DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 10 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-9, and 12-21 amended 10 December 2025 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 19, “the condition” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355).
As per Claim 1, 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 human presence sensor (26) to detect a position (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) and a number of persons (as per “occupancy status of each seat” in ¶95; as per “Passenger counting” in ¶107) 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) (Figs. 1-3; ¶47-52, 67-74); and
a controller (30, 34) configured or programmed to operate the sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) and the light emitters (as 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) from the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 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) from the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) according at least one of the position (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) or the number of persons (as per “occupancy status of each seat” in ¶95; as per “Passenger counting” in ¶107) detected by the human presence sensor (26) (Figs. 1-4a; ¶47-52, 67-77, 88-107); wherein
the controller (30, 34) is further configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) or the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) in one of a plurality of mixed patterns (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) in which at least one of the 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 the 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) differ from each other (as per as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker for each seat 10 corresponding to occupation status of that seat 10), and change the mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) to another mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to change in occupation status) in response to a change (as per “availability status of a seat may be updated in real-time” in ¶35; as per “determine the occupancy status of the seat(s) 10” in ¶68; as per “indication of the occupation status” in ¶74) in the at least one of the position (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) or the number of persons (as per “occupancy status of each seat” in ¶95; as per “Passenger counting” in ¶107) during operation of the mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) (Figs. 1-4a; ¶47-52, 67-77, 88-107).
As per Claim 4, Grant further discloses wherein the mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) and the another mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to change in occupation status) differ in at least one of {luminance}, color (as per “Individual seats in the plan may be color coded” in ¶31; as per “A simplified color coding scheme may be used for such displays” in ¶105), {emission period}, or {position of the light emitted by the plurality of light emitters}.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355) in view of McCoy (US Pub. No. 2011/0186374).
As per Claim 3, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant 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.
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 Grant, McCoy is concerned with occupancy monitoring systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 McCoy to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by encouraging seat belt usage. Applying the teachings of McCoy to the system of Grant 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 speaker (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) of Grant would be adapted to provide appropriate outputs as per McCoy.
Claims 5-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355) in view of Horst (US Pub. No. 2007/0241937).
As per Claim 5, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant further discloses wherein
the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) includes a display (36) (Fig. 3; ¶67-74); and
the controller (30, 34) is configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) and/or the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) in the mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) (Figs. 1-4a; ¶47-52, 67-77, 88-107).
Grant does not expressly disclose
an operator:
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;
wherein the controller operates response to the activation operation on the operator.
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 Grant, Horst is concerned with marine electronics systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Horst to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate illumination and power. Applying the teachings of Horst to the system of Grant would result in a system:
that includes “an operator” in that the speaker and display as per Grant would include an ON/OFF switch as per Horst;
“wherein the plurality of sound emitters are powered independently from the display” in that the speaker and display as per Grant 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 the speaker and display as per Grant would include an ON/OFF switch as per Horst; and
“wherein the controller operates 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 as per Horst.
As per Claim 6, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant further discloses wherein:
the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) includes a display (36) (Fig. 3; ¶67-74); and
the controller (30, 34) is configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) and/or the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) in the mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) (Figs. 1-4a; ¶47-52, 67-77, 88-107).
Grant does not expressly disclose:
an operator;
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 5 for discussion of teachings of Horst.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Horst to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate illumination and power. Applying the teachings of Horst to the system of Grant would result in a system:
that includes “an operator” in that the speaker and display as per Grant would include an ON/OFF switch as per Horst;
“wherein the plurality of sound emitters are powered independently from the display” in that the speaker and display as per Grant 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 the speaker and display as per Grant 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 actions of the speaker and display as per Grant would follow operation of the ON/OFF switch as per Horst.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Grant and Horst teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Grant further discloses wherein the controller (30, 34) is configured or programmed to operate the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) and/or the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) in another mixed pattern different (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to change in occupation status) from the mixed pattern (as per operation of display screen 36 and/or speaker corresponding to occupation status) (Figs. 1-4a; ¶47-52, 67-77, 88-107).
Grant 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 5 for discussion of teachings of Horst.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Horst to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate illumination and power. Applying the teachings of Horst to the system of Grant would result in a system:
“wherein the status of the boat includes that a termination operation has been performed by the operator on the display” in that the speaker and display as per Grant 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 actions of the speaker and display as per Grant would follow operation of the ON/OFF switch as per Horst.
As per Claim 18, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of light emitters includes a passenger light located in a space for passengers of the boat.
See rejection of Claim 5 for discussion of teachings of Horst. Horst further discloses wherein the system (2) includes cabin illumination (¶38).
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Horst to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate illumination and power. Applying the teachings of Horst to the system of Grant would result in a system “wherein the plurality of light emitters includes a passenger light located in a space for passengers of the boat” in that system of Grant would be adapted to provide cabin illumination as per Horst.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355) in view of Cannella (US Pub. No. 2016/0355179).
As per Claim 8, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant 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.
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 Grant, Cannella is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Cannella to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing warning of detected threats. Applying the teachings of Cannella to the system of Grant 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 display as per Grant would provide appropriate sequential operations as per Cannella.
As per Claim 9, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant 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 8 for discussion of teachings of Cannella.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Cannella to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing warning of detected threats. Applying the teachings of Cannella to the system of Grant would result in a system that operates “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” in that actions of the speaker and display as per Grant would provide appropriate sequential operations as per Cannella.
Claims 12-15 are 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).
As per Claim 12, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant 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.
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 Grant, Bamba is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Bamba to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Bamba to the system of Grant would result in a system with:
“an abnormality detector to detect an abnormality in the boat” in that the controller (30, 34) of Grant 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 controller (30, 34) of Grant would be responsive to the fault detection system of Bamba.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Grant and Bamba teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Grant 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 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 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 Bamba to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Bamba to the system of Grant would result in a system wherein:
“the abnormality detector includes a theft predictor” in that the controller (30, 34) of Grant 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 controller (30, 34) of Grant would be responsive to the theft detection system of Bamba.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Grant and Bamba teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Grant 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 12 for discussion of teachings of Bamba.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Bamba to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Bamba to the system of Grant would result in a system 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 (30, 34) of Grant would be informed by the fault detection system of Bamba; 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” in that the speaker, display, and controller of Grant would be responsive to the fault detection system of Bamba.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Grant and Bamba teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Grant 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 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 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 Bamba to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing an appropriate emergency operation mode. Applying the teachings of Bamba to the system of Grant would result in a system wherein:
“the abnormality detector is operable to detect an abnormality at a plurality of locations on the boat” in that the controller (30, 34) of Grant would be informed by the fault detection system of Bamba; 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” in that the speaker, display, and controller of Grant would be responsive to the fault detection system of Bamba.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are 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 16, the combination of Grant and Bamba teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Grant further discloses wherein: the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) includes a plurality of lights positioned respectively at locations corresponding to the plurality of locations (as per “visual display screen 36 … for each seat 10” in ¶74) (Fig. 3; ¶67-74).
Grant does not expressly disclose 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.
See rejection of Claim 15 for discussion of teachings of Bamba.
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 Grant, Girouard is concerned with notification systems.
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 “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, 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.
As per Claim 17, the combination of Grant and Bamba teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 15. Grant further discloses wherein the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) includes a plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) located at positions corresponding to the plurality of locations (as per “speaker for each seat 10” in ¶74) (Fig. 3; ¶67-74).
Grant 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 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 “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, 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.
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 an abnormality 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 an abnormality 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.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant (US Pub. No. 2014/0125355) in view of Akuzawa (US Pub. No. 2018/0292215).
As per Claim 19, Grant discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Grant does not expressly disclose wherein the condition of the boat includes a depth of water under the boat.
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 Grant, Akuzawa is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Akuzawa to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate alerts. Applying the teachings of Akuzawa to the system of Grant would result in a system that operates “wherein the condition of the boat includes a depth of water under the boat” that in that the speaker, display, and controller of Grant would be responsive to alert conditions detected as per Akuzawa.
As per Claim 21, 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); and
a controller (30, 34) configured or programmed to operate the sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 74) and the light emitters (as 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) from the plurality of sound emitters (as per “speaker” in ¶71, 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) from the plurality of light emitters (as per “display screen” in ¶71; as per “visual display screen 36” in ¶74) (Figs. 1-4a; ¶47-52, 67-77, 88-107).
Grant does not expressly disclose:
a water depth measuring instrument to measure a water depth under the boat;
wherein the controller is operates according to the water depth measured by the water depth measuring instrument.
See rejection of Claim 19 for discussion of teachings of Akuzawa.
Therefore, from these teachings of 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 Akuzawa to the system of Grant since doing so would enhance the system by providing appropriate alerts. Applying the teachings of Akuzawa to the system of Grant would result in a system that operates:
with “a water depth measuring instrument to measure a water depth under the boat” that in that the speaker, display, and controller of Grant would be responsive to alert conditions detected as per Akuzawa; and
“wherein the controller is operates according to the water depth measured by the water depth measuring instrument” that in that the speaker, display, and controller of Grant would be responsive to alert conditions detected as per Akuzawa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 December 2025 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “the controller 45 of Gonring (2020) certainly does not change a mixed pattern to another mixed pattern [as per the amended claim language]” and “Gonring (2020) discloses, at best, one mixed pattern and only when a fob 20, 22 is no longer detected” (page 9-10 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 in view of Showell, Choi, and Gonring is not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “Showell in view of Choi, Gonring, and Gonring (2020) fails to teach or suggest the features [as per the amended claim language]” (page 10 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 in view of Showell, Choi, and Gonring is not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “Bamba does not remotely teach or suggest operating a sound emitter or a light emitter closest to a location where the fault is detected” (page 11 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Bamba individually teaches or suggests the limitations at issue. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “it would not have been obvious to have modified the navigation light and sound emitters of Showell to indicate a fire or the like on the boat in view of Girouard because the inventions of Showell and Girouard are directed to very different problems” (page 11 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, the rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Showell are not maintained. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding Showell are moot. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because “it is readily apparent from Fig. 2 of Showell that there would have been no need to provide the small boat of Showell with a plurality of alarm notification appliances in view of Girouard” (page 12 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, the rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Showell are not maintained. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding Showell are moot. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn because “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 12 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, the rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Showell are not maintained. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding Showell are moot. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn because “Showell in view of Choi, Gonring, Bamba, and/or Girouard fails to teach or suggest the features [as per the amendments]” (page 12 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of the cited references in view of the amended claim language, rejections under 35 USC 103 in view of Showell, Choi, Gonring, Bamba, and Girourard are not maintained. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot. However, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Applicant argues that rejection of Claim 21 would be inappropriate because “In contrast to Applicant's claim 21, the alert spot information outputted by the server of Akuzawa merely contains coordinates of a spot determined as unavailable for cruising and, at best, displays marks 61 on the map of the navigation screen 30 based on the alert spot information” and “Thus, Showell in view of Choi, Gonring, and Akuzawa fails to teach or suggest the features [as per new Claim 21]” (page 12 of Amendment). However, Claim 21 is not rejected in view of the teachings of Showell, Choi, Gonring, and Akuzawa. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections of Claims 1, 20, and 21 should be withdrawn or would be appropriate because “Horst and Cannella fail to cure the deficiencies of Showell, Choi, Gonring, Gonring (2020), Bamba, Girouard, and Akuzawa described above” (page 13 of Amendment). However, the alleged deficiencies are not present in any rejection in that Claims 1, 20, and 21 are not rejected in view of Showell, Choi, Gonring, Gonring (2020), Bamba, Girouard, and Akuzawa. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not relevant to the rejection of any claim. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
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.
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