DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-5 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 12/26/2025:
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 has/have been indicated as amended.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 5 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/26/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered but have NOT been persuasive.
The Applicant argues that: “The claim recites a concrete arrangement of components-including FFT-based rolling-parameter computation processors, a controller performing defined threshold-based safety state determinations, and a display controlled by display control signals-that operates on sensor-generated roll-motion data from an electronic inclinometer, which is a physical measurement device. The amended claim further recites that, in response to determining caution or danger states, the controller generates ship-safety control commands comprising alert activation instructions or vessel-operation guidance instructions, and the display presents these instructions to assist ship operators in taking corrective safety measures. Providing criteria for generating alarm signals to indicate ship safety status is supported in the specification, which explains that the invention improves operator awareness and supports safer navigation.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, what the Applicant refers to as a “concrete arrangement of components-including FFT-based rolling-parameter computation processors, a controller performing defined threshold-based safety state determinations, and a display controlled by display control signals-that operates on sensor-generated roll-motion data from an electronic inclinometer, which is a physical measurement device,” is merely a combination of generic computing components (processors) perform calculations on data gathered by a sensor, in this case a broadly recited “electronic inclinometer,” and outputs an “alert activation instruction” to a display in order to display the “alert activation instruction.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the step of receiving “data over time shown by an electronic inclinometer” as mere data gathering, and this limitation would therefore be considered as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, specifically pre-solution activity as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the step of outputting and displaying “a display control signal corresponding to each of the determined states; and a display configured to receive the display control signal from the controller and display the display control signal and to present the alert activation instruction or the vessel-operation guidance instruction to assist ship operators in taking corrective safety measures” as mere data outputting, and this limitation would therefore be considered as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, specifically post-solution activity as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the amendments to claims 1 and 3 regarding generating and displaying a broadly recited “alert activation” based on a performed comparative analysis of gathered sensor data using a combination of generic computing components is not a sufficient additional element such that the claimed process no longer falls into the category of a mental process.
The Applicant also argues: “These features demonstrate that the claimed system is rooted in maritime safety technology and uses specific processing of real-world sensor data to produce operationally actionable safety outputs, not mere data analysis or display of information. The claim therefore reflects a technological improvement in ship-motion safety monitoring and is integrated into a real-world application that assists human operators in preventing hazardous ship conditions.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s statement is conclusory in nature and does not demonstrate how the Applicant’s claimed invention is either: i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer; or ii) an improvement to any other technology or technical field based on the requirements set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a). Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s claimed invention does not: “produce operationally actionable safety outputs.” The Applicant’s claimed invention is simply directed towards displaying information rather than actually controlling the ship to modify its behavior in any way, for example to perform a maneuver based on the analyzed sensor data.
In particular, Example 24 pertaining to assessment of Abstract Ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101 states: “it is noted that if the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim were limited to a computer implementation, adding a generic computer to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Generic computer‐implementation of the method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception.”
As a result, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been maintained.
Final Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. In the amended claim set filed 12/26/2025, Claim(s) 1 and 3 was/were amended such that they now contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular the Examiner asserts that the amendment(s) to claim(s) 1 and 3 reciting: “and in response to determining any of the caution or danger states, generate a ship-safety control command comprising an alert activation instruction or a vessel-operation guidance instruction,” and “display the display control signal and to present the alert activation instruction or the vessel-operation guidance instruction to assist ship operators in taking corrective safety measures” lack sufficient written description in the Applicant’s specification and therefore comprise new matter.
The Applicant cited ¶: 0007, 0038-0046 and 0050, which the Examiner has assessed and has not found recitations of the above terms indicating clear possession of the claimed invention. The cited paragraphs broadly disclose “generating an alarm signal that displays the safety status of the ship on the basis of roll motion data of the ship obtained from an electronic inclinometer” [Specification; ¶: 0007].
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find the above disclosure sufficient to claim “and in response to determining any of the caution or danger states, generate a ship-safety control command comprising an alert activation instruction or a vessel-operation guidance instruction,” and “display the display control signal and to present the alert activation instruction or the vessel-operation guidance instruction to assist ship operators in taking corrective safety measures,” as the claimed limitations are more narrowly limiting than the process disclosed in the Applicant’s specification. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that claim(s) 1 and 3 has/have been amended to incorporate new matter for which the Applicant does not possess sufficient written description to claim.
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 5 is/are further rejected due to their dependency on rejected claims 1 and 3 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) using a controller and a plurality of processors, namely: a “a rolling period computation processor,” an “average list angle computation processor” and a “significant rolling angle computation processor,” (referred to as a/the plurality of processors moving forward) to perform the following: 1) compute respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data by performing fast Fourier transformation (FFT) analyses on the respective rolling angle data gathered from an electronic inclinometer; 2) perform comparative analyses on the respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data; 3) determining based on the comparative analysis, an appropriate output (alert activation instruction) to display; and 4) displaying the output (alert activation instruction) on a display.
The limitations of: 1) compute respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data by performing fast Fourier transformation (FFT) analyses on the respective rolling angle data gathered from an electronic inclinometer; 2) perform comparative analyses on the respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data; 3) determining based on the comparative analysis, an appropriate output (alert activation instruction) to display; and 4) displaying the output (alert activation instruction) on a display, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a controller and a plurality of processors, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the controller and plurality of processors language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of computing respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data and performing comparative analyses on the respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data. The use of an inclinometer to show “rolling angle data” consists of insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering comprising pre-solution activity) as indicated in MPEP § 2106.05(g). The final step of displaying the output on a display consists of insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data outputting comprising post-solution activity) as indicated in MPEP § 2106.05(g). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and insignificant Extra-solution activity, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements – a controller and a plurality of processors to perform: 1) compute respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data by performing fast Fourier transformation (FFT) analyses on the respective rolling angle data gathered from an electronic inclinometer; 2) perform comparative analyses on the respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data; 3) determining based on the comparative analysis, an appropriate output (alert activation instruction) to display; and 4) displaying the output (alert activation instruction) on a display. The controller and plurality of processors in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions of receiving data from a generic sensor, performing calculations with said data in order to make a determination and subsequently outputting the determination) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a controller and a plurality of processors to perform: 1) compute respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data by performing fast Fourier transformation (FFT) analyses on the respective rolling angle data gathered from an electronic inclinometer; 2) perform comparative analyses on the respective rolling period data, average list angle and significant rolling angle data; 3) determining based on the comparative analysis, an appropriate output (alert activation instruction) to display; and 4) displaying the output (alert activation instruction) on a display, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4 and 5 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1 and 3.
Examiner’s Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim(s), for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle or an apparatus in a specific way based on the data comparison performed or further showing that the claimed subject matter is an improvement to a technical field. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Griffin et al. (United States Patent 4,918,628 A) discloses: A stability meter comprises a translational accelerometer (1) which has a working axis along which it is sensitive to gravity. The meter is mounted on a vessel with the working axis horizontal when the vessel is in the upright position such that it transmits signals proportional to the sine of the angle of roll of the vessel to a microprocessor based apparatus (2). A microprocessor (12) conducts a Fast Fourier Transform on a plurality of samples from the accelerometer (1) in order to determine the dominant rolling frequency. The apparatus (2) comprises a display (8), a printer (9), a keyboard (10), a clock (14) and memory unit (16). The dominant rolling frequency is used to calculate the transverse metacentric height of the vessel. The value of the transverse metacentric height is transmitted to the display (8) as a measure of the stability of the vessel.
Watanabe (United States Patent Publication 2015/0134293 A1) discloses: A capsize risk level calculation system which can calculate a capsize risk level providing an index of the capsize risk on an oscillation of hull without using hull information. This system includes an acceleration sensor detecting a reciprocating motion in an up-down direction of a vessel as an oscillation in an up-down direction of a virtual oscillation center axis; an angular velocity sensor detecting a simple pendulum motion in a rolling direction around the vessel center axis as a simple pendulum motion of the vessel COG around the oscillation center axis; and an arithmetic part calculating a capsize risk level from an oscillation radius connecting between the oscillation center axis and the vessel COG, and a capsize limit oscillation radius connecting between the oscillation center axis and the vessel metacenter, which are obtained on the results of detection by the acceleration sensor and the angular velocity sensor.
Nicol (United States Patent Publication 2016/0114867 A1) discloses: An automated stability system which is accurate but simple enough to be implemented on small vessels such as fishing boats is provided. It provides this by integrating the measurements of a digital magnetometer, digital accelerometer, and digital gyroscope which are used to calculate the natural roll period of the vessel which in turn permits calculation of the GM (metacentric height). GPS may also be provided to provide for time and velocity correction.
Moon et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0114698 A1) discloses: An autonomous ship navigation apparatus including an acquisition unit configured to acquire a surrounding environment image, marine information, and navigation information, a map generation unit configured to generate a grid map by displaying topography, a host ship, and an obstacle corresponding to the marine information and the navigation information in the surrounding environment image, and a sailing method determination unit configured to determine a sailing method of a ship through deep reinforcement learning based on the grid map, the marine information, and the navigation information.
Atherton et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0394875 A1) discloses: A portable sensing device may be deployed for determining at least one stability metric of a vessel. The sensing device may include one or more motion sensors for sensing motion of the vessel, one or more freeboard sensors for determining a freeboard of the vessel, and a computing system for processing motion data from the one or more motion sensors and freeboard data from the one or more freeboard sensors to determine the at least one stability metric. The computing system may be programmed to transform the motion data from time domain motion data to frequency domain motion data and process the frequency domain motion data to determine the at least one stability metric of the vessel and the freeboard of the vessel.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666