DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/15/2023 and 8/15/2024 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on12/16/20222.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are the independent claims.
Claims 1, 7, 18, and 19 have been amended.
This FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 12/18/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/18/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Title objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Title Objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Akuzawa et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0292215) in view of Grace et al. (United States Patent Publication 2009/0105952).
With respect to Claim 1: While Akuzawa discloses “A fishing site information providing system comprising” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079];
“a server” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0070-0071 with Figure 1];
“and a watercraft including” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0070-0071 with Figure 1];
“a position detector to detect a position of the watercraft” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0030 and 0070-0071];
“a marine propulsion device” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0026 and 0055];
“an input operable by an operator to select a fishing-related watercraft operating function of the marine propulsion device” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079];
“and a controller connected to the input” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and configured or programmed to control the marine propulsion device to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function selected by the operator” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“wherein the controller is connectable to a communication device and a display” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“the communication device is operable to transmit to the server the fishing-related watercraft operating function executed by the marine propulsion device and execution information including a site of execution of the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“the server is configured or programmed to estimate a recommended fishing site or sea route based on the fishing-related watercraft operating function and the execution information” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and transmit the recommended fishing site or estimated sea route to the communication device” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and the controller is configured or programmed to control the display to display the recommended fishing site or sea route estimated by the server” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state what functions maybe be carried out once a destination is reached.
Grace, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the fishing-related watercraft operating function includes a position maintaining function and a predetermined navigation function” [Grace, ¶ 0017-0018 0022, 0028, and, 0054-0055];
“the position maintaining function maintains the watercraft in a predetermined position” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, and 0054-0055];
“and the predetermined navigation function navigates the watercraft in a predetermined sea route pattern” [Grace, ¶ 0017-0018, 0028,0043, 0051 and 0054-0055];
“and the server is configured or programmed to estimate a sea area in which the position maintaining function has been executed after execution of the predetermined navigation function as the recommended fishing site or a route to the sea area as the recommended sea route” [Grace, ¶ 0022, 0024, 0036, and 0042-0045 (The position maintenance data may be generated from a comparison of current aquatic effort data to prior aquatic effort data and indicate a position to maintain that has been successful in the past under the current conditions. In such situations, a watercraft may be automatically navigated to a new anchor point)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grace into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to perform known fishing destination functions such as drop anchor, position keeping, tours and automated motion control as taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grace into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that control a watercraft when it gets to and tours a destination automatically or more easily [Grace, ¶ 0022]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 2: Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the marine propulsion device such that the watercraft automatically moves to the recommended fishing site estimated by the server or such that the watercraft automatically moves along the recommended sea route estimated by the server” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 3: Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 1, wherein when the marine propulsion device executes a plurality of types of fishing-related watercraft operating functions including the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“the server is configured or programmed to estimate the recommended fishing site or sea route for each of the plurality of types of fishing-related watercraft operating functions executed by the marine propulsion device” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and the controller is configured or programmed to control the display to display the recommended fishing site or sea route for the each of the plurality of types of fishing-related watercraft operating functions executed by the marine propulsion device” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 4: Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 3, wherein the watercraft further includes a selector operable by the operator to select the recommended fishing site or sea route displayed on the display” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and the controller is configured or programmed to control the marine propulsion device such that the watercraft automatically moves to the recommended fishing site selected by the operator or such that the watercraft automatically moves along the recommended sea route selected by the operator” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 6: While Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 4, wherein, after the watercraft reaches the recommended fishing site selected by the operator, the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function among the plurality of types of fishing-related watercraft operating functions in the recommended fishing site selected by the operator” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state what functions maybe be carried out once a destination is reached, where a function could be stopping.
Grace, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function among the plurality of types of fishing-related watercraft operating functions in the recommended fishing site selected by the operator” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, and 0054-0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grace into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to perform known fishing destination functions such as drop anchor or spot keeping as taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grace into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that control a watercraft when it gets to a destination more easily [Grace, ¶ 0022]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 7: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state what functions maybe be carried out once a destination is reached.
Grace, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “and when the position maintaining function is selected by the operator, the controller is configured or programmed to execute the predetermined navigation function after the watercraft automatically reaches the recommended fishing site selected by the operator” [Grace, ¶ 0017-0018, 0021-0022, 0043, 0028, and 0054-0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grace into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to perform known fishing destination functions such as drop anchor or spot keeping as taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grace into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that control a watercraft when it gets to a destination more easily [Grace, ¶ 0022]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 8: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state what functions maybe be carried out once a destination is reached.
Grace, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the fishing-related watercraft operating function includes a position maintaining function, a compass direction maintaining function or a predetermined navigation function” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, 0039, and 0054-0055];
“and the position maintaining function maintains the watercraft in a predetermined position” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, 0039, and 0054-0055];
“the compass direction maintaining function fixes an orientation of the watercraft by maintaining the watercraft in a compass direction” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, 0039, and 0054-0055];
“the predetermined navigation function navigates the watercraft in a predetermined sea route pattern” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, 0039, and 0054-0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grace into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to perform known fishing destination functions such as drop anchor or spot keeping as taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grace into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that control a watercraft when it gets to a destination more easily [Grace, ¶ 0022]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 9: Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the execution information includes a time or a weather condition obtained during execution of the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 10: Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 1, wherein, when a plurality of fishing-related watercraft operating functions including the fishing-related watercraft operating function have been executed” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“the server is configured or programmed to further estimate the recommended fishing site based on a combination of the plurality of fishing-related watercraft operating functions and the execution information” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 17: Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 1, wherein the communication device and the display are installed in the watercraft” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1].
With respect to Claim 18: While Akuzawa discloses “A fishing site information providing method comprising: causing a communication device to transmit to a server a fishing-related watercraft operating function executed in a watercraft and execution information including a site of execution of the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“causing the server to estimate a recommended fishing site or sea route based on the fishing-related watercraft operating function and the execution information” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“causing the server to transmit to the communication device the recommended fishing site or sea route estimated by the server” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and causing a display to display the recommended fishing site or sea route estimated by the server” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state what functions maybe be carried out once a destination is reached.
Grace, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the fishing-related watercraft operating function includes a position maintaining function and a predetermined navigation function” [Grace, ¶ 0017-0018 0022, 0028, and, 0054-0055];
“the position maintaining function maintains the watercraft in a predetermined position” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, and 0054-0055];
“and the predetermined navigation function navigates the watercraft in a predetermined sea route pattern” [Grace, ¶ 0017-0018, 0028,0043, 0051 and 0054-0055];
“and the server is configured or programmed to estimate a sea area in which the position maintaining function has been executed after execution of the predetermined navigation function as the recommended fishing site or a route to the sea area as the recommended sea route” [Grace, ¶ 0022, 0024, 0036, and 0042-0045 (The position maintenance data may be generated from a comparison of current aquatic effort data to prior aquatic effort data and indicate a position to maintain that has been successful in the past under the current conditions. In such situations, a watercraft may be automatically navigated to a new anchor point)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grace into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to perform known fishing destination functions such as drop anchor, position keeping, tours and automated motion control as taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grace into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that control a watercraft when it gets to and tours a destination automatically or more easily [Grace, ¶ 0022]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 19: While Akuzawa discloses “A server comprising: a reception section to receive a fishing-related watercraft operating function executed in a watercraft and execution information including a site of execution of the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“an estimation section to estimate a recommended fishing site or sea route based on the fishing-related watercraft operating function and the execution information” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and a transmission section to transmit the recommended fishing site or sea route estimated by the estimation section to a communication device of the watercraft” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0068, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state what functions maybe be carried out once a destination is reached.
Grace, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the fishing-related watercraft operating function includes a position maintaining function and a predetermined navigation function” [Grace, ¶ 0017-0018 0022, 0028, and, 0054-0055];
“the position maintaining function maintains the watercraft in a predetermined position” [Grace, ¶ 0017, 0028, and 0054-0055];
“and the predetermined navigation function navigates the watercraft in a predetermined sea route pattern” [Grace, ¶ 0017-0018, 0028,0043, 0051 and 0054-0055];
“and the server is configured or programmed to estimate a sea area in which the position maintaining function has been executed after execution of the predetermined navigation function as the recommended fishing site or a route to the sea area as the recommended sea route” [Grace, ¶ 0022, 0024, 0036, and 0042-0045 (The position maintenance data may be generated from a comparison of current aquatic effort data to prior aquatic effort data and indicate a position to maintain that has been successful in the past under the current conditions. In such situations, a watercraft may be automatically navigated to a new anchor point)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Grace into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to perform known fishing destination functions such as drop anchor, position keeping, tours and automated motion control as taught by Grace with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Grace into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that control a watercraft when it gets to and tours a destination automatically or more easily [Grace, ¶ 0022]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 5 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Akuzawa et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0292215) in view of Grace et al. (United States Patent Publication 2009/0105952) and in further view of Baily (United States Patent Publication 2015/0058323).
With respect to Claim 5: While Akuzawa discloses “The fishing site information providing system according to claim 3, wherein the watercraft further includes a selector operable by the operator to select a location site displayed on the display” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
“and the controller is configured or programmed to control the display to display a sea route toward the location selected by the operator” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state that a server is recommending fishing spots.
Baily, which is also fishing system teaches “the server is configured or programmed to estimate a recommended fishing site” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0037];
“recommended fishing site displayed on the display” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baily into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to also have a server to suggest fishing locations to travel too based on user input and environmental data sets as taught by Baily with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Baily into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that not only guide a user to locations based on vehicle functions and data sets but also suggest specific locations for fishing spots thus saving time [Baily, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 11: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state that a server is recommending fishing spots.
Baily, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the server is configured or programmed to transmit the recommended fishing site to the communication device by setting the recommended fishing site as a higher recommendation grade than one or more others of a plurality of recommended fishing sites including the recommended fishing site” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baily into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to also have a server to suggest fishing locations to travel too based on user input and environmental data sets as taught by Baily with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Baily into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that not only guide a user to locations based on vehicle functions and data sets but also suggest specific locations for fishing spots thus saving time [Baily, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 12: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state that a server is recommending fishing spots.
Baily, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the server is configured or programmed to transmit the recommended fishing site to the communication device by setting the recommended fishing site as a higher recommendation grade than one or more others of a plurality of recommended fishing sites including the recommended fishing site when the recommended fishing site is estimated based on execution of a specific one of a plurality of fishing-related watercraft operating functions including the fishing-related watercraft operating function and the execution information regarding the specific fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baily into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to also have a server to suggest fishing locations to travel too based on user input and environmental data sets as taught by Baily with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Baily into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that not only guide a user to locations based on vehicle functions and data sets but also suggest specific locations for fishing spots thus saving time [Baily, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 13: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state that a server is recommending fishing spots.
Baily, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the execution information includes an air temperature, water temperature, or a weather condition obtained as environmental information during execution of the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052];
“and the server is configured or programmed to transmit the recommended fishing site to the communication device by setting the recommended fishing site as a higher recommendation grade than one or more others of a plurality of recommended fishing sites including the recommended fishing site when the environmental information obtained in the recommended fishing site is the closest to present environmental information” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baily into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to also have a server to suggest fishing locations to travel too based on user input and environmental data sets as taught by Baily with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Baily into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that not only guide a user to locations based on vehicle functions and data sets but also suggest specific locations for fishing spots thus saving time [Baily, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 14: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state that a server is recommending fishing spots.
Baily, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the execution information includes a time obtained during execution of the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052];
“and the server is configured or programmed to transmit the recommended fishing site to the communication device by setting the recommended fishing site as a higher recommendation grade than one or more others of a plurality of recommended fishing sites including the recommended fishing site when the recommended fishing site is estimated based on a recently executed one of a plurality of fishing-related watercraft operating functions including the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baily into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to also have a server to suggest fishing locations to travel too based on user input and environmental data sets as taught by Baily with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Baily into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that not only guide a user to locations based on vehicle functions and data sets but also suggest specific locations for fishing spots thus saving time [Baily, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 15: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state that a server is recommending fishing spots.
Baily, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to control the display to display the recommended fishing site having a higher recommendation grade than the one or more others of the plurality of recommended fishing sites with a higher priority than the one or more others of the plurality of recommended fishing sites” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baily into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to also have a server to suggest fishing locations to travel too based on user input and environmental data sets as taught by Baily with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Baily into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that not only guide a user to locations based on vehicle functions and data sets but also suggest specific locations for fishing spots thus saving time [Baily, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 16: While Akuzawa discloses “the controller is configured or programmed to execute the fishing-related watercraft operating function” [Akuzawa, ¶ 0056, 0063, 0070-0071 and 0079 with Figure 1];
Akuzawa does not specifically state that a server is recommending fishing spots.
Baily, which is also autonomous fishing system teaches “wherein the watercraft further includes a fishing result information input operable by the operator to input fishing result information; and the server is configured or programmed to estimate the recommended fishing site based on the fishing-related watercraft operating function, the execution information, and the fishing result information” [Baily, ¶ 0028-0030, 0036-0039, and 0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Baily into the invention of Akuzawa to not only include using a location based on vehicle functions and from a server to with user input to control a vehicle to a specific location as Akuzawa discloses but to also have a server to suggest fishing locations to travel too based on user input and environmental data sets as taught by Baily with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Baily into Akuzawa to create a more robust system that not only guide a user to locations based on vehicle functions and data sets but also suggest specific locations for fishing spots thus saving time [Baily, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as fishing vessel guidance to distinct locations and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c