DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 20 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-9, and 12-21 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US Pub. No. 2022/0306316) in view of Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355).
As per Claim 1, Jha discloses a vehicle (100) (Fig. 1; ¶41) comprising:
a plurality of sound emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… a grid 42 is formed within the PSU 2. A loudspeaker … which may be used for delivering acoustic announcements to the passengers, is arranged behind said grid 42” in ¶58) arranged at different positions (as per “above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47) on the vehicle (100) (Figs. 1-3; ¶41-43, 47, 58);
a plurality of light emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… the PSU 2 comprises a row of three adjustable reading lights 26a, 26b, 26c, which are arranged next to each other” in ¶51) arranged at different positions (as per “above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and/or “arranged next to each other” in ¶51) on the vehicle (100) (Figs. 1-3; ¶41, 47, 51);
a plurality of human presence sensors (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “The PSU further comprises a controller 35, which is configured for receiving and evaluating the sensor output provided by the infrared sensor 30” in ¶55) each configured to detect positions of a plurality of persons (as per “The controller 35 is configured for receiving the individual sensor signals, provided by the infrared sensor array 30, and for evaluating the combination or said individual sensor signals, in order to determine the presence or absence of passengers 90 on the passenger seats 80a, 80b, 80c” in ¶71) on the vehicle (100) (Figs. 1-4; ¶41, 47, 54-55, 71); and
a controller (35) configured or programmed to operate {the sound emitters and the light emitters in a mixed pattern combining a plurality of sounds from the plurality of sound emitters}, or a plurality of lights (as per “controlling light intensity distributions” in ¶83) from the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) according to at least one of the positions (as per “the light intensity distributions 25a, 25b, 25c of the three reading lights 26a, 26b, 26c are adjusted individually for each reading light 26a, 26b, 26c as a function of the determined seating position of the passenger 90 sitting on the corresponding passenger seat 80a, 80b, 80c” in ¶88) or {a number} of the plurality of persons (as per “The controller 35 is configured for receiving the individual sensor signals, provided by the infrared sensor array 30, and for evaluating the combination or said individual sensor signals, in order to determine the presence or absence of passengers 90 on the passenger seats 80a, 80b, 80c” in ¶71) detected by the human presence sensor (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “The PSU further comprises a controller 35, which is configured for receiving and evaluating the sensor output provided by the infrared sensor 30” in ¶55) (Fig. 3-6, 7A-C; ¶47, 50-55, 71, 82-88); wherein
the controller (35) is further configured or programmed to operate {the plurality of sound emitters} or the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) in one of a plurality of mixed patterns (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) in which at least one of {the plurality of sounds} or the plurality of lights differ (as per location of lights 25a, 25b, 25c in each of Figs. 7A-C) from each other, and change the mixed pattern (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) to another mixed pattern (as per another of Figs. 7A-C) in response to a change (as per “A PSU 2 according to an exemplary embodiment of the invention may allow for automatically adjusting the light intensity distributions 25a, 25b, 25c emitted by the reading lights 26a, 26b, 26c … to different seat configurations within the passenger cabin 102, without moving the PSU2 to different positions within the passenger cabin 102” in ¶91) in the at least one of the positions or {the number} of the plurality of persons (as per “The controller 35 is configured for receiving the individual sensor signals, provided by the infrared sensor array 30, and for evaluating the combination or said individual sensor signals, in order to determine the presence or absence of passengers 90 on the passenger seats 80a, 80b, 80c” in ¶71) detected during operation of the mixed pattern (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) (Fig. 3-6, 7A-C; ¶47, 50-55, 71, 82-91).
Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle is a boat.
Grant discloses a vehicle cabin (40) that includes seats (10) (Figs. 1, 4A; ¶47, 77). The vehicle cabin (40) is within a vehicle (¶21) with embodiments for the vehicle including: road or rail vehicles such as buses, coaches, trams or trains; vessels, such as passenger boats or ferries; or aircraft (¶39). Like Jha, Grant is concerned with passenger seating systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha and Grant, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to implement the system of Jha within a vessel since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles. Applying the teachings of Grant to the system of Jha would result in a system “wherein the vehicle is a boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha further discloses wherein the mixed pattern (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) and the another mixed pattern (as per another of Figs. 7A-C) differ in at least one of {luminance}, {color}, {emission period}, or position of the light emitted by the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) (Figs. 7A-C; ¶85-88).
As per Claim 18, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha further discloses wherein the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) includes a passenger light located in a space (as per seat row 80; as per each seat 80a-c) for passengers of the vehicle (100) (Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 3; ¶41-44, 47-51).
Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle is a boat.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha and Grant, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to implement the system of Jha within a vessel since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles. Applying the teachings of Grant to the system of Jha would result in a system “wherein the vehicle is a boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US Pub. No. 2022/0306316) in view of Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355), further in view of McCoy (US Pub. No. 2011/0186374).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the mixed pattern and the another mixed pattern differ in at least one of volume, pitch, tone, repetition period, number of sound sources, length, melody, or position of the sound emitted by the plurality of sound emitters.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
McCoy discloses a vehicle (10) that includes seats (16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24) and entertainment systems (51/130) (Figs 1-3; ¶16-18, 20). The entertainment systems (51/130) include a display (52) and audio output (as per 215, 220) (Figs. 2-4; ¶16, 18, 22, 24-26). In response to a determination that a seat is occupied and unbelted (as per 212), the entertainment systems (51/130) is disabled (as per 214) and a video illustrating how to properly fasten the seatbelt and an audio clip describing the fault are played (as per 216) (Fig. 4; ¶25-26). In response to a determination that the unbelted occupied seatbelts have been latched (as per 218), the entertainment systems (51/130) output (as per 220) video and audio reward (220) and allow (as per 222) user-controlled operation (Fig. 4; ¶25-26). In this way, the system encourages seat belt usage (¶5). Like Jha, McCoy is concerned with occupancy monitoring systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and McCoy, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and McCoy to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by encouraging seat belt usage. Applying the teachings of McCoy and Grant to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates “wherein the mixed pattern and the another mixed pattern differ in at least one of volume, pitch, tone, repetition period, number of sound sources, length, melody, or position of the sound emitted by the plurality of sound emitters” in that the loudspeakers (¶58) of Jha would be adapted to provide appropriate outputs as per McCoy.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US Pub. No. 2022/0306316) in view of Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355), further in view of Horst (US Pub. No. 2007/0241937).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha further discloses:
an operator (27a-c, 28a-c) (Fig. 3; ¶50-52); wherein
the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) includes a display (44) (Fig. 3; ¶50-51, 59); and
the controller (35) is configured or programmed to operate {the plurality of sound emitters} and/or the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) in the mixed pattern (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) (Figs. 7A-C; ¶85-88).
Jha does not expressly disclose:
wherein the plurality of sound emitters are powered independently from the display;
wherein a status of the boat includes that an activation operation has been performed by the operator on the display; and
the controller operates in response to the activation operation on the operator.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
Horst discloses a system (2) for a user interface (31) having switches (20-22, 25, 27, 28) and LEDs (20A-22A, 25A, 27A, 28) that are illuminated in response to actuation of corresponding switches (20-22, 25, 27, 28) (Fig. 1; ¶26, 36-37). The switches (20-22, 25, 27, 28) include an ON/OFF switch (22) that controls overall power to the system (2) (¶26). The user interface (31) is connected to a power controller (30), processor (32), drivers (33, 34), horn (35), and light (36) (Fig. 2; ¶39-43). The horn (35) and light (36) emit a desired signal in response to signals from the drivers (33, 34) (¶42). In one embodiment, the drivers (33, 34) are powered from the respective dc power sources (V2, V3) (Fig. 2; ¶43). According to Horst, the power source powering the drivers (33, 34) is a function of the power requirements of the horn (35) and light (36) (¶43). Like Jha, Horst is concerned with passenger electronics systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Horst, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Horst to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate illumination and power. Applying the teachings of Grant and Horst to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the plurality of sound emitters are powered independently from the display” in that the speaker and lights as per Jha would be independently powered as per Horst;
“wherein a status of the boat includes that an activation operation has been performed by the operator on the display” in that in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and the speaker and lights as per Jha would include an ON/OFF switch as per Horst; and
“wherein the controller operates in response to the activation operation on the operator” in that actions of the speaker and display as per Grant would follow operation of the ON/OFF switch of Horst.
As per Claim 6, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha further discloses:
an operator (27a-c, 28a-c) (Fig. 3; ¶50-52); wherein
the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) includes a display (44) (Fig. 3; ¶50-51, 59); and
the controller (35) is configured or programmed to operate {the plurality of sound emitters} and/or the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) in the mixed pattern (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) (Figs. 7A-C; ¶85-88).
Jha does not expressly disclose:
wherein the plurality of sound emitters are powered independently from the display;
wherein a status of the boat includes that a termination operation has been performed by the operator on the display; and
wherein the controller operates in response to the termination operation on the operator.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 5 for discussion of teachings of Horst.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Horst, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Horst to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate illumination and power. Applying the teachings of Grant and Horst to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the plurality of sound emitters are powered independently from the display” in that the speaker and lights as per Jha would be independently powered as per Horst;
“wherein a status of the boat includes that a termination operation has been performed by the operator on the display” in that in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and the speaker and lights as per Jha would include an ON/OFF switch as per Horst; and
“wherein the controller operates in response to the termination operation on the operator” in that operation of the speaker and lights of Jha would follow operation of the ON/OFF switch of Horst.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha further discloses wherein the controller (25) is configured or programmed to operate {the plurality of sound emitters} and/or the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) in another mixed pattern (as per another of Figs. 7A-C) different from the mixed pattern (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) (Figs. 7A-C; ¶85-88).
Jha does not expressly disclose:
wherein the status of the boat includes that a termination operation has been performed by the operator on the display; and
wherein the controller operates with the mixed pattern of the activation operation and in response to the termination operation on the operator.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 5 for discussion of teachings of Horst.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Horst, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Horst to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate illumination and power. Applying the teachings of Grant and Horst to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the status of the boat includes that a termination operation has been performed by the operator on the display” in that in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and the speaker and lights as per Jha would include an ON/OFF switch as per Horst; and
“wherein the controller operates with the mixed pattern of the activation operation and in response to the termination operation on the operator” in that operation of the speaker and lights of Jha would follow operation of the ON/OFF switch of Horst.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US Pub. No. 2022/0306316) in view of Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355), further in view of Cannella (US Pub. No. 2016/0355179).
As per Claim 8, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the mixed pattern includes a pattern in which the light emitting operation by the plurality of light emitters continues after the sound emitting operation by the plurality of sound emitters is completed.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
Cannella discloses a vehicle warning system (10) for a boat (¶66) that includes a horn system (14), light system (16), control unit (28), and a threat detection system (12) (Fig. 1; ¶32-33). The horn system (14) and light system (16) are activated by the control unit (28) in response to a threat detected by the threat detection system (12) (Fig. 1; ¶33-35). In one embodiment, the horn system (14) and light system (16) are activated simultaneously (¶43). In another embodiment, the horn system (14) and light system (16) are activated sequentially (¶36). Like Jha, Cannella is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Cannella, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Cannella to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing warning of detected threats. Applying the teachings of Grant and Cannella to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates “wherein the mixed pattern includes a pattern in which the light emitting operation by the plurality of light emitters continues after the sound emitting operation by the plurality of sound emitters is completed” in that actions of the speaker and lights as per Jha would provide appropriate sequential operations as per Cannella.
As per Claim 9, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the mixed pattern includes a pattern in which the sound emitting operation by the plurality of sound emitters continues after the light emitting operation by the plurality of light emitters is completed.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 8 for discussion of teachings of Cannella.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Cannella, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Cannella to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing warning of detected threats. Applying the teachings of Grant and Cannella to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates “wherein the mixed pattern includes a pattern in which the light emitting operation by the plurality of light emitters continues after the sound emitting operation by the plurality of sound emitters is completed” in that actions of the speaker and lights as per Jha would provide appropriate sequential operations as per Cannella.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US Pub. No. 2022/0306316) in view of Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355), further in view of Bamba (US Pub. No. 2010/0049385).
As per Claim 12, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose an abnormality detector to detect an abnormality in the boat; wherein
a condition of the boat includes that an abnormality in the boat is detected by the abnormality detector.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
Bamba discloses a marine vessel (1) having outboard motors (3) as propulsion devices and an immobilizer (10) that allows ordinary use of the vessel (1) only to a legitimate user (Fig. 1; ¶34). The outboard motor (3) includes an ECU (30) featuring a fault detection unit (44) and fault detection control unit (45) (Fig. 3; ¶49-51). Faults detected by the fault detection unit (44) include power supply short circuit, power supply line disconnection, ground line disconnection, and/or microcomputer fault in the immobilizer (10) (¶57). A display unit (67) displays an operation state of the motor (3) (Fig. 3; ¶72). In response to a detected fault, the outboard motor (3) may be set into an appropriate emergency operation mode (Figs. 7-8; ¶99-106). Like Jha, Bamba is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Bamba, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates with:
“an abnormality detector to detect an abnormality in the boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and in that the controller (35) of Jha would be informed by the fault detection system of Bamba; and
“wherein a condition of the boat includes that an abnormality in the boat is detected by the abnormality detector” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and in that the controller (35) of Jha would be responsive to the fault detection system of Bamba.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the abnormality detector includes a theft predictor; and
the condition of the boat situation includes that theft of the boat has been predicted by the theft predictor.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Bamba. Bamba further discloses wherein emergency operation mode of the immobilizer (10) provides a theft deterrent system (¶106-107).
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Bamba, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates with:
“the abnormality detector includes a theft predictor” in that the controller (35) of Jha would be informed by the theft detection system of Bamba; and
“the condition of the boat situation includes that theft of the boat has been predicted by the theft predictor” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and in that the controller (35) of Jha would be responsive to the theft detection system of Bamba.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the abnormality detector is operable to detect a plurality of abnormalities that differ from each other in at least one of type or degree; and
the controller is configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters and/or the plurality of light emitters in the mixed pattern in which at least one of the sound or the light differs from each other according to the differences in the abnormalities detected by the abnormality detector.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Bamba.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Bamba, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the abnormality detector is operable to detect a plurality of abnormalities that differ from each other in at least one of type or degree” in that the controller (35) of Jha would be informed by the fault detection system of Bamba;
“the controller is configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters and/or the plurality of light emitters in the mixed pattern in which at least one of the sound or the light differs from each other according to the differences in the abnormalities detected by the abnormality detector” in that the speaker, lights, and controller of Jha would be responsive to the fault detection system of Bamba.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the abnormality detector is operable to detect an abnormality at a plurality of locations on the boat; and
the controller is configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters and/or the plurality of light emitters in the mixed pattern in which at least one of the sound or the light differs from each other according to the differences in the locations where an abnormality is detected by the abnormality detector.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Bamba. In one embodiment, the outboard motors (3) include three different motors (3P, 3C, 3S) each of which includes a fault detection unit (44) and fault detection control unit (45) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶34, 49-51).
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Bamba, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Grant and Bamba to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the abnormality detector is operable to detect an abnormality at a plurality of locations on the boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and the controller (35) of Jha would be informed by the fault detection system of Bamba;
“the controller is configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters and/or the plurality of light emitters in the mixed pattern in which at least one of the sound or the light differs from each other according to the differences in the locations where an abnormality is detected by the abnormality detector” in that the speaker, lights, and controller of Jha would be responsive to the fault detection system of Bamba.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US Pub. No. 2022/0306316) in view of Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355), further in view of Bamba (US Pub. No. 2010/0049385), further in view of Girouard (US Pub. No. 2007/0115111).
As per Claim 16, the combination of Jha, Grant, and Bamba teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Jha further discloses wherein the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) includes a plurality of lights (as per Figs. 6, 7A-C) positioned respectively at locations corresponding to the plurality of locations (as per Figs. 7A-C) (Figs. 3, 6, 7A-C; ¶50-52, 84-88).
Jha does not expressly disclose the mixed pattern is a pattern that emits light from one or more of the plurality of lights corresponding to the location where an abnormality is detected by the abnormality detector.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Bamba. In one embodiment, the outboard motors (3) include three different motors (3P, 3C, 3S) each of which includes a fault detection unit (44) and fault detection control unit (45) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶34, 49-51).
Girouard discloses an alarm system (10) that includes a plurality of alarm notification appliances (24, 26) (Fig. 1; ¶18). Each alarm notification appliance (24, 26) includes a strobe (52, 114), a horn (54, 116), a fault indicator (72, 122), and an associated alarm condition detector (32) (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶18, 26, 32, 39). When an alarm condition detector (32) detects an alarm condition, the associated alarm notification appliance (24, 26) activates the associated strobe (52, 114), horn (54, 116), and fault indicator (72, 122) (¶26, 32, 39, 44-45). In this way, the system provides an appropriate fault indicator (¶45). Like Jha, Girouard is concerned with notification systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, Bamba, and Girouard, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant, Bamba, and Girouard to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles, since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode, and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate fault indicator. Applying the teachings of Grant, Bamba, and Girouard to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates wherein “the mixed pattern is a pattern that emits light from one or more of the plurality of lights corresponding to the location where an abnormality is detected by the abnormality detector” in that in that the speaker, lights, and controller of Jha would be responsive to indicate the detected abnormality as per Bamba and responsive to provide notifications near each monitored device as per Girouard.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Jha, Grant, and Bamba teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Jha further discloses wherein the plurality of sound emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… a grid 42 is formed within the PSU 2. A loudspeaker … which may be used for delivering acoustic announcements to the passengers, is arranged behind said grid 42” in ¶58) includes a plurality of sound emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… a grid 42 is formed within the PSU 2. A loudspeaker … which may be used for delivering acoustic announcements to the passengers, is arranged behind said grid 42” in ¶58) located at positions corresponding to the plurality of locations (as per each row 80) (Figs. 2a, 3; ¶42-43, 47, 58).
Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the mixed pattern is a pattern that emits sound by one or more of the plurality of sound emitters corresponding to the location where the abnormality is detected by the abnormality detector.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings of Bamba. In one embodiment, the outboard motors (3) include three different motors (3P, 3C, 3S) each of which includes a fault detection unit (44) and fault detection control unit (45) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶34, 49-51).
See rejection of Claim 16 for discussion of teachings of Girouard.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, Bamba, and Girouard, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant, Bamba, and Girouard to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles, since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode, and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate fault indicator. Applying the teachings of Grant, Bamba, and Girouard to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates wherein “the mixed pattern is a pattern that emits sound by one or more of the plurality of sound emitters corresponding to the location where the abnormality is detected by the abnormality detector” in that in that the speaker, lights, and controller of Jha would be responsive to indicate the detected abnormality as per Bamba and responsive to provide notifications near each monitored device as per Girouard.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US Pub. No. 2022/0306316) in view of Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355), further in view of Akuzawa (US Pub. No. 2018/0292215).
As per Claim 19, the combination of Jha and Grant teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the controller (35) is configured or programmed to detect a condition (as per occupancy monitoring device 38 in ¶82) of the vehicle (100) (Figs. 2A, 3; ¶48, 59, 82).
Jha does not expressly disclose wherein the vehicle is a boat; and
wherein the condition of the boat includes a depth of water under the boat.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
Akuzawa discloses a cruising support system comprising a server system (1) in communication via a network (5) with wireless communication terminals (2a-c) aboard watercrafts (3a-c) (Fig. 1; ¶24-25). Each watercraft (3a-c) includes a water depth sensor (¶26) reporting depth information to the server (1) and a controller (13) of the server (1) creates routing information based on the water depth information (Fig. 1; ¶26, 67-69). The server (1) determines an alert spot based on water depth information and outputs the location of the alert spot (61) to the display (24, 33) of each terminal (2a-c) (Figs. 2, 14; ¶67-69). In this way, the system provides appropriate alerts (¶69). Like Jha, Akuzawa is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Akuzawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Akuzawa to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate alerts. Applying the teachings of Grant and Akuzawa to the system of Jha would result in a system that operates:
“wherein the vehicle is a boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant; and
“wherein the condition of the boat includes a depth of water under the boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and in that in that the speaker, lights, and controller of Grant would be responsive to alert conditions detected as per Akuzawa.
As per Claim 21, Jha discloses a vehicle (100) (Fig. 1; ¶41) comprising:
a plurality of sound emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… a grid 42 is formed within the PSU 2. A loudspeaker … which may be used for delivering acoustic announcements to the passengers, is arranged behind said grid 42” in ¶58) arranged at different positions (as per “above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47) on the vehicle (100) (Figs. 1-3; ¶41-43, 47, 58);
a plurality of light emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… the PSU 2 comprises a row of three adjustable reading lights 26a, 26b, 26c, which are arranged next to each other” in ¶51) arranged at different positions (as per “above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and/or “arranged next to each other” in ¶51) on the vehicle 100) (Figs. 1-3; ¶41, 47, 51); and
a controller (35) configured or programmed to operate the sound emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… a grid 42 is formed within the PSU 2. A loudspeaker … which may be used for delivering acoustic announcements to the passengers, is arranged behind said grid 42” in ¶58) and the light emitters (as per “An aircraft passenger service unit (PSU) 2 is arranged above each of the seat rows 80” in ¶47 and “… the PSU 2 comprises a row of three adjustable reading lights 26a, 26b, 26c, which are arranged next to each other” in ¶51) in a mixed pattern (as per one of Figs. 7A-C) combining {a plurality of sounds from the plurality of sound emitters}, or a plurality of lights from the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) (Fig. 3-6, 7A-C; ¶47, 50-55, 71, 82-91); wherein
the plurality of light emitters (26a, 26b, 25c) arranged on the vehicle (100) are visible (via windows 108) from outside of the vehicle (100) (Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, 3; ¶41-52).
Jha does not expressly disclose:
wherein the vehicle is a boat;
a water depth measuring instrument to measure a water depth under the boat; and
wherein the controller operates according to the water depth measured by the water depth measuring instrument.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Grant.
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Akuzawa.
Therefore, from these teachings of Jha, Grant, and Akuzawa, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant and Akuzawa to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate alerts. Applying the teachings of Grant and Akuzawa to the system of Jha would result in a system that includes:
“wherein the vehicle is a boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant; and
“a water depth measuring instrument to measure a water depth under the boat” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and in that in that the speaker, lights, and controller of Grant would be responsive to alert conditions detected as per Akuzawa; and
“wherein the controller operates according to the water depth measured by the water depth measuring instrument” in that the system Jha would be adapted for installation within a vessel as per Grant and in that in that the speaker, lights, and controller (35) of Jha would be responsive to alert conditions detected as per Akuzawa.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355) in view of Bamba (US Pub. No. 2010/0049385), further in view of Girouard (US Pub. No. 2007/0115111).
As per Claim 20, Grant discloses a boat (as per “vessels” in ¶1; as per “ferries or other vessels” in ¶7; as per “vessels, such as passenger boats or ferries” in ¶39) comprising:
a plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) arranged at different positions (as per “speaker for each seat 10” in ¶74) on the boat (as per “vessels” in ¶1; as per “ferries or other vessels” in ¶7; as per “vessels, such as passenger boats or ferries” in ¶39) (Fig. 3; ¶67-74);
a plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) arranged at different positions (as per “visual display screen 36 … for each seat 10” in ¶74) on the boat (as per “vessels” in ¶1; as per “ferries or other vessels” in ¶7; as per “vessels, such as passenger boats or ferries” in ¶39) (Fig. 3; ¶67-74);
a controller (30, 34) configured or programmed to detect (via sensor 26) a condition (as per “determine the occupancy status of the seat(s) 10” in ¶68; as per “indication of the occupation status of each seat” in ¶74; as per “occupancy status of each seat” in ¶95; as per “Passenger counting” in ¶107) of the boat (as per “vessels” in ¶1; as per “ferries or other vessels” in ¶7; as per “vessels, such as passenger boats or ferries” in ¶39) including at least one of a status (as per occupancy) of the boat (as per “vessels” in ¶1; as per “ferries or other vessels” in ¶7; as per “vessels, such as passenger boats or ferries” in ¶39), excluding a status of the sound emitters or the light emitters, or an external environment of the boat, and operate the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) or the plurality of light emitters (per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) in a mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) combining a plurality of sounds (as per “speaker … to convey information to an occupant” in ¶71; as per “speaker may be used to provide announcements to the occupier” in ¶74) or a plurality of lights (as per “display screen to convey information to on occupant” in ¶71; as per “display is used to provide a visual indication of the occupation status of each seat” in ¶74), respectively, according to the condition (as per “determine the occupancy status of the seat(s) 10” in ¶68; as per “indication of the occupation status of each seat” in ¶74; as per “occupancy status of each seat” in ¶95; as per “Passenger counting” in ¶107) of the boat (as per “vessels” in ¶1; as per “ferries or other vessels” in ¶7; as per “vessels, such as passenger boats or ferries” in ¶39) detected (via sensor 26) by the controller (30, 34) (Figs. 1-4a; ¶47-52, 67-77, 88-107).
Grant does not expressly disclose:
an abnormality detector to detect a plurality of abnormalities in the boat; and
wherein the condition of the boat includes that an abnormality in the boat is detected by the abnormality detector, and the controller operates a sound emitter from among the plurality of sound emitters and a light emitter from among the plurality of light emitters that are closest to a location where the abnormality detected by the abnormality detector occurred.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Bamba.
See rejection of Claim 16 for discussion of teachings of Girouard.
Therefore, from these teachings of Grant, Bamba, and Girouard, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Bamba and Girouard to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by: providing appropriate emergency operation mode; and providing appropriate fault indicator. Applying the teachings of Bamba and Girouard to the system of Grant would result in a system that operates
with “an abnormality detector to detect a plurality of abnormalities in the boat” in that the controller (30, 34) of Grant would be informed by the fault detection system of Bamba; and
“wherein the condition of the boat includes that an abnormality in the boat is detected by the abnormality detector, and the controller operates a sound emitter from among the plurality of sound emitters and a light emitter from among the plurality of light emitters that are closest to a location where the abnormality detected by the abnormality detector occurred” that in that the speaker, display, and controller of Grant would be responsive to indicate the detected abnormality as per Bamba and responsive to provide notifications near each monitored device as per Girouard.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, this rejection is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8-10 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are not maintained. However, the amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Bamba does not teach or suggest that the display unit 67 displays anything with respect to the fault detection unit 44” (page 10 of Amendment). However, consistent with the citations in the rejections, Bamba discloses that the operation state of a corresponding outboard motor (3) is displayed on the display unit (67) in the gauge (9) that received the operation state data (Fig. 3; ¶72) and that state transitions are linked to detected faults (Figs. 7-8; ¶99-106). Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion is not consistent with the teachings of Bamba as per the citations in the rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “it is not apparent why one of ordinary skill in the art would have linked the speakers and displays 36 arranged at individual seats 10 of the ferry of Grant with a fault indicator 72, 122 for a fire alarm system in view of Girouard” (page 11 of Amendment) and “Instead of basing the conclusion of obviousness on actual teachings or suggestions of the prior art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, the Examiner has improperly used Applicant's own invention as a guide” (page 11-12 of Amendment). However, as set forth in the rejection: Girouard discloses that the system provides an appropriate fault indicator (¶45); and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Girouard to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by and providing an appropriate fault indicator. Accordingly, the motivation set forth in the rejection is properly grounded in the teachings of the references themselves and no rejection requires improper hindsight. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Neither Bamba nor Girouard discloses that the detectors disclosed therein are configured to detect a plurality of abnormalities in a boat, nor would there have been any reason to have combined the detectors of Bamba and Girouard” and “Thus, Grant in view of Bamba and Girouard fails to teach or suggest the features … as recited in Applicant's claim 20” (page 12 of Amendment). However, as set forth in the rejections, Bamba discloses “an abnormality detector to detect a plurality of abnormalities in the boat” in that the outboard motors (3) include three different motors (3P, 3C, 3S) each of which includes a fault detection unit (44) and fault detection control unit (45) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶34, 49-51). Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion that “Neither Bamba nor Girouard discloses that the detectors disclosed therein are configured to detect a plurality of abnormalities in a boat” is not consistent with teachings of Bamba identified in the rejections.
Further, as set forth in the rejections, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Grant, Bamba, and Girouard to the system of Jha since Grant teaches that passenger seating systems may be implemented as a matter of design choice in a variety of vehicles, since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode, and since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate fault indicator. Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion that “nor would there have been any reason to have combined the detectors of Bamba and Girouard” is not consistent with teachings of Bamba identified in the rejections.
In this way, Applicant’s assertion that “Thus, Grant in view of Bamba and Girouard fails to teach or suggest the features … as recited in Applicant's claim 20” is not consistent with teachings of Bamba identified in the rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 21 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “One of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to modify the individual seat displays on the ferry of Grant to display water depth information in view of Akuzawa, let alone display the water depth such that it is visible from outside of the boat” (page 13 of Amendment). As a preliminary matter, no claim recites “display the water depth such that it is visible from outside the boat”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Further, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth above. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejection of Claim 21 under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Grant in view of Akuzawa fails to teach or suggest the features … as recited in Applicant's claim 21” (page 13-14 of Amendment). However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth above. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “McCoy, Horst, and Cannella also fail to teach or suggest the features of Applicant's claims 1, 20, and 21 discussed above” (page 14 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that McCoy, Horst, and Cannella teach or suggest features of Claims 1, 20, and 21 discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Marriott (US Pub. No. 2009/0132128) discloses an occupant monitoring and restraint status system.
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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights