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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed on January 8th, 2026 have been entered and made of record. By these amendments, claims 5 and 6 have been cancelled; claims 1 and 10 were amended, where independent claim 1 was amended by incorporating the features from claims 5 and 6. Additionally, claims 12 and 13 have been newly added. Claims 1-4 and 7-13 remain pending and rejected. Furthermore, applicant’s amendments to the specifications and claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 8th, 2025 and have therefore been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 3-4 of claim 13 state “... an object representing a wind direction and a wind speed of the watercraft”. This is potentially confusing claim language because it could be interpreted as the overall speed of the watercraft and how the watercraft is affecting the wind’s direction and speed, instead of what is believed to be the surrounding wind direction and wind speed in relation to the watercraft. In the specifications, Page 20, Lines 2-3, it states “... an image object representing a wind direction and a wind speed for a watercraft...”, so it perhaps might be clearer if the word “of” is changed to “for” or if the “of” is changed to “... an object representing a wind direction and a wind speed [[of]] in relation to the watercraft.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrendt et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0369351 A1), hereinafter Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0059445 A1), hereinafter Lammers-Meis.
Regarding claim 1, Behrendt discloses an operation support system (FIG. 1 and paragraph 10 teach that FIG. 1 is a fragmentary plan view of an embodiment of a system for generating, enhancing, and displaying images of nearby objects to assist in the manual docking or other maneuvering of a vessel, and an example marine environment in which the system may operate) comprising:
a display mounted in a watercraft (Paragraph 36 teaches that the display 52 may be communicatively coupled with the image processing computer 50 and may be configured to display the processed images.);
and a display control unit causing a first view that is a top view including an image of the vicinity of the watercraft and/or a second view that is an oblique view including an image of the vicinity of the watercraft of an angle different from that of the first view to be displayed on the display (FIG. 3 and paragraph 12 teach that FIG. 3 is a display of camera images showing an overhead view and a first directional view of the vessel and the example marine environment, wherein the images have been enhanced by adding first distance markers around the vessel and paragraph 36 teaches that in various implementations, a single image from a single camera 46, 48 may be individually displayed, multiple images from multiple cameras 46, 48 may be simultaneously displayed, and/or images from selected cameras 46, 48 may be displayed individually or simultaneously. Further, as discussed below, multiple images from different cameras 46, 48 may be combined into a single image and displayed.),
wherein the display control unit causes a screen of the display to transition between a first screen and a second screen (Paragraph 44 teaches that for example, if the user is viewing images from a first camera on display 52, but module 72 detects an object on a second camera not currently being viewed by the user, the system 38 may transition to display of the second camera to ensure that the user is aware of the detected object.),
wherein the first screen comprises a screen in which the second view, with a fourth object superimposed, is displayed on the entire screen of the display (FIG. 4 and paragraph 13 teach that FIG. 4 is a display of camera images showing an overhead view and a second directional view of the vessel and the example marine environment, wherein the images have been enhanced by adding second distance markers (i.e. an object superimposed on the second view) around the vessel. Additionally, paragraph 24 of Behrendt teaches that all overlays (i.e. object highlights, virtual boundaries, distance markers) on individual camera images, combined images and virtual overhead images may be synchronized between the different views to have the same overlays simultaneously shown on a display or multiple displays from different points of view). However, Behrendt fails to disclose the fourth object being an object representing an azimuth.
Lammers-Meis discloses the fourth object being an object representing an azimuth (Paragraph 107 teaches that in accordance with the present disclosure, the processor 917 may implement a plurality of modes of operation, each of which may present information representative of data and/or commands from sensors 972 and/or input devices 962 via the display 901. Additionally, paragraph 95 teaches that the sensors 972 may provide sensor data to the processor 917 and may comprise any measurement devices, sensors, receivers, or other components that sense, measure, or otherwise monitor components of the marine vessel or its surroundings. For example, the sensors 972 can measure or sense vessel fuel level, wind speed, wind direction, vessel temperature, ambient temperature, water current speed, rudder position, an azimuth thruster position, water depth, boat water storage level, anchor status, boat speed, combinations thereof, and the like. Lastly, paragraph 109 teaches that the processor 917 may also implement a docking/undocking mode in which information representative of proximity data from a proximity sensor, wind data from a wind sensor, water current data from a current sensor, rudder position data from a rudder position sensor, and/or azimuth thruster position data from an azimuth thruster position sensor is presented on the display 901.) Since Behrendt teaches the initial operation support system with the ability to display objects superimposed onto different views of a display screen and Lammers-Meis teaches the function of displaying information on a display screen related to the position data of an azimuth using an azimuth position sensor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the features together so that so that the display screen would be able to superimpose any azimuth positional information data onto one of the different viewing display screens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Behrendt to incorporate the teachings of Lammers-Meis, so that the combined features together would allow for more detailed watercraft information to be displayed onto a screen for a user to view, including information related to any data representing azimuth positional data.
Furthermore, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis discloses and wherein the second screen comprises a screen in which the second view is displayed in a first area that is a partial area of the screen of the display, and the first view, with a third object superimposed, is displayed in a second area that is a remaining area of the screen of the display, the third object being an object representing a rudder angle of a propeller of the watercraft (FIGS. 5 and 6 and paragraph 42 of Behrendt teach that in one implementation, seen in FIGS. 5 and 6, the display device 52 may display a first particular image from the overhead camera 48, and/or a virtual overhead image generated by combining or otherwise stitching together images from cameras 46, in which the distance markers 76 are added, and may simultaneously display a second particular image from a user-selected or automatically selected directional camera 46 in which the distance markers 76 may or may not be added. Additionally, paragraph 109 of Lammers-Meis teaches that the processor 917 may also implement a docking/undocking mode in which information representative of proximity data from a proximity sensor, wind data from a wind sensor, water current data from a current sensor, rudder position data from a rudder position sensor, and/or azimuth thruster position data from an azimuth thruster position sensor is presented on the display 901.).
Regarding claim 2, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose wherein the display control unit causes a predetermined object representing information relating to sailing of the watercraft to be displayed superimposed onto the first view or the second view, irrespective of whether the screen of the display is the first screen or the second screen (FIGS. 1, 3, 4 and paragraph 38 of Behrendt teach that in various implementations, the navigation system 38 may be configured to provide any one or more of the following features to inform the user with regard to operating the control system 36. Referring also to FIGS. 3 and 4, the system 38 may include an object identification feature (module) 62 which may be configured to detect and identify objects in the images. As seen in FIG. 1, objects may include substantially any relevant objects or categories of objects such as docks 64, shores, rocks, buoys, other boats 66, and debris 68 (e.g., logs). The object identification feature 62 may be further configured to detect and identify the water 70 itself (or non-water) in the images in order to better distinguish between the water 70, non-water, and/or objects 64, 66, 68 in or around the water.).
Regarding claim 3, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 2), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose wherein the display control unit sets a first object simulating the watercraft and one or a plurality of line-shaped second objects disposed in the vicinity of the first object as the predetermined objects and causes the second object representing a positional relation between an obstacle present in the vicinity of the watercraft and the watercraft to be displayed (Paragraph 40 teaches that in one implementation, data from an image may be processed using an artificial intelligence computer vision module 72 to identify one or more objects in the image, the vessel itself, and the water. Additionally, paragraph 42 teaches that referring also to FIGS. 5 and 6, the system 38 may include a distance marker feature (module) 74 which may be configured to overlay or otherwise incorporate into displayed images distance markers 76 providing scale and indicating distance to facilitate the user determining distances to objects. Lines and/or tick marks may communicate the dimensions and distances from the vessel 32 of other docks 64, other vessels 66, and other objects 68. The lines and/or tick marks may represent dimensions and distances of approximately between one meter and five meters in increments of one meter. Lastly, paragraph 31 teaches that the navigation system 38 may include a processing system communicatively coupled to the location and orientation determining components and configured to receive the position and orientation measurements and to control the integration and other processing and display of this and other navigational information, and may perform other functions described herein.).
Regarding claim 4, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 3), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose wherein the display control unit causes a type of display at the time of displaying the second object to be different depending on whether there is a case in which the positional relation satisfies predetermined conditions or a case in which the positional relation does not satisfy the predetermined conditions (Paragraph 41 teaches that such a configuration allows the system 38 to be trained to identify desired object types and provide specific feedback for each identified object types. In embodiments, the user of system 38 may identify and label objects displayed on display 52 using interface 54 to update or retrain the computer vision module 72. Additionally, paragraph 46 teaches that in one implementation, in which there are at least two sets of boundaries 86, 88, one or more of the boundaries may be configured to ignore object detection, while one or more of the boundaries may be configured to respond to object detection. In one implementation, seen in FIG. 8, each boundary 86, 88 may provide passive visual indicators of distances to objects 68. In another implementation, each boundary 86, 88 may actively change color entirely or locally (indicated by dashed and solid lines in FIG. 8) to indicate an object 68 breaking the boundary. In yet another implementation, the system may be configured to automatically communicate a visual and/or audible warning or other alert to the user of an object breaking a boundary, and, possibly, the size of, nature of (e.g., trash, log, rock, animal), and/or distance to the object.).
Regarding claim 11, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose wherein the display is a touch panel that can be operated by an occupant of the watercraft (Paragraph 36 teaches that the display 52 may be of any size and/or aspect ratio. In one implementation, the display 52 may include touchscreen technology, such as resistive, capacitive, or infrared touchscreen technologies, or any combination thereof.),
and wherein the display control unit causes the screen of the display to transition between the first screen and the second screen in accordance with an operation of the occupant on the touch panel (Paragraph 37 teaches that in configurations, the user interface 54 is integrated with the display 52, such as in embodiments where the display 52 is configured as a chart plotter and the user interface 54 is configured to control the operation of the chart plotter through buttons, touch sensors, and/or other controls. Additionally, paragraph 51 teaches that the system 38 may utilize these stored locations, and/or other cartographic locations stored within the memory of system 38, to automatically transition camera views as the vessel approaches known objects. The user may likewise select displayed objects for tracking and monitoring by system 38 regardless of the particular camera view selected by the user.).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrendt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lammers-Meis and Singh et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0195118 A1), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 7, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose wherein the display control unit causes the screen of the display to transition between the first screen and the second screen in accordance with a mode of the watercraft (Paragraph 44 of Behrendt teaches that for example, if the user is viewing images from a first camera on display 52, but module 72 detects an object on a second camera not currently being viewed by the user, the system 38 may transition to display of the second camera to ensure that the user is aware of the detected object. Additionally, paragraph 31 teaches that various features provided by the processing system, and in turn the navigation system 38, may be implemented as software modules that are executable by the processing system to provide desired functionality. Additionally, paragraph 92 of Lammers-Meis teaches that the processor 917 may implement a mode selector 968 configured to select between a plurality of modes of operation, respective ones of which present information representative of data from input devices 962 on the display 901.).
Furthermore, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose and wherein a landing mode in which the watercraft performs landing, a leaving mode in which the watercraft performs departure (Paragraph 109 of Lammers-Meis teaches that the processor 917 may also implement a docking/undocking mode in which information representative of proximity data from a proximity sensor, wind data from a wind sensor, water current data from a current sensor, rudder position data from a rudder position sensor, and/or azimuth thruster position data from an azimuth thruster position sensor is presented on the display 901. The docking/undocking mode permits an operator to view representations of obstacles such as stationary boats, docks, and other hazards while simultaneously monitoring wind conditions, current conditions, and the status of components on the vessel while docking or undocking the marine vessel.). However, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis fail to disclose a cruise mode in which the watercraft performs cruising, and a trailer docking mode in which the watercraft docks with a trailer are included in the modes of the watercraft.
Singh discloses a cruise mode in which the watercraft performs cruising, and a trailer docking mode in which the watercraft docks with a trailer are included in the modes of the watercraft (Paragraph 81 teaches that the marine autopilot system 200 may use the dock mapping data to slowly propel vessel 104 into dock 802 and stop when vessel 104 is next to a side of dock 802 such that the user may tie down vessel 104. In some embodiments, marine autopilot system 200 may use LIDAR to determine an accurate location of a boat trailer and align vessel 104 with a boat trailer and propel vessel 104 onto the boat trailer for attachment by the user.). Since Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis teaches a navigational system with the functionality of being able to switch between screens and views in association with different types of operation modes and Singh teaches the functionality of switching to specific modes such as autopilot (cruise mode) and that the autopilot can be used to align and attach a boat trailer (trailer docking mode), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the features together so that additional software modules related to a cruising mode and trailer docking mode could also be implemented alongside other navigational modes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis to incorporate the teachings of Singh, so that the combined features together would improve any navigational system by allowing for additional software modules related to a cruising mode and trailer docking mode to be including alongside other related mode types.
Regarding claim 8, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis and Singh disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis and Singh disclose wherein the display control unit causes the display to display the first screen on which the first view is displayed under the cruise mode and, in a case in which the mode is switched from the cruise mode to the landing mode, causes the screen of the display to transition from the first screen on which the first view is displayed to the second screen on which the second view is displayed in the first area, and the first view is displayed in the second area (Paragraph 87 of Singh teaches that the user interface 124 enables the user to interact with marine autopilot system 200 based on information provided by the features described herein. For example, the user may select object 1002 on display device 122 to mark as a waypoint (and/or obstacle) for future navigational reference. Marine autopilot system 200 may utilize these stored locations, and/or other cartographic locations stored within the memory of marine autopilot system 200, to automatically transition camera views as the vessel approaches known objects. The user may likewise select displayed objects for tracking and monitoring by marine autopilot system 200 regardless of the particular camera view selected by the user (e.g., ship 1004). Additionally, FIG. 10 and paragraph 86 of Singh teach that FIG. 10 depicts one example of a user interface 124 for interaction with marine autopilot system 200. It will be understood that various implementations of the marine autopilot system 200 may provide any one or more of the features described herein.).
Regarding claim 9, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis and Singh disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 8), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis and Singh disclose wherein the display control unit causes another first view different from the first view displayed on the first screen under the cruise mode to be displayed in the second area of the second screen under the landing mode (Paragraph 82 of Singh teaches that in some embodiments, the docking location may not be known. For example, a user may be getting gas at a shoreside gas station or may be docking at a shoreside restaurant. The user may display the shoreline along with other vessels docked along the shoreline and tap a location on display device 122 in which to dock vessel 104. A 4D map may be generated of the docking location using LIDAR system 208 as well as any of a variety of other types of sensors 202 and marine autopilot system 200 may slowly dock vessel 104 at the desired location. The 4D map may be a 3D map that continuously updates with distance measurements from LIDAR system 208 providing the most up-to-date data available. Additionally, FIG. 10 and paragraph 86 of Singh teach that FIG. 10 depicts one example of a user interface 124 for interaction with marine autopilot system 200. It will be understood that various implementations of the marine autopilot system 200 may provide any one or more of the features described herein.).
Regarding claim 10, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis and Singh disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis and Singh disclose wherein the display control unit causes the display to display the second screen on which the second view is displayed in the first area, and the first view is displayed in the second area under the leaving mode and, in a case in which the mode is switched from the leaving mode to the cruse mode, causes the second screen to transition to the first screen on which the first view is displayed (Paragraph 117 of Lammers-Meis teaches that in some embodiments, the display format may change based on a current operating mode. For example, if the selected mode of operation changes, the display format may change accordingly to accommodate features relevant to the selected mode of operation. Additionally, paragraph 110 of Lammers-Meis teaches that the processor 917 may also implement a main transit mode in which information representative of fuel level data, navigation data, water depth data, and/or weather data is presented on the display 901. A feature of the main transit mode may be monitoring the progress of the marine vessel against a journey plan. For example, the processor 917 may compare information related to a desired path of transit with the current position of the marine vessel received from one or more of the sensors 972 while the marine vessel is in transit to determine if the marine vessel is off course, has enough fuel to reach its intended destination, and so forth, and may then display such information on the display 901.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snyder et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0255627 A1), hereinafter Snyder.
Regarding claim 12, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis fail to disclose wherein information about a shift position of the watercraft is displayed inside the third object.
Snyder discloses wherein information about a shift position of the watercraft is displayed inside the third object (FIGs. 4 and 5 and paragraph 45 teach that FIG. 4 shows an integration hub 401 and an MFD (e.g., multi-functional display) with multiple displays 40 as part of the controller 102 (in some embodiments, the integration hub may be a part of the MFD). The integration hub 401 may connect the controller 102 with various marine devices 104, such as the propulsion system 110, radar system, sonar system 120, GPS system 509, autopilot 507, remote control system, power system 512, and/or chart system, for example, as shown in FIG. 4. Additionally, paragraph 46 teaches that FIG. 5 shows the integration hub 401 connected to various marine devices 104 sorted into groups according to function. Such groups may include a navigation system 104a (e.g., plotters, control displays, radar system, sonar system 120, autopilot 507, VHF/AIS, audio system, and/or other instrumentation), ... and/or a steering/engine system 104e (e.g., throttle, trim tabs, steering wheel, engine), for example, as shown in FIG. 5.). Since Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis teach a navigational system with the functionality of being able to display different types of operation modes and objects related to navigational information and Snyder teaches a navigational system that can provide a user with the capabilities of displaying different types of navigational information, including that of the steering system that can display the throttle (shift) position, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the features together so that any navigational information related to steering, such as the throttle/shift position is displayable on a display screen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis to incorporate the teachings of Snyder, so that the combined features together would allow for a more accurate depiction and viewing of the speed of a watercraft vehicle by including the viewing of the current throttle/shift position on one of the displays.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanamaru et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0149992 A1), hereinafter Kanamaru.
Regarding claim 13, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis fail to disclose wherein the third object and a fifth object are displayed on a concentric circle.
Kanamaru discloses wherein the third object and a fifth object are displayed on a concentric circle (Paragraph 51 teaches that the-ship object X1 may have a shape which imitates a ship. Concentric circles CC centering on the-ship object X1 may be displayed around the-ship object X1. Texts DT1 and DT2 indicative of distances may be added to the concentric circles CC, respectively. A scale indicative of a direction may be added to the concentric circles CC.) Since Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis teach a navigational system with the capabilities to display different objects and features/boundaries and Kanamaru teaches a navigational system with the capabilities to display concentric circles and objects related to the displayed concentric circles, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the features together so that the boundaries being displayed to determine different types of objects would consist of a similar feature, such as concentric circles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have modified Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis to incorporate the teachings of Kanamaru, so that the combined features together would improve the overall navigational systems capabilities of identifying any surrounding nearby objects by incorporating the boundary lines to be represented as precise concentric circles.
Furthermore, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis and Kanamaru disclose the fifth object being an object representing a wind direction and a wind speed of the watercraft (Paragraph 107 teaches that in accordance with the present disclosure, the processor 917 may implement a plurality of modes of operation, each of which may present information representative of data and/or commands from sensors 972 and/or input devices 962 via the display 901. Additionally, paragraph 95 teaches that the sensors 972 may provide sensor data to the processor 917 and may comprise any measurement devices, sensors, receivers, or other components that sense, measure, or otherwise monitor components of the marine vessel or its surroundings. For example, the sensors 972 can measure or sense vessel fuel level, wind speed, wind direction, vessel temperature, ambient temperature, water current speed, rudder position, an azimuth thruster position, water depth, boat water storage level, anchor status, boat speed, combinations thereof, and the like. Lastly, paragraph 109 teaches that the processor 917 may also implement a docking/undocking mode in which information representative of proximity data from a proximity sensor, wind data from a wind sensor, water current data from a current sensor, rudder position data from a rudder position sensor, and/or azimuth thruster position data from an azimuth thruster position sensor is presented on the display 901.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 8th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Lammers-Meis fails to describe “a [first] screen in which the second view, with [an azimuth] object superimposed, is displayed on the entire screen of the display ... a [second] screen [that displays] ... the first view, with a [rudder angle] object superimposed” as presently recited in claim 1, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, Behrendt is capable of displaying multiple screens with multiple views, including different views that can superimpose different types of markings and features, as seen in FIG. 4. Behrendt also states that in paragraphs 30 and 31 that it contains a navigation system 38 that includes a magnetometer or GNSS heading sensor configured to detect an orientation measurement for the vessel and may include a processing system communicatively coupled to the location and orientation determining components and configured to receive the position and orientation measurements and to control the integration and other processing and display of this and other navigational information, and may perform other functions described herein. When combined with the teachings from paragraph 107 of Lammers-Meis that teach that in accordance with the present disclosure, the processor 917 may implement a plurality of modes of operation, each of which may present information representative of data and/or commands from sensors 972 and/or input devices 962 via the display 901 and paragraph 95 states that the sensors 972 can measure or sense vessel fuel level, wind speed, wind direction, vessel temperature, ambient temperature, water current speed, rudder position, an azimuth thruster position, water depth, boat water storage level, anchor status, boat speed, combinations thereof, and the like, then it would appear that when viewed together, Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis has the capabilities to display superimposed navigational information and any of the sensor data and/or navigational data, which would include an azimuth position, rudder position, wind speeds/direction, etc. on multiple different screens. Therefore, in broadest reasonable interpretation, it appears that Behrendt in view of Lammers-Meis can perform the overall intended use of claim 1.
In regards to the additional arguments regarding the dependent claims 2-4 and 7-13, for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claim is not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Afman (Pub. No.: US 2022/0413499 A1) teaches a watercraft auto-docking system and method with a display for helping navigate a watercraft to reach its target location.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George Renze whose telephone number is (703)756-5811. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights