Ecological Aided Marine Navigation

DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims The status of the claims is as follows: (a) Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 18, and 20 remain pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendments The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 06/23/2026. Response to Arguments The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 06/23/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant. To begin, the Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Murata with Kaji because Murata is directed to deep sea navigation, while Kaji is directed to a system for supporting docking of a marine vessel. Applicant further argues that the motivation provided in the previous Office Action is conclusory and fails to provide an objective reason for combining the references. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner finds the Applicant's classification of Murata as being directed to a deep sea navigation system is not supported by the cited disclosure as a whole. While Paragraph [0002] of Murata, relied upon by Applicant, describes background art relating to a navigation assisting device that displays weather and oceanographic information on an electronic navigational chart. Murata overall describes a navigation assistance system that determines information regarding a vessel, including position, heading, ship speed, and course, and uses such information together with information regarding an environment regulated marine zone. (Murata, Paragraphs [0052]-[0055]). Furthermore, the rejection does not rely upon incorporating the docking system of Kaji to Murata. Rather, Kaji is relied upon for teaching a manner of displaying marine navigation information. Specifically, Kaji teaches displaying current watercraft position together with surrounding marine information on a map and further teaches displaying the map in a perspective view. The perspective view includes a marine vessel mark representing the vessel and representations of the surrounding environment. (Kaji, Paragraphs [0027]-[0031] and [0077]-[0079]; Figures 4A-4B). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to present the watercraft and surrounding environmental information using the perspective map display taught by Kaji. Murata already teaches determining the position and movement of a vessel relative to an environment regulated marine zone and presenting information concerning the vessel's relationship to the regulated marine zone. (Murata, Paragraphs [0052]-[0055]). Kaji teaches displaying the vessel relative to surrounding marine information so that the operator can more readily understand the spatial relationship between the vessel and surrounding features. (Kaji, Paragraphs [0027]-[0031] and [0077]-[0079]). Thus, modifying Murata to include the perspective map display of Kaji would have predictably provided the operator with a visual representation of the watercraft relative to the surrounding environmental information while operating the watercraft. Moreover, the Applicant's argument that Murata and Kaji concern different operating environments does not render the proposed combination improper. That is, the rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Kaji's docking system into Murata. Rather, Kaji is relied upon for the particular teaching of displaying a vessel and surrounding marine information using a perspective map. The fact that Kaji describes use of the perspective display in connection with docking does not limit the teaching of the perspective map display to only docking operations. Applicant further argues that the claimed third person map image, when presented in conjunction with the notification, provides a benefit by allowing a user to make informed navigational decisions that comply with regulatory restrictions while viewing the watercraft relative to the surrounding environment. Examiner respectfully disagrees that this asserted benefit distinguishes the claimed invention from the applied prior art. Murata already teaches determining and presenting information regarding the vessel's relationship to an environment regulated marine zone such that operation of the vessel may be adjusted based on the applicable environment regulated marine zone. (Murata, Paragraphs [0052]-[0055]). Kaji further teaches displaying the vessel relative to surrounding marine information using a perspective map. (Kaji, Paragraphs [0027]-[0031] and [0077]-[0079]). Thus, the respective teachings of Murata and Kaji provide an objective reason for the proposed modification independent of the benefit identified by Applicant. Lastly, to the extent Applicant argues that Kaji fails to disclose the recited environment representation being emphasized relative to a remainder of the representation of the surrounding environment, Kaji is not relied upon for this limitation. Rather, Varga is relied upon for teaching the emphasized environment representation. Varga teaches identifying and highlighting cautionary and critical terrain relative to surrounding terrain such that the relevant terrain is readily distinguishable from the remainder of the displayed environment. (Varga, Paragraphs [0079]-[0080]). Varga further describes application of such teachings to a marine environment, including the display of dangerous shoals, shipwrecks, rocky shoals, and other marine information. (Varga, Paragraph [0104]). Therefore, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejection. The rejection of independent Claims 1, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Murata in view of Grabowski, Varga, and Kaji is maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2013/0218377 (hereinafter, Murata), in view of Grabowski et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2018/0292213 (hereinafter, Grabowski), in further view of Varga U.S. P.G. Publication 2014/0240313A1 (hereinafter, Varga), in further view of Kaji et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2007/0073454A1 (hereinafter, Kaji). Regarding Claim 1, Murata describes a system for presenting environment alerts for a watercraft, the system comprising: -a display (display, Murata, Paragraphs 0029-0030); -a processor (processor or controller, Murata, Paragraphs 0008- 0012 and 0083-0088 and Figure 1); and -a memory (controller running software that includes stored code, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025 and 0083-0088 and Figure 1) including computer program code configured to, when executed, cause the processor to: -receive position data for the watercraft including a current watercraft position (receiving position data of the watercraft (e.g., GPS location), Murata, Paragraph 0052); -receive environment data, wherein the environment data includes regulatory data or ecological data (receive environment data, such as marine regulated zone data, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025 and 0070-0088); -determine at least one environment feature within a surrounding environment of the watercraft at the current watercraft position, wherein the at least one environment feature is a fish sanctuary, an ecological reserve, a low speed zone, a reduced noise area, a prohibited discharge area (determining a prohibited discharge area (e.g., prohibited discharge of material or ballast), Murata, Paragraphs 0070-0088, a reef area, a shipwreck area, or a shallow water area; -determine a status of the watercraft at the current watercraft position (determining a status of the watercraft at the current position, including heading, ship speed, and course, Murata, Paragraphs 0052-0053); -perform an analysis of at least the environment data and the status of the watercraft related to the determined at least one environment feature (performing an analysis using ship movement information, including position, heading, ship speed, and course, together with data regarding the environment-regulated marine zone to determine arrival/departure information relative to the regulated marine zone, Murata, Paragraphs 0052-0053); -determine a notification based on the analysis, wherein the notification provides an adjustment to operation of the watercraft related to the determined at least one environment feature (determine / generate a notification (e.g., display) which provides for adjustment to operation of the watercraft (e.g., discharge vs. do not discharge) based on the environment feature, Murata, Paragraphs 0054-0054, 0008-0014, and 0070-0088); … Murata does not specifically disclose the system to include generat[ing] a map image based on the position data and the environment data; and cause presentation of the notification and the map image on the display, wherein the map image includes a watercraft representation, a representation of the surrounding environment of the watercraft. Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Grabowski describes a system that is capable of notifying an operator of a boat information pertaining to either the environment data or the status of the vehicle in said current position (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0029 and Figure 2). Additionally, Grabowski describes generating a map image, wherein the map image includes a watercraft representation (see Figure 2) and a representation of the surrounding environment around the watercraft (see Figure 2) (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0021-0023 and 0029 and Figure 2). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include generating a map image based on the position data and the environment data; and cause presentation of the notification and the map image on the display, wherein the map image includes a watercraft representation, a representation of the surrounding environment of the watercraft, as taught by Grabowski. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Murata to include the location dependent presentation of environmental information, alerts, and electronic chart information, as taught by Grabowski, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Grabowski teaches determining information to be displayed based on the current location of the watercraft, including for environmental conservation zones where speed or noise may be an issue, and providing recommendations and alerts relevant to the current situation. Grabowski further teaches presenting electronic chart and navigational information in context so that the operator can readily appreciate the information while navigating the watercraft. (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0036, and 0046). However, Murata and Grabowski do not specifically disclose the system to include that at least one environment representation within the representation of the surrounding environment and relative to the watercraft representation, wherein the at least one environment representation is emphasized relative to a remainder of the representation of the surrounding environment, wherein the at least one environment representation corresponds to the determined at least one environment feature. Varga discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Varga describes a display unit which is capable of highlighting (i.e., emphasizing) a desired object within the environment (Varga, Paragraphs 0057, 0079-0080, 0104 and 0114). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include that at least one environment representation within the representation of the surrounding environment and relative to the watercraft representation, wherein the at least one environment representation is emphasized relative to a remainder of the representation of the surrounding environment, wherein the at least one environment representation corresponds to the determined at least one environment feature, as taught by Varga. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Murata to emphasize the representation of the relevant environmental feature, as taught by Varga, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that an environmental feature requiring caution, avoidance, or a change in operation is readily distinguishable from the remainder of the displayed surrounding environment. Varga specifically teaches identifying and highlighting cautionary and critical terrain relative to surrounding terrain so that an operator can readily identify which surfaces should be avoided. Varga further teaches application of its display system to a marine environment, including the display of dangerous shoals, weather regions, shipwrecks, rocky shoals, and other marine chart information. (Varga, Paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0104). However, Murata, Grabowski, and Varga do not disclose the system to include generat[ing] a third-person view map image based on the position data and the environment data; and cause presentation of the notification and the map image on the display, wherein the map is displayed from a third-person perspective, wherein the map image includes a watercraft representation, a representation of the surrounding environment of the watercraft. Kaji discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Kaji describes a system that is capable generating a map image based on the position data and the environment data, which includes watercraft representation and representation of the surrounding environment of the watercraft (e.g., dock) (Kaji, Paragraphs 0027-0031, 0077-0079, and Figures 4A, 4B). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include generating a third-person view map image based on the position data and the environment data; and cause presentation of the notification and the map image on the display, wherein the map is displayed from a third-person perspective, wherein the map image includes a watercraft representation, a representation of the surrounding environment of the watercraft, as taught by Kaji. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Murata to present the watercraft and surrounding environmental information using the perspective map display taught by Kaji, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kaji teaches displaying current watercraft position together with surrounding marine information on a map so that the operator can more readily understand the spatial relationship between the watercraft and surrounding features. Kaji further teaches displaying the map in a perspective view and operating the watercraft while viewing the displayed watercraft position and surrounding marine information. (Kaji, Paragraphs 0027-0031 and 0077-0079). Regarding Claim 3, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1, wherein the notification is: an alert that discharge is prohibited in the current watercraft position (discharge determined to not be allowed in a certain area, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025); an alert that the watercraft is in the reduced noise area; an alert that a watercraft noise level exceeds a permissible level at the current watercraft position; an alert indicating a speed limit at the current watercraft position; an alert indicating that the watercraft is travelling at a speed that exceeds the speed limit at the current watercraft position; or an alert that deployment of a marine device is prohibited at the current watercraft position (determined that deployment of a marine device (e.g., type of engine or ballast) is prohibited at said location, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025).1 Regarding Claim 4, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 3. Murata does not specifically disclose the system to include that the notification is an alert that the watercraft noise level exceeds the permissible level at the current watercraft position, wherein the watercraft noise level is attributable to a motor, a sonar, a sounder, or an onboard speaker on the watercraft. Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Grabowski describes a system that is capable of notifying an operator of a boat information pertaining to either the environment data or the status of the vehicle in said current position, like that of noise level (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027-0029). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include that the notification is an alert that the watercraft noise level exceeds the permissible level at the current watercraft position, wherein the watercraft noise level is attributable to a motor, a sonar, a sounder, or an onboard speaker on the watercraft, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Grabowski. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying and alerting the operator to information can help boat operators to navigate and operate said vehicle in a safer manner (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0003-0004). Regarding Claim 5, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 4. Murata does not specifically disclose the system to include that the environment data includes regulatory data in the form of watercraft noise level restrictions at the current watercraft position. Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Grabowski describes a system that is capable of notifying an operator of a boat information pertaining to either the environment data or the status of the vehicle in said current position, like that of noise level (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027-0029). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include that the environment data includes regulatory data in the form of watercraft noise level restrictions at the current watercraft position, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Grabowski. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying and alerting the operator to information can help boat operators to navigate and operate said vehicle in a safer manner (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0003-0004). Regarding Claim 6, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1. Murata does not specifically disclose the system to include that the notification is an alert that an animal could be located near the watercraft, wherein the environment data includes ecological data regarding a known location of one or more animals. Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Grabowski describes a system that is capable of notifying an operator of a boat information pertaining to either the environment data or the status of the vehicle in said current position, like location near a conservation zone, which indicates habitat for protected species (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027-0029). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include that the environment data includes regulatory data in the form of watercraft noise level restrictions at the current watercraft position, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Grabowski. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying and alerting the operator to information can help boat operators to navigate and operate said vehicle in a safer manner (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0003-0004). Regarding Claim 7, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1, wherein the notification is an alert that the watercraft is required to operate in an electric mode at the current watercraft position, wherein the environment data includes regulatory data regarding locations where various watercraft are required to operate in electric mode (determine that the boat is required to run in electric mode, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025). Regarding Claim 8, Murata, as modified, describes the system of claim 1, wherein the notification is an alert that the watercraft is not permitted to discharge material in the current watercraft position, wherein the environment data includes regulatory data regarding positions where material discharge is not permitted, wherein the status of the watercraft indicates that a command has been made to discharge material from the watercraft (determine that the boat is not allowed to discharge at a location, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025). Regarding Claim 9, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1, wherein the environment data is saved in the memory, wherein receiving the environment data occurs by retrieving the environment data from the memory (environment data saved in a database, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025). Regarding Claim 10, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 9, wherein the environment data saved in the memory is updated periodically (environment data saved in a database and updated periodically, generally this is yearly with new map publications, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025). Regarding Claim 11, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer program code is configured to, when executed, cause the processor to: analyze the position data, the environment data, and a proposed action; and block the proposed action from being performed (analyze position data, environment data, and propose an action or blocking of an action based on said analysis, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025); Murata does not specifically disclose the system to include that the notification indicates that the proposed action was not performed. Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Grabowski describes a system that is capable of notifying an operator of a boat information pertaining to either the environment data or the status of the vehicle in said current position, and status of the boat, such as the need to reduce noise of the vehicle, which has not occurred, and notification of blocking actions not allowed in the current boat’s location (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027-0029). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include that the notification indicates that the proposed action was not performed, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Grabowski. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying and alerting the operator to information can help boat operators to navigate and operate said vehicle in a safer manner (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0003-0004). Regarding Claim 12, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1, wherein the computer program code is configured to, when executed, cause the processor to: receive a user command providing a proposed action; analyze the user command, the position data, and the environment data to evaluate whether the proposed action is permitted in the current watercraft position; and block the proposed action from being performed (analyze data (i.e., environment and location) to determine is an action should occur or be blocked, Murata, Paragraphs 0008-0025). Murata does not specifically disclose the system to include notification indicates that the proposed action was not performed. Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Grabowski describes a system that is capable of notifying an operator of a boat information pertaining to either the environment data, the status of the vehicle in said current position, status of the boat, such as the need to reduce noise of the vehicle, which has not occurred and blocking actions not allowed in the boat’s current location, and notifications of commands received (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027-0029). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include notification indicates that the proposed action was not performed, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Grabowski. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying and alerting the operator to information can help boat operators to navigate and operate said vehicle in a safer manner (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0003-0004). Regarding Claim 13, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1. Murata does not specifically disclose the system to include receive a user override command; and execute the proposed action. Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Grabowski describes a system that is capable of notifying an operator of a boat information pertaining to either the environment data, the status of the vehicle in said current position, status of the boat, such as the need to reduce noise of the vehicle, which has not occurred and blocking actions not allowed in the boat’s current location, and notifications of commands received (e.g., user override) (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027-0029). As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the system of Murata to include receiving a user command providing a proposed action; analyze the user command, the position data, and the environment data to evaluate whether the proposed action is permitted in the current watercraft position; and block the proposed action from being performed, wherein the notification indicates that the proposed action was not performed, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Grabowski. It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying and alerting the operator to information can help boat operators to navigate and operate said vehicle in a safer manner (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0003-0004). Regarding Claim 14, Murata, as modified, describes the system of Claim 1, wherein one or more onboard sensors are located on the watercraft that are configured to provide onboard sensor data, wherein the one or more onboard sensors include at least one of a radar, a position sensor, a direction sensor, a sonar transducer element, an air temperature sensor, a water temperature sensor, a current sensor, a light sensor, a wind sensor, a noise sensor, or a speed sensor, wherein the onboard sensor data is analyzed as part of the analysis (sensors onboard, which are part of the analysis (e.g., location and speed), Murata, Paragraph 0052). Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1 and 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims. Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 12 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.. 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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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. /ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 1 For claim 3 and the other remaining claims in this Office Action, it shall be noted that Murata does not specifically alert the operator of the boat to said information, but rather the boat automatically handles an action based on the boat’s position and received / processed information. The Examiner provides Grabowski, as seen in claim 1, to teach the alerting an operator based on the boat’s position and received / processed information. Therefore, all additional alert actions in the remaining claims should also be construed with this interpretation that Grabowski discloses, teaches, or at least suggests alerting of the operator.