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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 02/20/2026 (claimed priority date 12/25/2021):
Claims 1-5 and 8-19 have been examined.
Claims 6-7 and 20 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claims 1, 8-9, 12 and 15-19 have been amended by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
Ln = line, e.g., ln25 = line 25; ln25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Response to Amendment
Specification
1. The Applicant’s amendment to the specification, Para [0070], submitted on 02/20/2026, has been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim 20 objections to from the previous Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
1. Applicant appears not to argue, in remarks filed on 02/20/2026, the claim interpretation (invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations in claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 15, 20) from the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(a) or 112, 1st paragraph, rejections to claims 17 and 19 from the previous Office Action.
2. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(b) or 112, 2nd paragraph, rejections to claims 12, 17 and 19-20 from the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for continuously determining and visualizing a draft/freeboard of a waterborne vessel undergoing loading (i.e., machine, manufacture). Claim 9 is directed to a method for continuously determining and visualizing a draft/freeboard of a waterborne vessel undergoing loading (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A system for continuously determining and visualizing a draft/freeboard of a waterborne vessel undergoing loading, the system comprising:
one or more sensor units, wherein each of the one or more sensor units comprises:
a housing;
a distance sensor encased within the housing and configured to determine a freeboard of the waterborne vessel;
a coupling member coupled to the housing and configured to mount the sensor unit to the waterborne vessel;
an inclinometer configured to detect an elevation/tilt of the waterborne vessel, wherein the one or more sensor units are configured to determine freeboard from a first corner of the waterborne vessel and tilt information along two perpendicular axis of the waterborne vessel; and
a control unit operatively coupled to the one or more sensor units and configured to:
receive freeboard measurement data from the distance sensor;
receive tilt information from the inclinometer;
receive dimensions of the waterborne vessel through an interface;
determine positioning of the one or more sensors units on the waterborne vessel; and
determine freeboard at a second corner, a third corner, and a fourth corner of the waterborne vessel based on the tilt information, freeboard measured at a first corner, and the determined placement of the one or more sensor units.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining;” “visualizing,” in the context of this claim, encompass a person (captain/driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data collected (from sensors, inclinometer) and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A method for continuously determining and visualizing a draft/freeboard of a waterborne vessel undergoing loading, the method executed at least by a control unit and implemented using a system, the method comprising:
providing one or more sensor units mounted to the waterborne vessel , wherein each of the one or more sensor units comprises:
a housing,
a distance sensor configured to determine a freeboard of the waterborne vessel, the distance sensor encased within the housing, and
a coupling member coupled to the housing, the coupling member is configured to allow the sensor unit to be mounted to the waterborne vessel;
receiving, by the control unit, freeboard measurement data from the distance sensor;
automatically determining, by the control unit and based on the received freeboard measurement data, a draft or freeboard for the waterborne vessel during loading;
rendering a user interface on an external computing device;
presenting through the interface, in real time, freeboard/draft data and changes in the freeboard/draft of the water borne vessel during loading;
generating a notification when a loading capacity in a predefined area of the waterborne vessel is reached based on predefined freeboard/draft thresholds for one or more corners of the waterborne vessel;
presenting, through the user interface, a graphical object depicting the waterborne vessel;
permitting, through the user interface, selection of a barge orientation corresponding to a bow and stern orientation during loading;
presenting, graphically through the user interface, a center of mass of the waterborne vessel and change in position of the center of mass during loading, wherein the center of mass indicates levelness of the waterborne vessel;
permitting, through the user interface, selection of a rake offset to account for additional height contributed by a raked bow of the waterborne vessel to the freeboard/draft;
receiving, through the user interface, trim and tilt limits representing allowable tolerance of error in front-to-back and side-to-side orientations of the waterborne vessel, wherein the trim and tilt limits are used to determine the center of mass;
receiving, through the user interface, tonnage targets for the waterborne vessel and presenting estimated tonnage in real time based on the determined freeboard or draft; and
receiving, through the user interface, an amount of water present in the waterborne vessel, wherein the amount of water affects the estimated tonnage.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining/automatically determining;” “visualizing;” “permitting,” in the context of this claim, encompass a person (captain/driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data collected (from sensors) and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 - A system for continuously determining and visualizing a draft/freeboard of a waterborne vessel undergoing loading, the system comprising:
one or more sensor units, wherein each of the one or more sensor units comprises:
a housing;
a distance sensor encased within the housing and configured to determine a freeboard of the waterborne vessel;
a coupling member coupled to the housing and configured to mount the sensor unit to the waterborne vessel;
an inclinometer configured to detect an elevation/tilt of the waterborne vessel, wherein the one or more sensor units are configured to determine freeboard from a first corner of the waterborne vessel and tilt information along two perpendicular axis of the waterborne vessel; and
a control unit operatively coupled to the one or more sensor units and configured to:
receive freeboard measurement data from the distance sensor;
receive tilt information from the inclinometer;
receive dimensions of the waterborne vessel through an interface;
determine positioning of the one or more sensors units on the waterborne vessel; and
determine freeboard at a second corner, a third corner, and a fourth corner of the waterborne vessel based on the tilt information, freeboard measured at a first corner, and the determined placement of the one or more sensor units.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting/sensing data;” “receiving data from sensors/inclinometer,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities, e.g., pre-solution observation/detecting, collecting/gathering/receiving data that merely use a computer (vessel/vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the detecting/sensing data, receiving data steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of observing/detecting/sensing data, gathering/collecting/receiving/presenting/notifying about data for determining and visualizing steps) and amount to mere pre-solution observing/detecting/sensing and collecting/gathering/receiving data, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Lastly, the “vessel control unit” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vessel/vehicle control environment. The vessel/vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining, visualizing steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9 - A method for continuously determining and visualizing a draft/freeboard of a waterborne vessel undergoing loading, the method executed at least by a control unit and implemented using a system, the method comprising:
providing one or more sensor units mounted to the waterborne vessel , wherein each of the one or more sensor units comprises:
a housing,
a distance sensor configured to determine a freeboard of the waterborne vessel, the distance sensor encased within the housing, and
a coupling member coupled to the housing, the coupling member is configured to allow the sensor unit to be mounted to the waterborne vessel;
receiving, by the control unit, freeboard measurement data from the distance sensor;
automatically determining, by the control unit and based on the received freeboard measurement data, a draft or freeboard for the waterborne vessel during loading;
rendering a user interface on an external computing device;
presenting through the interface, in real time, freeboard/draft data and changes in the freeboard/draft of the water borne vessel during loading;
generating a notification when a loading capacity in a predefined area of the waterborne vessel is reached based on predefined freeboard/draft thresholds for one or more corners of the waterborne vessel;
presenting, through the user interface, a graphical object depicting the waterborne vessel;
permitting, through the user interface, selection of a barge orientation corresponding to a bow and stern orientation during loading;
presenting, graphically through the user interface, a center of mass of the waterborne vessel and change in position of the center of mass during loading, wherein the center of mass indicates levelness of the waterborne vessel;
permitting, through the user interface, selection of a rake offset to account for additional height contributed by a raked bow of the waterborne vessel to the freeboard/draft;
receiving, through the user interface, trim and tilt limits representing allowable tolerance of error in front-to-back and side-to-side orientations of the waterborne vessel, wherein the trim and tilt limits are used to determine the center of mass;
receiving, through the user interface, tonnage targets for the waterborne vessel and presenting estimated tonnage in real time based on the determined freeboard or draft; and
receiving, through the user interface, an amount of water present in the waterborne vessel, wherein the amount of water affects the estimated tonnage.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving data from sensor/through interface;” “presenting through interface;” “generating notification,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities, e.g., pre-solution collecting/gathering/receiving data and post-solution presenting, generating notification, that merely use a computer (vessel/vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving data steps, and presenting data, generating notification steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering/collecting/receiving/presenting/notifying about data for determining/automatically determining/visualizing/permitting steps) and amount to mere pre-solution collecting/gathering/receiving data and post-solution presenting, generating notification, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Lastly, the “vessel/vehicle controller/interface” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vessel/vehicle control environment. The vessel/vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining/automatically determining/visualizing/permitting steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vessel/vehicle controller/control unit/interface to perform the determining, automatically determining, visualizing, permitting … amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving data from sensor/inclinometer/through interface;” “presenting through interface;” “generating notification,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving data from sensor/inclinometer/through interface;” “presenting through interface;” “generating notification” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vessel/vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vessel/vehicle controller, interface are anything other than a conventional computer within a vessel/vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
The additional limitations of “presenting through interface;” “generating notification” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying/presenting of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-19, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vessel/vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 8 and 10-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore, claims 1-5 and 8-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 1, 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAJI (US20230236012) in view of Crane (US20090112510) and further in view of CHEN (CN207157437U).
As per claim 1, BAJI discloses through the invention (see entire document) a system for continuously determining and visualizing a draft/freeboard of a waterborne vessel undergoing loading (see entire document, particularly fig. 1-8, abstract, Para [0024], various paragraphs – teaching, under BRI, calculating draft information using a statistical value of the distance measured at the multiple times and distance to the water surface measured by a sensor mounted on a side of a vessel; preferentiality to set the position where the draft height causes the change, for example, the position where the loads in the vessel (80) overlap in the longitudinal direction of the vessel (80), when there is only one range-finding sensor), the system comprising:
one or more sensor units (see entire document, particularly fig. 1-3, abstract, various paragraphs – teaching, under BRI, plurality of range-finding sensors 20 mounted on the side of a vessel to measure the distance to a water surface using range-finding signals), wherein each of the one or more sensor units comprises:
a housing; a distance sensor configured to determine a freeboard of the waterborne vessel, the distance sensor encased within the housing (see entire document, particularly Para [0004] – teaching, under BRI, another patent publication that teaches on draft measuring instrument that has a water level detection sensor housed in a cylindrical member; the measurement of water level by the draft measuring instrument carried out with the measuring instrument installed on the draft mark of the ship; see also fig. 1-8, abstract, various paragraphs – teaching, under BRI, calculating draft information using distance to the water surface measured by multiple range-finding sensors 20 mounted on different sides of a vessel and an information processor module 30);
a control unit operatively coupled to the one or more sensor units and configured to:
receive freeboard measurement data from the distance sensor (see entire document, particularly fig. 3, abstract, various paragraphs – teaching, under BRI, communication signals transmitted from range-finding sensor 20 to module 30, wherein range-finding sensor 20 and the information processor module 30 are connected by wired or wireless communication; each of multiple range-finding sensors 20 connected to the information processor module 30 by a prescribed communication format);
BAJI does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, waterborne vessel undergoing loading; a housing; a distance sensor encased within the housing and configured to determine a freeboard of the waterborne vessel; a coupling member coupled to the housing and configured to mount the sensor unit to the waterborne vessel; an inclinometer configured to detect an elevation/tilt of the waterborne vessel, wherein the one or more sensor units are configured to determine freeboard from a first corner of the waterborne vessel and tilt information along two perpendicular axis of the waterborne vessel; receiving tilt information from the inclinometer; receiving dimensions of the waterborne vessel through an interface; determining positioning of the one or more sensors units on the waterborne vessel; and determining freeboard at a second corner, a third corner, and a fourth corner of the waterborne vessel based on the tilt information, freeboard measured at a first corner, and the determined placement of the one or more sensor units.
However, Crane teaches, through the invention, these limitations/features reflecting placement of the system elements/components in the instant application (see entire document, particularly fig. 1-3, Para [0013, 0017, 0027]).
CHEN, in turn, teaches, through the invention, these limitations/features reflecting inclinometer, receiving measurement signals from inclinometer, in the instant application (see entire document, particularly Para [0014, 0017, 0035, 0066-0071, 0104, 0109-0110, 0124, 0132, 0138]).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BAJI by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Crane, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide an improved method and system to continuously acquire, record, and analyze data with the goal of determining the draft of a water-borne vessel and/or the amount of cargo currently loaded (see entire Crane document, particularly abstract, Para [0014-0017]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by CHEN, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide an autonomous balancing system for a deep mixing vessel, so that the vessel can still keep good balance under the influence of wind and waves and construction operations (see entire CHEN document, particularly abstract, Para [0007]).
As per claim 3, BAJI further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document) a radio member configured to connect each of the one or more sensor units to the control unit (see entire document, particularly fig. 3, abstract, various paragraphs – teaching, under BRI, communication signals transmitted from range-finding sensor 20 to module 30, wherein range-finding sensor 20 and the information processor module 30 are connected by wired or wireless communication; each of multiple range-finding sensors 20 connected to the information processor module 30 by a prescribed communication format).
As per claim 4, BAJI further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document) a gateway unit operably coupled to the one or more sensor units, wherein the gateway unit is configured to aggregate data from the one or more sensor units, wherein the gateway unit is configured to connect to the control unit (see entire document, teaching these limitations/features, under BRI, particularly in fig. 7-8, Para [0029-0032] – teaching, under BRI, multiple range-finding sensor 20 that perform ranging at multiple times, that calculate the distance from the range-finding sensor to the water surface (91) from time difference between a time of transmission and a time of reception; each of multiple range-finding sensors 20 connected to the information processor module 30 by a prescribed communication format).
As per claim 8, BAJI does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, determining draft at other corners of the waterborne vessel is further based on dimensions of the waterborne vessel.
However, Crane teaches, through the invention, these limitations/features, under BRI (see entire document, particularly fig. 1-3, Para [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BAJI by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Crane, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to provide an improved method and system to continuously acquire, record, and analyze data with the goal of determining the draft of a water-borne vessel and/or the amount of cargo currently loaded (see entire Crane document, particularly abstract, Para [0014-0017]).
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of BAJI, Crane and CHEN further in view of Olsen (US20180234806).
As per claims 2 and 10, BAJI does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, the coupling member that comprises one or more magnets encased within the respective housing; mounting the one or more sensor units to the waterborne vessel through the one or more magnets.
However, Olsen teaches, through the invention, these limitations/features reflecting placement of the system elements/components in the instant application, under BRI (see entire document, particularly fig. 1-3, Para [0026, 0031]).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BAJI by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Olsen, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to couple a magnet in a mounting bracket to a housing for the vessel tracking and safety beacon device (see entire Olsen document, particularly abstract, Para [0031]).
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of BAJI, Crane and CHEN, further in view of SOLACHI (WO2018096190A1).
As per claims 5 and 13, BAJI does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing, distance sensor selected from a group consisting of Lidar, Sonar, Radar, Infrared distance sensor, and a combination thereof.
However, SOLACHI teaches, through the invention, these limitations/features, under BRI (see entire document, particularly abstract, Para [0005, 0012-0013, 0015, 0034, 0036, 0039-0041]).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of BAJI by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by SOLACHI, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to facilitate the measurement of the draft of a vessel and enable a quick, comfortable, simple, safe and, above all, accurate reading of the same, regardless of the weather conditions in which said measurement must be made, for which to use continuous measurement by RADAR and, through software/algorithm applied by a microcontroller, to manage all the variables that prevented an accurate reading with previous systems, such as waves, wind and low light (see entire SOLACHI document, particularly abstract, Para [0003-0004]).
Claims 6-7 and 20 canceled.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
2. Claims 10-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
3. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In performing initial search and additional search, in response to amended claims, the Examiner was able to find the closest prior art of record, which is BAJI (US20230236012) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of Crane (US20090112510), CHEN (CN207157437U), Olsen (US20180234806) and SOLACHI (WO2018096190A1), who describe an improved method and system to continuously acquire, record, and analyze data with the goal of determining the draft of a water-borne vessel and/or the amount of cargo currently loaded.
In regards to claims 9-19, BAJI (US20230236012) taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fail to teach or render obvious the following feature(s) / limitation(s):
permitting, through the user interface, selection of a barge orientation corresponding to a bow and stern orientation during loading;
permitting, through the user interface, selection of a rake offset to account for additional height contributed by a raked bow of the waterborne vessel to the freeboard/draft;
receiving, through the user interface, tonnage targets for the waterborne vessel and presenting estimated tonnage in real time based on the determined freeboard or draft.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
PONGRATZ (US20130200207) – (see entire PONGRATZ document, particularly Para [0056] – teaching, und BRI, freeboard level of the target ship measured by the radar altimeter and the result compared with the data obtained by automatic ship's identification system AIS regarding the draft of the ship; making it possible to measure the ship's cargo status directly and without classification).
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-20 of 22 in the remarks filed 02/20/2026, in regards to the 103 rejections from the previous office action, with regards to claims 1-5 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
2. Applicant’s arguments on pages 16-20 of 22 in the remarks filed 02/20/2026, in regards to the 103 rejections from the previous office action, with regards to claims 1-5 and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Although, the Applicant has amended claims by amending and/or revising some or certain limitations/features into recently amended independent/dependent claims by rolling some or certain limitations/features from canceled dependent claims into recently amended independent claims, along with re-phrasing or modifying some verbiage and claim language, the Examiner finds that scope of the claims has not changed, as well as a number of the same previously cited prior art references, which has resulted in providing of the new ground(s) of rejection (e.g., if independent claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAJI (US20230236012) in view of Crane (US20090112510), in the previous office action, CURRENTLY NOW independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAJI (US20230236012) in view of Crane (US20090112510) and further in view of CHEN (CN207157437U) in the instant office action). Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
3. Applicant's arguments, on pages 10-16 of 22 in the remarks filed 02/20/2026, in regards to the 101 rejections from the previous office action, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner kindly draws Applicant’s attention at pages 3-11 of the instant office action above, where it is stated, based on the analysis presented, that it is unclear what the claimed limitations/features are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vessel/vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. In short, there is NO practical application in the claims and specification, as originally filed as well as in the newly added Para [0070]. Therefore, it is believed that the rejection should be maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571-270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662