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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an RCE on 08/17/2026. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 22-24 were amended, claims 7, 13, and 20 were cancelled and claim 25 were newly added. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 22-25 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that Claim 1 is not directed to a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or mental process because it recites physical elements including a first and second small watercraft, first and second communication terminals, a server, memory, area setter, transmitter, display, and speaker. Applicant further asserts that the claimed features cannot be performed solely in the mind.
However, this argument is not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the 2019 Guidance (Revised Step 2A, Prong One), the claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting position data related to an abnormality (overboard event), determining geographic areas around that position, and providing differentiated alerts based on location relative to those areas. These steps are mental processes and methods of organizing human activity that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (e.g., a person observing a fall, mentally defining zones around the fall location, and shouting different verbal warnings depending on distance).
The recited hardware elements (watercraft, portable terminals, server, display, speaker) are generic computer and marine components used as tools to implement the abstract idea. They do not change the fact that the claims are directed to the abstract idea itself. The claims therefore remain directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant argues that even if an abstract idea is present, the claims integrate it into a practical application by displaying overboard position information on a map so that a driver of another watercraft can intuitively recognize the position and avoid navigating near a fallen passenger, thereby improving safety.
However, this argument is not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Displaying location information on a map and issuing warnings to improve safety is the abstract idea itself applied in a marine environment. The additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
They merely apply the abstract idea using generic computing and communication components (portable terminals, server, display, speaker) in a conventional technological environment. There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology; the claims simply use conventional components to perform the abstract idea of location-based alerting. The claims therefore remain directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 with respect to Suda (US20220234701A1) in view of Shimokawabe Tomohiro et al. (WO2020250780A1), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Applicant argues that “Tomohiro fails to explicitly disclose: a cooperation among a first communication terminal, a second communication terminal, and a server; and issuing different warnings according to areas via a display and a speaker of the second communication terminal carried by a user of the second small watercraft.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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: an area setter that sets in claim 1.
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 is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification [0040] 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 § 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed at the concept of an operation assistance system for a small watercraft. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claims 1 is directed to an operation assistance system for a small watercraft (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 12 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1 and 12 recites: An operation assistance system for a first small watercraft comprising:
a first communication terminal that is carried by a user of the first small watercraft, the first communication terminal being configured to specify an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred on the first small watercraft;
a server that receives information on the abnormality occurrence position specified by the first communication terminal;
and a second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft, the second communication terminal being configured to receive the information on the abnormality occurrence position from the server,
wherein the server includes a memory that stores information on the abnormality occurrence position received from the first communication terminal,
an area setter that sets a first area including the abnormality occurrence position, and a second area between an outer edge of the first area and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance based on information on the abnormality occurrence position stored in the memory,
and a transmitter that transmits information on the first area and the second area,
wherein the second communication terminal includes a display, a speaker, and a controller,
and the controller that causes the speaker to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user of the second small watercraft who has entered the first area, and causes the speaker to generate a second warning sound different from the first warning sound and display a second warning display different from the first warning display on the display for the user of the second small watercraft who has entered the second area, based on the information on the first area and the second area transmitted from the transmitter and a current position of the second communication terminal.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “specifies, causes , sets, generate, …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An operation assistance system for a first small watercraft comprising:
a first communication terminal that is carried by a user of the first small watercraft, the first communication terminal being configured to specify an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred on the first small watercraft;
a server that receives information on the abnormality occurrence position specified by the first communication terminal;
and a second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft, the second communication terminal being configured to receive the information on the abnormality occurrence position from the server,
wherein the server includes a memory that stores information on the abnormality occurrence position received from the first communication terminal,
an area setter that sets a first area including the abnormality occurrence position, and a second area between an outer edge of the first area and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance based on information on the abnormality occurrence position stored in the memory,
and a transmitter that transmits information on the first area and the second area,
wherein the second communication terminal includes a display, a speaker, and a controller,
and the controller that causes the speaker to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user of the second small watercraft who has entered the first area, and causes the speaker to generate a second warning sound different from the first warning sound and display a second warning display different from the first warning display on the display for the user of the second small watercraft who has entered the second area, based on the information on the first area and the second area transmitted from the transmitter and a current position of the second communication terminal.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “Communication terminal, Server, Transmitter, Memory, Controller” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the transmits, receives, causes by a processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “Communication terminal, Server, Transmitter, Memory, Controller” amounts to nothing 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 14-18 and 22-24 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 8-9, 11, 14-18 and 22-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1 and 12.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 22-25 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-12, 14 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashizume et al. (US20180281907A1) in view of Suda (US20220234701A1) and further in view of Tanishita et al. (US20240078888A1) and Nickel et al. (US 20190004164 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hashizume, Suda , Tanishita and Nickel respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Hashizume discloses an operation assistance system for a first small watercraft (“An embodiment for implementing the navigation assist system and the navigation assist apparatus and server of the system” [0022] and “FIG. 2 is an enlarged side view (partially in section) of an outboard motor mounted on the small boat of FIG. 1” [0023]).
a server that receives information on the abnormality occurrence position specified by the first communication terminal (“a server (500) configured to communicate with the navigation assist apparatuses (200); wherein each of the navigation assist apparatuses (200) comprises: a trim-up detector unit (220) configured to detect trim-up of the outboard motor (10) fitted on one of the boats (1, i.e., the subject boat 1) that navigates in the predetermined water area within a predetermined speed range; a trim-up position data transmitter unit (222) configured to detect a position data of the one of the boats (1) as a trim-up position data when the trim-up detector unit (220) detects the trim-up of the outboard motor (10) and send the trim-up position data to the server (500)” [0115] and “when any boat 1 shown in FIG. 4 is trimmed up while running at low speed (speed within a predetermined range), such is detected by the navigation assist apparatus 200 and the boat's own position data at this time are transmitted to the server 500 as trim-up data. The server 500 receives and collects the trim-up position data transmitted from every boat 1. Based on data accumulated in this manner, the server 500 determines danger level in every coordinate domain of a predetermined mesh-like divided water area and updates and saves the obtained danger level data.” [0117]);
wherein the server includes a memory that stores information on the abnormality occurrence position received from the first communication terminal (“the map data (electronic nautical chart data) of the water area 2 are stored in advance in the nonvolatile memory of the server 500 and the nonvolatile memory of the ECU 210 of the navigation assist apparatus 200 of each boat 1.” [0074] and “The server 500 receives and collects the trim-up position data transmitted from every boat 1…… the server 500 determines danger level in every coordinate domain of a predetermined mesh-like divided water area and updates and saves the obtained danger level data.” [0057]),
a transmitter that transmits information on the first area and the second area (“a trim-up position data transmitter unit configured to detect a position data of the one of the boats as a trim-up position data when the trim-up detector unit detects the trim-up of the outboard motor and send the trim-up position data to the server; a danger level data download unit configured to download from the server danger level data indicating danger level of individual coordinate domains of the predetermined water area divided into mesh-like coordinate domains” [0008]),
the controller that causes the speaker to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user of the second small watercraft who has entered the first area, and causes the speaker to generate a second warning sound different from the first warning sound and display a second warning display different from the first warning display on the display for the user of the second small watercraft who has entered the second area, based on the information on the first area and the second area transmitted from the transmitter and a current position of the second communication terminal (“The navigation assist apparatus 200 of each boat 1 downloads this danger level data from the server 500 and displays the data on the display 204 (shown in FIG. 1), and when the subject boat approaches a high danger region, it alerts or warns the operator by, for instance, flashing the indicator 206 or sounding a buzzer. As a result, the operator can navigate cautiously to avoid inadvertent grounding, and prevent, or at least minimize, damage and other harm to the hull 12 or the outboard motor(s) 10.” [0058] and “it is determined in S276 whether the subject boat has closely approached a region whose danger level is High, and when the result is YES (close approach), the program goes to S278 to produce an audible alarm. For example, the buzzer 208 is sounded. Or a vocal alarm such as “Approaching dangerous region!” can be announced. Or an alarm can be made by an electronic generated sound. These audible alarm methods can be combined. And the alert display can be continued.” [0113]).
Hashizume does not explicitly teach a first communication terminal that is carried by a user of the first small watercraft, the first communication terminal being configured to specify an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred on the first small watercraft.
However, Suda does teach a first communication terminal that is carried by a user of the first small watercraft, the first communication terminal being configured to specify an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred on the first small watercraft (“a portable device held by a person on board the watercraft and communicating with the control device”[ Claim 1], “the control device detects a fall of the person from the watercraft based on a signal from the portable device, stores the position of the watercraft indicated by a signal from the position detection device when the fall of the person from the watercraft is detected as an overboard event detection position.” ¶ [0005], and “the control device acquires a distance between the control device and the portable device based on the signal from the portable device and determines that the person has fallen from the watercraft when the distance between the control device and the portable device is greater than or equal to a prescribed determination value.” [0015]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include a first communication terminal that is carried by a user of the first small watercraft, the first communication terminal being configured to specify an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred on the first small watercraft, as in Suda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves an abnormality occurrence position detection and overall safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Suda, 0005, 0015]).
Hashizume does not explicitly teach wherein the second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft includes a display, a speaker, and a controller
and a second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft, the second communication terminal being configured to receive the information on the abnormality occurrence position from the server.
However, Tanishita does teach wherein the second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft includes a display, a speaker, and a controller (“The cloud server S uses 4G or LTE to acquire, from the portable terminals P1 and P2, the overboard fall information related to the ship crewperson C and the overboard fall position of the ship crewperson C (step S13). The cloud server S references the notification destination table and confirms the portable terminals P3 and P4 to which to be relayed the information related to the ship crewperson C (step S14). Furthermore, the cloud server S uses 4G or LTE to relay the overboard fall information related to the ship crewperson C and the overboard fall position of the ship crewperson C to the portable terminals P3 and P4 (step S15).” [0054] and
“the portable terminals P3 and P4 uses 4G or LTE to acquire the overboard fall position of the ship crewperson C from the cloud server S (step S23). The portable terminals P3 and P4 display the overboard fall position of the ship crewperson C as the icon 4 of the map information 3 (step S24).” [0060]).
and a second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft, the second communication terminal being configured to receive the information on the abnormality occurrence position from the server (“The overboard fall detection system F includes an overboard fall detection unit U and a portable terminal P1 possessed by a ship crewperson C, a portable terminal P2 possessed by a ship crewperson of a ship V1 on which the ship crewperson C boards, a cloud server S, a portable terminal P3 possessed by a ship crewperson of a ship V2 in the vicinity of the ship crewperson C, and a portable terminal P4 possessed by an employee at a base B of the ship crewperson C or possessed by a family member at home H of the ship crewperson C.” [0038]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include wherein the second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft includes a display, a speaker, and a controller and a second communication terminal that is carried by a user of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft, the second communication terminal being configured to receive the information on the abnormality occurrence position from the server, as in Tanishita, with a reasonable expectation of success. Communicating an abnormality occurrence with different speakers and displays improves overall safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Tanishita, 0038, 0054 and 0060]).
Hashizume does not explicitly teach an area setter that sets a first area including the abnormality occurrence position, and a second area between an outer edge of the first area and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance based on information on the abnormality occurrence position stored in the memory.
However, Nickel does teach an area setter that sets a first area including the abnormality occurrence position, and a second area between an outer edge of the first area and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance based on information on the abnormality occurrence position stored in the memory (“such zones may be formed based on a critical forward range and a critical depth, where the critical forward range and the critical depth may be designated using a free form input selection. In another implementation, the free form alert zones may initially be in the form of geometric shapes (e.g., rectangle, circle, ellipse, and/or the like) that can be modified via a user interface.” [0066] and “The sonar module 210 may include computer-executable instructions related to a storage handler or software module configured to automatically record the sonar data in memory (e.g., a database) upon receiving the sonar data from the transducer 220. ………. the storage handler may be configured to automatically upload the sonar data and/or the GPS data to at least one database via a network, such as, e.g., a remote server database (e.g., a cloud based server) via a communication network (e.g., a cloud based network)” [0096]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include an area setter that sets a first area including the abnormality occurrence position, and a second area between an outer edge of the first area and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance based on information on the abnormality occurrence position stored in the memory, as in Nickel, with a reasonable expectation of success. Setting multiple safety zones around an abnormality event detected improves the safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Nickel, 0066 and 0096]).
Regarding claim 2,
Hashizume does not explicitly teach wherein the server further includes information provision circuitry that transmits, to the display as operation assistance information, data for causing the user of the second small watercraft to recognize the abnormality occurrence position on the map.
However, Suda does teach wherein the server further includes information provision circuitry that transmits, to the display as operation assistance information, data for causing the user of the second small watercraft to recognize the abnormality occurrence position on the map. (“The navigation unit 32 includes marine map data and creates a route to the destination based on the position of the own watercraft 2 and the destination. The destination is preferably input by a person on board via the touch panel display 16. The navigation unit 32 creates a navigation image including the position of the watercraft 2, a marine map around the watercraft 2, and the route to the destination and displays the navigation image on the touch panel display 16.” [0042] and “When the rescue control unit 34 detects an overboard event of a person, the automatic navigation control unit 36 controls at least one of the propulsion device 7 and the steering device 8 of the watercraft 2 based on the overboard event detection position and the current position of the watercraft 2 such that the current position of the watercraft 2 approaches the overboard event detection position. Preferably, the automatic navigation control unit 36 controls at least one of the propulsion device 7 and the steering device 8 in accordance with an automatic navigation process shown in FIG. 5.” [0052]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include wherein the server further includes information provision circuitry that transmits, to the display as operation assistance information, data for causing the user of the second small watercraft to recognize the abnormality occurrence position on the map, as in Suda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves communication and critical data sharing of detected events and improves the safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Suda, 0042, 0052]).
Regarding claim 3,
Hashizume does not explicitly teach wherein the information provision circuitry transmits, to the display, data for displaying the first area on the map in a mode different from a mode for the second area.
However, Suda does teach wherein the information provision circuitry transmits, to the display, data for displaying the first area on the map in a mode different from a mode for the second area. (“The navigation unit 32 includes marine map data and creates a route to the destination based on the position of the own watercraft 2 and the destination. The destination is preferably input by a person on board via the touch panel display 16. The navigation unit 32 creates a navigation image including the position of the watercraft 2, a marine map around the watercraft 2, and the route to the destination and displays the navigation image on the touch panel display 16.” [0042]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include wherein the information provision circuitry transmits, to the display, data for displaying the first area on the map in a mode different from a mode for the second area, as in Suda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves updating the map data for other users and improving the overall safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Suda, 0042]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Hashizume discloses further comprising an overboard detector that detects falling overboard of a mounted object including a passenger mounted on the first small watercraft, wherein when falling overboard of the mounted object is detected by the overboard detector, the first communication terminal specifies, as the abnormality occurrence position, the position where the falling overboard has occurred (“The server 500 receives and collects the trim-up position data transmitted from every boat 1 …… the server 500 determines danger level in every coordinate domain of a predetermined mesh-like divided water area and updates and saves the obtained danger level data.” [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Hashizume discloses further comprising: an operator provided in a small watercraft and operable by a passenger of the small watercraft (“a steering wheel 92 rotatable by the boat operator is installed near an operator's seat 90 of the hull 12.” [0043]);
Hashizume does not explicitly teach normality return determinator that determines whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated based on an operation status of the operator, wherein the information provision circuitry stops transmission of the operation assistance information when the normality return determinator determines that the abnormality has been eliminated.
However, Suda does teach normality return determinator that determines whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated based on an operation status of the operator, wherein the information provision circuitry stops transmission of the operation assistance information when the normality return determinator determines that the abnormality has been eliminated (“When it is determined in step S21 that the overboard event detection flag F1 is 0 (the determination result in S21 is No), the automatic navigation control unit 36 executes normal navigation control (S28).” [0060]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include normality return determinator that determines whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated based on an operation status of the operator, wherein the information provision circuitry stops transmission of the operation assistance information when the normality return determinator determines that the abnormality has been eliminated, as in Suda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the data accuracy and safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Suda, 0060]).
Regarding claim 22, Hashizume discloses wherein the first warning sound and the second warning sound are voices (“the buzzer 208 is sounded. Or a vocal alarm such as “Approaching dangerous region!” can be announced. Or an alarm can be made by an electronic generated sound. These audible alarm methods can be combined. And the alert display can be continued.” [0113]).
Regarding claim 14,
Hashizume does not explicitly teach wherein the abnormality occurrence position is the position where the abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in the first small watercraft, and the operation assistance information includes, in addition to the abnormality occurrence position, data for displaying a current position of the second small watercraft on the map.
However, Tanishita does teach wherein the abnormality occurrence position is the position where the abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in the first small watercraft, and the operation assistance information includes, in addition to the abnormality occurrence position, data for displaying a current position of the second small watercraft on the map (“the portable terminals P3 and P4 uses 4G or LTE to acquire the overboard fall position of the ship crewperson C from the cloud server S (step S23). The portable terminals P3 and P4 display the overboard fall position of the ship crewperson C as the icon 4 of the map information 3 (step S24).” [0060]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include wherein the abnormality occurrence position is the position where the abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in the first small watercraft, and the operation assistance information includes, in addition to the abnormality occurrence position, data for displaying a current position of the second small watercraft on the map, the second communication terminal being configured to receive the information on the abnormality occurrence position from the server, as in Tanishita, with a reasonable expectation of success. Displaying the positions of other watercrafts round a set zone improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Tanishita, 0060]).
Regarding claim 23,
Hashizume does not explicitly teach which is a control program performed by the navigational object other than the first small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred.
However, Suda does teach which is a control program performed by the navigational object other than the first small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred (“transmits a rescue request signal via the communication device 31” [0051]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include which is a control program performed by the navigational object other than the first small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred, as in Suda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Monitoring other navigational objects around a set zone improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Suda, 0051]).
Regarding claim 24,
Hashizume does not explicitly teach wherein the navigational object other than the first small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred is controlled based on the operation assistance program.
However, Suda does teach wherein the navigational object other than the first small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred is controlled based on the operation assistance program (“the rescue request signal is received by other watercraft 2” [0051]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of Hashizume to also include wherein the navigational object other than the first small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred is controlled based on the operation assistance program, as in Suda, with a reasonable expectation of success. Controlling other navigational objects around a set zone based on the assistance system program improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Suda, 0051]).
Regarding claim 25, Hashizume discloses wherein the controller causes a warning sound and a warning display on the display of the second small watercraft in addition to the second communication terminal issuing the first warning sound or the second warning sound and displaying the first warning display or the second warning display (“an alert/alarm unit (230) configured to inform an operator of each of the boats (1) by displaying an alert or sounding an alarm, when the each of the boats approaches to within a predetermined distance of one of the coordinate regions on the map whose danger level of the danger level data is equal to or greater than a prescribed level.” [0121] and “The navigation assist apparatus 200 of each boat 1 downloads this danger level data from the server 500 and displays the data on the display 204 (shown in FIG. 1), and when the subject boat approaches a high danger region, it alerts or warns the operator by, for instance, flashing the indicator 206 or sounding a buzzer. As a result, the operator can navigate cautiously to avoid inadvertent grounding, and prevent, or at least minimize, damage and other harm to the hull 12 or the outboard motor(s) 10.” [0058] and “it is determined in S276 whether the subject boat has closely approached a region whose danger level is High, and when the result is YES (close approach), the program goes to S278 to produce an audible alarm. For example, the buzzer 208 is sounded. Or a vocal alarm such as “Approaching dangerous region!” can be announced. Or an alarm can be made by an electronic generated sound. These audible alarm methods can be combined. And the alert display can be continued.” [0113]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel in view of Crawford et al. (US20240092464A1), hereinafter referred to as Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita, Nickel and Crawford respectively.
Regarding claim 15,
The combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel does not explicitly teach an operator provided in a small watercraft and operable by a passenger of the small watercraft and a normality return determinator that determines whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated based on an operation status of the operator, wherein the information provision circuitry transmits information for deleting the abnormality occurrence position from the map when the normality return determinator determines that the abnormality has been eliminated.
However, Crawford does teach an operator provided in a small watercraft and operable by a passenger of the small watercraft (“the controller 213 is configured to disable the automatic navigation mode in response to information from only the operator fob 54 or the remote control 38, but not in response to information from a passenger fob 56. This prevents the marine vessel from automatically navigating away from the operator if the operator is the person who fell overboard. As long as the operator remains on the marine vessel, they are able to cancel the automatic navigation mode if necessary in response to a passenger leaving the marine vessel.” [0075]);
a normality return determinator that determines whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated based on an operation status of the operator (“For example, in response to receiving an input command via the remote control 38, the user input assembly 206, or the user interface 218 that enables one of the automatic navigation modes, the trolling motor controller 213 will set a flag to enable the person overboard detection algorithm. Similarly, in response to receiving an input command via the marine electronic device 30, the joystick 32, or other remote control device that enables one of the automatic navigation modes, the primary propulsion device's controller 20 will set a flag to enable the person overboard detection algorithm. The flag in both instances remains set until the automatic navigation mode is canceled or otherwise disabled.” [0067]),
wherein the information provision circuitry transmits information for deleting the abnormality occurrence position from the map when the normality return determinator determines that the abnormality has been eliminated (“Further, in some examples, the controller 213 is configured to disable the automatic navigation mode in response to information from only the operator fob 54 or the remote control 38, but not in response to information from a passenger fob 56. This prevents the marine vessel from automatically navigating away from the operator if the operator is the person who fell overboard. As long as the operator remains on the marine vessel, they are able to cancel the automatic navigation mode if necessary in response to a passenger leaving the marine vessel. For example, it may be that a passenger purposefully jumped off the marine vessel and simply forgot to remove their fob, and under such circumstances, it may not be necessary to discontinue the automatic navigation mode.” [0075]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of the combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel to also include an operator provided in a small watercraft and operable by a passenger of the small watercraft and a normality return determinator that determines whether or not the abnormality has been eliminated based on an operation status of the operator, wherein the information provision circuitry transmits information for deleting the abnormality occurrence position from the map when the normality return determinator determines that the abnormality has been eliminated, as in Crawford, with a reasonable expectation of success. Determining the if the abnormality has been eliminated and updating the map improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Crawford, 0067, 0075]).
Regarding claim 16,
The combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel does not explicitly teach an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a passenger of the first small watercraft, wherein a detection way of falling overboard of the passenger in a case where the passenger is a driver is different from a detection way of falling overboard of the passenger in a case where the passenger is a fellow passenger different from the driver
and the overboard detector determines whether the passenger is the driver or the fellow passenger based on the difference in the detection way, and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the passenger who has fallen overboard is the driver or the fellow passenger
However, Crawford does teach an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a passenger of the first small watercraft, wherein a detection way of falling overboard of the passenger in a case where the passenger is a driver is different from a detection way of falling overboard of the passenger in a case where the passenger is a fellow passenger different from the driver (“ In one example, the person overboard detection algorithm disables the automatic navigation mode in response to detecting an abrupt change in the received signal strength of the transmitter. Such an abrupt change (calculated as a derivative of the RSS), if above a given threshold, may allow for detection of a person overboard event more promptly than simply using the RSS. For example, if the derivative of the RSS is above a threshold, it is unlikely a person has jumped from one spot on the marine vessel 10 to another, and more likely that they have fallen overboard. The abrupt change in RSS may be due not only to the person falling overboard and the marine vessel 10 continuing to move away from them under automatic control, but may also be due to the transmitter temporarily being underwater as the person is first submerged or due to the signal from the transmitter reflecting, refracting, or diffracting differently due to the hull now being at least partially between the transmitter and the receiver. Thus, smaller changes in RSS are able to be detected and used to determine if a person has fallen overboard, allowing for more prompt subsequent action.” [0071]),
and the overboard detector determines whether the passenger is the driver or the fellow passenger based on the difference in the detection way, and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the passenger who has fallen overboard is the driver or the fellow passenger (“Further, in some examples, the controller 213 is configured to disable the automatic navigation mode in response to information from only the operator fob 54 or the remote control 38, but not in response to information from a passenger fob 56. This prevents the marine vessel from automatically navigating away from the operator if the operator is the person who fell overboard. As long as the operator remains on the marine vessel, they are able to cancel the automatic navigation mode if necessary in response to a passenger leaving the marine vessel. For example, it may be that a passenger purposefully jumped off the marine vessel and simply forgot to remove their fob, and under such circumstances, it may not be necessary to discontinue the automatic navigation mode” [0075]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of the combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel to also include an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a passenger of the small watercraft, wherein a detection way of falling overboard of the passenger in a case where the passenger is a driver is different from a detection way of falling overboard of the passenger in a case where the passenger is a fellow passenger different from the driver and the overboard detector determines whether the passenger is the driver or the fellow passenger based on the difference in the detection way, and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the passenger who has fallen overboard is the driver or the fellow passenger, as in Crawford, with a reasonable expectation of success. Detecting and overboard event of a passenger other than the driver improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Crawford, 0071, 0075]).
Regarding claim 17,
The combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel does not explicitly teach an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a passenger of the first small watercraft, wherein the overboard detector detects that the passenger is a driver by a wired communication, detects that the passenger is a fellow passenger different from the driver by a wireless communication and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the passenger who has fallen overboard is the driver or the fellow passenger
However, Crawford does teach an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a passenger of the first small watercraft, wherein the overboard detector detects that the passenger is a driver by a wired communication, detects that the passenger is a fellow passenger different from the driver by a wireless communication (“FIG. 4 illustrates another system 400 for detecting a given status of a portable device (such as fob 408) to determine if a person may have fallen overboard such that the automatic navigation mode should be disabled. In this example, the person overboard detection algorithm may be carried out by a dedicated controller 402. In the depicted embodiment, the person overboard detection module 404 receives input from the communication interface 406 to determine whether to disable the automatic navigation mode. For example, if the fob 408 is no longer detected within range of the communication interface 406, then the controller 402 may be controlled to disable the automatic navigation mode and to cause the propulsion device 12, 14 to stop producing thrust or to propel the marine vessel 10 such that it backtracks along its immediately prior course. The controller 402 does this by communicating via a communication interface 410 with a communication interface 412 of the propulsion device 12, 14. In one example, the communication is wireless, as shown here, and can be radio frequency communication. In another example, the communication is wired, such as if the controller 402 is plugged into the CAN bus on the marine vessel 10 to which the propulsion device 12, 14 is also connected.” [0079]),
and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the passenger who has fallen overboard is the driver or the fellow passenger(“Further, in some examples, the controller 213 is configured to disable the automatic navigation mode in response to information from only the operator fob 54 or the remote control 38, but not in response to information from a passenger fob 56. This prevents the marine vessel from automatically navigating away from the operator if the operator is the person who fell overboard. As long as the operator remains on the marine vessel, they are able to cancel the automatic navigation mode if necessary in response to a passenger leaving the marine vessel. For example, it may be that a passenger purposefully jumped off the marine vessel and simply forgot to remove their fob, and under such circumstances, it may not be necessary to discontinue the automatic navigation mode” [0075]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of the combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel to also include an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a passenger of the small watercraft, wherein the overboard detector detects that the passenger is a driver by a wired communication, detects that the passenger is a fellow passenger different from the driver by a wireless communication and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the passenger who has fallen overboard is the driver or the fellow passenger, as in Crawford, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using wired and wireless communication methods to detect a passenger other than the driver falling overboard improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Crawford, 0075, 0079]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel in view of Beauvy et al. (WO 2020182604 A1), hereinafter referred to as the combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita, Nickel and Beauvy respectively.
Regarding claim 18,
The combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel does not explicitly teach an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a fallen object from a small watercraft, wherein a detection way of falling overboard of the fallen object in a case where the fallen object is a driver is different from a detection way of falling overboard of the fallen object in a case where the fallen object is a mounted object, and the overboard detector determines whether the fallen object is the driver or the mounted object based on a difference in the detection way, and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the fallen object is the driver or the mounted object
However, Beauvy does teach an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a fallen object from a small watercraft, wherein a detection way of falling overboard of the fallen object in a case where the fallen object is a driver is different from a detection way of falling overboard of the fallen object in a case where the fallen object is a mounted object, and the overboard detector determines whether the fallen object is the driver or the mounted object based on a difference in the detection way, and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the fallen object is the driver or the mounted object (“The device 1 is thus intended to detect the passage of the container overboard and its fall at sea, then to provide warning and geolocation information to people on land or sailing in a maritime area close to the geographical location of the container.” [P.5 Par.2]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the monitoring method of the combination of Hashizume, Suda, Tanishita and Nickel to also include an overboard detector configured to detect falling overboard of a fallen object from a small watercraft, wherein a detection way of falling overboard of the fallen object in a case where the fallen object is a driver is different from a detection way of falling overboard of the fallen object in a case where the fallen object is a mounted object, and the overboard detector determines whether the fallen object is the driver or the mounted object based on a difference in the detection way, and the information on the abnormality occurrence position includes information indicating whether the fallen object is the driver or the mounted object, as in Beauvy, with a reasonable expectation of success. Determining what fell overboard improves in determining the proper safety actions needed (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Beauvy, P.2]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights