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 .
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 a 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 02/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim 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 (e.g., watercraft engine status or engine exhaust), Murata, Paragraphs 0083-0088 and 0008-0025);
-perform an analysis of at least the environment data and the status of the watercraft related to the determined at least one environment feature (determining or performing an analysis of the environment zone vs. positioning of the watercraft, Murata, Paragraphs 0070-0088);
-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 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 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).
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, 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 combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying and alerting the operator to information can help operators navigate and operate vehicles in a safer manner (Grabowski, Paragraphs 0003-0006).
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, Paragraph 0078 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 combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying information can help boat operators to navigate and operate said vehicle in a safer manner (Kaji, Paragraph 0008).
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
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.