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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/9/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The After-Final Amendment submitted on 11/10/2025 was accepted and was entered into the record for materially reducing the issues before an appeal. Previous rejections of claims 4 and 14, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have been removed due to cancellation of said claims.
Additionally, the rejection of claims 11, 13, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been removed because the contingent method limitations of claim 11 have been amended to more positively recite method steps that are implemented.
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, 6-11, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Considering the system of claim 1, the claim is an apparatus claim directed towards the abstract idea of a controller configured or programmed to:
- “estimate an external air temperature based on an intake air temperature obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine when a difference between the wall temperature and the intake air temperature is less than or equal to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process and mathematical operation based on [0059] of the originally filed specification; and
- “determine an occurrence of malfunctioning or abnormality of the watercraft based on the estimated external air temperature”, which is considered a mental process based on [0033] and [0051] of the originally filed specification.
The estimation step is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is an assignment of the measured wall temperature data to the claimed estimation temperature when a specific condition arises. However, when the difference is not less than or equal to the threshold, no second estimation step occurs. Therefore, given the measured temperature data, a simple mental comparison between a threshold and a measured temperature would be required, no further steps are required to reach the estimation. Accordingly, this is purely a mental step.
The determination of abnormality or malfunction is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is a comparison between an unknown threshold and a measured value. This is purely a mental check, and no further steps are required to reach the determination.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the engine, the watercraft, a first temperature sensor to detect a temperature of the engine, a second temperature sensor to detect an engine wall temperature, and the controller configured or programmed to obtain the temperature of the engine either upon an activation of the controller or a start of the engine and to obtain the engine wall temperature upon the activation of the controller or the start of the eninge.
The use of a temperature sensor to detect a watercraft engine temperature is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require a temperature sensor, and it is stated at a high level of generality. The use of a temperature sensor to detect an engine wall temperature is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine wall, the abstract idea, would necessarily require a temperature sensor, and it is stated at a high level of generality.
Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of sensors to collect data and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the temperature sensor is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
Furthermore, the controller configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more.
Furthermore still, a temperature sensor for a marine engine and a controller for obtaining said data at engine start up is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2).
Similarly, a temperature sensor for a marine engine wall and a controller for obtaining said data is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Kawanishi et al. (US 2008/0214069 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an engine temperature sensor, an engine wall temperature sensor and a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 3, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a controller configured or programmed to ”estimate the external air temperature based on the intake air temperature to be obtained upon a turn-on operation of the main switch”, which is considered a mental process based on [0042] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because the estimated outcome of the invention is always assigned the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the watercraft including a main switch to activate the controller.
The use of a switch to turn on a controller is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is merely an incidental or nominal element associated with the operation of the controller. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.05(g), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As an ordered combination, the use of a switch to turn on a controller is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely requires that the controller is powered on to operate and perform the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the main switch turning on the controller is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the switch to turn on the controller is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a main switch used to turn on a controller in a watercraft is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Okuyama et al. (US 2004/0242091 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of a main switch to power on a controller of a watercraft a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 6, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a controller configured or programmed to ”estimate the atmospheric pressure based on the intake air pressure obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine”, which is considered a mental process based on [0061] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because once the data is collected, a human can reasonably perform the required step of simply assigning the estimation as the measured original result. The estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of a pressure sensor to detect an intake air pressure and the controller configured or programmed to obtain the intake pressure of the engine either upon an activation of the controller or a start of the engine.
The use of a pressure sensor to detect a watercraft engine intake pressure is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all atmospheric sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require an intake pressure sensor, and it is stated at a high level of generality. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of a sensor to collect data and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the pressure sensor is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A). Furthermore, the controller configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, an intake pressure sensor for a marine engine and a controller for obtaining said data at engine start up is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an intake pressure sensor and a generic controller configured to obtain the pressure data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 7, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a controller configured or programmed to ”estimate the atmospheric pressure based on the intake air pressure to be obtained upon a turn-on operation of the main switch”, which is considered a mental process based on [0050] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because the estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the watercraft including a main switch to activate the controller.
The use of a switch to turn on a controller is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is merely an incidental or nominal element associated with the operation of the controller. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.05(g), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As an ordered combination, the use of a switch to turn on a controller is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely requires that the controller is powered on to operate and perform the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the main switch turning on the controller is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the switch to turn on the controller is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a main switch used to turn on a controller in a watercraft is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Okuyama et al. (US 2004/0242091 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of a main switch to power on a controller of a watercraft a generic controller configured to obtain the pressure data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering system of claim 8, the claim is an apparatus claim directed towards the abstract idea of a controller configured or programmed to:
- ”estimate a temperature of the external water based on the cooling water temperature obtained upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine”, which is considered a mental process based on [0046] of the originally filed specification; and
- “determine an occurrence of malfunctioning or abnormality of the engine based on the estimated temperature of the external water”, which is considered a mental process based on [0033] and [0053] of the originally filed specification.
The estimation step is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is an equating of the obtained cooling water temperature data to the claimed estimated external water temperature. Therefore, given the data, no further steps are required to reach the estimation, this is purely a mental step.
The determination of abnormality or malfunction is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is a comparison between an unknown threshold and a measured value. This is purely a mental check, and no further steps are required to reach the determination.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the engine, the watercraft, a first temperature sensor to detect a temperature of the engine, and the controller configured or programmed to obtain the temperature of the engine either upon an activation of the controller or a start of the engine, a water pump to draw external water to the engine for cooling.
The use of a temperature sensor to detect a watercraft engine temperature is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require a temperature sensor, and it is stated at a high level of generality. The use of a water pump to draw cooling water into the engine is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is merely an incidental or nominal element associated with the operation of the engine. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.05(g), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similarly, it appears to be merely instructions to apply the exception using the water pump in its normal fashion to perform its normal task. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), this fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of sensors to collect data, the use of a water pump to draw in cooling water and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the combination adds little more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the temperature sensor is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
Furthermore, the controller being configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a temperature sensor for a marine engine and a controller for obtaining said data at engine start up is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2). Even furthermore still, a water pump that draws cooling water with a cooling water temperature sensor and a controller to obtain that data in a watercraft is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an engine temperature sensor, a water pump that draws cooling water with a cooling water temperature sensor and a controller to obtain that data, and a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 9, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a controller configured or programmed to ”estimate the temperature of the external water based on the cooling water temperature obtained upon the start of the engine when a difference between the engine wall temperature and the cooling water temperature is less than or equal to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process and mathematical operation based on [0059] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because once the data is collected, a human can reasonable perform the required step of determining if a difference of temperature less than or equal to a threshold value and then simply assign the estimation as the measured original result. The estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of a second temperature sensor to detect a wall temperature of the engine.
The use of a temperature sensor to detect an engine cooling water temperature and a second temperature sensor to detect an engine wall temperature is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require the temperature sensors, and are stated at a high level of generality. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of temperature sensors to collect data and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the temperature sensors are considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A). Furthermore, the controller configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a temperature sensor for a marine engine cooling water, a temperature sensor for an engine wall, and a controller for obtaining said data is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2) and Kawanishi et al. (US 2008/0214069 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an engine cooling water temperature sensor, an engine wall temperature sensor and a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 10, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a controller configured or programmed to ”obtain a length of elapsed time from a previous stop of the engine to a current start of the engine”, which is a mathematical concept or mental processes, as outlined in [0040] and “estimate the temperature of the external water based on the cooling water temperature obtained upon the start of the engine when the length of elapsed time is greater than or equal to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process based on [0046] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because the estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value and the comparison of an elapsed time to a threshold is a simple mental comparison.
Based on MPEP 2106.04(II), because the only additional elements are themselves an abstract idea, they are not significant to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than originally presented judicial exception, see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, individually, or in an ordered combination, the additional elements of the mathematical concepts of claim 10 fail to integrate the abstract idea of claim 8 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea already discussed in claim 8.
Considering the method of claim 11, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the steps of:
- “estimating an external air temperature based on the intake air temperature obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine in response to a difference between the engine wall temperature and the intake air temperature being less than or equal to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process and mathematical operation based on [0042], [0046], [0050]; [0059] of the originally filed specification; and
- “determining an occurrence of malfunctioning or abnormality of the watercraft based on the estimated external air temperature”, which is considered a mental process based on [0031] and [0051-52] of the originally filed specification.
The estimation step is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is an equating of the measured wall temperature data to the claimed estimation of external air temperature when a specific condition arises, but when the difference not less than or equal to the threshold, no second estimation step occurs. Therefore, given the data, a simple mental comparison between a threshold and a measured temperature would be required, and no further steps are required to reach the estimation, this is purely a mental step.
The determination of abnormality or malfunction is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is a comparison between an unknown threshold and a measured value. This is purely a mental check, and no further steps are required to reach the determination.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the engine of a watercraft and the steps of obtaining an intake air temperature of the engine either upon activation of the controller or a start of the engine and obtaining an engine wall temperature either upon activation of the controller or a start of the engine.
The use of an intake air temperature sensor is considered extra-solution activity. The temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require a temperature sensor and the engine of the watercraft, and are stated at a high level of generality. The use of a temperature sensor to detect an engine wall temperature is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine wall, the abstract idea, would necessarily require a temperature sensor, and it is stated at a high level of generality. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of sensors to collect data and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the temperature sensor is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
Furthermore, the controller configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more.
Furthermore still, a temperature sensor for a marine engine and a controller for obtaining said data at engine start up is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2).
Similarly, a temperature sensor for a marine engine wall and a controller for obtaining said data is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Kawanishi et al. (US 2008/0214069 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an engine temperature sensor, an engine wall temperature sensor and a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 13, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the step of ”estimating the external air temperature based on the intake air temperature to be obtained upon a turn-on operation of the main switch”, which is considered a mental process based on [0042] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because the estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the watercraft including a main switch to activate the controller.
The use of a switch to turn on a controller is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is merely an incidental or nominal element associated with the operation of the controller. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.05(g), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As an ordered combination, the use of a switch to turn on a controller is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely requires that the controller is powered on to operate and perform the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the main switch turning on the controller is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the switch to turn on the controller is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a main switch used to turn on a controller in a watercraft is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Okuyama et al. (US 2004/0242091 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of a main switch to power on a controller of a watercraft a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 14, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the steps of “obtaining a length of elapsed time from a previous stop of the engine to a current start of the engine”, which is a mathematical concept or mental processes, as outlined in [0040] and “estimating the external air temperature based on the intake air temperature obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine when the length of elapsed time is greater than or equal to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process based on [0042] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because the estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value and the comparison of an elapsed time to a threshold is a simple mental comparison.
Based on MPEP 2106.04(II), because the only additional elements are themselves an abstract idea, they are not significant to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than originally presented judicial exception, see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, individually, or in an ordered combination, the additional elements of the mathematical concepts of claim 4 fail to integrate the abstract idea of claim 12 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea already discussed in claim 12.
Considering claim 16, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the step of “estimating an atmospheric pressure based on the intake air pressure obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine”, which is considered a mental process based on [0061] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because once the data is collected, a human can reasonably perform the required step of simply assigning the estimation as the measured original result. The estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of a obtaining an intake pressure of the engine either upon an activation of the controller or a start of the engine.
The use of a pressure sensor to detect a watercraft engine intake pressure is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all atmospheric sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require an intake pressure sensor, and it is stated at a high level of generality. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of a sensor to collect data and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the pressure sensor is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A). Furthermore, the controller configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, an intake pressure sensor for a marine engine and a controller for obtaining said data at engine start up is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an intake pressure sensor and a generic controller configured to obtain the pressure data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 17, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the step of ”estimating the atmospheric pressure based on the intake air pressure to be obtained upon a turn-on operation of the main switch”, which is considered a mental process based on [0050] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because the estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the watercraft including a main switch to activate the controller.
The use of a switch to turn on a controller is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is merely an incidental or nominal element associated with the operation of the controller. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.05(g), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As an ordered combination, the use of a switch to turn on a controller is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it merely requires that the controller is powered on to operate and perform the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the main switch turning on the controller is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the switch to turn on the controller is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a main switch used to turn on a controller in a watercraft is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Okuyama et al. (US 2004/0242091 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of a main switch to power on a controller of a watercraft a generic controller configured to obtain the pressure data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering the method of claim 18, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the steps of:
- “estimating the temperature of the external water based on the temperature of the cooling water obtained upon the start of the engine”, which is considered a mental process based on [0042], [0046], [0050]; [0059] of the originally filed specification.
- “determining an occurrence of malfunctioning or abnormality of the engine based on the estimated temperature of the external water”, which is considered a mental process based on [0033] and [0053] of the originally filed specification.
The estimation step is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is an equating of the measured cooling water temperature data to the claimed estimated external water temperature. Therefore, given the data, no further steps are required to reach the estimation, this is purely a mental step.
The determination of abnormality or malfunction is considered a mental process because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, in view of the specification, is a comparison between an unknown threshold and a measured value. This is purely a mental check, and no further steps are required to reach the determination.
The claim recites the additional limitation of the engine, the watercraft, the controller to control the engine, step of obtaining a temperature of the engine at upon activation of the controller or start off the engine, a water pump to draw external water to the engine for cooling.
The use of a temperature obtaining step is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require a temperature sensor, and it is stated at a high level of generality. The use of a water pump to draw cooling water into the engine is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because it is merely an incidental or nominal element associated with the operation of the engine. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.05(g), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similarly, it appears to be merely instructions to apply the exception using the water pump in its normal fashion to perform its normal task. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), this fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of sensors to collect data, the use of a water pump to draw in cooling water and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the combination adds little more than the abstract idea itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the temperature sensor is considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A).
Furthermore, the controller configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a temperature sensor for a marine engine and a controller for obtaining said data at engine start up is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2). Furthermore still, a water pump that draws cooling water with a cooling water temperature sensor and a controller to obtain that data in a watercraft is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an engine temperature sensor, a water pump that draws cooling water with a cooling water temperature sensor and a controller to obtain that data, and a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data at start-up and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 19, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the step of ”estimating the temperature of the external water based on the cooling water temperature obtained upon the start of the engine when a difference between the engine wall temperature and the cooling water temperature is less than or equal to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process and mathematical operation based on [0059] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because once the data is collected, a human can reasonably perform the required step of determining if a difference of temperature less than or equal to a threshold value and then simply assign the estimation as the measured original result. The estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value.
The claim recites the additional limitation of detecting a wall temperature of the engine.
The use of a temperature sensor to detect an engine cooling water temperature and a second temperature sensor to detect an engine wall temperature is considered extra-solution activity, whereby all temperature sensor operations related to a watercraft engine, the abstract idea, would necessarily require the temperature sensors, and are stated at a high level of generality. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2160.04(d)(I), the extra-solution activity is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the presence of a controller is positively claimed, the language is stated with a high level of generality, and as such, appears to be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing devices. Therefore, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), the use of a generic computer device to implement the abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application idea.
As an ordered combination, the use of temperature sensors to collect data and generic computer hardware to implement an abstract idea is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extra-solution activity provided by the temperature sensors are considered insignificant according to MPEP 2106.05(A). Furthermore, the controller configured to perform the steps of the abstract idea is generic and mere instruction to apply the abstract idea on a generic computing device. In accordance with MPEP 2106.05(A), applying the abstract idea on generic computing devices is not significantly more. Furthermore still, a temperature sensor for a marine engine cooling water, a temperature sensor for an engine wall, and a controller for obtaining said data is well-known, routine and conventional in the art based on at least Saito (US 7056165 B2) and Kawanishi et al. (US 2008/0214069 A1).
Thus, taken individually and in an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the well-known, routine and conventional use of an engine cooling water temperature sensor, an engine wall temperature sensor and a generic controller configured to obtain the temperature data and perform the abstract idea fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Considering claim 20, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a method comprising the steps of ”obtaining a length of elapsed time from a previous stop of the engine to a current start of the engine”, which is a mathematical concept or mental processes, as outlined in [0040] and “estimating the temperature of the external water based on the cooling water temperature obtained upon the start of the engine when the length of elapsed time is greater than or equal to a threshold”, which is considered a mental process based on [0046] of the originally filed specification.
This is considered a mental process because the estimated outcome of the invention is always the measured initial value and the comparison of an elapsed time to a threshold is a simple mental comparison.
Based on MPEP 2106.04(II), because the only additional elements are themselves an abstract idea, they are not significant to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than originally presented judicial exception, see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, individually, or in an ordered combination, the additional elements of the mathematical concepts of claim 10 fail to integrate the abstract idea of claim 8 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea already discussed in claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for obtaining air temperature, water temperature and air pressure data from sensors, does not reasonably provide enablement for estimating external air temperatures, estimating external water temperatures, or estimating atmospheric pressure.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, the disclosure of Figures 4-7 and [0041], [0045], [0049] and [0059] of the originally filed specification refer to various temperature or time thresholds that are integral to the process of allowing the measured temperatures or pressure to be assigned as the estimated temperature or pressure.
The specification repeatedly refers to the thresholds, but never discloses how the thresholds are determined, seemingly leaving this vital variable up to the individual trying to make or use the invention to determine.
Considering the factors outlined in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731:
(1) the breadth of the claims – the claims encompass water temperature estimation, air temperature estimation and atmospheric pressure estimation. These estimations appear to be generic to any marine engine. The full breadth of the claims would cover multiple measurands for every single known or yet to be conceived marine engine.
(6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – the inventor has provided absolutely zero direction on determining the threshold values.
(7) the existence of working examples – the inventor has provided zero working examples.
(8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – given the unknown quantity of marine engines covered by the scope, the unknown runtime during last operation, the unknown duration of stoppage, the temperature of engine when stopped, the temperature of engine when last ran, the temperature of engine when stored, the temperature of environment during storage, the materials of the engine, and other variables of each individual engine and operation prior to the last shut off, there is an infinite number of experimentations that would be required to determine a sufficient threshold in every instance of application of the claim.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the entirety of the scope is not enabled by the specification. Specifically, there is no enablement of the threshold determination, which is vital to the claimed invention. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, and 16-20 are all rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is primarily noted that the After-Final Amendment filed on 11/1/2025 was entered into the record, as indicated in the Advisory Action that was mailed on 12/12/2025. The current pending claims are much clearer, but still striking similar to the same subject matter that was already entered. The Examiner has made this action Non-Final based on the clarifying amendments.
Applicant’s arguments are essentially the same arguments that were raised in that response. The Examiner shall respond, again, herewith.
On pages 8-9 of the response filed on 11/10/2025, Applicant asserts that claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13 and 16-20 contain subject matter that is integrated into a practical application, and thus the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be removed.
Applicant mentions the August 4, 2025 memorandum issued by The Office, which did not substantially modify any existing procedures. Therefore, the previous application of Alice/Mayo analysis is still valid herewith. Furthermore, Applicant has not specifically argued that any of the stated “abstract ideas” asserted by the Examiner are not abstract ideas. Accordingly, the issue is related to whether or not the abstract ideas of the claim are integrated into a practical application.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the claimed invention is integrated into a “narrow practical application of detecting certain environmental conditions for watercraft, e.g., weather conditions, without the burdensome cost of adding new sensors to the watercraft” because it provides the “improvement to the operation of watercraft without increasing the costs thereof”.
It is primarily noted the “operation of watercraft” is in no way improved by reducing the number of temperature sensors or auxiliary sensors. The claimed watercraft, whether it uses an estimated temperature or a measured temperature has not been shown to have any operational improvement. Applicant argues that the cost has been reduced, but this has not advanced the technology, as cost is an economic benefit, not a technological benefit. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Secondly, in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a), the claims must “be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology”. Having reviewed the claims, the Applicant has not limited the structure of the systems or the structures used in the methods to preclude the use of additional, purportedly costly sensors. Applicant, who has asserted a cost benefit improvement, has failed to limit the claims to the cost-saving reduction of sensors by leaving the claims open for incorporation of additional sensors. Therefore, even if the cost savings was an improvement, the claims aren’t reflective of the disclosed improvement.
Furthermore, on page 9 of the response, Applicant argues that the “Examiner has improperly ignored all of Applicant's claimed structural features of the watercraft or implicit structural features of the watercraft necessary to perform the claimed method, as extra-solution activity in order to characterize Applicant's claimed invention as being directed to a mental process”.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II), Step 2A of Office’s Alice/Mayo analysis is a two-prong inquiry. The Examiner has highlighted the individual abstract ideas, as directed in prong one, and has individually described the additional structure or method elements that are not abstract, for each pending claim.
The Examiner has not ignored any structural element that is claimed. The inclusion of the generic features of the watercraft, a generic sensor suite, a generic controller, have all been shown to be extra-solution activities, a generic link to the field of technology, or a generic application of a general computing device to perform the abstract ideas.
Simply stated, the Examiner considered each structural additional element, individually and in combination with one another and the abstract idea, and found that the structural elements where not integrated into a practical application based on their individual or combined usage. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(b) discusses contributing factors for whether the structural elements should be considered to be applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. Based on these factors, the generic structure of the watercraft, engine and controller are not particular.
Furthermore, the additional elements of any purported “particular machine” are merely the object on which the abstract idea operates. The data collected by the generic sensors is purely manipulated by a generic computing device and an analysis is derived. The watercraft is not controlled, the engine is not controlled, and nor are the sensors evaluated for functionality based on the claimed methods and systems.
Furthermore, the use of the engine, on the watercraft, is only nominally related because the engine, without a watercraft, would still function according to the claimed invention. The claims are purely directed towards engine measurements and estimations relative to the engine, the watercraft itself is nominal and not integral.
In other words, the Examiner has properly regarded the features of Applicant's claimed invention that fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
At the end of page 9, Applicant’s cancellation of claims 4 and 14 is referenced. The Examiner acknowledges this cancellation and has removed the corresponding rejections.
On pages 9-11, Applicant asserts that claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13 and 16-20 comply with the enablement requirement. The Examiner, in combination with all previous statements regarding the lack of enablement, including the Wands factors, furthermore refutes Applicant’s arguments as follows:
1) Applicant notes that all instances to estimated environmental temperature have been removed. Regardless, claim 1 specifically recites “estimate an external air temperature based on the intake air temperature obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine when a difference between the engine wall temperature and the intake air temperature is less than or equal to a threshold”, and claim 11 specifically recites “estimating an external air temperature based on an intake air temperature obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine in response to a difference between the engine wall temperature and the intake air temperature being less than or equal to a threshold”.
With respect to claim 8 and 18, the specific recitation of a threshold is not shown in the claims. However, in accordance with MPEP 2164.01, it is required that the “disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention”.
Considering claim 8, the disclosure fails to enable one of ordinary skill in the art how to “estimate a temperature of the external water based on the cooling water temperature obtained either upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine”.
Considering claim 18, the disclosure fails to enable one of ordinary skill in the art how to perform the step of “estimating a temperature of the external water based on the cooling water temperature obtained upon the activation of the controller or the start of the engine”.
In both instances, claim 8 and claim 18, one of ordinary skill in the art, viewing the claims and the specification, would be required to unduly experiment to make and use the entirety of the scope of the invention, because the specification fails to contain sufficient information that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to estimate environmental temperatures based on measured temperatures WITHOUT the threshold comparisons outlined in the specification. Since these thresholds are not discussed, the specification is not enabling.
2) Applicant asserts that the intake air pressure sensor indicates the intake air pressure, which is estimated to be the atmospheric pressure. A review of the specification finds in [0049], Figure 6, that “the length of elapsed time is greater than or equal to a length-of-time threshold”. However, the disclosure lacks any indication of how the threshold length of time has been determined.
3) Applicant asserts that the determination of a time threshold could have been achieved though simple routine experimentation to determine how long it takes for an engine “to sufficiently reduce to a temperature close to the external air temperature after the stop of the engine”. However, this asserts a new issue, whereby the level of required accuracy in “close” has not been established. One of ordinary skill in the art would have no knowledge, based on the specification, to what level of “close” the temperature need be to perform the claimed invention. Applicant continues to assert that the infinite quantity of experimentations are ”within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the watercraft art”, but the quantity of experiments are undue, regardless.
4) Applicant asserts that an engine manufacture does not need to test for every type of engine threshold, but only for which they are concerned with manufacturing. However, the scope of the claim broadly covers any and all engines for watercraft. Applicant’s attempt to limit the scope of the claims through their arguments is unpersuasive. The entirety of the scope is not enabled if a manufacturer is only able to perform this method or provide this system for their own very specific engines. Applicant’s assertion that the time threshold is based on a confidence interval or proffering how the experimentation is performed, is not based on the specification nor included in the claims. This information is mere allegations of patentability, and does not reduce the quantity of experiments needed to cover the entirety of the scope of the claim.
Accordingly, all rejections have been again maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 January 24, 2026