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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 01/10/2024 has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-24 are pending.
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/19/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 15, 17-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR-20160089694-A to Kang et. al. (“Kang”) in view of US-9330554-B2 to Calvar et. al. (“Calvar”), further in view of US-20220366798-A1 to Dill et. al. (“Dill”).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a driving support method of supporting driving of a watercraft, the driving support method comprising (Kang Abstract): by processing circuitry (Kang ref 120 “controller” and [0048] “controller 120 may be configured as a CPU”).
Kang does not teach that the method comprises: receiving positional information of a warning point that is a position at which a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from a warned watercraft that is the watercraft, or a position of the user who has fallen into water from the warning watercraft; based on the positional information of the warning point, setting a warning region surrounding the warning point; and determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region. However, Calvar teaches that the method comprises: receiving positional information of a warning point that is a position at which a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from a warned watercraft that is the watercraft, or a position of the user who has fallen into water from the warning watercraft (Calvar col 3 lines 37-46 “From that very point when the falling of the man overboard occurs, the radio beacon starts the constant emission of an alarm signal until the final rescue of the shipwrecked person, this emission being in the frequency of 121.5/243 MHz. Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”); based on the positional information of the warning point, setting a warning region surrounding the warning point; and determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Calvar col 4 lines 6-11 “From the first instant of activation of the radio beacon, the AIS device is also activated which starts to emit the position of the shipwrecked person, which can be seen by any vessel within the VHF range (approximately 5-10 miles), at the same time as it identifies and records the MMSI of all the ships situated within said VHF zone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Kang to incorporate the teachings of Calvar such that the method comprises: receiving positional information of a warning point that is a position at which a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from a warned watercraft that is the watercraft, or a position of the user who has fallen into water from the warning watercraft; based on the positional information of the warning point, setting a warning region surrounding the warning point; and determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Kang as modified by Calvar does not teach that the method comprises: setting a travel mode of the warned watercraft based on a result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region. However, Dill teaches that the method comprises: setting a travel mode of the warned watercraft based on a result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Dill Fig. 3 and [0050] – [0052] “If the unmanned vehicle 2 has crossed the warning boundary 46, the system may issue a trigger warning as shown at 70. The warning 70 may comprise an audio or visual warning to a user (e.g., via the graphical user interface 30 and/or speakers of the base station 4). The warning 70 may also include or trigger a travel maneuver by an auto pilot system of the unmanned vehicle 2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Dill to Kang as modified by Calvar such that the method comprises: setting a travel mode of the warned watercraft based on a result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region. Doing so would allow inform and prevent/limit vehicles from traveling in certain areas (Dill [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Dill further teaches that the warning region includes an inside warning region including the warning point and an annular outside warning region surrounding the inside warning region, the driving support method comprising (Dill Fig. 2, [0048], and claim 1): by the processing circuitry, when the processing circuitry determines that the watercraft is within the inside warning region, outputting inside warning information as warning information; and when the processing circuitry determines that the watercraft is within the outside warning region, outputting outside warning information as the warning information, the outside warning information being different from the inside warning information (Dill [0052], [0065], [0082] – [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Dill to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the warning region includes an inside warning region including the warning point and an annular outside warning region surrounding the inside warning region, the driving support method comprising: by the processing circuitry, when the processing circuitry determines that the watercraft is within the inside warning region, outputting inside warning information as warning information; and when the processing circuitry determines that the watercraft is within the outside warning region, outputting outside warning information as the warning information, the outside warning information being different from the inside warning information. Doing so would allow inform and prevent vehicles from traveling in certain areas (Dill [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kang further discloses that outputting the warning information includes outputting the warning information by using an informer mounted on the warned watercraft (Kang Claim 1 and [0042]).
Calvar further discloses outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Calvar col 3 lines 37-46 “From that very point when the falling of the man overboard occurs, the radio beacon starts the constant emission of an alarm signal until the final rescue of the shipwrecked person, this emission being in the frequency of 121.5/243 MHz. Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that method further comprises outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 5, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Calvar col 3 lines 37-46 “From that very point when the falling of the man overboard occurs, the radio beacon starts the constant emission of an alarm signal until the final rescue of the shipwrecked person, this emission being in the frequency of 121.5/243 MHz. Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”), wherein outputting the warning information includes outputting the warning information by using an informer mounted on a mobile terminal that is carried by the driver of the warned watercraft or is located at the warned watercraft (Calvar col 3 lines 29 – 59 “Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the method further comprises outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region, wherein outputting the warning information includes outputting the warning information by using an informer mounted on a mobile terminal that is carried by the driver of the warned watercraft or is located at the warned watercraft. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 8, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses further comprising by the processing circuitry, determining whether or not the user has fallen into water from the warning watercraft, in accordance with a communication state between a watercraft communicator located at the warning watercraft and a user communicator worn by the user who has fallen into water (Calvar Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that further comprising by the processing circuitry, determining whether or not the user has fallen into water from the warning watercraft, in accordance with a communication state between a watercraft communicator located at the warning watercraft and a user communicator worn by the user who has fallen into water. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 9, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses receiving user type information indicating a type of the user who has fallen into water, and outputting the user type information by the processing circuitry (Calvar Claim 7 and Calvar col 3 lines 4 - 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the method further comprises receiving user type information indicating a type of the user who has fallen into water, and outputting the user type information by the processing circuitry. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 10, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses that the warning region is a region including the warning watercraft; and the processing circuitry includes warned processing circuitry located at the warned watercraft, and warning processing circuitry located at the warning watercraft, the driving support method further comprising: by the warning processing circuitry, transmitting a warning request including the positional information of the warning point to the warned processing circuitry in accordance with an operation of the user of the warning watercraft (Calvar Claim 7 and Calvar col 3 lines 4 – 59 “Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the warning region is a region including the warning watercraft; and the processing circuitry includes warned processing circuitry located at the warned watercraft, and warning processing circuitry located at the warning watercraft, the driving support method further comprising: by the warning processing circuitry, transmitting a warning request including the positional information of the warning point to the warned processing circuitry in accordance with an operation of the user of the warning watercraft. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 15, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Dill further discloses that setting the travel mode of the warned watercraft based on the result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region comprises: by the processing circuitry, when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is not within the warning region, setting the travel mode of the warned watercraft to a normal traveling mode (Dill Fig. 8A and [0073] “When positional data shows the error ellipse 120 is outside of all boundaries (FIG. 8A) the boundary violation prediction and detection component 22 need not take any action, and the unmanned vehicle 2 may continue to operate in a normal manner.”); and when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region, setting the travel mode to a speed limiting mode that limits a maximum speed such that the maximum speed becomes lower than a maximum speed when the travel mode is the normal traveling mode (Dill Fig. 3 and [0009] “The unmanned vehicle contingency maneuver may include at least one of, but is not limited to, a turn, a reduction in speed, and/or a reduction in altitude (in the case of an unmanned air vehicle).” And [0050] – [0052] “If the unmanned vehicle 2 has crossed the warning boundary 46, the system may issue a trigger warning as shown at 70. The warning 70 may comprise an audio or visual warning to a user (e.g., via the graphical user interface 30 and/or speakers of the base station 4). The warning 70 may also include or trigger a travel maneuver by an auto pilot system of the unmanned vehicle 2.” Fig. 8B and [0073] “If the error ellipse 120 crosses warning boundary 46 (FIG. 8B), the boundary violation prediction and detection component 22 may cause the auto pilot 7 to execute a contingency maneuver.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Dill to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that setting the travel mode of the warned watercraft based on the result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region comprises: by the processing circuitry, when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is not within the warning region, setting the travel mode of the warned watercraft to a normal traveling mode; and when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region, setting the travel mode to a speed limiting mode that limits a maximum speed such that the maximum speed becomes lower than a maximum speed when the travel mode is the normal traveling mode. Doing so would allow inform and prevent/limit vehicles from traveling in certain areas (Dill [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Kang teaches a driving support system that supports driving of a moving machine, the driving support system comprising (Kang Abstract):
a position detection sensor that detects a position of the moving machine (Kang [0016] “GPS unit for acquiring position information of a fishing boat”);
an informer (Kang [0042]);
and processing circuitry (Kang Claim 1 and [0016] and ref 120 “controller” and [0048] “controller 120 may be configured as a CPU”),
Kang does not teach an antenna that wirelessly receives a warning request including positional information of a warning point and that based on the positional information of the warning point, set a warning region surrounding the warning point; and determine whether or not the position of the moving machine which was been detected by the position detection sensor is within the warning region. However, Calvar teaches an antenna that wirelessly receives a warning request including positional information of a warning point (Calvar col 3 lines 4 – 59 “Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”) and that based on the positional information of the warning point, set a warning region surrounding the warning point; and determine whether or not the position of the moving machine which was been detected by the position detection sensor is within the warning region (Calvar col 4 lines 6-11 “From the first instant of activation of the radio beacon, the AIS device is also activated which starts to emit the position of the shipwrecked person, which can be seen by any vessel within the VHF range (approximately 5-10 miles), at the same time as it identifies and records the MMSI of all the ships situated within said VHF zone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Kang to incorporate the teachings of Calvar such that the system comprises an antenna that wirelessly receives a warning request including positional information of a warning point and that based on the positional information of the warning point, set a warning region surrounding the warning point; and determine whether or not the position of the moving machine which was been detected by the position detection sensor is within the warning region (Calvar col 3 lines 4 - 59). Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Kang as modified by Calvar does not teach that the system comprises: setting a travel mode of the moving machine based on a result of determining whether or not the position of the moving machine is within the warning region. However, Dill teaches that the system comprises: setting a travel mode of the moving machine based on a result of determining whether or not the position of the moving machine is within the warning region (Dill Fig. 3 and [0050] – [0052] “If the unmanned vehicle 2 has crossed the warning boundary 46, the system may issue a trigger warning as shown at 70. The warning 70 may comprise an audio or visual warning to a user (e.g., via the graphical user interface 30 and/or speakers of the base station 4). The warning 70 may also include or trigger a travel maneuver by an auto pilot system of the unmanned vehicle 2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Dill to Kang as modified by Calvar such that the system comprises: setting a travel mode of the moving machine based on a result of determining whether or not the position of the moving machine is within the warning region. Doing so would allow inform and prevent/limit vehicles from traveling in certain areas (Dill [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 17. Calvar further discloses that when the processing circuitry acquires separating information indicating that a user of the moving machine has separated from the moving machine during traveling of the moving machine, the processing circuitry wirelessly transmits to another moving machine the warning request received by the antenna that includes as the positional information of the warning point the position of the moving machine or a position of the user who has separated from the moving machine (Calvar Claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that when the processing circuitry acquires separating information indicating that a user of the moving machine has separated from the moving machine during traveling of the moving machine, the processing circuitry wirelessly transmits to another moving machine the warning request received by the antenna that includes as the positional information of the warning point the position of the moving machine or a position of the user who has separated from the moving machine. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 19, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 17. Calvar further discloses that the antenna, the position detection sensor, and the processing circuitry are included in a mobile terminal carried by a user on the moving machine (Calvar claim 7 and col 3 lines 4 - 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the antenna, the position detection sensor, and the processing circuitry are included in a mobile terminal carried by the user on the moving machine. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 21, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Dill further discloses outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region, wherein the warning information is information that urges the driver to leave the warning region, or is information that urges the driver to travel at a slow speed (Dill Fig. 3 and [0063] “For example, the graphical user interface 30 may display a message indicating that the travel path will violate a boundary,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Dill to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the method comprises: outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region, wherein the warning information is information that urges the driver to leave the warning region, or is information that urges the driver to travel at a slow speed. Doing so would allow inform and prevent/limit vehicles from traveling in certain areas (Dill [0005]).
Regarding claim 22, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Dill further discloses that setting the travel mode of the warned watercraft based on the result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region comprises: in response to determining that the warned watercraft is within the warning region, changing a control mode of controlling a prime mover that is a traveling driving source of the warned watercraft from a normal traveling mode to a speed limiting mode (Dill [0009] “The unmanned vehicles may include an auto-pilot system or other suitable control feature that causes the unmanned vehicle to perform a contingency maneuver (e.g., turn the vehicle around, stop the vehicle, land the vehicle, turn off an engine of the vehicle) if a warning signal is generated by the enforcement system. The unmanned vehicle contingency maneuver may include at least one of, but is not limited to, a turn, a reduction in speed, and/or a reduction in altitude (in the case of an unmanned air vehicle).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Dill to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that setting the travel mode of the warned watercraft based on the result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region comprises: in response to determining that the warned watercraft is within the warning region, changing a control mode of controlling a prime mover that is a traveling driving source of the warned watercraft from a normal traveling mode to a speed limiting mode. Doing so would allow inform and prevent/limit vehicles from traveling in certain areas (Dill [0005]).
Regarding claim 23, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses that the warning region is a circular region including the warning point as a center thereof (Calvar col 4 lines 7-11 “emit the position of the shipwrecked person, which can be seen by any vessel within the VHF range (approximately 5-10 miles), at the same time as it identifies and records the MMSI of all the ships situated within said VHF zone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the warning region is a circular region including the warning point as a center thereof. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Regarding claim 24, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses that the warning region is a circular region that includes the warning point as a center thereof and has a radius of 50 meters or more (Calvar col 4 lines 7-11 “emit the position of the shipwrecked person, which can be seen by any vessel within the VHF range (approximately 5-10 miles), at the same time as it identifies and records the MMSI of all the ships situated within said VHF zone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the warning region is a circular region that includes the warning point as a center thereof and has a radius of 50 meters or more. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Calvar, further in view of Dill and US-20180165945-A1 to McClendon et. al. (“McClendon”).
Regarding claim 14, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill does not teach that the method further comprising switching the warning region between a validated state and an invalidated state by the processing circuitry in accordance with an operation of the user of the warning watercraft. However, McClendon teaches that the method further comprising switching the warning region between a validated state and an invalidated state by the processing circuitry in accordance with an operation of the user of the warning watercraft (McClendon [0082] – [0083] & [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of McClendon to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the method further comprising switching the warning region between a validated state and an invalidated state by the processing circuitry in accordance with an operation of the user of the warning watercraft. Doing so would allow the alert to only be activated when someone is in the area of concern (McClendon Abstract).
Claim(s) 12-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Calvar, further in view of Dill and US-20130271301-A1 to Kabel et. al. (“Kabel”).
Regarding claim 12, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Calvar col 3 lines 37-46 “From that very point when the falling of the man overboard occurs, the radio beacon starts the constant emission of an alarm signal until the final rescue of the shipwrecked person, this emission being in the frequency of 121.5/243 MHz. Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the method further comprises outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill does not teach that outputting the warning information includes displaying a positional relation between a position of the watercraft and the warning region on a display by the processing circuitry. However, Kabel teaches that outputting the warning information includes displaying a positional relation between a position of the watercraft and the warning region on a display by the processing circuitry (Kabel [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kabel to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that outputting the warning information includes displaying a positional relation between a position of the watercraft and the warning region on a display by the processing circuitry. Doing so would allow the operators to see if someone may have fallen overboard (Kabel [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Calvar further discloses outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Calvar col 3 lines 37-46 “From that very point when the falling of the man overboard occurs, the radio beacon starts the constant emission of an alarm signal until the final rescue of the shipwrecked person, this emission being in the frequency of 121.5/243 MHz. Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Calvar to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that the method further comprises outputting warning information for warning a driver of the warned watercraft when the processing circuitry determines that the warned watercraft is within the warning region. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Kang as modified by Calvar ad Dill does not teach that outputting the warning information includes displaying a positional relation between a position of the warning point and the warning region on a display by the processing circuitry. However, Kabel teaches that outputting the warning information includes displaying a positional relation between a position of the warning point and the warning region on a display by the processing circuitry (Kabel [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kabel to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that outputting the warning information includes displaying a positional relation between a position of the warning point and the warning region on a display by the processing circuitry. Doing so would allow the operators to see if someone may have fallen overboard (Kabel [0050]).
Regarding claim 20, Kang teaches a driving support system that supports driving of a watercraft, the driving support system comprising (Kang Abstract):
Kang does not teach an antenna which is located at a warned watercraft and wirelessly receives falling information indicating that a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from the warned watercraft that is the watercraft, the warning watercraft being another watercraft, the falling information including information regarding a falling position or a position of the user who has fallen into water; setting a warning region surrounding the position indicated by the falling information, and determine whether the warned watercraft is within the warning region. However, Calvar teaches an antenna which is located at a warned watercraft and wirelessly receives falling information indicating that a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from the warned watercraft that is the watercraft, the warning watercraft being another watercraft (Calvar claim 7 and col 3 lines 4 – 59 “Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”), the falling information including information regarding a falling position or a position of the user who has fallen into water (Calvar col 3 lines 37-46 “From that very point when the falling of the man overboard occurs, the radio beacon starts the constant emission of an alarm signal until the final rescue of the shipwrecked person, this emission being in the frequency of 121.5/243 MHz. Said radio beacon alerts of the emergency situation both to aircraft and vessels equipped with receivers in this frequency and situated within the range of said alarm signal, also acting as “radio beacon” frequency for the onboard receivers of said vessels or aircraft, guiding them to the position of the shipwrecked person.”), setting a warning region surrounding the position indicated by the falling information, and determine whether the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Calvar col 4 lines 6-11 “From the first instant of activation of the radio beacon, the AIS device is also activated which starts to emit the position of the shipwrecked person, which can be seen by any vessel within the VHF range (approximately 5-10 miles), at the same time as it identifies and records the MMSI of all the ships situated within said VHF zone.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the method of Kang to incorporate the teachings of Calvar such that the system comprises an antenna which is located at a warned watercraft and wirelessly receives falling information indicating that a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from the warned watercraft that is the watercraft, the warning watercraft being another watercraft, the falling information including information regarding a falling position or a position of the user who has fallen into water, setting a warning region surrounding the position indicated by the falling information, and determine whether the warned watercraft is within the warning region. Doing so would allow other vessels to receive a warning request and provide an optimized rescue (Calvar col 1 line 15 – col 2 line 55).
Kang as modified by Calvar does not teach that the system comprises: setting a travel mode of the warned watercraft based on a result of determining whether the warned watercraft is within the warning region. However, Dill teaches that the system comprises: setting a travel mode of the warned watercraft based on a result of determining whether the warned watercraft is within the warning region (Dill Fig. 3 and [0050] – [0052] “If the unmanned vehicle 2 has crossed the warning boundary 46, the system may issue a trigger warning as shown at 70. The warning 70 may comprise an audio or visual warning to a user (e.g., via the graphical user interface 30 and/or speakers of the base station 4). The warning 70 may also include or trigger a travel maneuver by an auto pilot system of the unmanned vehicle 2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Dill to Kang as modified by Calvar such that the system comprises: setting a travel mode of the warned watercraft based on a result of determining whether the warned watercraft is within the warning region. Doing so would allow inform and prevent/limit vehicles from traveling in certain areas (Dill [0005]).
Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill does not teach a display located at the warned watercraft and processing circuitry configured to display the warning region on the display. However, Kabel teaches a display located at the warned watercraft (Kabel [0050]); and processing circuitry configured to display a warning region on the display (Kabel [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Kabel to Kang as modified by Calvar such that the system includes a display located at the warned watercraft and processing circuitry configured to display the warning region on the display. Doing so would allow the operators to see if someone may have fallen overboard (Kabel [0050]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Calvar, further in view of Dill and TW-I757964-B (“Wei-Chung”).
Regarding claim 3, Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill does not teach that a degree of warning of an output form of the inside warning information is higher than a degree of warning of an output form of the outside warning information. However, Wei-Chung teaches a degree of warning of an output form of the inside warning information is higher than a degree of warning of an output form of the outside warning information (Wei-Chung Claims “the first sub-condition includes that the number of times the target object enters and exits the first sub-area within a predetermined period of time reaches a first threshold, and the second sub-condition includes the The number of times the target object enters and leaves the second sub-area within the predetermined time period reaches a second threshold value, and the first threshold value is lower than the second threshold value.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Wei-Chung to Kang as modified by Calvar and Dill such that a degree of warning of an output form of the inside warning information is higher than a degree of warning of an output form of the outside warning information. Doing so would allow the warning system to dynamically adjust area sizes (Wei-Chung Disclosure).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/19/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claim 16 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicant has amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using most of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
The cited references, whether taken alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest, among other things, "receiving positional information of a warning point that is a position at which a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from a warned watercraft that is the watercraft, or a position of the user who has fallen into water from the warning watercraft; [and] based on the positional information of the warning point, setting a warning region surrounding the warning point," as recited in claim 1. According to claim 1, based on the received position of the warning point, the warning region is set each time.
However, in Calvar Antón, a warning region is not set. Accordingly, Calvar Antón also does not disclose or suggest, among other things, "receiving positional information of a warning point that is a position at which a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from a warned watercraft that is the watercraft, or a position of the user who has fallen into water from the warning watercraft; [and] based on the positional information of the warning point, setting a warning region surrounding the warning point," as recited in claim 1.
Dill/McClendon/Kabel/Wang, however, does not disclose or suggest, among other things, "receiving positional information of a warning point that is a position at which a user has fallen into water from a warning watercraft different from a warned watercraft that is the watercraft, or a position of the user who has fallen into water from the warning watercraft; [and] based on the positional information of the warning point, setting a warning region surrounding the warning point," as recited in claim 1.
Office Response:
Please see new mapping above, specifically the mapping for the independent claims.
To quickly address the arguments for Kang. Kang is not being used to teach the limitations cited by applicant. The office respectfully disagrees that Calvar does not teach setting a warning region, and asserts that Calvar does teach this limitation (Calvar col 4 lines 6-11 “From the first instant of activation of the radio beacon, the AIS device is also activated which starts to emit the position of the shipwrecked person, which can be seen by any vessel within the VHF range (approximately 5-10 miles), at the same time as it identifies and records the MMSI of all the ships situated within said VHF zone.”). Please see above mapping for the limitations cited.
Dill/McClendon/Kabel/Wang are not being used to teach these limitations. However, Dill is used to teach “setting a travel mode of the warned watercraft based on a result of determining whether or not the warned watercraft is within the warning region” as shown in the above mapping.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666