DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1-29 in application number 18/388,825. Claims 1-29 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
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 .
Specification Objection
Applicant’s specification at page 8, paragraph [0018], is objected to because it recites the word “waxy”, which, from context, should be the word “wavy”. Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 recites “wish” and, from context, correct grammar would be “wishing”. Further, line 8 recites “customize” and, from context, correct grammar would be “customized”.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 recites “additional” and, from context, correct grammar would be “additionally”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Examiner is using the “step” annotation from the flowchart of MPEP 2106 (III), and MPEP 2106.04 and MPEP 2106.05 for clarity.
1.
Step 1:
Applicant recites in claim 1: “a device for managing inventory comprising… a program” but does not specifically claim a computer or a processor or any specific hardware. Applicant does not disclose any computer nor processor nor any specific hardware in the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a device” could include a software module or other software construct. Further, Applicant does not disclose the term “device” nor the term “program” in the spec or any synonyms for either element. Applicant recites “computerized method” only when discussing admitted prior art in [0004] but not with respect to their invention and recites “software-generated” in [0005], [0010], [0011], [0017] and [0018] but does not positively recite any computer or software or other hardware capable of “generating” nor provide any detail as to how or what is generated.
MPEP 2106.03(I) states that elements are “not directed to any of the statutory categories because they do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”. Therefore Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because they are software per se and they do not fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention described in MPEP 2106.03.
2.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner now analyzes Applicant’s claims under 35 USC 101 as if a computer or processor are positively recited in the claims.
Step 1:
If a computer or processor is positively recited in the claims, this additional element would satisfy the requirements of Step 1 and the claims would fall into the “machine” statutory category of MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Applicant recites the following elements in Claim 1:
A device ((computer)) for managing inventory comprising: a three-dimensional block that accurately depicts an object with an object height, an object length, and an object width, a three-dimensional space that accurately depicts a space with a space height, a space length, and a space width, a program that determines whether the three-dimensional block fits into the three-dimensional space, where the program provides an inventory of one or more three-dimensional spaces into which the three-dimensional block can fit.
Examiner has bolded the elements that are part of the abstract idea.
These elements recite a piece of data which is a result of calculating the mathematical volume of a physical object and a piece of data which is a result of calculating the mathematical volume of a physical space in which to potentially store the object, comparing the pieces of data to determine if the object fits inside the space and outputting the results of the comparison. These elements represent an abstract idea in the category of mathematical formulas because calculating volume and the difference between volumes are well understood principles of basic geometry.
Further, these elements also represent an abstract idea in the category of mental processes because a human can mentally and/or with simple tools calculate comparative volumes and output list of combinations that “fit”.
Further, Applicant discloses in dependent claims 16, 17, 19 and 24-29 that the purpose of performing the calculation is to optimize the assignment of boat slips in a marina to maximize profit. For example, a small boat that can fit into both a large and small boat slip would be prohibited from parking in the large boat slip to preserve the large boat slip for a large boat that is unable to park in the small spot which, would result in the large boat being turned away (and the revenue lost). Optimizing storage space to maximize profit is a well known commercial practice so claims 16, 17, 19 and 24-29 are also rejected under the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in the subcategory of commercial or legal interactions.
Claims 1, 16, 17, 19 and 24-29 thus recite an abstract idea. Dependent Claims 2-29 contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1. Accordingly Claims 1-29 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
In addition to the abstract ideas discussed above, in the interest of compact prosecution, assuming that Claim 1 recites a computer, the computer would be an additional element. As previously discussed, the specification does not recite computer, processor or any other hardware capable of running a program. Even if a computer can be implied from context, applicant’s disclosure certainly does not contain any technical detail describing a special purpose computer or other hardware or other additional elements, thus the computer would, at best, be a general purpose computer.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore even an implied computer, if supported by the specification, would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1- 29 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed above, Applicant claims the abstract idea of a piece of data which is a result of calculating the mathematical volume of a physical object and a piece of data which is a result of calculating the mathematical volume of a physical space in which to potentially store the object, comparing the pieces of data to determine if the object fits inside the space and outputting the results of the comparison. As discussed above, for the purposes of compact prosecution, a general purpose computer might be implied from context in the specification and added into Claim 1. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A, the computer would be recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer systems. MPEP 2106.05(f) states that merely adding a general purpose computer or computer components to an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, thus a computer, if it added to the claim, is not significantly more.
The additional element alone or in combination with the other claimed elements does not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technological field. The additional element alone or in combination does not apply the judicial exception to a particular (non-general purpose) machine. The additional element alone or in combination does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant does not claim or teach in their specification any special purpose hardware or improvements thereof. Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 20-23 further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the use cases and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Dependent claims 5-14, 18 and 24-26 further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the data and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Dependent claims 15, 19 and 27-29 further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the output and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Dependent claims 16 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the input and contain the same abstract idea by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Claims 1-29 are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0326776 (Averbuch).
Regarding Claim 1:
Averbuch teaches a system that tracks and manages docking at marinas using 3D data of ships and berths to match ship docking requirements to the optimal available berth sizes to maximize marina profit. Averbuch teaches: A device for managing inventory comprising: a three-dimensional block that accurately depicts an object with an object height, an object length, and an object width, ([0024] “vessel size… length, beam and draft”).
a three-dimensional space that accurately depicts a space with a space height, a space length, and a space width, ([0026] “berth data specifics…length, width and estimated water depth”).
a program that determines whether the three-dimensional block fits into the three-dimensional space, where the program provides an inventory of one or more three-dimensional spaces into which the three-dimensional block can fit. ([0028] “match” refers to an outputted match, identified by the invention, in which the docking requirements of a particular vessel, have been successfully matched with the physical characteristics of an available berth”).
Regarding Claim 2:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch also teaches: The device of Claim 1, where the inventory comprises one or more boat slips in a marina. ([0012] “marine berths at a port”).
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0326776 (Averbuch) in view of U.S. Patent 11,597,383 (Sonalker).
Regarding Claim 3:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Averbuch teaches parking a vehicle (boat in a marina) (see at least [0012] “marine berths at a port”), Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 1, where the inventory comprises one or more trailer spaces in a campground. Sonalker, in the field of parking vehicles, teaches ([Column 3, lines 1-4] “vehicle may include a recreational vehicle. As used in this disclosure, a “recreational vehicle (RV)” is a vehicle or trailer that includes living quarters, for instance sleeping berth, a head, a galley, and the like”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the parking spot optimization system taught by Averbuch would predictably apply to RVs in campgrounds, as taught by Sonalker, with no change to its function and yield predictable results resulting in an improved system.
Regarding Claim 4:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. While Averbuch teaches parking a vehicle (boat in a marina) (see at least [0012] “marine berths at a port”), Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 1, where the inventory comprises one or more airplane spaces in an airport. Sonalker, in the field of parking vehicles, teaches ([Column 2, lines 57-58] “a vehicle may be a boat or an aircraft”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the parking spot optimization system taught by Averbuch would predictably apply to parking an aircraft at an airport, as taught by Sonalker, with no change to its function and yield predictable results resulting in an improved system.
Claims 5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0326776 (Averbuch) in view of U.S. Patent 6,469,664 (Michaelson).
Regarding Claim 5:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch also teaches: The device of Claim 1, where the inventory comprises one or more boat slips in a marina, where the object height includes… a below-waterline height which is a draft of the boat. ([0012] “marine berths at a port” and [0024] “vessel size… draft”).
Averbuch does not specifically teach: an above-waterline height, which is the height of a boat above a waterline. Michaelson, in a related art, teaches this: ([Column 2, lines 26-28] “ship maximum height and anticipated track can be compared, for example, with the clearance height required under a bridge obstacle”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention in the process of finding an appropriate boat slip, as taught by Averbuch, to consider the height of a boat above the water line, as taught by Michaelson, because of the predictable need to avoid obstacles above the water such as bridges.
Regarding Claim 8:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Michaelson teaches all of the elements of Claim 5. While Averbuch also teaches: ([0024] “vessel size… draft” and [0026] “berth data specifics… estimated water depth”), Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 5, additionally comprising a bottom buffer, where the bottom buffer is a distance between a marina bottom and a boat bottom which is necessary for safely parking the boat at the marina. Michaelson also teaches ([Column 7, lines 34-36] “stored models of the vessel's characteristics and performance, outputs data useful for computing the bottom proximity alert envelopes” and ([Column 2, lines 48-51] “The system further comprises: a terrain database comprising depth data for underwater terrain and obstacle information as well as for port facilities”). From context, Examiner is interpreting Applicant’s bottom buffer to be equivalent to Michaelson’s “bottom proximity alert envelope”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention, in the process of finding an appropriate boat slip, to consider the keel depth of a boat below the water line and estimated water depth, as taught by Averbuch, and use this information to create a bottom proximity alert envelope, as taught by Michaelson, because of the predictable need to mitigate the risk of grounding the boat if the depth is variable.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Michaelson teaches all of the elements of Claims 5 and 8. While Averbuch also teaches: ([0024] “vessel size… draft” and [0026] “berth data specifics… estimated water depth”), Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 8, where the bottom buffer includes a bottom buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide, such that a minimum bottom buffer exists at the low tide. The device of Claim 9, where the bottom buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide is based on one or more tide tables, such that the bottom buffer calculation can be made many months in advance. Michaelson also teaches ([Column 8, lines 12-27] “stores data or retrieves input from other shipboard systems as needed to compute the maximum hull depth. In the case of ships and other surface operated marine vessels, keel depth will vary as a function of the center of gravity, center of buoyancy, and displacement of the vessel… Such data may therefore include the nominal keel depth, current weight of vessel, consumables and cargo, and moment of inertia data as well as tide tables. The tide tables may be used in conjunction with clock data obtained from the ship's clock or GPS system to compute changes from mean sea level. These changes may be applied either as a correction to the maximum hull depth/height of the vessel or applied as a correction to the depth/height of terrain features”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention, in the process of finding an appropriate boat slip, as taught by Averbuch, to consider the keel depth of a boat below the water line, the estimated water depth and modify this information in view of tidal variation as taught by Michaelson, because of the predictable need to mitigate the risk of grounding the boat if the depth is variable.
Regarding Claims 11-14:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Michaelson teaches all of the elements of Claims 5 and 8. Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 8, additionally comprising a top buffer, where the top buffer is a distance between an aerial object and a boat top which is necessary for safely moving the boat under the aerial object to the marina. The device of Claim 11, where the top buffer includes a top buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide, such that a minimum top buffer exists at the high tide. The device of Claim 12, where the top buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide is based on one or more tide tables, such that the top buffer calculation can be made many months in advance. The device of Claim 13, where the aerial object is a bridge. Michaelson also teaches ([Column 2, lines 26-28] “ship maximum height and anticipated track can be compared, for example, with the clearance height required under a bridge obstacle” and [Column 8, lines 12-27] “The tide tables may be used in conjunction with clock data obtained from the ship's clock or GPS system to compute changes from mean sea level. These changes may be applied either as a correction to the maximum hull depth/height of the vessel or applied as a correction to the depth/height of terrain features”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention, in the process of finding and getting to an appropriate boat slip, as taught by Averbuch, to consider the height of a boat above the water line based on predicted tide levels and add a buffer to that, as taught by Michaelson, because of the predictable need to mitigate the risk of hitting obstacles above the water such as bridges.
Claims 6, 7, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0326776 (Averbuch) in view of U.S. Patent 6,469,664 (Michaelson) in view of U.S. Patent 11,597,383 (Sonalker).
Regarding Claim 6 and 7:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Michaelson teaches all of the elements of Claim 5. Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 5, additionally comprising a side buffer, where the side buffer is side space on either side of the boat which allows for safe passage and docking. The device of Claim 5, additionally comprising a length buffer, where the length buffer is a space on either end of the boat which allows for safe passage and docking. Sonalker, also in the vehicle parking art, teaches this: ([Column 9, line 62 through Column 10, line1] “analyze a space proximal vehicle for room to park, for instance in all three dimensions. Room to park may include room large enough for vehicle in additional to some buffer space, for example for opening doors and the like. In some cases, room to park may be at least partially determined by one or more of length of vehicle, height of vehicle, and/or width of vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention, in the process of finding an appropriate boat slip, including getting the boat to the boat slip, as taught by Averbuch, to consider the lateral clearance space in narrow channels or narrow slips and add a buffer to the amount of lateral space required to mitigate the risk of side damage, as taught by Sonalker. Examiner notes that the “vehicles” taught by Sonalker include cars, boats, aircraft and RVs (see at least Column 2, line 51 through Column 3, line 3).
Regarding Claim 15:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch also teaches: The device of Claim 1, where the inventory comprises one or more boat slips in a marina, ([0012] “marine berths at a port”).
and a below-waterline height which is a draft of the boat, ([0024] “vessel size… draft” and [0026] “berth data specifics… estimated water depth”).
Averbuch does not specifically teach: where the object height includes an above-waterline height, which is the height of a boat above a waterline. Michaelson teaches this: ([Column 2, lines 26-28] “ship maximum height and anticipated track can be compared, for example, with the clearance height required under a bridge obstacle” and [Column 8, lines 12-27] “The tide tables may be used in conjunction with clock data obtained from the ship's clock or GPS system to compute changes from mean sea level. These changes may be applied either as a correction to the maximum hull depth/height of the vessel or applied as a correction to the depth/height of terrain features”).
While Averbuch also teaches: ([0024] “vessel size… draft” and [0026] “berth data specifics… estimated water depth”), Averbuch does not specifically teach: additionally comprising a bottom buffer, where the bottom buffer is a distance between a marina bottom and a boat bottom which is necessary for safely parking the boat at the marina, where the bottom buffer includes a bottom buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide, such that a minimum bottom buffer exists at the low tide, where the bottom buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide is based on one or more tide tables, such that the bottom buffer calculation can be made many months in advance. Michaelson also teaches this: ([Column 8, lines 12-27] “stores data or retrieves input from other shipboard systems as needed to compute the maximum hull depth. In the case of ships and other surface operated marine vessels, keel depth will vary as a function of the center of gravity, center of buoyancy, and displacement of the vessel… Such data may therefore include the nominal keel depth, current weight of vessel, consumables and cargo, and moment of inertia data as well as tide tables. The tide tables may be used in conjunction with clock data obtained from the ship's clock or GPS system to compute changes from mean sea level. These changes may be applied either as a correction to the maximum hull depth/height of the vessel or applied as a correction to the depth/height of terrain features”.
Averbuch also does not specifically teach: additionally comprising a top buffer, where the top buffer is a distance between an aerial object and a boat top which is necessary for safely moving the boat under the aerial object to the marina, where the top buffer includes a top buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide, such that a minimum top buffer exists at the high tide, where the top buffer calculation for a low tide and a high tide is based on one or more tide tables, such that the top buffer calculation can be made many months in advance. Michaelson also teaches ([Column 2, lines 26-28] “ship maximum height and anticipated track can be compared, for example, with the clearance height required under a bridge obstacle” and [Column 8, lines 12-27] “The tide tables may be used in conjunction with clock data obtained from the ship's clock or GPS system to compute changes from mean sea level. These changes may be applied either as a correction to the maximum hull depth/height of the vessel or applied as a correction to the depth/height of terrain features”).
While Averbuch teaches using 3D data (see at least [0024] and [0026]) to find the best fit between boat and berth, Averbuch does not specifically teach: where, there are three, two-dimensional views created - a front view, a top view, and a side view - where the front view, the top view and the side view are combined into a three-dimensional grid. Michaelson teaches this (See at least [Fig 34]). In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that Sonalker also teaches this element ([Column 10, lines 13-21] “a representation of room to park may include a spatial representation, such as without limitation a geometric model (e.g., 3D model), of the room to park. In some cases, a spatial representation may be compared with one or more known dimensions of vehicle (e.g., height of vehicle)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention in the process of finding and getting to an appropriate boat slip, as taught by Averbuch, to consider the height of a boat above and below the water line based on predicted tide levels, as taught by Michaelson, because of the predictable need to mitigate the risk of hitting obstacles above and below the water line and to also prudently provide a margin for error because of the expense and danger to life and limb of collisions with obstacles.
Neither Averbuch nor Mickaelson specifically teach: additionally comprising a side buffer, where the side buffer is side space on either side of the boat which allows for safe passage and docking, additionally comprising a length buffer, where the length buffer is a space on either end of the boat which allows for safe passage and docking, Sonalker, also in the vehicle parking art, teaches this: ([Column 9, line 62 through Column 10, line1] “analyze a space proximal vehicle for room to park, for instance in all three dimensions. Room to park may include room large enough for vehicle in additional to some buffer space, for example for opening doors and the like. In some cases, room to park may be at least partially determined by one or more of length of vehicle, height of vehicle, and/or width of vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention, in the process of finding and getting to an appropriate boat slip, as taught by Averbuch, to consider the lateral clearance space in narrow channels or narrow slips and add a buffer to the lateral space required to mitigate the risk of side damage, as taught by Sonalker. Examiner notes that the “vehicles” taught by Sonalker include cars, boats, aircraft and RVs (see at least Column 2, line 51 through Column 3, line 3).
Regarding Claim 16:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch also teaches: The grid of Claim 15, where a user can enter a boat height, a boat length and a boat width into a database, along with a desired reservation date range, and a software program will supply the user with a marina grid that identifies one or more slips that could accommodate the user's boat during the desired reservation date range. ([0132] “The input interface of the computerized system is configured to receive as input at least: a request for a reservation, comprising docking requirement specifics for a vessel, comprising: a port of interest, dates of interest, and vessel size” and also see [0124] and Fig 10. Examiner notes that a particular display such as a grid, in the scope of this claim, is a non-functional design choice that is not limiting under MPEP 2144.04 (I) and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(c). Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “grid” of “one or more slips” includes data of vessel size information (defined as 3D in at least Averbuch at [0024]) about a single slip.
Regarding Claim 17:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch also teaches: The device of Claim 15, where a user can enter a boat height, a boat length and a boat width into a database, along with a desired reservation date range and a desired geographical range, and a software program will supply the user with a marina grid that identifies one or more slips in one or more marinas that could accommodate the user's boat during the desired reservation date range within the desired geographical range. See response to Claim 16 especially ([0124] “a request for a reservation, comprising… a port of interest”) to teach requesting a “desired geographical range” since a marina is a geographical range of space.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0326776 (Averbuch) in view of U.S. Patent 6,469,664 (Michaelson) in view of U.S. Patent 11,597,383 (Sonalker) in view of NPL FDOT_2018_weather.
Regarding Claim 18:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 15, additionally comprising a weather factor, where the weather factor can add one or more additional feet to the side buffer, the length buffer, and the height buffer in cases of extreme weather. FDOT_2018_weather teaches ([page 2] “ in adverse weather… the establishment of more space on all sides of your vehicle may be warranted”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Averbuch to have an increased margin in the case of extreme weather caused by storms, as taught by FDOT_2018_weather because of the predictably higher risk of damage and the need for additional mitigation.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0326776 (Averbuch) in view of U.S. Patent 6,469,664 (Michaelson) in view of U.S. Patent 11,597,383 (Sonalker) in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0102144 (Wan)
Regarding Claim 19:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch also teaches: The device of Claim 15, where the user of the invention manages the rental space, where the user of the invention inputs one or more rental data to create a current inventory of one or more rental spaces ([0015] “The software allows port officials to track availability of docking berths, grow their berth inventory gradually, while automatically providing berths suited to each reservation” and [0120] “Referring to FIG. 8, a port manager reservation master screen is shown, illustrating various reservations pending and booked, at a specific port. Each entry includes details of each reservation, such as the status (pending/waiting), dates, price, vessel name, size, home marina, customer, last date updated, and reservation ID (serial no.)”).
where (inventory information) is simultaneously fed into an accounting program that estimates a current profit/loss of a business which is managed by the user based upon an inventory. ([0014] an initial search is made to match the requested port and requested dates of arrival, with an available berth. Once this match is successful and meets predefined requirement thresholds, the novel optimization algorithm of the invention will be activated to ensure the match is optimal according to the business goals set by each port (e.g., maximal occupancy, maximal profit, best fit vessel to berth, etc)” and [0092] “utilize “matching rules” to determine whether a particular vessel may be matched with a particular docking berth. The matching rules include business rules to increase profitability of the port”).
While Averbuch teaches using 3D data (see at least [0024] and [0026]) to find the best fit between boat and berth, Averbuch does not specifically teach: additionally comprising a three- dimensional grid of a rental space… from which a person wish(ing) to rent one of the rental spaces can see a customized three- dimensional view of the rental space to see where he/she could park his/her item. Wan, also in the vehicle parking optimization art, teaches this: ([0031] “The AR device 112 includes an AR display 146. In general, display 146 can include an augmented reality interface configured to allow a user to virtually place a three-dimensional vehicle model 148 in the parking space 104 to determine a desired parking position for the vehicle… The user can select the desired parking position by adjusting the vehicle using the navigation pane 150”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 3D display of a vehicle and parking space, as taught by Wan, in the parking optimization system taught by Averbuch, due to the predictable benefits of the user of the marina being able to visualize the 3D data taught by Averbuch.
Regarding Claim 20:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker and Wan teaches all of the elements of Claim 19. Averbuch also teaches: The device of Claim 19, where the rental space is a marina. ([0012] “marine berths at a port”).
Regarding Claim 21:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker and Wan teaches all of the elements of Claim 19. Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 19, where the rental space is an airport. Sonalker, in the field of parking vehicles, teaches ([Column 2, lines 57-58] “a vehicle may be a boat or an aircraft”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the parking spot optimization system taught by Averbuch would predictably apply to parking an aircraft at an airport, as taught by Sonalker, with no change to its function and yield predictable results resulting in an improved system.
Regarding Claims 22 and 23:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker and Wan teaches all of the elements of Claim 19. Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 19, where the rental space is an RV park. The device of Claim 19, where the rental space is a parking lot for vehicles. Sonalker, in the field of parking vehicles, teaches ([ Column 2, lines 53-57] “a “vehicle” is a transportation device. In some cases, a vehicle may be used to transport materials, such as goods. Alternatively or additionally, a vehicle may be used to transport people. In some cases, a vehicle may be a land vehicle” and “[Column 3, lines 1-4] “vehicle may include a recreational vehicle. As used in this disclosure, a “recreational vehicle (RV)” is a vehicle or trailer that includes living quarters, for instance sleeping berth, a head, a galley, and the like”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the parking spot optimization system taught by Averbuch would predictably apply to other land vehicles such as cars and RVs in campgrounds, as taught by Sonalker, with no change to its function and yield predictable results resulting in an improved system.
Claim 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0326776 (Averbuch) in view of U.S. Patent 6,469,664 (Michaelson) in view of U.S. Patent 11,597,383 (Sonalker) in view of NPL Archibald_2018.
Regarding Claim 24:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. While Averbuch also teaches optimizing boat slip pricing (see at least [0014] “ensure the match is optimal according to the business goals set by each port (e.g. maximal occupancy, maximal profit, best fit vessel to berth, etc.)” and [0085] “the size of the berth typically impacts the price of each berthing day, and therefore should be considered when searching for the match most profitably for the port”) and Averbuch teaches in [0026] that “berth size” is defined as “length, width and estimated water depth” (ie volume), Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 15, where each of one or more rental spaces has a volumetric rating and an associated volumetric pricing based on volume of the item as opposed to a length pricing based just on the length of the item. Archibald_2018 teaches this: ([page 2, second and third paragraphs] “a trend in boat manufacturing is to go wider…charging boaters by the square foot (length of slip or boat x width of slip or boat) levels the playing field”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the pricing used in the profit maximizing algorithms taught by Averbuch by charging by the square foot, as taught by Archibald_2018 (or the obvious variant, cubic feet/volume), for the reasons suggested by Archibald_2018 in the section cited above – “to level the playing field” and obtain more revenue for actual value received by customers – if a catamaran needs a wider than standard slot then.they should pay more.
Regarding Claim 25:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch also teaches The device of Claim 15, additional(ly) comprising a volumetric rating which includes a volumetric calculation and a placement calculation, where the volumetric calculation is based upon the height, length and width of the item, ([0107-0110] “provided the port manager with docking requirements, which include the vessel size 200. Vessel size 200 is made of the vessel length overall (LOA) 210, the beam 220 (vessel width), the draft 230 (indicating the depth of the vessel)… The “search for a match” function of the invention has identified the Best Match 250 for this vessel is Berth A34, and the match percentage 255 have been assessed as being 85% for the Length (LOA) 260… Even though the beam match percentage 262 is assessed at only a 45% match, the match rules in this particular port have been set to give greater weight to the length LOA match than the beam match”).
While Averbuch teaches that docking requirements input by a boat owner may also include preferences such as access to resources such utility hooks ups and distance to a city (see at least [0049]), Averbuch does not specifically teach: and where the placement calculation is based upon one or more desirability features. Archibald_2018 teaches this: ([page2, paragraph 4] “dynamic pricing model, based on slip location desirability within the marina… closer to the entrance… establish a mean or average desired slip price in the marina. Go through each slip in the marina and score them on a scale of 1 to 10 The calculate the desirability ratio with a swing of say 25-50% difference in price”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the boat slip assignment optimization system taught by Averbuch to get additional revenue for the perceived value of certain amenities relating to certain boat slips, as taught by Archibald_2018 with the predictable result of improving profits.
Regarding Claims 26 and 27:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson, Sonalker and Archibald_2018 teaches all of the elements of Claim 25. Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 25, where the one or more desirability features are selected from the group consisting of location, proximity to gates, proximity to bathrooms, ease of parking, scenery, and access to resources such as fuel, electricity, groceries/provisions, water availability, depth of water. The device of Claim 26, where the volumetric rating allows a user to assign a different price to each of the one or more available spaces. Archibald_2018 teaches this: ([page2, paragraph 4] “dynamic pricing model, based on slip location desirability within the marina… closer to the entrance… establish a mean or average desired slip price in the marina. Go through each slip in the marina and score them on a scale of 1 to 10 The calculate the desirability ratio with a swing of say 25-50% difference in price”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the boat slip assignment optimization system taught by Averbuch to get additional revenue for the perceived value of certain amenities relating to certain boat slips, as taught by Archibald_2018 with the predictable result of improving profits.
Regarding Claims 28-29:
Averbuch teaches all of the elements of Claim 1. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker teaches all of the elements of Claim 15. Averbuch in view of Mickaelson and Sonalker and Archibald_2018 teaches all of the elements of Claim 25-27. Averbuch does not specifically teach: The device of Claim 27, where the different price can be divided into at least two variables, where each variable has a different variable cost. The device of Claim 28, where one variable cost could be for a base volume and a second variable cost could be for an excess volume. Archibald_2018 teaches this: ([page 1, paragraphs 4 through page 2, paragraph 1] “Another way to frame this pricing strategy is charging by the slip with potential overages. Framing it this way allows the marina to charge a premium for overages…some marinas might also allow a ratio of overages relative to the width of the channel between slips and the length of slips. This presents an opportunity for managers to legally create new value for owners by extending the overages beyond simple 10% or 3 foot formulas. If this is the local regulatory framework, some slips will naturally allow different maximum overages due to their location in the marina”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the boat slip assignment optimization system taught by Averbuch to get additional revenue for the perceived value of certain amenities relating to certain boat slips, as taught by Archibald_2018 with the predictable result of improving profits.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art further establishes the state of the art at the time of applicant’s application.
U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0073718 (Maksin) – teaches a system that displays slip inventory in a marina to a user with color codes and text notes to show slip status and availability and also to display inventory available at multiple marinas at the same time. (see at least [0010]).
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0266904 (Kant) – teaches a system that aggregates airport information in a 3D model to avoid collisions between airplanes on the tarmac and terminal (parking). (see at least [0037]).
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0132715 (Marzouk) – teaches a system to optimally match requests for rental storage space with available rental storage space based on cubic sizes (volume) and location in the structure (near the entrance). (see at least [0016], [0046] and [0065]). This reference is primarily about storage lockers but also states that objects being stored include boats (see at least [0024]).
U. S. Patent Publication 2020/0242924 (Publicover) – teaches a traffic and parking management system that allows a user to use a 3D display in parking in a parking spot. (see at least [0150]). This reference teaches that vehicle using the system to park include boats (see at least [0046]).
U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0095488 (Sun) – teaches an intelligent parking management system that uses real time 3D modeling to identify available parking spots. (see at least Claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY S BURSUM whose telephone number is (571)272-8213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Florian (Ryan) m Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/KIMBERLY S. BURSUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3627