefore, Grant discloses a remote cloud database in which data is obtained and then transmitted to other vessels that are within the first vessel’s radio range and who are also authorized for receiving the transmitted data by the first vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Grant et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide improved sharing and visualization in such a complex marine field having multiple operators performing various operations. (0009)
Therefore, given the functionality a radius of the radio communication being explicitly set as taught by Shimokawabe and the given functionality of only communicating information with selected other vessels within a vessel’s radio range as taught by Grant, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have realized that the combination of these features would disclose the subject matter of wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enhanced safety, improved coordination, and reduced risk of detection for tactical operations.
As per dependent claim 24, Terry discloses he second transceiver comprises a second satellite modem. (0056: each vessel in a fleet, that communicates with each other, has their own satellite receiver that send/receives communications)
As per dependent claim 25, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels. Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels.(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose generate a user interface configured for user selection of the second vessel for sharing. However, based on the rejection of claim 23, and the rationale incorporated, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove a operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, in regards to limitations of claims 1, 11, 23, and 25 invoking 35 USC 112(f),
Applicant argues the limitations of comprising “cloud-based data configured…”, “interface configured to…”, and “user interface configured” do not invoke 112(f) since these terms are associated with sufficient structure. A) Applicant argues that 112(f) would not apply to the terms if one of ordinary skill in the art reading the (Applicant’s) specification would recognize the terms as being of sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. Applicant argues it specification provides sufficient structure for the terms “cloud-based database”, “ interface”, and “user interface”. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s argument provides no evidence that Applicant’s specification indicates sufficient structure for the terms/elements “cloud-based database”, “ interface”, and “user interface”. In addition, the Examiner was unable to find any suggestion or explanation that either of these elements/terms have sufficient structure. Thus, since no evidence was provided and the Examiner was unable to locate in Applicant’s specification that either these terms is associated with sufficient structure, then one of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand that either of the listed terms/elements did not have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function. Therefore, the terms “cloud-based database”, “ interface”, and “user interface” would still invoke 112(f)
Applicant argues that the claim limitations do not use the terms "means" or "step for," which triggers the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) does not apply. In other words, since the claims do not use “means” or “step for”, then the limitation shouldn’t invoke 112(f). However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner states while each of these limitations do not use the terms "means" or "step", each of these limitations disclose a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function for overcoming the presumption to invoke 112f analysis. The Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 2181(I)(A) that states "The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means")." This description is referring prong (A) of the 3-prong analysis to determine if a claim limitation invokes 35 USC 112f/sixth paragraph. Prong (A) states "the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function. The limitations A)cloud-based database... configured to provide, user selection in claim(s) 1; B) cloud-based database... configured for user selection in claim(s) 1, 11, 23; C) Interface…configured to receive in claim(s) 1; D) User interface configured for user selection in claim(s) 25. Either of these limitations uses the generic placeholder “cloud-based database”, “interface” or “user interface”. In addition, the placeholders are not recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. Therefore, these particular limitations remain invoking 112f.
On page 9, in regards to the 112(b) rejection of the claims, Applicant states that examples to the terms (i.e. “cloud-based database”, “interface” or “user interface”) are fully described in the specification in paragraphs 0039, 0046-0047, and 0053 and also in FIG 4. Therefore, the Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner respectfully states, after a brief review, that neither of these paragraphs or figures show the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of each limitation containing “…database/interface… configured to” after review. If Applicant believes these paragraphs do show “corresponding structure, material, or acts…”, the Examiner requests the Applicant to pinpoint exactly where in these paragraphs the “corresponding structure, material, or acts…” can be found. Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason. Furthermore, even if Applicant’s specification does disclose corresponding structure for the limitation(s) comprising the terms (“cloud-based database”, “interface” or “user interface”) (which the Examiner disagrees), a clear algorithm must also be shown in the specification to correspond to the claimed “cloud-based database”, “interface” and “user interface”. Applicant’s arguments did not indicate where a clear algorithm for the claimed “cloud-based database”, “interface” and “user interface”. within Applicant’s specification. 2181 II.B. clearly states “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, the Examiner was unable to find an algorithm for the claimed “cloud-based database”, “interface” and “user interface”. Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason.
On pages 10-12, in regards to the claim 1 rejected under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the present claim(s) do not fall into one of the three judicial exceptions, i.e. mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes and clearly integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Argument A) In regards to step 2A, prong 1, the Applicant argues that 1) the cloud-based database (is) configured for user selection of the other vessels and (is) configured to share, based on the selection made by the user, position information and 2) is not a mental process. In addition, under step 2A, prong 2, Claim 1 has been amended to recite that "the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information." As amended, claim 1 now describes how the data is used once received from the first vessel, and cannot be described as simply data gathering. Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, claim 1 recites a judicial exception, which does not, claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical idea.
Argument B) In addition, under 2B, Applicant argues that the claim as a whole provides a specific improvement over prior methods, resulting in improved avoidance of fishing gear. Applicant states amended claim 1 provides a system to receive and share data regarding the location of gear, and then using the data, such that the first vessel or other vessels avoid the fishing gear.. Applicant merely cites that an improvement in operation of equipment on vessels is provided. Thus, Applicant states the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
However, the Examiner disagrees.
Response to argument A) The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant’s claim 1 does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a practical application being performed, as explained in Step 2A, Prong One and Two. In regards to Step 2A, Prong One. As explained above, the claims fall into one of the three groupings of subject matter, mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, or mental process. In regards to explicitly argued subject matter, the Examiner explained that the limitation “wherein the cloud-based database is configured for user selection of the other vessels” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. . That is, other than reciting “cloud-based database” and “vessels”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “user selection” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “cloud-based database” and “vessels”, “user selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from. In addition, the examiner explained the limitation “…selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “first vessel”, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually making a choice when given a list of options to pick from. Furthermore, the Examiner explained the limitation “…wherein the other vessels plan a route that avoids the ocean-based fishing gear based on the received position information” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “vessels” and “ocean-based fishing gear” , “plan” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to determine the directions to their destination mentally or using a pen and paper writing down the directions.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, in regards to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner states that the claim recites judicial exception wherein the subject matter limitations (wherein the cloud-based database is configured to provide the position information to other vessels including a second vessel; the cloud-based database is configured to share, based on the user selection, the position information only with the other vessels such that the position information is not shared with vessels not part of the other vessels) recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application.
Each of the “provide” and “share(s)” limitations are merely post-solution steps of transmitting data recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The cloud-based data base and vessels in the limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the cloud-based data base and vessels are used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the argued cloud-based data base and/or vessels are mere additional elements to perform the plan, share(s) and/or provide steps. The cloud-based data base and/or vessels in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of plan, share(s) and/or provide) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. In other words, the cloud-based data base and vessels in the steps are claimed at a high level of generality such that the cloud-based data base and vessels are used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of plan, share(s) and/or provide. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Response to argument B) In response, in regards to improvement of a technological field, the Examiner respectfully states MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
The Examiner respectfully states the applicant fails to identify that the claims and the limitations themselves at issue are directed toward overcoming a problem within the technology. In addition, the Examiner respectfully states the claims themselves provide no evidence of an improvement in computer- related technology beyond the abstract idea, and the computer hardware cited/claimed (i.e. cloud-base database and vessels) is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea as opposed to claiming the process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result. Thus, the claims are merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Furthermore, while the Applicant states that the present invention provides the effect of “improved avoidance of fishing gear…An improvement in operation of equipment on vessels is provided”; the Examiner states these statement(s) are merely conclusionary statements that provide no evidence/reasoning to counter the Examiner’s reasoning/rationale on how the claims or elements within the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained, the claim limitations of “share(s)” and “provide” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a using fishing gear, a vessel, cloud-base database to perform the share(s) plan, and/or providing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The MPEP 2105.06(a) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Thus, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims are merely improving the abstract idea and not an improvement in technology.
Thus, the 101 rejection of the claims still remains and the claim is not patent eligible.
On pages 12-15, in regards to claims 1, 11, and 23 rejected under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues the cited art, Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant, primarily Grant, does not teach the limitation/subject matter “that the user selection includes "selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery,". Applicant argues that Grant does not a radius being selected to share information to other vessels within the selected radius. Applicant states that Grant only a radio range is used and a connection with other ships can only be established when these vessels sail within the radio range. Thus, Applicant argues that Grant does not disclose a user selected radius as claimed, not the length of a radio range. Furthermore, Applicant argues that Grant does not teach which ships/vessels, within a fishery, to share information with. Thus, the cited art, Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant fails to teach the argued limitation/subject matter. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Based on the arguments provided by the Applicant in respect to claimed features in the claim limitation, the Examiner respectfully submits that the Applicant states that Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant, primarily Grant, do not teach the limitations by merely summarizing certain paragraphs/sections of the reference(s) and/or allegedly concludes that Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant do not teach the limitation/subject matter. Applicant does not disclose how the claim language of the claim limitation is different from the teachings of Grant (and Terry and Shimokawabe), by describing the differences that involve any supporting evidence from the specification stating or describing the limitation, or how Grant (and Terry and Shimokawabe) is specifically different from Applicant's invention. Applicant argues that sections of Grant do not teach the argued limitations without any explanation or describing how the claim language and invention is performed regarding the claimed subject matter. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to disclose how the cited art is silent or doesn't teach on the limitation since the Applicant does not fully describe the differences that involve any supporting evidence from Applicant's specification stating or describing the limitations, or how the cited art is specifically different from the invention itself. Therefore, the Applicant did not explicitly state how Applicant's invention, other than stating Grant (and Terry and Shimokawabe), individually, doesn't teach the limitations, is different to prove that the cited art’s functionality does not equivalently teach the limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., user selected radius) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Based on the language of the argued limitation, the language only states that the radius relative to the first vessel is selected and not explicitly state that the user selects the radius. Furthermore, the language is completely silent on how the radius is selected. The language does not limit it to a user; therefore, leaving it open to be select in any way or any fashion such as a default selection or a predetermined setting. Furthermore, the language is silent on what is considered a radius. In other words, the language does not limit the scope of the term in anyway. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, the language does not prevent the radius using the length of radio ranges to be considered a radius since both deal with the lengths of travel signals.
Furthermore, the Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 904.01 (b) that states "All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though specifically different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter." In other words, while the prior art cited may not explicitly use the same terminology as disclosed in the claim limitations, it doesn't mean the art doesn't teach it and can't be considered to reject Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, examiner submits that what is taught by the references of the cited art is considered functionally equivalent to that which is claimed discussed below.
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of language of the subject matter/limitations, Terry discloses fishing vessels may communicate with other fishing vessels via cellular antenna, satellite, or other wireless communications such as WiFi/RF (0056) 0058 discloses a captain of one vessel having access to intranet of fishing vessels’ sensing arrays. Furthermore, 0058 discloses the captain of a vessel may access the sensor data(e.g. geospatial coordinates/GPS positioning see 0087, 0054) of any fishing vessel in the intranet. Thus, information between the vessels is shared between using an (radio) antenna and/or a satellite received/modem. Furthermore, 0058 discloses a captain (or any member of the vessel) of any vessel may view the sensor data and/or video stream of another vessel on their display (0053, 0058) Thus, Terry discloses receiving shared information from a first vessel via (radio) antenna and/or a satellite received/modem. In addition, Terry discloses a cloud based database (Abstract, 0034, 0079, 0088).
Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses transmitting obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement information to other vessels. (0054, 0056, 0069, 0084, 0169) 0265 discloses the obstacle as a net and fishing implement information is fishing equipment information( ocean based gear) . Thus, “ocean based gear” information is transmitted to other vessels. Furthermore, the transmission on information involves the use of a database, such as a cloud-based database. 0169 discloses each terminal acquires and process stored plot information wherein the plot information was stored in a database on the server which is displayed via the plot setting and display module of the user terminal of the vessel (0069, 0169). This is a form of a plotter application/program receiving plot information and having it displayed within the plotter application/program. 0065 discloses the server is arranged on a cloud wherein users can download/share information such as plot information from the cloud/server (0051, 0102, 0162). For example, 0069 and 0169 discloses plot information is received by the user interface of the first vessel and inputted into the user interface wherein the provided plot information includes position information of where the obstacle (net)/fishing equipment/implement area is. This position information of the area is indicated by a visually displayed position on a nautical chart (user interface) (e.g. FIG 13; 0170). This received/inputted information is then stored in the database in a server (0167) and then transmitted onto other user terminals on other ships/vessels. The received information is then received by the other ships/vessels and is displayed on their user terminals. .(0054, 0056, 0069, 0084) 0069 clearly states “to store the information in the plot management information 241 and to display the information on other user terminals 102 using the ship navigational system 1 and/or on the land-based management terminals 103.” Also, the obstacle(net) and/or fishing equipment information is transmitted to other vessels from a first vessel once the information is received by the first vessel. Thus, 0069, 0169 discloses using a user interface to establish connections with other vessels and share obstacle(net)/fishing equipment gear information. 0054-0056 discloses the use of communicating with other vessels/ship via their user terminals over network via satellites or by Wi-FI/mobile telephone communications (radio waves). Data shown in FIG 12 and/or 13 is shared from the display of the first vessel to one or more other vessels having the user terminals.
Furthermore, Shimokawabe discloses only communicating with only certain groups using a designated channel. (0311-0312) In addition, Shimokawabe discloses radio communication may have a set radius of traveling. (0320-0321). Thus, Shimokawabe discloses a radio range having a selected radius. However, the cited art fails to specifically disclose … wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selecting to share with other vessels within a fishery.
However, Grant et al discloses selecting which ships should be included when sending information. (0142-0143: Discloses with the use of a planning tool, a user able to edit an operator list. The operator list can identify one or more operators which an operator is defined as a vessel. The user can remove a operator from the list and/or create a custom operator or view and select from a predefined list of available operators which can be added to the operator list. 0142, 0145, discloses information is shared from the first vessel to only the vessels/operators included in the list. 0152 discloses Modifications to tasks/events made at one particular operator can be broadcast to one or more other selected operators). Furthermore, 0064 clearly states the planning tool of the user/operator only establishes a connection for operational information to be shared only with remote vessels sails within radio range of the user/operator vessel. The radio range is typically how far the signal travels which is a form of a selected radius from the vessel to the “endpoint” of the range since the range is typically preset. Also 0063 discloses obtaining information of AIS transiting vessels in the vicinity. Thus, Grant discloses only vessels/ships that are within range would be eligible to communicate/shared information with the first vessel. In combination with created operator list explained in 0142-0143, it is at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ship/vessels within radio range of the first vessel and included in the created list of the first vessel would receive the first’s vessel information. This provides the flexibility and customization of data transmission within marine vessel communication. In addition, information of the operators and vessels are stored in a database on a server wherein the operators communicate with the server/database for the information. (0058, 0060) 0049 discloses the database is remote from the vessels/ships. Thus, Grant discloses a form of a cloud database. Therefore, Grant discloses a remote cloud database in which data is obtained and then transmitted to other vessels that are within the first vessel’s radio range and who are also authorized for receiving the transmitted data by the first vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention have modified the cited art with the cited features of Grant et al since it would have provided the benefit of provide improved sharing and visualization in such a complex marine field having multiple operators performing various operations. (0009)
Therefore, given the functionality a radius of the radio communication being explicitly set as taught by Shimokawabe and the given functionality of only communicating information with selected other vessels within a vessel’s radio range as taught by Grant, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have realized that the combination of these features would disclose the subject matter of wherein the user selection comprises selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel. This would have provided the intrinsic advantage of enhanced safety, improved coordination, and reduced risk of detection for tactical operations.
Therefore, the cited art teaches the argued limitation.
Note: The argued limitation discloses that the user shares the position information in one of two ways either by selecting vessels to share within a radius or selecting vessels to share within a fishery. Since art is only needed to teach one of the ways and the Examiner explained how the cited art taught the subject matter “selecting vessels to share within a radius”, then Applicant’s arguments regarding the cited art not teaching selecting vessels to share within a fishery is considered moot for this office action.
Claims 11 and 23 recite the similarly argued limitation as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
On pages 15, in regards to claim 20 rejected under similar rationale, Applicant argues that Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant, primarily Grant, does not teach the limitation/subject matter “that the user selection includes "selection to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selection to share with other vessels within a fishery". Applicant recites similar arguments from Claim 1’s arguments that Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant, primarily Grant, do not teach selecting to share with other vessels within a selected radius relative to the first vessel or selecting to share with other vessels within a fishery and requests withdrawal of the rejection. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, The Examiner respectfully states that "selection to share … within a selected radius … or selection to share … within a fishery" limitation of Claim 20 is similarly worded to the "selection to share … within a selected radius … or selection to share … within a fishery" limitation of Claim 11 in which the Applicant similarly argued that Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant, primarily Grant do not teach in Applicant’s arguments regarding to Claim 11. Therefore, the Examiner points the Applicant to the Examiner’s response to Claim 1’s argument of how Grant (and Terry and Shimokawabe) teaches this argued limitation.
On pages 15-16, in regards to claim 20 rejected under similar rationale, Applicant argues that Terry, Shimokawabe, and Grant, primarily Grant, does not teach the limitations/subject matter “"operating a cloud-based database that allows for selection and deselection of which of the fishing gear data to share with which of the other vessels”, "selecting the established other vessels with which to share the fishing gear data," "the other vessels plan a route that avoids the fishing gear based on the received fishing gear data,". However, the Examiner disagrees.
After consideration of Applicants arguments of claims 20, the Examiner respectfully states Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive to overcome the cited rejections and respectfully direct the Applicant to the rejection explained above for the reasons why the claim remains rejected under the same grounds of rejection.
All other arguments on page 14-16 that were not addressed by the Examiner, are referring to the dependent claims which are in reference or depend to the topics above, thus the rationale above can be used to respond to the similar arguments and/or Examiner's explanation used in the rejection of those claims as described in the rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 27 have been considered but are moot because the new claim has not been examined before which requires a new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172