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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-5 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 04/27/2026:
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 04/27/2026; 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. § 112(a), Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and have been persuasive. As a result, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has/have been withdrawn.
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 amendment to independent claims 1 and 3 reciting: “a ship-mounted safety notification apparatus comprising a display, the ship-mounted safety notification apparatus being configured to receive the state-specific control signal from the controller and to selectively control an operation of the ship-mounted safety notification apparatus according to the determined normal, caution, or danger state by physically altering an operating condition of the ship-mounted safety notification apparatus to indicate the determined safety state” overcomes the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as indicated in the final rejection filed 01/27/2026.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In at least lines: 186-199 of the final rejection filed 01/27/2026, the Examiner clearly explains how the subject matter reciting displaying an alert on a display consists exclusively of insignificant extra-solution activity in view of MPEP § 2106.05(g). The Applicant states in a conclusory way that: “This amendment directly addresses the Office Action's concern that the prior claims did not control an apparatus in a specific way, and integrates the claimed subject matter into a practical application involving automated control of a physical onboard safety device, rather than a mental process or mere presentation of information.” This argument is not persuasive, as the Applicant has not supported their argument with rational as to how the proposed amendment overcomes 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As a result, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been maintained.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Non-Final Office Action below.
Non-Final Office Action
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 determined normal, caution or danger state 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 determined normal, caution or danger state 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 determined normal, caution or danger state 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 determined normal, caution or danger state 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.
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
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 - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 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
Prosecution Insights