DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 05 February 2026. Claims 1-19 and 26 are examined and pending. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-12, 17, and 19 are currently amended, claims 20-25 are cancelled, and claim 26 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
As detailed herein, Applicant submits that Claims 1, 12, and 19, along with their dependent claims, satisfy patent eligibility under Step 2A Prong Two by integrating wave dynamics into practical marine safety applications addressing specific technical problems in navigation systems, and alternatively under Step 2B through inventive ordered combinations that create comprehensive navigation safety enhancements unavailable in conventional static-chart systems.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - The Claims Integrate any Alleged Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Firstly, Applicant submits that Claims 1, 12, and 19, along with their dependent claims, are directed to practical applications under Step 2A Prong Two by integrating wave dynamics-a specific physical phenomenon-into marine navigation safety solutions. These claims address the concrete technical problem that traditional navigation systems provide only static charted depths without accounting for dynamic wave-induced depth variations, creating dangerous conditions where watercraft encounter unexpected shallow depths at wave troughs. See e.g., Paragraphs [0002]-[0009] and [0051]-[0055] of the published application. This parallels to USPTO Example 47 (Anomaly Detection), where the claims addressed the concrete technical problem that traditional anomaly detection methods "perform poorly in separating audio from sources belonging to the same class" and provided a specific solution with particular steps.
The amended independent claims' requirement to determine minimum depth "based on a trough value of a wave" and maximum depth "based on a peak value of a wave" at "a current time" reflects integration of wave physics into navigation systems. This approach parallels Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981), where applying the Arrhenius equation to control rubber curing was eligible because the claims applied a physical relationship (temperature-reaction correlation) to solve a concrete problem. Similarly, USPTO Example 47 found Claim 3 eligible because it integrated abstract mathematical concepts (clustering algorithms and mathematical calculations) into a practical application - "improving network security" through specific technical steps including "detecting a source address,""dropping malicious network packets," and "blocking future traffic." Here, claims 1, 12, and 19 apply wave dynamics (trough- peak variations) to solve a concrete navigation safety problem. Like Diamond v. Diehr, the natural phenomenon is not claimed in isolation but integrated into a practical process addressing real-world needs. Further, like USPTO Example 47's eligible Claim 3, the present claims recite specific computer-executable instructions that integrate mathematical calculations (wave trough/peak analysis) that improve on practical marine safety applications.
The dependent claims further integrate the judicial exception into practical applications. Claims 2 and 13 add data retrieval modules accessing external sources, providing specific technical implementations for gathering the wave-related data. Claims 3 and 14 integrate route planning functionality using the wave-adjusted depth values for safe navigation optimization. Claims 4 and 15 add route analysis comparing minimum depth sets to route depth requirements. Claims 5 and 16 incorporate monitoring and alerting functionality when wave-adjusted depths fall below safety thresholds. Claim 26 adds dynamic monitoring of onboard sensors and dynamic updating of the values accordingly. These dependent limitations further demonstrate practical applications by showing how wave-dynamics integration enables enhanced marine safety features.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice Mayo test and are therefore directed to eligible subject matter under § 101.
Step 2B - The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept that Amounts to Significantly More than an Abstract Idea
Only if a claim fails both prongs of the revised Step 2A inquiry is Step 2B considered. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04 ("The claim as a whole is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES) and thus requires further analysis at Step 2B to determine if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself."). Regarding Step 2B, Section 2106.05(a) notes that "examiners should consider whether the claim 'purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself or 'any other technology or technical field."' M.P.E.P. §2106.05(a) (citing Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct. at 2359). "This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem." Id.
Here, Applicant submits that the ordered combination in Claims 1, 12, and 19, along with their dependent claims, provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. The integration of (1) current depth measurement; (2) wave trough analysis for minimum depth; (3) wave peak analysis for maximum depth; and (4) simultaneous multi-value presentation creates navigation tools addressing wave-induced hazards that static systems cannot address. The specification confirms this as noted above.
Applicant further respectfully directs the Examiner's attention to the Federal Circuit's decision in Cosmokey Solutions GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, in which a finding of ineligibility under Section 101 was reversed by the Federal Circuit. 15 F.4th 1091, 1097-98 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In that case, and in support of holding that the claims were directed to eligible subject matter under Step 2B of the Alice Mayo test, the Federal Circuit noted that the specification "describes how the particular arrangement of steps in claim 1 provides a technical improvement" and "emphasizes the inventive nature" of the steps recited in the claims. Id. at 1099. Likewise, as discussed supra, the specification describes how the particular arrangement of steps recited in the claims provides a technical improvement to navigation in a marine environment - accounting for trough and peak values. Thus, like the patents at issue in Cosmokey, the claims clearly provide a technical improvement to a technical field (e.g., a technical improvement to the field of marine navigation for watercraft).
Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims are eligible under Step 2B of the Alice Mayo test and are therefore directed to eligible subject matter under § 101.
Based on the foregoing analysis, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner
reconsider and withdraw the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and allow Claims 1-19 and 26 as being directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receive a user input indicating a location of the body of water; cause, on the display, presentation of the current water depth value, the minimum water depth value, and the maximum water depth value, at least one processor, a display, and a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor, the memory comprising executable instructions. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (location data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The causing presentation step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of at least one processor, a display, and a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor, the memory comprising executable instructions is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and causing presentation steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 1, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determine, based on the current water depth value and current wave conditions, a minimum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: historical data and community-sourced data, environmental data, geographical data, or sensor data, wherein the minimum water depth value is a minimum water depth at the location that could occur over a period of time based on a trough value of a wave at the location; determine, based on the current water depth value and the current wave conditions, a maximum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: the historical data and community-sourced data, the environmental data, the geographical data, or the sensor data, wherein the maximum water depth value is a maximum water depth at the location that could occur over the period of time based on a peak value of a wave at the location. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as location of body of water, depth data of water at different location of the body of water, historical data, environmental data, geographical data, and sensor data could determine, based on the current water depth value and current wave conditions, a minimum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: historical data and community-sourced data, environmental data, geographical data, or sensor data, wherein the minimum water depth value is a minimum water depth at the location that could occur over a period of time based on a trough value of a wave at the location; determine, based on the current water depth value and the current wave conditions, a maximum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: the historical data and community-sourced data, the environmental data, the geographical data, or the sensor data, wherein the maximum water depth value is a maximum water depth at the location that could occur over the period of time based on a peak value of a wave at the location. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receive a user input indicating a location of the body of water; cause, on the display, presentation of the current water depth value, the minimum water depth value, and the maximum water depth value, at least one processor, a display, and a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor, the memory comprising executable instructions. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (location data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The causing presentation step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of at least one processor, a display, and a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor, the memory comprising executable instructions is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and causing presentation steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 26 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabel et al (US 20120290200 A1) in view of Yin Jianchuan (CN104794267A).
Note: see machine translation for CN104794267A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Kabel discloses a system for determining a minimum water depth at a location on a body of water (see at least [abstract] and [0014]), the system comprising: at least one processor (see at least [0066]); a display (see at least [0065-006]); and a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor (see at least [0066]), the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the processor to: receive user input indicating a location on the body of water (see at least [0087], “An operator of the device 10 then selects and inputs a desired destination into the device in a conventional manner as depicted in step 404.”) ; determine a water depth value associated with the location (see at least [0014], [0096], and [0113-0115]); determine a minimum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: historical data and community- sourced data, environmental data, geographical data, or sensor data (see at least [0014], [0096], and [0113-0115], “…the water depth representations may be based on a minimum safe water depth for a marine vessel. For example, if the minimum safe depth for a vessel is 10 ft., all water that is deeper than 10 ft. may be shown in the first color (blue) and all water shallower than 10 ft. may be shown in the second color (red). In other embodiments, multiple colors, or color blends, may be used to designate different water depth ranges.”); and cause, on the display, presentation of the minimum water depth value (see at least [0014], [0096], and [0113-0115]).
Kabel do not specifically disclose determine, based on the current water depth value and current wave conditions, a minimum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: historical data and community-sourced data, environmental data, geographical data, or sensor data; wherein the minimum water depth value is a minimum water depth at the location that could occur over a period of time based on a trough value of a wave at the location; determine, based on the current water depth value and the current wave conditions, a maximum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: the historical data and community-sourced data, the environmental data, the geographical data, or the sensor data, wherein the maximum water depth value is a maximum water depth at the location that could occur over the period of time based on a peak value of a wave at the location: and cause, on the display, presentation of the current water depth value, the minimum water depth value, and the maximum water depth value.
Yin teaches determine, based on the current water depth value and current wave conditions, a minimum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: historical data and community-sourced data, environmental data, geographical data, or sensor data (see at least [pages 1-5]); wherein the minimum water depth value is a minimum water depth at the location that could occur over a period of time based on a trough value of a wave at the location (see at least [pages 1-5]); determine, based on the current water depth value and the current wave conditions, a maximum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: the historical data and community-sourced data, the environmental data, the geographical data, or the sensor data (see at least [pages 1-5]), wherein the maximum water depth value is a maximum water depth at the location that could occur over the period of time based on a peak value of a wave at the location (see at least [pages 1-5]): and cause, on the display, presentation of the current water depth value, the minimum water depth value, and the maximum water depth value (see at least [pages 1-5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kabel, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yin to determine, based on the current water depth value and current wave conditions, a minimum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: historical data and community-sourced data, environmental data, geographical data, or sensor data; wherein the minimum water depth value is a minimum water depth at the location that could occur over a period of time based on a trough value of a wave at the location; determine, based on the current water depth value and the current wave conditions, a maximum water depth value for the location based at least in part on one or more of: the historical data and community-sourced data, the environmental data, the geographical data, or the sensor data, wherein the maximum water depth value is a maximum water depth at the location that could occur over the period of time based on a peak value of a wave at the location: and cause, on the display, presentation of the current water depth value, the minimum water depth value, and the maximum water depth value. This would be done to increase user’s convenience by proving them with information about the body of water including depths, routes, while navigating a marine in various conditions (i.e., tidal conditions) (see Yin page 1).
With respect to claim 2, Kabel discloses wherein the data retrieval module is configured to access external data sources to gather at least one of: the historical data and community-sourced data, the environmental data, the geographical data, or the sensor data (see at least [0094-0098] and [0132]).
With respect to claim 3, Kabel discloses wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: receive user input specifying a starting location and a destination location (see at least [0087]); determine a minimum route depth (see at least [0008], [0094], [0096-0097], and [0101]); determine a potential route that is optimized for safe navigation based on the minimum water depth value between the starting location and the destination location (see at least [0008], [0094], [0096-0097], and [0101); cause presentation of the potential route (see at least [0009], [0083], and [0099]).
With respect to claim 4, Kabel discloses wherein determining the potential route comprises: accessing data associated with the potential route from one or more external data sources (see at least [0008], [0086], and [0094], “…determining a route between an origination point and a destination based on cartographic data and vessel data. The cartographic data may be water depth data and/or coordinate data of obstructions on or near the route…”, “…the cartographic data may be obtained from the databases 42 or from sources external to the device 10…”); analyzing the accessed data to determine a set of minimum water depth values corresponding to the potential route (see at least [0008], and [0096],“…the processing system may select a route by considering the minimum safe water depth of the vessel and water depth information between the origination point and the destination and then picking a route which has adequate water depth along all points along the route.”); comparing the set of minimum water depth values to the minimum route depth (see at least [0008], and [0096],“…the processing system may select a route by considering the minimum safe water depth of the vessel and water depth information between the origination point and the destination and then picking a route which has adequate water depth along all points along the route.”); and selecting the potential route based on the comparison indicating that the set of minimum water depth values meets the minimum route depth (see at least [0008], and [0096],“…the processing system may select a route by considering the minimum safe water depth of the vessel and water depth information between the origination point and the destination and then picking a route which has adequate water depth along all points along the route.”).
With respect to claim 6, Kabel discloses wherein causing presentation of the minimum water depth value on the display comprises rendering a graphical representation of the body of water with the location indicated and presenting the minimum water depth value in association with the location (see at least [0014], [0096], and [0113-0115]).
With respect to claim 8, Kabel discloses wherein the minimum water depth value and the maximum water depth value are determined based at least on the historical data and community-sourced data (see at least [0014], [0096], [0113-0115], and [0135]); wherein the historical data and community-sourced data comprises aggregated water depth data derived from a plurality of measurements recorded at a location over time (see at least [0014], [0096], [0113-0115], and [0135]).
With respect to claim 9, Kabel discloses wherein the minimum water depth value and the maximum water depth value are determined based at least on the environmental data (see at least [0112]); wherein the environmental data comprises data representing one or more environmental factors that influence water depth at the location (see at least [0112]).
With respect to claim 10, Kabel discloses wherein the minimum water depth value and the maximum water depth value are determined based at least on the geographical data (see at least [0109-0110] and [0132-0133]); wherein the geographical data comprises data representing physical characteristics of the body of water and surrounding areas (see at least [0109-0110] and [0132-0133]).
With respect to claim 11, Kabel discloses wherein the minimum water depth value and the maximum water depth value are determined based at least on the sensor data (see at least [0018], and [0115]); wherein the sensor data comprises a plurality of depth related measurements obtained from one or more sensors (see at least [0018], and [0115]).
With respect to claims 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17, they are drawn to an electronic device claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. As such, claims 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, they are drawn to method claims that recite 19 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claims 1 and 2 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 26, Kabel do not specifically disclose wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: continuously monitor the sensor data, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of an accelerometer or gyroscope measuring pitch, heave, and roll of the watercraft or sonar transducers measuring water depth beneath the watercraft; dynamically determine the minimum water depth value based and the maximum water depth value based on the monitored sensor data; and dynamically adjust the presentation of the minimum water depth value and the maximum water depth value on the display.
Yin teaches wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: continuously monitor the sensor data, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of an accelerometer or gyroscope measuring pitch, heave, and roll of the watercraft or sonar transducers measuring water depth beneath the watercraft (see at least [pages 1-5]); dynamically determine the minimum water depth value based and the maximum water depth value based on the monitored sensor data (see at least [pages 1-5]); and dynamically adjust the presentation of the minimum water depth value and the maximum water depth value on the display (see at least [pages 1-5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kabel, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Yin wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: continuously monitor the sensor data, wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of an accelerometer or gyroscope measuring pitch, heave, and roll of the watercraft or sonar transducers measuring water depth beneath the watercraft; dynamically determine the minimum water depth value based and the maximum water depth value based on the monitored sensor data; and dynamically adjust the presentation of the minimum water depth value and the maximum water depth value on the display. This would be done to increase user’s convenience by proving them with information about the body of water including depths, routes, while navigating a marine in various conditions (i.e., tidal conditions) (see Yin page 1).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabel et al (US 20120290200 A1) in view of Clark et al (US 20200049507 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Kabel discloses wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: monitor the minimum water depth value at locations along the potential route over time (see at least [0008], and [0096],“…the processing system may select a route by considering the minimum safe water depth of the vessel and water depth information between the origination point and the destination and then picking a route which has adequate water depth along all points along the route.”).
However, Kabel do not specifically disclose generating an alert when the minimum water depth value falls below the minimum route depth; and cause, on the display, presentation of the alert.
Clark teaches generating an alert when the minimum water depth value falls below the minimum route depth (see at least [0007], [0045], and [0070]); and cause, on the display, presentation of the alert (see at least [0007], [0045], and [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kabel, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Clark of generating an alert when the minimum water depth value falls below the minimum route depth; and cause, on the display, presentation of the alert. This would be done to increase user’s convenience by proving them with information about the body of water including depths, routes, etc.
With respect to claim 16, it is drawn to an electronic device claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claim 5. As such, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claim 5 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabel et al (US 20120290200 A1) in view of Seifert et al (US 20170192092 A1 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Kabel do not specifically disclose wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: continuously monitor for updates to the minimum water depth value for the location; and adjust the presentation of the minimum water depth value on the display as updated values are received.
Seifert teaches wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: continuously monitor for updates to the minimum water depth value for the location (see at least [0049-0056] and [0062-0064]); and adjust the presentation of the minimum water depth value on the display as updated values are received (see at least [0049-0056] and [0062-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kabel, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Seifert wherein the computer executable instructions further cause the processor to: continuously monitor for updates to the minimum water depth value for the location; and adjust the presentation of the minimum water depth value on the display as updated values are received. This would be done to provide users/boaters with safe representation of the bodies of water so that they traverse safely (see Seifert para 0002).
With respect to claim 18, it is drawn to an electronic device claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective system claim 7. As such, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective system claim 7 and is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667