DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 21 January 2026. Claims 1-8 and 18-27 have been canceled. Claims 9-17 and 28-38 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendment filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Interpretation of “sensor module", and “controller” all includes a general placeholder (module, controller, device), is followed by a functional language "configured to detect gestures…”, “configured to receive and store…” and is not modified by language that provide sufficient structure in Prong C of MPEP 2181. Applicant points to paragraphs [0039], [0010], [0011], and [0043] of the specification that provide structural support for “sensor module” but the plain meaning of “sensor module” is still interpreted as means for sensing, and the specification provides the structural support for how that means is implemented such as a pressure sensor, position sensor or optical sensor. Therefore "sensor module", and “controller” is interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is sustained. Amendments and arguments regarding obviousness rejection of the independent claims has been fully considered and is persuasive. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection to claims 9, 11-12, 15-17, 28, 30-31, and 34-38 is withdrawn but is moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Sensor module in claims 9, 10, 11, 28, 29 and 30
Controller in claims 9 and 28
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the sensor module:
" The sensor module may include a radar-based motion sensor to detect gestures and/or actions from the user ", [¶ 10]
" The sensor module may include a vibration sensor for detecting vibrations of the user (e.g., stomping, sounds, vocalizations)", [¶ 11]
“The sensor module 106 may transmit signals to the controller 102 indicating a detected condition, event, and/or user input. The sensor module 106 may include various sensors for detecting conditions, events, and/or user inputs. Some non-limiting examples of sensors that may be part of the sensor module 106 include tactile sensors (e.g., pressure sensors, strain gauges, capacitive touch sensors), three-axis sensors, analog sensors, vibration sensors, chemical sensors, electromagnetic sensors, environmental sensors, flow sensors, navigational sensors, position sensors, optical sensors, and temperature sensors. The sensor module 106 may be located anywhere relative to the marine vessel, such as within an MFD, mounted separately to the marine vessel, and/or within a mobile media device 50 (e.g., shown in FIG. 3)” [¶ 11]
“For example, as shown in FIG. 3, the sensor module 106 may be built-in to a mobile media or smart device, which senses, processes, and/or interprets a user input locally to determine what signal to send to the remote MFD, built-in to the marine vessel 10, which then uses a communication bus or integration hub to transmit a control signal to the marine device 104, which may receive and then further process the data and/or signal. In some embodiments, the sensor module 106 may include a camera and/or other optical or visual sensor as well as a local dedicated image processor for rapidly analyzing data captured via the one or more sensors.” [¶ 43]
“The sensor module 106 (e.g., microphone, accelerometer, vibration sensor) positioned in the foot pedal” [¶ 44]
“The sensor module 106 may include various sensors (e.g., touchscreen, touchpad, trackball, camera, orientation sensor, 3D laser, facial recognition sensor, facial expression or gesture recognition sensor, electroencephalography (EEG) sensor) configured to detect user inputs for controlling operation of the sonar system 120 and/or display via the controller 102. In some embodiments, the sensor module 106 may be positioned within or correspond with one or more devices/locations (e.g., MFD, handheld device or FOB, phone, tablet, computing device, adjustable device mount, VR headset, glasses frames or other headgear, trolling motor foot pedal or buttons, other user input assemblies). Some non-limiting examples of user inputs include direction of user's face; direction or orientation of FOB, mobile media device 50, and/or sensor module 106 in user's hand or worn on user's body, adjustably or permanently mounted to marine vessel 10, chair, trolling motor assembly, and/or other marine device 104 thereon; pinch-zoom-pan or other touch; and body or hand gestures.” [¶ 53]
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for the controller:
“The controller 102 may be an assembly or system of multiple processors and/or circuitry distributed across various devices.” [¶ 43]
“The controller 102 may be a processor built-in to the MFD of the marine vessel 10 and/or an integration hub 401 (which may be separate from or within the MFD)” [¶44]
“The controller 102 may include at least one processing component (e.g., processor) and memory including instructions configured to cause the processor to perform various actions and/or functions including display of images on the display 40 associated with the sonar system 120.” [¶ 61]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 9, 11-12, 15-17, 28, 30-31, 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand et al. (US 20190137993 A1) in view of Stanek; Ganymed et al. (US 20150363639 A1)
Regarding Claim 9, Bertrand teaches, a system for controlling operations of a marine vessel through gestures of a user (see at least, ¶39, 50, 57, Bertrand), the system comprising: a sensor module mounted to the marine vessel and configured to detect gestures of the user by: detecting and transmitting a series of detect positions of the handheld device by the user a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time, wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time; and a controller configured to: receive and store the series of detect positions of the handheld device by the user detected first and second positions of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module (a gesture performed with the handheld device 200 can correspond to a series of detected position, direction and/or orientation measurements, see at least, ¶39, 50, 57, Bertrand) in a memory, generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a marine vessel movement data set, wherein the marine vessel movement data set is based on movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify a matching one or more gestures from a plurality of detectable gestures for the user, wherein the plurality of detectable gestures for the user comprises at least two different gestures, determine a desired action from among a plurality of desired actions based on the identified one or more gestures by determining that the desired action from among the plurality of desired actions is mapped to the identified one or more gestures, wherein the plurality of desired actions includes at least two different actions for operating a marine device, wherein each of the plurality of desired actions is mapped to one or more of the plurality of detectable gestures for the user, and transmit a signal to the marine device to cause the marine device to operate according to the desired action (the controller 202 may be configured to receive a plurality of desired jog movements from the user interface 220, and store in memory the gesture associated with the desired jog movements and generate control signals to one or more motors of the marine vessel to cause the marine vessel to move as desired by the user. Additionally Figs. 6D and 6E may determine a gesture to the left or right and generate control signals to activate the truster 124 to move the marine vessel to the right or left as shown in Fig. 6C and 6D. Fig. 6H depicts a user interface 220 may provide touch inputs such as a swipe left, right, up or down and may store in the memory 206 a directional measurement and orientation measurement associated with different swipes, see at least, ¶64-66 Bertrand).
Bertrand does not explicitly teach, detecting and transmitting a series of detect positions of the handheld device by the user a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time, wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time; and a controller configured to: receive and store the detected first and second positions of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module in a memory, generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a marine vessel movement data set, wherein the marine vessel movement data set is based on movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify a matching one or more gestures from a plurality of detectable gestures for the user.
Stanek, directed to in-air or non-contact gesture sensors teaches, detecting and transmitting a series of detect positions of the handheld device by the user a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time (Fig. 10 depicts a table storing time stamped position x,y,z data of the gesture sensor and the IMU. Each time the sampling clock instructs, the sample and hold circuits capture current position data on the gesture sensor and IMU sensor and the data is stored in memory with a time stamp that uniquely identifies when the sample was taken, see at least, ¶42, Stanek), wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time (the time stamps must be taken at a differential time where one is later than the other, see at least, ¶42, Stanek); and a controller configured to: receive and store the detected first and second positions of the user , the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module in a memory (see at least, ¶42, Stanek), generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a vehicle movement data set, wherein the vehicle movement data set is based on movement of the vehicle between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify gestures for the user (Fig. 8 depicts processing of the time-stamped data from the gesture sensor 20 and IMU 22 where the circuit essentially functions as a sophisticated filter that selectively removes different noise components from the raw gesture sensor signals and cleans up the gesture signal that may be used to control devices within the vehicle, see at least, ¶44-51, Stanek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bertrand’s method of controlling a marine vessel using gestures of a user to incorporate the teachings of Stanek which teaches detecting and transmitting a series of detect positions of the handheld device by the user a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time, wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time; and a controller configured to: receive and store the detected first and second positions of the user , the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module in a memory, generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a vehicle movement data set, wherein the vehicle movement data set is based on movement of the vehicle between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify gestures for the user since they are both related to Controlling a vehicle using gestures and incorporation of the teachings of Stanek would remove unintentional gesture component provoked by the motion of the vehicle (see at least ¶6, Stanek).
Regarding Claim 28, Bertrand teaches, a marine electronic device for controlling operations of a marine vessel, the marine electronic device comprising: a display (Handheld device 200 include a user interface 220 which has a display, see at least, ¶50, Bertrand); a sensor module configured to detect gestures of a user by: detecting and transmitting a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time, wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time; and a controller (the handheld device includes a magnetometer, an inertial sensor and a controller, see at least, ¶32, Bertrand) configured to: receive and store the detected first and second positions of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module in a memory, generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a marine vessel movement data set, wherein the marine vessel movement data set is based on movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify a matching one or more gestures from a plurality of detectable gestures for the user, wherein the plurality of detectable gestures for the user comprises at least two different gestures, determine a desired action from among a plurality of desired actions based on the identified one or more gestures by determining that the desired action from among the plurality of desired actions is mapped to the identified one or more gestures, wherein the plurality of desired actions includes at least two different actions for operating a marine device, wherein each of the plurality of desired actions is mapped to one or more of the plurality of detectable gestures for the user, and operate the marine device according to the desired action (the controller 202 may be configured to receive a plurality of desired jog movements from the user interface 220, and store in memory the gesture associated with the desired jog movements and generate control signals to one or more motors of the marine vessel to cause the marine vessel to move as desired by the user. Additionally Figs. 6D and 6E may determine a gesture to the left or right and generate control signals to activate the thruster 124 to move the marine vessel to the right or left as shown in Fig. 6C and 6D. Fig. 6H depicts a user interface 220 may provide touch inputs such as a swipe left, right, up or down and may store in the memory 206 a directional measurement and orientation measurement associated with different swipes, see at least, ¶64-66 Bertrand).
Bertrand does not explicitly teach, detect gestures of a user by: detecting and transmitting a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time, wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time; and a controller configured to: receive and store the detected first and second positions of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module in a memory, generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a marine vessel movement data set, wherein the marine vessel movement data set is based on movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify a matching one or more gestures.
Stanek, directed to in-air or non-contact gesture sensors teaches, detect gestures of a user by: detecting and transmitting a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time (Fig. 10 depicts a table storing time stamped position x,y,z data of the gesture sensor and the IMU. Each time the sampling clock instructs, the sample and hold circuits capture current position data on the gesture sensor and IMU sensor and the data is stored in memory with a time stamp that uniquely identifies when the sample was taken, see at least, ¶42, Stanek), wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time (the time stamps are taken with sampling window which must be taken at a differential time where one is later than the other, see at least, ¶42, Stanek); and a controller configured to: receive and store the detected first and second positions of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module in a memory (see at least, ¶42, Stanek), generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a vehicle movement data set, wherein the vehicle movement data set is based on movement of the vehicle between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify gestures for the user (Fig. 8 depicts processing of the time-stamped data from the gesture sensor 20 and IMU 22 where the circuit essentially functions as a sophisticated filter that selectively removes different noise components from the raw gesture sensor signals and cleans up the gesture signal that may be used to control devices within the vehicle, see at least, ¶44-51, Stanek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bertrand’s method of controlling a marine vessel using gestures of a user to incorporate the teachings of Stanek which teaches detect gestures of a user by: detecting and transmitting a first position of the user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user within a field of view of the sensor module at a first time, and detecting and transmitting a second position of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user within the field of view at a second time, wherein the second time is a time differential later than the first time; and a controller configured to: receive and store the detected first and second positions of the user, the one or more portions of the user, or the one or more objects associated with the user from the sensor module in a memory, generate a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modify the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a vehicle movement data set, wherein the vehicle movement data set is based on movement of the vehicle between the first and second times, process the modified difference data set to identify gestures for the user since they are both related to controlling a vehicle using gestures and incorporation of the teachings of Stanek would remove unintentional gesture component provoked by the motion of the vehicle (see at least ¶6, Stanek).
Regarding Claim 38, Bertrand teaches, a method for controlling operations of a marine vessel, the method comprising: receiving, from a sensor module, a detected series of positions of the handheld device by a user (a gesture performed with the handheld device 200 can correspond to a series of detected position, direction and/or orientation measurements, see at least, ¶39, 50, 57, Bertrand), a detected first position at a first time and a detected second position at a second time of a user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user, wherein the first time is different than the second time, generating a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modifying the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a marine vessel movement data set, wherein the marine vessel movement data set is based on movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times, processing the modified difference data set to identify a matching one or more gestures from a plurality of detectable gestures for the user, wherein the plurality of detectable gestures for the user comprises at least two different gestures, determining a desired action from among a plurality of desired actions based on the identified one or more gestures by determining that the desired action from among the plurality of desired actions is mapped to the identified one or more gestures, wherein the plurality of desired actions includes at least two different actions for operating a marine device, wherein each of the plurality of desired actions is mapped to one or more of the plurality of detectable gestures for the user, and causing operation of the marine device according to the desired action (the controller 202 may be configured to receive a plurality of desired jog movements from the user interface 220, and store in memory the gesture associated with the desired jog movements and generate control signals to one or more motors of the marine vessel to cause the marine vessel to move as desired by the user. Additionally Figs. 6D and 6E may determine a gesture to the left or right and generate control signals to activate the truster 124 to move the marine vessel to the right or left as shown in Fig. 6C and 6D. Fig. 6H depicts a user interface 220 may provide touch inputs such as a swipe left, right, up or down and may store in the memory 206 a directional measurement and orientation measurement associated with different swipes, see at least, ¶64-66 Bertrand).
Bertrand does not explicitly teach, a detected first position at a first time and a detected second position at a second time of a user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user, wherein the first time is different than the second time, generating a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modifying the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a marine vessel movement data set, wherein the marine vessel movement data set is based on movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times, processing the modified difference data set to identify a matching one or more gestures from a plurality of detectable gestures for the user.
Stanek, directed to in-air or non-contact gesture sensors teaches, a detected first position at a first time and a detected second position at a second time of a user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user (Fig. 10 depicts a table storing time stamped position x,y,z data of the gesture sensor and the IMU. Each time the sampling clock instructs, the sample and hold capture current position data on the gesture sensor and IMU sensor and the data is stored in memory with a time stamp that uniquely identifies when the sample was taken, see at least, ¶42, Stanek), wherein the first time is different than the second time, generating a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modifying the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a vehicle movement data set, wherein the vehicle movement data set is based on movement of the vehicle between the first and second times, processing the modified difference data set to identify gestures for the user (Fig. 8 depicts processing of the time-stamped data from the gesture sensor 20 and IMU 22 where the circuit essentially functions as a sophisticated filter that selectively removes different noise components from the raw gesture sensor signals and cleans up the gesture signal that may be used to control devices within the vehicle, see at least, ¶44-51, Stanek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bertrand’s method of controlling a marine vessel using gestures of a user to incorporate the teachings of Stanek which teaches a detected first position at a first time and a detected second position at a second time of a user, one or more portions of the user, or one or more objects associated with the user, wherein the first time is different than the second time, generating a difference data set by comparing the first and second positions, modifying the difference data set by filtering difference data falling within a marine vessel movement data set, wherein the marine vessel movement data set is based on movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times, processing the modified difference data set to identify gestures for the user since they are both related to Controlling a vehicle using gestures and incorporation of the teachings of Stanek would remove unintentional gesture component provoked by the motion of the vehicle (see at least ¶6, Stanek).
Regarding claim 11 and 30, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the system of Claim 9 (re-claim 11), and the marine electronic device of Claim 28 (re-claim 30), wherein the sensor module that determines gestures based on one or more of a position change and an orientation change of helm within the modified difference data set.
Bertrand, directed to a handheld device for navigating a marine vessel further teaches, wherein the sensor module uses an external tracked device and determines gestures based on one or more of a position change and an orientation change of the external tracked device (external tracked device is the handheld device 200 that determines gestures based on the position and orientation of the external tracked device, see at least [¶ 39, Bertrand]: “The handheld device 200 is configured to generate at least one control signal for the one or more motors based on a position (e.g., GPS coordinates, altitude, etc.), a pointing direction (e.g., North, East, South, West, etc.), and/or an orientation (e.g., pitch, roll, yaw, etc.) of the handheld device 200. In some embodiments, the handheld device 200 is also configured to generate at least one control signal for a motor based on a gesture performed with the handheld device 200. For example, a gesture can correspond to a series of detected position, direction, and/or orientation measurements”).
Stanek, directed to in-air or non-contact gesture sensors teaches within the modified difference data set (Fig. 8 computation circuit 50 is calculated using the formula Eq.2 which computes the difference between the detected gestures and removes the noise and vehicle acceleration from the detected gesture resulting in a cleaned-up gesture signal, see at least ¶39 and 51, Stanek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bertrand’s method of controlling a marine vessel using gestures of a user to incorporate the teachings of Stanek which teaches within the modified difference data set since they are both related to Controlling a vehicle using gestures and incorporation of the teachings of Stanek would remove unintentional gesture component provoked by the motion of the vehicle (see at least ¶6, Stanek).
Regarding claims 12 and 31, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the system of Claim 9 (re-claim 12), and the marine electronic device of claim 28 (re-claim 31) wherein the marine device is the display, and the display is a multi-functional display (see at least [¶ 70, Fig. 7A and 7B, Bertrand]: “As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the marine vessel display system 300 can include at least one input 314 for receiving data from one or more marine input sources 316; a display 308 for presenting information representative of at least some of the data from the marine input sources 316; and a processing system 302 in communication with the inputs 314 and the display 308.”).
Regarding claims 15 and 34, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the system of Claim 9 (re-claim 15) and the marine electronic device of Claim 28 (re-claim 34),
wherein the movement of the marine vessel between the first and second times is captured by an accelerometer (The primary motor 122 may also include an inertial sensor (accelerometer) and collect data with the sensor, see at least, ¶54 Bertrand).
Regarding claims 16 and 35, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the system of claim 9 (re-claim 16, and the marine electronic device of claim 28 (re-claim 35),
wherein the marine device is a trolling motor (marine device is a trolling motor, see at least [¶ 48, Bertrand]: “The handheld device 200 can include a transmitter 218A and a receiver 218B. Controller 202 may control the transmitter 218A to send communications (e.g., control signals, directional and/or orientation measurements, etc.) to a motor (e.g., trolling motor 120, primary motor 122, and/or thruster 124, as shown in FIGS. 5B through 5D)”).
Regarding claims 17 and 37, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the system of claim 9 (re-claim 16, and the marine electronic device of claim 28 (re-claim 35),
Stanek, directed to in-air or non-contact gesture sensors teaches wherein the determined desired action is no action based on the identified one or more gestures being unintended commands (removing unintentional gesture component, results in a gesture signal that does not contain any un-intentional gestures. Since the unintentional gesture component is removed, no control signal will be transmitted if the gesture is determined as unintentional, see at least ¶6 and 51, Stanek).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bertrand’s method of controlling a marine vessel using gestures of a user to incorporate the teachings of Stanek which teaches wherein the determined desired action is no action based on the identified one or more gestures being unintended commands since they are both related to Controlling a vehicle using gestures and incorporation of the teachings of Stanek would transmit only intentional gestures to control the vehicle (see at least ¶6, Stanek).
Regarding claim 36, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the marine electronic device of claim 28 (re-claim 35), wherein the marine device is the marine electronic device (the handheld device 200 is the marine electronic device, see at least, ¶66, 69, Bertrand).
Claims 10 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand et al. (US 20190137993 A1) in view of Stanek; Ganymed et al. (US 20150363639 A1) as applied to claims 9, 11-12, 15-17, 28, 30-31, 34-38 and further in view of DI CENSO; Davide et al. (US 20160185385 A1)
Regarding claims 10 and 29, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the system of claim 9 (re- claim 10) and the marine electronic device of claim 28 (re-claim 29).
Bertrand in view of Stanek does not explicitly teach, wherein the sensor module is configured to utilize a projected light pattern.
De Censo, directed to human-vehicle interfaces to a steering wheel control system teaches, wherein the sensor module is configured to utilize a projected light pattern (hand gestures are detected using laser or structured light sensors which use a projected light pattern, see at least [¶ 42, Fig. 5, Di Censo]: “FIG. 5 illustrates techniques for modifying different vehicle parameters via one of the input regions 210 of FIG. 2 and one or more hand gestures, according to various embodiments. As described above, the system 100 may include one or more sensors (e.g., visual sensors, depth sensors, infrared sensors, time-of-flight sensors, ultrasound sensors, radar sensors, laser sensors, thermal sensors, structured light sensors) that track the location of the hand(s) of a user. In such embodiments, a user hand gesture may be detected by the control application 130 via the sensor(s), and a selected vehicle parameter may be modified based on the gesture”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bertrand in view of Stanek to incorporate the teachings of Di Censo which teaches wherein the sensor module is configured to utilize a projected light pattern since they are both related to controlling steering of vehicles and incorporation of the teachings of Di Censo would increase the utility and safety of the steering system since Di Censo teaches that “the steering wheel controls can be operated with a low cognitive load, reducing the degree to which operation of vehicle systems distracts the driver from driving tasks. Additionally, the techniques described herein enable the multiple sets of physical buttons typically found in conventional vehicle systems to be replaced with a simpler and less expensive interface”, [¶50, Di Censo].
Claims 13-14 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand et al. (US 20190137993 A1) in view of Stanek; Ganymed et al. (US 20150363639 A1) as applied to claims 9, 11-12, 15-17, 28, 30-31, 34-38 and further in view of Yanai; Yaron (US 20140022171 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 32, Bertrand in view of Stanek teach the system of Claim 12 (re-claim 13) and the marine electronic device of claim 28 (re-claim 32).
wherein the identified one or more gestures is a touch input (touch input gestures are identified, see at least [¶ 66, Fig. 6H, Bertrand]: “as shown in FIG. 6H, the touch-sensitive input device 224 of user interface 220 may provide touch inputs, such as a swipe in the lateral direction (swipe left or swipe right), a swipe in the vertical direction (swipe up or swing down), or any combination thereof”).
Bertrand in view of Stanek does not explicitly teach wherein the identified one or more gestures is a hand wave.
Yanai, directed to a system and method for implementing a remote-controlled user interface using close range object tracking are described teaches, wherein the identified one or more gestures is a hand wave (see at least [¶ 58, Yanai]: “the user may control an external system, platform or device by waving his hands or making predefined gestures near the control device”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Bertrand in view of Stanek’s to further incorporate the teachings of Yanai which teaches wherein the identified one or more gestures is a hand wave, since they are both related to controlling electronic devices using gestures and incorporation of the teachings of Yanai would enhance user experience of the overall system in a case where the user is unable to touch the display, the user can control the display using hand wave gestures since Yanai teaches “field of gesture recognition have shown the benefits of using gestures or movement tracking to enhance the user experience for controlling an electronic device”, [¶9, Yanai].
Regarding claims 14 and 33, Estabrook in view of Bertrand and Yanai teaches the system of Claim 13 (re-claim 14), and the marine electronic device of Claim 32 (re-claim 33) wherein the desired action is changing a display mode, (see at least [¶70, Bertrand]: “As shown in FIGS. 7A and 7B, the marine vessel display system 300 can include at least one input 314 for receiving data from one or more marine input sources 316; a display 308 for presenting information representative of at least some of the data from the marine input sources 316; and a processing system 302 in communication with the inputs 314 and the display 308. As described in more detail below, the processing system 302 may implement a plurality of modes of operation, each of which may cause the display 308 to present information representative of data from predetermined ones of the marine input sources 316 and in selected formats. The marine vessel display system 300 may further comprise a location determining component 312 that furnishes geographic position data for the marine vessel 100 (similar in function to location determining components 232, 174). The processing system 302 may implement a mode selector 304 configured to select between a plurality of modes of operation, respective ones of which present information representative of data from selected marine input sources 316 on the display 308”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. 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.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664