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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 03/11/2026. Claims 1, 2, and 11-13 were amended and claims 22-24 were newly added. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-18, 20, and 22-24 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101: Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that “In the Office Action, claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Initially, Applicant notes that the Office Action does not address the specific claim language for each of the rejected claims. For example, it does not discuss the specific limitation in the dependent claims. Thus, the Office Action does not provide a separate analysis of subject matter eligibility for each of the claims, which is required by the framework of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, et al., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).”
However, this argument is not persuasive. While the Office Action grouped substantially similar claims for brevity, the rejection applied the Alice/Mayo framework to the independent claims and noted that the dependent claims do not add limitations that would render the claims eligible. The dependent claims merely recite additional details of the same abstract idea (e.g., further specifics of the areas or warnings) implemented with the same generic hardware, which does not alter the eligibility analysis. The May 2016 Update and 2019 Guidance do not require a claim-by-claim verbatim recitation when the claims share the same ineligible concept; the rejection provided sufficient notice, as evidenced by Applicant’s detailed response addressing the specific limitations.
Applicant argues that, “Applicants’ claim 1 is directed to an operation assistance system for a small watercraft including: [recites the claim elements] … Thus, this claim is not solely directed to a mathematical concept, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process as it recites at least the physical elements of a small watercraft, position specification circuitry, a transmitter, a processing circuit, a memory, information provision circuitry, and a display. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to abstract ideas, and are patent eligible subject matter. … Applicant respectfully disagrees as the features could not be performed solely in the mind as it recites, for example, ‘a warner that issues a warning …’ and ‘a warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display …’ These are physical components and not something that could be done solely in the mind of a human. Also, the claims do not recite generic computer components … Rather, the claims include specific components such as a small watercraft, position specification circuitry, a warner, a processing circuit, a memory, a transmitter, an area setter, and a warner controller”.
However, this argument is not persuasive. Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (page 10-11, as quoted by Applicant), the abstract idea exception includes a mental process, because it is directed to a judgment/observation/evaluation related to determining an area in which an abnormality has occurred. Claim 1 recites exactly such an abstract idea: detecting an abnormality (e.g., falling overboard), transmitting and storing the position, setting concentric areas around that position, and issuing differentiated warnings (sounds and displays) to users of other navigational objects based on which area they have entered. This is a classic method of organizing human activity in maritime navigation and safety alerting. The recited physical elements (, circuitry, transmitter, warner, display, memory, area setter, warner controller) are merely generic hardware and software components that implement the abstract idea at a high level of generality. The 2019 Guidance expressly states that claims reciting an enumerated abstract idea “even when implemented on physical hardware” are treated as directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any technology; they simply use conventional components to perform the abstract alerting process. Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant argues that “In USPTO Step 2B, if the claim is directed to a judicial exception, it is evaluated whether the claim provides an inventive concept. … Applicant’s claim 1 provides an inventive concept as it contains ‘a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.’ … the present claims operate in a non-conventional and non-generic manner. … Like Amdocs, Bascom, and Example 35, the present claims operate in a non-conventional and non-generic manner. Applicants thus respectfully submit that it is unambiguous, when reading the claims as a whole, that the claims involve a very specific technological environment. Upon a review of Applicants’ claims, it is clear that the elements therein, when considered at least in combination, recite an inventive concept that is clearly ‘significantly more’ than any alleged abstract idea.”
This argument is not persuasive. Under Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance (pages 22-23, as quoted by Applicant), the additional elements must amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. The claimed elements—position specification circuitry, transmitter, memory, area setter, warner controller, display, etc.—are generic computer and electronic components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of detecting, storing, transmitting, processing, and outputting alerts. The ordered combination does not yield an unconventional technical improvement; it is the predictable implementation of the abstract idea using known hardware. The claims merely automate this process with generic components and therefore do not provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 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, 12 and 13, Applicant argues that Suda fails to teach or suggest "a warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user who has entered the first area, and causes the warner 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 who has entered the second area".
However, this argument is not persuasive. Suda teaches the base system: a rescue system for small watercraft that specifies an abnormality occurrence position, stores the position, and transmits information on the abnormality occurrence position to other watercraft. “The control device transmits a rescue request signal when a return switch is not operated by a time when a prescribed time has elapsed from when the fall of the person from the watercraft was detected.”[Clm.5], “The rescue request signal preferably contains information related to the overboard event detection position. The rescue request signal is received by other watercraft 2 traveling around the own watercraft 2.”[0051]. Suda further discloses warnings issued via display and speaker on the receiving watercraft: “The rescue control unit 34 preferably displays the alarm on the touch panel display 16 and/or outputs from a speaker, for example.”[0049].
Tomohiro teaches a navigation support system that sets and displays first and second areas (warning area and caution area) around a position of interest, with a controller that causes different warning displays (colors) and supports different warning sounds (audio messages) depending on the area entered. “a first sector F1 meaning a warning area and a second sector F2 meaning a caution area, are displayed centered on the coordinates of the ship.” [P.8] and “the warning area is displayed using a warning color generally associated with a warning” [P.8] and “the caution area is displayed using a caution color that is generally associated with caution” [P.8] and “the message for warning or calling attention is a text display, but it may be a graphic icon or a voice message.”[P.9], therefore the rejection is maintained.
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 1-3, 7-9, 11-18, 20 and 22-24 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 to the concept of tracking and predicting the movement of unclassified object in a scene. 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, 12 and 13 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, 12 and 13 recites: an operation assistance system for a small watercraft comprising:
position specification circuitry that specifies an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred in the small watercraft;
a transmitter that transmits information on the abnormality occurrence position specified by the position specification circuitry;
a warner that issues a warning to a user of a navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred;
a display that displays a map for the user of the navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred;
and a processing circuit, wherein the processing circuit includes a memory that stores information on the abnormality occurrence position transmitted from the transmitter,
an area setter that sets a first area including the abnormality occurrence position, and a second area between an outer edge of the first 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 warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user who has entered the first area, and causes the warner 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 who has entered the second area.
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, issues , sets, causes, …” 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 small watercraft comprising:
position specification circuitry that specifies an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred in the small watercraft;
a transmitter that transmits information on the abnormality occurrence position specified by the position specification circuitry;
a warner that issues a warning to a user of a navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred;
a display that displays a map for the user of the navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred;
and a processing circuit, wherein the processing circuit includes a memory that stores information on the abnormality occurrence position transmitted from the transmitter,
an area setter that sets a first area including the abnormality occurrence position,
and a second area between an outer edge of the first 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 warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user who has entered the first area,
and causes the warner 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 who has entered the second area.
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 “Memory, processing circuit” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the transmits, issues , sets, causes by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates 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 to those 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 “Memory, processor” 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, 20 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, 20 and 22-24 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 12 and 13.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-18, 20 and 22-24 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.
Claims 1-3, 11-12 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUDA (US20220234701A1) in view of SHIMOKAWABE Tomohiro et al. (WO2020250780A1), hereinafter referred to as SUDA and Tomohiro respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, SUDA discloses An operation assistance system for a small watercraft (“one aspect of the present invention provides a rescue system (1) for a watercraft (2)” [0005]) comprising:
a position specification circuitry that specifies an abnormality occurrence position, which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred, when the abnormality has occurred in the small watercraft (“a position detection device (17) that detects a position of the watercraft, wherein 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]);
a transmitter transmission unit that transmits information on the abnormality occurrence position specified by the position specification circuitry (“The communication device 31 includes a receiver and a transmitter and wirelessly communicates with the control station 41, multiple other watercraft 42 in the surroundings, a marine information database (DB) server 43, and multiple portable devices 4 held by respective persons on board.” [0041]);
and a processing circuit, wherein the processing circuit includes a memory storage unit that stores information on the abnormality occurrence position transmitted from the transmitter(“In accordance with an overboard event detection process shown in FIG. 4, the rescue control unit 34 detects an overboard event based on the signal from the portable device 4, and when an overboard event is detected, stores the position of the watercraft 2 indicated by the signal from the position detection device 17 as an overboard event detection position.” [0045]),
an area setter (“For example, if the wireless communication device 14 is in an area bounded by more than one beacon range (e.g. range 20), a more precise location of the wireless communication may be determined. Alternatively, by providing a beacon 30 along a specific side of the watercraft 12, the relative location (e.g., which side) of the overboard passenger may be determined.” [0027]),
SUDA does not explicitly teach a warner that issues a warning to a user of a navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred.
a display that displays a map for the user of the navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred;
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 warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user who has entered the first area, and causes the warner 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 who has entered the second area.
However, Tomohiro does teach a warner that issues a warning to a user of a navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred (“Alternatively, it may be used to present a mode in which a ship collision is predicted to a manager who controls a congested sea area. Further, in the above example, the message for warning or calling attention is a text display, but it may be a graphic icon or a voice message.” [Pg.9 Par.4])
a display that displays a map for the user of the navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred (“On the map, an icon indicating the position of the ship and the name of the ship, the position of the plot, the name of the plot / area, and the nautical chart (symbol) and the name are displayed” (Tomohiro, [P.5] and “The plot is identified by the plot ID, and the plot category indicating the type of plot, the position information where the object whose information should be shared by the plot exists, and the image file of the plot object are linked. Similar to the ship icon, icons corresponding to the plot category are prepared as images in the plot, and as illustrated in FIG. 13, icons corresponding to nautical chart symbols such as "lighthouse" and "floating objects" There is an icon indicating such a temporary situation” [P.6]);
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 storage unit (“As with the first sector, the length of the radius and the angle from the course are not necessarily limited to the values mentioned above, and may be adjusted depending on the weather and sea conditions, or depending on the type of ship and current It may be adjusted according to the ship's speed, maneuverability, etc. It may also be possible to allow the boat operator to set it arbitrarily.
In this embodiment, if other ships exist within the caution area, that is, within the range defined by the second sector, these other ships are displayed on the screen as caution target ships. In this way, when a caution target ship exists, the caution area is displayed using a caution color that is generally associated with caution, such as yellow or orange, and the caution target ship is also displayed in a caution color” [Pg.8 Par.9-10])
and a warner controller that causes the warner to issue a first warning to the user who has entered the first area, and causes the warner to issue a second warning different from the first warning to the user who has entered the second area (“If it is determined in step S211 that the judgment target ship is not located within the warning area of the own ship (S211; No), then whether or not the warning area of the judgment target ship overlaps with the warning area of the own ship. It is determined (S215). In the example of FIG. 19, the warning area of the “X circle” overlaps with the warning area of the own ship. Here, if it is determined that the warning area of the ship to be determined overlaps with the warning area of the own ship (S215; Yes), it is determined whether or not the other ship is approaching (S216). If the courses do not intersect even if the warning areas overlap, it is not necessary to warn because the other ship is far from the own ship. In addition, even if the courses are scheduled to intersect, if a warning is given when the course is considerably ahead, the effect of the warning may be diminished. Therefore, if it is determined that the other ship is approaching (S216; Yes), it is determined whether or not the other ship intersects within a certain time (S217), and if it is within a certain time (S217; Yes). ), A text message prompting the estimated time to cross and a warning is displayed (S218), the processing shifts to the processing of S214, and the first fan shape of the own ship is displayed in the warning color. If the determination results of steps S215, S216, and S217 are all No, the other ship does not need to be displayed as a warning target at this stage, so the first fan shape of the own ship is displayed in a non-warning color. (S219), and the process ends.” [Pg.8 par.14 – Pg.9 Par.1]).
and a warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user who has entered the first area, and causes the warner 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 who has entered the second area ( “When there is a warning target ship in this way, the warning area is displayed using a warning color generally associated with a warning, such as red, and similarly, the warning target ship is also displayed in the warning color” [P.8] and “warnings can be displayed through the app 220 and voice communication can be performed by virtual radio for ships approaching the monitoring area, so ships moored near the construction area and safe evacuation have already been carried out. It Is possible to avoid the frequent occurrence of unnecessary warnings such as issuing warnings to ships.” (Tomohiro, [p.11]). Both SUDA and Tomohiro teach methods for watercraft navigation and controls. However, Tomohiro explicitly teaches a warner that issues a warning to a user of a navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred; a display that displays a map for the user of the navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred 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 warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user who has entered the first area, and causes the warner 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 who has entered the second area.
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 SUDA to also include a warner that issues a warning to a user of a navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred; a display that displays a map for the user of the navigational object other than the small watercraft in which the abnormality has occurred 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 warner controller that causes the warner to generate a first warning sound and display a first warning display on the display for the user who has entered the first area, and causes the warner 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 who has entered the second area, as in Tomohiro with a reasonable degree of success. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Tomohiro, Pg. 8-9]).
Regarding claim 2, SUDA discloses, wherein the processing circuit further includes information provision circuitry that transmits, to the display as the operation assistance information, data for causing the user 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]).
Regarding claim 3, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for the small watercraft according to claim 2, 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]).
Regarding claim 11, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for a small watercraft according to claim 1, further comprising: an operator provided in a small watercraft and operable by a passenger of the small watercraft (“The steering wheel 11 receives a steering operation of a person on board and outputs a signal according to the steering operation to the control device 3. The acceleration/deceleration lever 12 receives an acceleration/deceleration operation of the person on board and outputs a signal according to the acceleration/deceleration operation to the control device 3.” [0034]);
and 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]).
Regarding claim 22,
SUDA does not explicitly teach wherein the first warning sound and the second warning sound are voices.
However, Tomohiro does teach wherein the first warning sound and the second warning sound are voices (“the message for warning or calling attention is a text display, but it may be a graphic icon or a voice message” [P.9]). Both SUDA and Tomohiro teach wherein the first warning sound and the second warning sound are voices.
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 SUDA to also include wherein the first warning sound and the second warning sound are voices, as in Tomohiro with a reasonable degree of success. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Tomohiro, Pg. 8-9]).
Regarding claim 23, SUDA discloses wherein the transmitter transmits an operation assistance program, which is a control program performed by the navigational object other than the small water craft in which the abnormality has occurred (“transmits a rescue request signal via the communication device 31” (Suda, [0051]).
Regarding claim 24, SUDA discloses wherein the navigational object other than the small water craft in which the abnormality has occurred is controlled based on the operation assistance program (“the rescue request signal is received by other watercraft 2” (Suda, [0051]).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUDA in view of Maddox et al. (US 20220234702 A1), hereinafter referred to as SUDA and Maddox respectively.
Regarding claim 7, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for the small watercraft according to claim 2,
SUDA does not explicitly teach wherein the display is provided in a communication terminal configured to communicate with the processing circuit and capable of being carried by the user.
However, Maddox does teach wherein the display is provided in a communication terminal configured to communicate with the processing circuit and capable of being carried by the user (“It is generally contemplated that the wireless communication device 14 may be solar-powered and include a lighting feature and/or a haptic device for providing haptic feedback to the passenger 16 when the system 10 initiates a finding function. For example, the software application may include a digital object that, when activated by the passenger 16, utilizes a communication system of the mobile device 60 to communicate with the wearable device 64 to determine the location of the wearable device 64. In response to the communication, the wearable device 64 may illuminate and/or vibrate. The wireless communication device 14 may further be configured to illuminate/vibrate in when hazardous events related to the watercraft 12 are detected via the second controller 70.” [0058]). Both SUDA and Maddox teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only Maddox explicitly teaches wherein the display is provided in a communication terminal configured to communicate with the processing circuit and capable of being carried by the user.
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 SUDA to also include wherein the display is provided in a communication terminal configured to communicate with the processing circuit and capable of being carried by the user, as in Maddox. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Maddox, 0003]).
Regarding claim 13, SUDA discloses An operation assistance system for a small watercraft, the system comprising:
an area setter that sets a navigation caution area (“For example, if the wireless communication device 14 is in an area bounded by more than one beacon range (e.g. range 20), a more precise location of the wireless communication may be determined. Alternatively, by providing a beacon 30 along a specific side of the watercraft 12, the relative location (e.g., which side) of the overboard passenger may be determined.” [0027])
SUDA does not explicitly teach sets a navigation caution area between an outer edge of the navigation prohibited area stored in the area memory and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance.
However, Tomohiro does teach sets a navigation caution area between an outer edge of the navigation prohibited area stored in the area memory and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance (“As with the first sector, the length of the radius and the angle from the course are not necessarily limited to the values mentioned above, and may be adjusted depending on the weather and sea conditions, or depending on the type of ship and current It may be adjusted according to the ship's speed, maneuverability, etc. It may also be possible to allow the boat operator to set it arbitrarily.
In this embodiment, if other ships exist within the caution area, that is, within the range defined by the second sector, these other ships are displayed on the screen as caution target ships. In this way, when a caution target ship exists, the caution area is displayed using a caution color that is generally associated with caution, such as yellow or orange, and the caution target ship is also displayed in a caution color” [Pg.8 Par.9-10]). Both SUDA and Tomohiro teach methods for watercraft navigation and controls. However, Tomohiro teaches setting a navigation caution area between an outer edge of the navigation prohibited area stored in the area memory and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance.
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 SUDA to also include setting a navigation caution area between an outer edge of the navigation prohibited area stored in the area memory and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance, as in Tomohiro with a reasonable degree of success. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Tomohiro, Pg. 8-10]).
SUDA does not explicitly teach an area memory that stores a predetermined navigation prohibited area including an abnormality occurrence position which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first navigational object, the predetermined navigation prohibited area to which entry of a second navigational object different from the first navigational object is prohibited;
sets a navigation caution area between an outer edge of the navigation prohibited area stored in the area memory and a line separated from the outer edge by a predetermined distance;
a current position specification circuitry that specifies a current position of the second navigational object;
a determination circuitry that determines whether or not the second navigational object has entered either the navigation prohibited area or the navigation caution area based on the current position of the second navigational object specified by the current position specification;
and a warner that issues a first warning to a user of the second navigational object that has entered the navigation prohibited area when the determination circuitry determines that the second navigational object has entered the navigation prohibited area, and issues a second warning different from the first warning to the user of the second navigational object that has entered the navigation caution area when the determination circuitry determines that the second navigational object has entered the navigation caution area.
However, Maddox does teach an area memory that stores a predetermined navigation prohibited area including an abnormality occurrence position which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first navigational object, the predetermined navigation prohibited area to which entry of a second navigational object different from the first navigational object is prohibited(“For example, the second controller 70 may be in communication with a depth sensor operable to detect shallow water. The second controller 70 may communicate an instruction to the mobile device 60 and/or the wireless communication device 14 to alert the passenger of a potential collision event with the floor of the body of water.” [0058]);
a current position specification circuitry that specifies a current position of the second navigational object (“The positional data of the wearable device 64 may be communicated to the watercraft 12 via the auxiliary communication module. In response, the controller 18 (e.g., second controller 70) onboard the watercraft 12 may autonomously steer and propel the watercraft 12 toward the position of the wearable device 64 according to the GPS coordinates provided.” [0043]);
a determination circuitry that determines whether or not the second navigational object has entered either the navigation prohibited area or the navigation caution area based on the current position of the second navigational object specified by the current position specification (“The second controller 70 may communicate an instruction to the mobile device 60 and/or the wireless communication device 14 to alert the passenger of a potential collision event with the floor of the body of water. Other hazardous events, such as low fuel, low oil, or battery low alerts may be communicated to the wireless communication device 14. The wireless communication device 14 may also be equipped with a speaker system. The speaker system may be operable to communicate an alarm when the overboard condition is determined” [0058]);
and a warner that issues a first warning to a user of the second navigational object that has entered the navigation prohibited area when the determination circuitry determines that the second navigational object has entered the navigation prohibited area(“The second controller 70 may communicate an instruction to the mobile device 60 and/or the wireless communication device 14 to alert the passenger of a potential collision event with the floor of the body of water. Other hazardous events, such as low fuel, low oil, or battery low alerts may be communicated to the wireless communication device 14. The wireless communication device 14 may also be equipped with a speaker system. The speaker system may be operable to communicate an alarm when the overboard condition is determined” [0058]), and issues a second warning different from the first warning to the user of the second navigational object that has entered the navigation caution area when the determination circuitry determines that the second navigational object has entered the navigation caution area (“The second controller 70 may communicate an instruction to the mobile device 60 and/or the wireless communication device 14 to alert the passenger of a potential collision event with the floor of the body of water. Other hazardous events, such as low fuel, low oil, or battery low alerts may be communicated to the wireless communication device 14. The wireless communication device 14 may also be equipped with a speaker system. The speaker system may be operable to communicate an alarm when the overboard condition is determined” [0058]). Both SUDA and Maddox teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only Maddox explicitly teaches an area memory that stores a predetermined navigation prohibited area including an abnormality occurrence position which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first navigational object, the predetermined navigation prohibited area to which entry of a second navigational object different from the first navigational object is prohibited; an area setter that sets a navigation caution area around the navigation prohibited area stored in the memory; a current position specification circuitry that specifies a current position of the second navigational object; a determinator that determines whether or not the second navigational object has entered the navigation caution area based on the current position of the second navigational object specified by the current position specification; and a warner that issues a warning to a user of a the second navigational object that has entered the navigation caution area when the determinator determines that the second navigational object has entered the navigation caution area and displays the current position of the second navigational object and the abnormality occurrence position on a map displayed on a display.
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 SUDA to also include an area memory that stores a predetermined navigation prohibited area including an abnormality occurrence position which is a position where an abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first navigational object, the predetermined navigation prohibited area to which entry of a second navigational object different from the first navigational object is prohibited; an area setter that sets a navigation caution area around the navigation prohibited area stored in the memory; a current position specification circuitry that specifies a current position of the second navigational object; a determinator that determines whether or not the second navigational object has entered the navigation caution area based on the current position of the second navigational object specified by the current position specification; and a warner that issues a warning to a user of a the second navigational object that has entered the navigation caution area when the determinator determines that the second navigational object has entered the navigation caution area and displays the current position of the second navigational object and the abnormality occurrence position on a map displayed on a display, as in Maddox. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Maddox, 0003]).
Claim 8-9 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUDA in view of MURAMATSU et al. (JP 2004249956 A), hereinafter referred to as SUDA and MURAMATSU respectively.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 14, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for the small watercraft according to claim 2,
SUDA does not explicitly teach wherein the abnormality occurrence position is the position where the abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first small watercraft, and the operation assistance information includes, in addition to the abnormality occurrence position, data for displaying a current position of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft on the map
However, MURAMATSU does teach wherein the abnormality occurrence position is a position where the abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first small watercraft, and the predetermined operation assistance information includes, in addition to the abnormality occurrence position, data for displaying a current position of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft on the map (“The water faller rescue support device according to claim 5, which is provided by the present invention to solve the above problem, is provided on a first ship as shown in the basic configuration diagram of FIG. 2, and a water fall accident occurred on the first ship. Is reported by a reporting device 10 'provided on another second ship to assist the rescue of the dropped person, and a wireless communication with the predetermined second ship side is provided. A communication means 16a for performing communication, a radio signal detection means 19c for detecting a radio signal transmitted by the mobile device 30 carried by the waterfall person in response to the waterfall, and A first ship position information detecting means for detecting first ship position information indicating a position of one ship; a first ship position information detected by the first ship position information detecting means; Of a waterfall accident Report request information generating means 11a6 for generating report request information for requesting, and transmission control means for controlling the report means 16a to transmit the report request generated by the report request information generating means 11a6 to the second ship side.” [0017] and “Therefore, the rescue side receives the rescue support information transmitted by the waterfall person rescue support device 10 and displays the ship position information and the waterfall person position information on the chart image information. By referring to the information, it is possible to accurately grasp the position of the waterfall person and the ship, thereby supporting a quicker rescue operation.” [0016]). Both SUDA and MURAMATSU teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only MURAMATSU explicitly teaches wherein the abnormality occurrence position is a position where the abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first small watercraft, and the predetermined operation assistance information includes, in addition to the abnormality occurrence position, data for displaying a current position of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft on the map.
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 SUDA to also include wherein the abnormality occurrence position is a position where the abnormality including falling overboard has occurred in a first small watercraft, and the predetermined operation assistance information includes, in addition to the abnormality occurrence position, data for displaying a current position of a second small watercraft different from the first small watercraft on the map, as in MURAMATSU. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [MURAMATSU, 0003]).
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUDA in view of Crawford et al. (US 12208871 B2), hereinafter referred to as SUDA and Crawford respectively.
Regarding claim 15, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for a small watercraft according to claim 1, further comprising:
SUDA 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.” [Col.6-7 ln 65-67, ln 1-11]);
and 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.” [Col.13 ln 34-46]),
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.” [Col.15-16 ln 65-67 and ln1-11]). Both SUDA and Crawford teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only Crawford explicitly teaches 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.
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 SUDA 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. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Crawford, Col.1]).
Regarding claim 16, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for the small watercraft according to claim 1, further comprising:
SUDA does not explicitly teach 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
However, Crawford does teach 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 (“. 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.” [Col14-15 ln 65-67 and ln 1-18]),
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” [Col.15-16 ln 65-67 and 1-11]). Both SUDA and Crawford teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only Crawford explicitly teaches 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.
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 SUDA 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. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Crawford, Col.1]).
Regarding claim 17, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for the small watercraft according to claim 1, further comprising:
SUDA does not explicitly teach 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
However, Crawford does teach 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 (“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.” [Col.17 ln 25-47]),
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” [Col.15-16 ln 65-67 and 1-11]). Both SUDA and Crawford teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only Crawford explicitly teaches 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.
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 SUDA 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. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Crawford, Col.1]).
Regarding claim 20, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for the small watercraft according to claim 1,
SUDA does not explicitly teach further comprising a plurality of communication terminals each including the display, wherein the processing circuit communicates with each of the communication terminals, the position specification circuitry, the transmitter, and the warner are installed in each of the communication terminals.
However, Crawford does teach further comprising a plurality of communication terminals each including the display, wherein the processing circuit communicates with each of the communication terminals, the position specification circuitry, the transmitter, and the warner are installed in each of the communication terminals (“The system 200, 300 also includes a portable device 38, 54, 56 configured to be carried on an individual on the marine vessel 10, such as carried by or worn by the individual as described hereinabove. In one example, the portable device is a fob 54, 56 that is not provided with remote control functionality. In another example, the portable device is a remote control 38 configured to allow the individual to control the thrust of the propulsion device. “ [Col.13 ln 10-28] and “The user input assembly 206 may be any device capable of receiving user input and controlling at least some operations of the trolling motor system 200. For example, the user input assembly 206 may be a foot pedal. Depending on the configuration of the trolling motor system 200, the user input assembly 206 may include a processor 210′, memory 214′, communication interface 208′, and a deflection sensor 232. The processor 210′, memory 214′, communication interface 208′, and user interface 218′ may include features and functions such as described herein with respect to the corresponding module/system in the trolling motor assembly 14 (e.g., the processor 210, the memory 214, communication interface 208, and user interface 218). The deflection sensor 232 may be any device capable of sensing the position/deflection of a portion of the user input assembly 206, such as the foot pedal of the user input assembly 206. Such deflection may be used to control the rotation of the trolling motor shaft (e.g., the direction/orientation of the propeller).” [Col.8 ln 7-25]). Both SUDA and Crawford teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only Crawford explicitly teaches further comprising a plurality of communication terminals each including the display, wherein the processing circuit communicates with each of the communication terminals, the position specification circuitry and the transmitter are installed in each of the communication terminals, and the memory and the information provision circuitry are installed in the processing circuit.
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 SUDA to also include further comprising a plurality of communication terminals each including the display, wherein the processing circuit communicates with each of the communication terminals, the position specification circuitry and the transmitter are installed in each of the communication terminals, and the memory and the information provision circuitry are installed in the processing circuit, as in Crawford. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Crawford, Col.1]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUDA in view of BEAUVY et al. (WO 2020182604 A1), hereinafter referred to as SUDA and BEAUVY respectively.
Regarding claim 18, SUDA discloses The operation assistance system for the small watercraft according to claim 2, further comprising:
SUDA 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]). Both SUDA and BEAUVY teach methods for watercraft controls. However, only BEAUVY explicitly teaches 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.
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 SUDA 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. Doing so improves safety for operating personal watercrafts (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [BEAUVY, P.2]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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