Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 7-22-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/344,434 (reference application) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0277442 to Ballou. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-26 of the ‘434 application are substantially similar to claims 20-39 of the present application in that claims 1-2 and 15 of the ‘434 application detail a controller with data collection to provide guidance (claim 1), a lift (claim 2) and display (claim 15). Claims 1-25 of the ‘434 application do not disclose a vessel in a body of water. Ballou does disclose a vessel – at 102,104, in a body of water – see figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of claims 1-2 and 15 of the ‘434 application and add the system being used with a vessel in a body of water as disclosed by Ballou, so as to yield the predictable result of using the system with any desired device to move the system as desired. Claim 21 of the present application is disclosed by claim 13 of the ‘434 application. Further, claims 1-26 of the ‘434 application as modified by Ballou, further discloses a data collection system – at 206-215 and 308-310, in operative communication with the satellite positioning and navigation system – at 204,316, for receiving the navigation data – see paragraphs [0025]-[0026], the at least one camera – see detailed in paragraph [0026], is configured to record image data of a specific location based on the navigation data received from the satellite positioning and navigation system – see figure 1 and paragraphs [0025]-[0026], wherein the data collection system is configured to associate the recorded image data with the navigation data – see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] where image data can be used in combination with the navigation data to change the navigated course, the data collection system configured to transmit the recorded image data with the associated navigation data – see at 308-310 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028], the controller – at 202, configured to receive, compile, and analyze the recorded image data with the associated navigation data from data collection system to determine an optimized location in the body of water – see at 206-215 and 308-310 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028], and the controller – at 202, is and configured to display, on the display – at 215, an image of the determined optimized location in the body of water – see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0040]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of claims 1-26 of the ‘434 application as modified by Ballou and add image device and associated data collection system in communication with the navigation data/system as disclosed by Ballou, so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately ensuring the vehicle moves to the desired location during use.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 31 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of copending Application No. 18/344,434 (reference application) in view of Ballou. Claim 31 of the present application is disclosed by claims 1-2, 13 and 15 of the ‘434 application as discussed earlier with respect to claims 20-21.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
Claims 20-39 are 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.
Claims 20 and 31 are 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. Regarding each of claims 20 and 31, applicant has invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed satellite positioning and navigation system and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure (paragraph [0034] of the specification), the satellite positioning and navigation system is detailed as a GPS system or other navigation system, and the phrase “other navigation system” makes it unclear to whether other types of navigation systems other than GPS systems are being contemplated by the claims. When reading the claims in light of applicant’s originally filed disclosure the term “satellite” in the claims does not appear to be a structure intended to be part of the claimed invention in that the satellite positioning and navigation system as claimed appears to structure of the claimed invention that communicates with the satellite and therefore the term “satellite” in the claims does provide a structural claim limitation that would result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) not being invoked.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 20, 22-26 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballou in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,307,832 to Cameron and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,839,704 to Appleman.
Referring to claim 20, Ballou discloses a system for guiding a vessel, the system comprising, a vessel – at 102,104, in a body of water – see figure 1, a data collection system – at 206-215 and 308-310, a controller – at 200,202, operatively connected to the data collection system – see paragraphs [0025]-[0026], and configured to receive, compile, and analyze the signal from the data collection system – see paragraphs [0024]-[0028], and a display – at 215, operatively connected to the controller – see figure 2, and configured to display the recorded data of the data collection system – see figure 2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028], wherein the recorded data displayed on the display is configured to provide guidance to at least one operator aboard the vessel for directing the vessel to an optimized location in the body of water – see figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and is capable of using the data for fishing given the data collected as detailed in paragraphs [0025]-0028]. Ballou does not disclose the data collection system having at least one camera having an adjustable telephoto lens configured to transmit a signal of recorded images and a lift attached to the vessel, the lift is adjustable in height and rotation, the lift providing a multiaxial pivoting mobile mount for the at least one camera with the controller displaying recorded images from the camera to guide the vessel for fishing and the at least one camera in combination with the lift is configured to provide 360 degree image data of a surface of the body of water adjacent the vessel when the vessel is floating in the body of water. Cameron does disclose the data collection system having at least one camera having an adjustable lens – see at 70 in figure 5 and see column 3 lines 1-7, configured to transmit a signal of recorded images – see figure 5, and a lift – at 40-64, attached to the vessel – see figures 1-5, the lift is adjustable in height – see via 54-60 in figures 1-5, and rotation – see via 34-43, with the controller displaying recorded images from the camera to guide the vessel for fishing – see at 10,70 in figure 5 and column 3 lines 1-7 where the camera is usable with a GPS and this combination would provide for guiding a vessel. Cameron further discloses a multiaxial pivoting mobile mount – at 34-62, for the camera – at 70,72, the at least one camera in combination with the lift is configured to provide 360 degree image data of a surface of the body of water adjacent the vessel when the vessel is floating in the body of water – see figures 3-4 and column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 7 where the camera – at 70 can pivot about a first lateral axis of the lift via items 34-43 and can also pivot about a longitudinal axis of the lift via items 60,62. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou and add the camera and lift of Cameron, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be used in many different conditions and to detect different conditions during use. Appleman does disclose an adjustable camera and lift combination – see at 5, and where the camera has a telephoto lens – see column 2 line 33 to column 3 line 36. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and add the camera having a telephoto lens as disclosed by Appleman, so as to yield the predictable result of providing more accurate images of items of a greater distance from the vessel as desired. Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the data collection system – at 206-215 and 308-310 of Ballou, is in operative communication with a satellite positioning and navigation system – at 204,316, the navigation system configured to allow an imaging device – camera detailed in paragraph [0026] of Ballou, to record image data of a specific location based on navigation data from the satellite positioning and navigation system – at 204,316 – see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] where the satellite positioning and navigation system directs the vessel to locations based on image data, the data collection system – at 206-215 and 308-310 of Ballou, is configured to transmit the recorded image data from the imaging device/camera – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou, with transmission to the display – at 215, and the display at 215, configured to display an image of the specific location using the image data received from the controller – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0040] of Ballou. Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses a satellite positioning and navigation system – at 204,316 of Ballou, is configured to provide navigation data related to a location at and adjacent to the vessel – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou. Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the at least one camera – see at 70 and column 3 lines 1-7 of Cameron, is attached to the lift – at 40-64 – see figure 5 of Cameron, so that the camera – at 70, is elevated above the vessel to enable the camera to record the body of water adjacent to the vessel – see figure 5 and column 3 lines 1-7 of Cameron. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman and add the lift elevating the camera above the vessel as disclosed by Cameron, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing images to be taken and used further from the vessel so as to allow for better view proximate the vessel as desired. Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the data collection system – at 206-215 and 308-310, in operative communication with the satellite positioning and navigation system – at 204,316, for receiving the navigation data – see paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of Ballou, the at least one camera – see detailed in paragraph [0026] of Ballou, is configured to record image data of a specific location based on the navigation data received from the navigation system – see figure 1 and paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of Ballou, wherein the data collection system is configured to associate the recorded image data with the navigation data – see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou where image data can be used in combination with the navigation data to change the navigated course, the data collection system configured to transmit the recorded image data with the associated navigation data – see at 308-310 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou, the controller – at 200,202, configured to receive, compile, and analyze the recorded image data with the associated navigation data from data collection system to determine an optimized location in the body of water – see at 206-215 and 308-310 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou, and the controller – at 200,202, is and configured to display, on the display – at 215, an image of the determined optimized location in the body of water – see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0040] of Ballou. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed satellite positioning and navigation system, Ballou discloses the navigation system is a GPS system – for example paragraphs [0022] and [0025] of Ballou which is consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 22, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the recorded image from the at least one camera includes an image for at least one of navigation, identification of fish, and identification of obstacles in the body of water or combinations thereof – see navigation and capable of identification of obstacles as seen in figure 5 and column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 7 of Cameron and – see paragraphs [0027]-[0028] of Ballou.
Referring to claim 23, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the data collection system having at least one additional data source/sensor – see sensors detailed in paragraph [0026] of Ballou, that is different than a camera – see the other data sources – see paragraph [0026] of Ballou, wherein the at least one additional data source is positioned elsewhere on the vessel – see 2-3 of Ballou, and wherein the data collection system/sensor is configured to transmit a signal comprised of data from the at least one additional data source to the controller – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou.
Referring to claim 24, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the at least one additional data source/sensor is part of a system that is at least one of a satellite, navigation system, global positioning system (GPS), sonar, fish finder, camera, laser scanner, ultraviolet scanner, infrared scanner, radar, temperature sensor, barometric pressure sensor, and water depth sensor – at GPB, sonar, radar, barometric sensor and temperature sensor in paragraph [0026] of Ballou.
Referring to claim 25, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the data received from the at least one additional data source/sensor located at the vessel is used to determine at least one of positioning, air temperature, water temperature, barometric pressure, fish location, structure location, debris location, water depth, water color, water current, tides, birds, and fish activity or combinations thereof – see water temperature, barometric pressure and debris location detailed in paragraphs [0026]-[0028] of Ballou.
Referring to claim 26, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the lift – at 10, is mounted to the vessel – see figure 5 of Cameron, and telescopically adjustable to raise and lower the at least one camera on a vertical axis above the vessel – see at 60,62 in figures 3-4 of Cameron, see camera detailed in column 3 lines 6-7 of Cameron, and rotationally adjustable to turn the at least one camera 360 degrees around the vertical axis – see connection of 60,62 detailed in figures 3-4 and column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 2 of Cameron. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman and add the telescopic and rotatable lift as disclosed by Cameron, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for images to be taken at any location around the device as desired.
Referring to claim 28, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the data collection system includes a sensor positioned on the lift – see at 70 in figure 5 and column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 7 of Cameron, wherein the data collection system is configured to transmit a signal comprised of data from the at least one additional data source to the controller – see figure 5 of Cameron and see at 200,202 of Ballou and – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou, wherein the at least one additional data source is at least one of a satellite, navigation system, global positioning system (GPS), sonar, fish finder, camera, laser scanner, ultraviolet scanner, infrared scanner, radar, temperature sensor, barometric pressure sensor, water depth sensor or combinations thereof – see GPS and depth finder in column 3 lines 1-7 of Cameron and – see GPS, sonar, radar, temperature sensor and barometric sensor as detailed in paragraph [0026] of Ballou. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman and add the telescopic and rotatable lift with additional data source as disclosed by Cameron, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for data to be taken at any location around the device as desired.
Referring to claim 29, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman further discloses the controller and display comprise a single mobile device having a screen – see at 10,70 in figure 5 of Cameron, but does not disclose the mobile device is comprising at least one of a laptop computer, tablet computer, or smartphone having a touchscreen. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman and add any suitable control and display device including the claimed laptop, tablet or smartphone, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to move the controller to any desired location during use.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0154521 to Townsend et al.
Referring to claims 21, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman does not disclose the at least one camera is multiple cameras mounted to the multiaxial pivoting mount of the lift. Townsend et al. does disclose the at least one camera is multiple cameras – at 32, mounted to the vessel, wherein the multiple cameras – at 32, are configured to provide continuous 360-degree image data of the surface of the body of water adjacent the vessel – see figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0019] thru [0025]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman and add the multiple cameras as disclosed by Townsend et al., so as to yield the predictable result of providing multiple views simultaneously to the user as desired.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,137,008 to Mallano.
Referring to claim 27, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman does not disclose the controller is configured to automatically adjust the position of the lift. Mallano does disclose the position of the lift is configured to be adjusted automatically by the controller – see at 20-34 in figures 5-6 and column 7 line 37 to column 8 line 31 of Mallano. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman and add the controller to automatically adjust the position of the lift as disclosed by Mallano, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the user to control the device from various locations at a distance from the device as desired.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of JP Patent No. 2007-053448 to Sudo.
Referring to claim 30, Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman does not disclose the at least one camera has at least one of an ultraviolet lens, an automated lens cleaning system comprising at least one of spray and a wiper, filters for adjusting features visible in the recorded images, and night vision. Sudo does disclose the at least one camera has an automated lens cleaning system comprising at least one of spray – at 131, and a wiper – at 190 – see figures 9-10. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Appleman and add the camera lens cleaning system having a spray and wiper as disclosed by Sudo, so as to yield the predictable result of providing better quality images by ensuring the camera is sufficiently cleaned.
Claim(s) 31-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballou in view of Cameron, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,137,008 to Mallano, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0015771 to Breed et al.
Referring to claim 31, Ballou discloses a system for guiding a vessel, the system comprising, a vessel – at 102,104, in a body of water – see figure 1, a data collection system – at 208-215 and 308-310, configured to transmit recorded data – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028], a controller – at 200,202,206, operatively connected to the data collection system – see figures 2-3, and configured to receive, compile, and analyze the transmitted recorded data from the data collection system – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028], and the data collection system operatively connected to a satellite positioning and navigation system – at 204,316 – see figures 2-3, of the vessel – at 102,104, and is configured to provide guidance to the vessel – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028]. Ballou does not disclose the data collection system having at least one camera having an adjustable telephoto lens configured to transmit a signal of recorded images and a lift attached to the vessel, the lift is adjustable in height and rotation, the lift providing a multiaxial pivoting mobile mount for the at least one camera with the controller displaying recorded images from the camera to guide the vessel for fishing and the at least one camera in combination with the lift is configured to provide 360 degree image data of a surface of the body of water adjacent the vessel when the vessel is floating in the body of water. Cameron does disclose the data collection system having at least one camera having an adjustable lens – see at 70 in figure 5 and see column 3 lines 1-7, configured to transmit a signal of recorded images – see figure 5, and a lift – at 40-64, attached to the vessel – see figures 1-5, the lift is adjustable in height – see via 54-60 in figures 1-5, and rotation – see via 34-43, with the controller displaying recorded images from the camera to guide the vessel for fishing – see at 10,70 in figure 5 and column 3 lines 1-7 where the camera is usable with a GPS and this combination would provide for guiding a vessel. Cameron further discloses a multiaxial pivoting mobile mount – at 34-62, for the camera – at 70,72, the at least one camera in combination with the lift is configured to provide 360 degree image data of a surface of the body of water adjacent the vessel when the vessel is floating in the body of water – see figures 3-4 and column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 7 where the camera – at 70 can pivot about a first lateral axis of the lift via items 34-43 and can also pivot about a longitudinal axis of the lift via items 60,62. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou and add the camera and lift of Cameron, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be used in many different conditions and to detect different conditions during use. Ballou as modified by Cameron does not disclose multiaxial pivoting mount positioned atop the lift, wherein the at least one camera is attached to the multiaxial pivoting mount such that the angle of the at least one camera can be adjusted with respect to an axis through a center of the lift. Mallano does disclose multiaxial pivoting mount – at 73-85, positioned atop the lift – at 60-62 – see figures 1-4c, wherein the at least one camera – at 70, is attached to the multiaxial pivoting mount – at 73-85, such that the angle of the at least one camera – at 70, can be adjusted with respect to an axis through a center of the lift – central vertical axis of 60-62 – see figures 1-4c and column 6 line 23 to column 7 line 36. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and add the pivoting mount of Mallano, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the camera to be adjusted to view any position with respect to the lift as desired during use. Ballou as modified by Cameron and Mallano further discloses an infrared detector attached to the mount – see at and see at 34,70 in figures 4-5 and column 7 lines 37-61 of Mallano, but does not disclose a laser scanner. Breed et al. does disclose a data collection system having a laser scanner that can be used with infrared detectors – see paragraphs [0130]-[0131], [0144]-[0156], and [0262] for a boat – see claim 29. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron and Mallano and add the laser scanner of Breed et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more effectively determining and locating objects near the device during use. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed satellite positioning and navigation system, Ballou discloses the satellite positioning and navigation system is a GPS system – for example paragraphs [0022] and [0025] of Ballou which is consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Referring to claim 32, Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. does not disclose multiple laser scanners and infrared detectors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano, and Breed et al. and add any suitable number of laser scanners and infrared detectors including the claimed multiple laser scanners and infrared detectors, so as to yield the predictable result of more effectively determining and locating objects near the device during use.
Referring to claim 33, Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. further discloses the laser scanner and infrared detector include data indicative of at least one of navigation, identification of fish, and identification of obstacles in the body of water or combinations thereof – see figures 4-5 and column 7 lines 37-61 of Mallano and see paragraphs [0130]-[0131], [0144]-[0156], and [0262] of Breed et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano, Breed et al. and add the laser scanner as detailed by Breed et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more effectively determining and locating objects near the device during use.
Referring to claim 34, Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. further discloses the data collection system having at least one additional data source/sensor – see sensors detailed in paragraph [0026] of Ballou, that is different than the laser scanner and infrared detector – see paragraph [0026] of Ballou, wherein the at least one additional data source is positioned elsewhere on the vessel – see figures 2-3 of Ballou, and wherein the data collection system/sensor is configured to transmit a signal comprised of data from the at least one additional data source to the controller – see figures 2-3 and paragraph [0026] of Ballou.
Referring to claim 35, Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. further discloses the at least one additional data source/sensor is part of a system that is at least one of a satellite, navigation system, global positioning system (GPS), sonar, fish finder, camera, ultraviolet scanner, radar, temperature sensor, barometric pressure sensor, and water depth sensor or combinations thereof – see GPS, sonar, radar, temperature sensor and barometric sensor in paragraph [0026] of Ballou.
Referring to claim 36, Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. further discloses the data received from the at least one additional data source/sensor located at the vessel is used to determine at least one of positioning, air temperature, water temperature, barometric pressure, fish location, structure location, debris location, water depth, water color, water current, tides, birds, and fish activity or combinations thereof – see water temperature, barometric pressure and debris location detailed in paragraphs [0026]-[0028] of Ballou.
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Appleman.
Referring to claims 37 and 38, Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. further discloses a display – at 215, operatively connected to the controller – see figures 2-3 of Ballou, and configured to display the recorded images from at least one camera of the data collection system – see figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0040] of Ballou, and a multiaxial pivoting mobile mount – at 34-62, for the camera – at 70,72, the at least one camera in combination with the lift is configured to provide 360 degree image data of a surface of the body of water adjacent the vessel when the vessel is floating in the body of water – see figures 3-4 and column 2 line 66 to column 3 line 7 of Cameron, where the camera – at 70 can pivot about a first lateral axis of the lift via items 34-43 and can also pivot about a longitudinal axis of the lift via items 60,62, and further discloses the multiaxial pivoting mount – at 73-85, positioned atop the lift – at 60-62 – see figures 1-4c of Mallano, wherein the at least one camera – at 70, is attached to the multiaxial pivoting mount – at 73-85, such that the angle of the at least one camera – at 70, can be adjusted with respect to an axis through a center of the lift – central vertical axis of 60-62 – see figures 1-4c and column 6 line 23 to column 7 line 36 of Mallano, but does not disclose the camera has a telephoto lens. Appleman does disclose an adjustable camera and lift combination – see at 5, and where the camera has a telephoto lens – see column 2 line 33 to column 3 line 36. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano and Breed et al. and add the camera having a telephoto lens as disclosed by Appleman, so as to yield the predictable result of providing more accurate images of items of a greater distance from the vessel as desired.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano, Breed et al. and Appleman as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of JP Patent No. 2007-053448 to Sudo.
Referring to claim 39, Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano, Breed et al. and Appleman does not disclose the at least one camera has at least one of an ultraviolet lens, an automated lens cleaning system comprising at least one of spray and a wiper, filters for adjusting features visible in the recorded images, and night vision. Sudo does disclose the at least one camera has an automated lens cleaning system comprising at least one of spray – at 131, and a wiper – at 190 – see figures 9-10. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Ballou as modified by Cameron, Mallano, Breed et al. and Appleman and add the camera lens cleaning system having a spray and wiper as disclosed by Sudo, so as to yield the predictable result of providing better quality images by ensuring the camera is sufficiently cleaned.
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejections of claims 20-21 and 31, it is note that applicant will address these rejections when no other rejections remain.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 20 and 31, applicant’s claim amendments dated 7-22-26 does not overcome these rejections in that when reading the claims in light of applicant’s originally filed disclosure the term “satellite” in the claims does not appear to be a structure intended to be part of the claimed invention in that the satellite positioning and navigation system as claimed appears to structure of the claimed invention that communicates with the satellite and therefore the term “satellite” in the claims does provide a structural claim limitation that would result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) not being invoked.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 20, the Ballou reference US 2015/0277442 discloses a controller – at 200,202, operatively connected to the data collection system – see paragraphs [0025]-[0026], and configured to receive, compile, and analyze the signal from the data collection system – see paragraphs [0024]-[0028], and a display – at 215, operatively connected to the controller – see figure 2, and configured to display the recorded data of the data collection system – see figure 2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028], wherein the recorded data displayed on the display is configured to provide guidance to at least one operator aboard the vessel for directing the vessel to an optimized location in the body of water – see figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and is capable of using the data for fishing given the data collected as detailed in paragraphs [0025]-0028], the data collection system – at 206-215 and 308-310, in operative communication with the satellite positioning and navigation system – at 204,316, for receiving the navigation data – see paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of Ballou, the at least one camera – see detailed in paragraph [0026] of Ballou, is configured to record image data of a specific location based on the navigation data received from the navigation system – see figure 1 and paragraphs [0025]-[0026] of Ballou, wherein the data collection system is configured to associate the recorded image data with the navigation data – see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou where image data can be used in combination with the navigation data to change the navigated course, the data collection system configured to transmit the recorded image data with the associated navigation data – see at 308-310 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou, the controller – at 200,202, configured to receive, compile, and analyze the recorded image data with the associated navigation data from data collection system to determine an optimized location in the body of water – see at 206-215 and 308-310 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] of Ballou, and the controller – at 200,202, is and configured to display, on the display – at 215, an image of the determined optimized location in the body of water – see paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0040] of Ballou. The preamble of claim 20 details a system for guiding a vessel and as detailed earlier in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this office action Ballou discloses a control system to guide a vessel. The optimization of a fishing location in the body of water is detailed in the body of the claim as functional/intended use claim limitations in an apparatus claim and the device of Ballou is capable of performing these functional limitations in that as seen in paragraph [0026] Ballou uses sensor such as an echo sounder, navigation sensor, sonar, current sensor, salinity sensor, water temperature sensor, motion sensor, proximity sensor, barometer and video camera that can provide information/data related to a fishing location and given the electronic controls detailed in figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0025]-[0028] connected to the sensors capable of providing fishing information/data, the device of Ballou is capable of providing an optimized fishing location as claimed. Further, given the earlier discussion about an optimized fishing location, the display of Ballou is at least capable of showing the optimized fishing location in that the display – at 215 of Ballou, displays locations based on the sensed information/data as detailed in paragraphs [0025]-[0028] and [0040], and therefore is capable of performing these functional/intended use claim limitations as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action. Further, the combination of the Ballou reference with the Appleman reference US 5839704 is proper in that this is a substitution of one functional equivalent camera as disclosed in Ballou with another functionally equivalent camera as seen at column 2 line 33 to column 3 line 36 of Appleman, given the rationale/motivation to combine being providing more accurate images of items of a greater distance from the vessel as desired. Given the combination of these references is a substitution of one functionally equivalent camera with another functionally equivalent camera, the “predictable results” phrase in the rationale/motivation statement is proper. Further, applicant argues that the Appleman reference is non-analogous art and as seen at item 5 and column 2 line 33 to column 3 line 36 of Appleman, the device of Appleman is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of providing image data from a camera in that as seen in column 2 line 33 to column 3 line 36 of Appleman, in that control of the camera can be adjusted so that the camera can provide better imaging by the camera during use.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 21-30, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claim 20 discussed earlier.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 31, applicant argues the references fail to teach a laser scanner and infrared detector attached to a mount positioned atop a lift on a vessel. These arguments are not persuasive in that applicant argues the references individually and does not argue the combination of references used to disclose these claimed features. The Ballou reference discloses a vessel using electronic components such as a camera as detailed in paragraph 3 of this office action. The Cameron reference US 9307832 discloses electronic components such as a camera and navigation system on a lift assembly – at 10 as seen in figures 1-5 and the Breed et al. reference US 2008/0015771 discloses a data collection system having a laser scanner that can be used with infrared detectors – see paragraphs [0130]-[0131], [0144]-[0156], and [0262] for a boat – see claims 17 and 29. Therefore adding a lift for supporting the electronics as disclosed by Cameron to the device of Ballou would have been obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action and adding the electronic components being a laser scanner and infrared detectors as disclosed by Breed et al. onto the electronic component support of Cameron would have been obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action. Therefore the combination of these references renders the claim obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action. Further, the rationale/motivation to combine the Cameron reference, the Mallano reference US 8137008 and the Breed et al. reference with the Ballou reference are detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action. Incorporating a lift and adjustable lift as disclosed by Cameron and Mallano would allow for a better imaging of the entire surface of the body of water while incorporating the laser scanner and infrared sensors of Breed et al. would allow for better determination and location of objects near the device during use. It is noted that Breed et al. discloses use on other vehicles including boats and ships as seen in claims 17 and 29. Further, applicant argues that the combination of these references constitutes impermissible hindsight analysis. These arguments are not persuasive in that in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The combination of these references only takes into account knowledge within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made in that lift and adjustable lift knowledge detailed in Cameron and Mallano was within the general knowledge of imaging systems prior to the time the claimed invention was made as seen in the disclosures of Cameron and Mallano and the data collection and analyzing onboard a vehicle as detailed in Breed et al. was within the general knowledge of vehicle data collection systems prior to the time the claimed invention was made, including devices for use on boats as seen in the disclosure of Breed et al. Therefore the combination of these references renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 of this office action.
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights