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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/19/2026 is acknowledged, however from search and further consideration the Groups II and III seems to be obvious from each other therefore the restriction will be withdrawn and all the claims presented will be examined.
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 (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 16 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2023/0054594 A1 to Kato et. al. (Kato) in view of Pub No. US 2005/0192746 A1 to King et.al. (King).
In Reference to Claim 1
Kato teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A vessel operator warning support system comprising:
a marine vessel (2) including an engine (18), a controller (400), and a communicator (10); and
an information terminal (3) configured or programmed to communicate with the communicator (10) of the marine vessel (2) and to define and function as a warning application to issue a predetermined warning based on location information of the marine vessel (2) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs [0106], [0107] and [0110] “As shown in FIG. 2, the small watercraft system 1 of an exemplary embodiment includes, in addition to the small watercraft 2, the outboard device 3 capable of communicating with the watercraft body communication device 10 of the small watercraft 2. The outboard device 3 of an exemplary embodiment is configured independently of the small watercraft 2, and manipulatable by the operator who is absent from the watercraft body 100” and “For example, the outboard device 3 includes a small housing. The outboard device 3 is configured as a mobile terminal portable by the operator and is placed at a location such that the operator can manipulate the outboard device 3. As shown in FIG. 2, the outboard device 3 includes, for example, a manipulation section 300, a notification section 301, a transmitting/receiving section 302, a location information acquisition section 303, and a processing section 304” and “The processing section 304 is embodied, for example, by a processing circuit and executes a stored processing program to control the notification section 301 and the transmitting/receiving section 302 based on information provided from the manipulation section 300, the transmitting/receiving section 302, and the location information acquisition section 303. Specifically, the processing section 304 generates commands to be provided to the small watercraft 2 and transmits the commands to the watercraft body communication device 10 of the small watercraft 2 through the transmitting/receiving section 302. The commands are transmitted to the control device 400 through the watercraft body communication device 10. The commands transmitted to the watercraft body communication device 10 by the processing section 304 include a mode switching command to perform switching from the watercraft body manipulation mode to the operator-absent manipulation mode and a halting command to halt the operator-absent manipulation mode”);
wherein the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit, via the communicator (10) to the information terminal (3), a start signal to start the warning application when the engine (18) is started (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraph [0115] “Upon determining in step S22 that the watercraft body 100 is not away from the reference location by a distance equal to or greater than the predetermined distance (step S22: No), the control device 400 proceeds to step S25. Upon determining in step S22 that the watercraft body 100 is away from the reference location by a distance equal to or greater than the predetermined distance (step S22: Yes), the control device proceeds to step S23. In step S23, the control device 400 transmits a moving-away signal to the outboard device 3 through the watercraft body communication device 10. The moving-away signal is a signal indicating that the watercraft body 100 has moved away from the reference location by a distance equal to or greater than the predetermined distance. The outboard device 3 transmits to the control device 400 a response signal indicating the reception of the moving-away signal. Upon receiving the response signal from the outboard device 3, the control device 400 proceeds to step S24. If the control device 400 does not receive the response signal from the outboard device 3, the control device 400 repeats step S23 and repeatedly transmits the moving-away signal for a predetermined period of time”).
Kato teaches that the information terminal (3) communicate with the communicator (10) regarding a warning or safety issues regarding the location of the vessel (2) however Kato is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit, via the communicator (10) to the information terminal (3), a start signal to start the warning application when the engine (18) is started. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit to the information terminal, a start signal to start the warning application when the engine is started. For example, King teaches that the controller (36) is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit to the information terminal (38), a start signal to start the warning application when the engine is started. King further teaches that performing such step provides no need for operator input to activate the system according to the invention such that the warning application is always operating (see at least King Figs.2-4 and paragraphs 24, 28-30, 36 and 38). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Kato to include the step of the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit, via the communicator to the information terminal, a start signal to start the warning application when the engine is started as taught by King in order to provides no need for operator input to activate the system according to the invention such that the warning application is always operating.
In Reference to Claim 4
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the information terminal (3) is configured or programmed to start the warning application when the start signal has been received and a current location of the information terminal (3) is over water (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least King Figs.2-4 and paragraphs 24, 28-30, 36 and 38).
In Reference to Claim 16
Kato teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A vessel operator warning support method comprising:
determining with a controller (400) of a marine vessel (2) including an engine (18), the controller (400), and a communicator (10), whether or not the engine (18) has been started (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs [0106], [0107] and [0127] “As shown in FIG. 2, the small watercraft system 1 of an exemplary embodiment includes, in addition to the small watercraft 2, the outboard device 3 capable of communicating with the watercraft body communication device 10 of the small watercraft 2. The outboard device 3 of an exemplary embodiment is configured independently of the small watercraft 2, and manipulatable by the operator who is absent from the watercraft body 100” and “For example, the outboard device 3 includes a small housing. The outboard device 3 is configured as a mobile terminal portable by the operator and is placed at a location such that the operator can manipulate the outboard device 3. As shown in FIG. 2, the outboard device 3 includes, for example, a manipulation section 300, a notification section 301, a transmitting/receiving section 302, a location information acquisition section 303, and a processing section 304” and “The small watercraft system 1 further includes the starter relay 67 as a connection device connecting the drive source 18 to the control device 400. If the drive source 18 is an internal combustion engine and the internal combustion engine is at rest at the beginning of execution of the operator-absent manipulation mode by the control device 400, the control device 400 controls the starter relay 67 to start the internal combustion engine. Thus, for example, in the event that the internal combustion engine has been at rest during drifting away of the watercraft body 100, the control device 400 can operate to start the internal combustion engine and enable the watercraft body 100 to be moved in the operator-absent manipulation mode”); and
performing with the controller (400) of the marine vessel (2) a control to transmit, via the communicator (10) of the marine vessel (2) to an information terminal (3) configured or programmed to communicate with the communicator (10) and to define and function as a warning application to issue a predetermined warning based on location information of the marine vessel (2), a start signal to start the warning application when the controller (400) determines that the engine (18) has been started (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraph [0110] and [0115] “The processing section 304 is embodied, for example, by a processing circuit and executes a stored processing program to control the notification section 301 and the transmitting/receiving section 302 based on information provided from the manipulation section 300, the transmitting/receiving section 302, and the location information acquisition section 303. Specifically, the processing section 304 generates commands to be provided to the small watercraft 2 and transmits the commands to the watercraft body communication device 10 of the small watercraft 2 through the transmitting/receiving section 302. The commands are transmitted to the control device 400 through the watercraft body communication device 10. The commands transmitted to the watercraft body communication device 10 by the processing section 304 include a mode switching command to perform switching from the watercraft body manipulation mode to the operator-absent manipulation mode and a halting command to halt the operator-absent manipulation mode” and “Upon determining in step S22 that the watercraft body 100 is not away from the reference location by a distance equal to or greater than the predetermined distance (step S22: No), the control device 400 proceeds to step S25. Upon determining in step S22 that the watercraft body 100 is away from the reference location by a distance equal to or greater than the predetermined distance (step S22: Yes), the control device proceeds to step S23. In step S23, the control device 400 transmits a moving-away signal to the outboard device 3 through the watercraft body communication device 10. The moving-away signal is a signal indicating that the watercraft body 100 has moved away from the reference location by a distance equal to or greater than the predetermined distance. The outboard device 3 transmits to the control device 400 a response signal indicating the reception of the moving-away signal. Upon receiving the response signal from the outboard device 3, the control device 400 proceeds to step S24. If the control device 400 does not receive the response signal from the outboard device 3, the control device 400 repeats step S23 and repeatedly transmits the moving-away signal for a predetermined period of time”).
Kato teaches that the information terminal (3) communicate with the communicator (10) regarding a warning or safety issues regarding the location of the vessel (2) however Kato is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to performing with the controller (400) of the marine vessel (2) a control to transmit, via the communicator (10) of the marine vessel (2) to an information terminal (3) configured or programmed to communicate with the communicator (10) and to define and function as a warning application to issue a predetermined warning based on location information of the marine vessel (2), a start signal to start the warning application when the controller (400) determines that the engine (18) has been started. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit to the information terminal, a start signal to start the warning application when the engine is started. For example, King teaches that the controller (36) is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit to the information terminal (38), a start signal to start the warning application when the engine is started. King further teaches that performing such step provides no need for operator input to activate the system according to the invention such that the warning application is always operating (see at least King Figs.2-4 and paragraphs 24, 28-30, 36 and 38). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Kato to include the step of the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit, via the communicator to the information terminal, a start signal to start the warning application when the engine is started as taught by King in order to provides no need for operator input to activate the system according to the invention such that the warning application is always operating.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of King and further in view of Pub No. US 2020/0026293 A1 to Hashizume et. al. (Hashizume).
In Reference to Claim 2
Kato in view of King teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the warning application is operable to warn a vessel operator of the marine vessel (2) that the marine vessel (2) has exceeded a speed limit in a speed restricted area in which a speed of the marine vessel (2) is restricted, and/or that the marine vessel (2) has entered an entry prohibited area in which entry of the marine vessel (2) is prohibited (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116).
Kato in view of King do not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the warning application is operable to warn a vessel operator of the marine vessel (2) that the marine vessel (2) has exceeded a speed limit in a speed restricted area in which a speed of the marine vessel (2) is restricted, and/or that the marine vessel (2) has entered an entry prohibited area in which entry of the marine vessel (2) is prohibited.
However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the warning application is operable to warn a vessel operator of the marine vessel that the marine vessel has exceeded a speed limit in a speed restricted area in which a speed of the marine vessel is restricted, and/or that the marine vessel has entered an entry prohibited area in which entry of the marine vessel is prohibited. For example, Hashizume teaches to have the warning application is operable to warn a vessel operator of the marine vessel (100) that the marine vessel (100) has exceeded a speed limit in a speed restricted area (330) in which a speed of the marine vessel (100) is restricted, and/or that the marine vessel (100) has entered an entry prohibited area (333) in which entry of the marine vessel (100) is prohibited. Hashizume further teaches that performing such steps provides safe sailing of the vessel (see at least Hashizume Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 94-110, 119, 121-122). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kato in view of King to have the warning application is operable to warn a vessel operator of the marine vessel that the marine vessel has exceeded a speed limit in a speed restricted area in which a speed of the marine vessel is restricted, and/or that the marine vessel has entered an entry prohibited area in which entry of the marine vessel is prohibited as taught by Hashizume in order to provide safe sailing of the vessel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of King and further in view of Pub No. US 2012/0282828 A1 to Inoue et. al. (Inoue).
In Reference to Claim 3
Kato in view of King teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to determine whether or not the engine (18) has been started based on a rotation speed of the engine (18) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least King Figs.2-4 and paragraphs 24, 28-30, 36 and 38).
Kato in view of King teaches that the engine is started by the starter relay (67) or ignition is started however Kato in view of King is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the determine the engine has been started based on a rotation speed of the engine. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the engine has been started based on a rotation speed of the engine. For example, Inoue teaches to determine the engine has been started based on a rotation speed of the engine and by engine starting signal (see at least Inoue Figs. 1 and 7 and paragraph 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that system of Kato in view of King can determine the engine has started based on the engine speed as evidence by Inoue.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of King and further in view of Pub No. US 2016/0119961 A1 to Hrabak et. al. (Hrabak).
In Reference to Claim 8
Kato in view of King teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to transmit the start signal to the information terminal (3) via the communicator (10) using short-range wireless technology when the engine (18) is started (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least King Figs.2-4 and paragraphs 24, 28-30, 36 and 38).
Kato in view of King teaches that the information terminal (3) is a mobile device which communicate with the vehicle however is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to using short-range wireless technology. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the mobile device communicates with the vehicle uses short-range wireless technology. For example, Hrabak teaches that the mobile device (50b) communicates with the vehicle (10) uses short-range wireless technology (see at least Hrabak Fig.1 and paragraphs 9, 12, 19 and 21). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the mobile device such as of Kato in view of King can have short-range wireless technology to communicate with the vehicle as evidence by Hrabak.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of King and further in view of Pub No. US 2011/0301825 A1 to Grajkowski et. al. (Grajkowski).
In Reference to Claim 9
Kato in view of King teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine (18) or a speed of the marine vessel (20) when the warning application has not been started on the information terminal (3) (before the engine starts) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116).
Kato in view of King is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine (18) or a speed of the marine vessel (20) when the warning application has not been started on the information terminal (3) (before the engine starts). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine or a speed of the marine vessel when the warning application has not been started (before the engine starts). For example, Grajkowski teaches to have a controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine or a speed of the marine vessel when the engine starts has not been started. Grajkowski further teaches that performing such function improves the security function and protect the vehicle from being damaged (see at least Grajkowski Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 7-8, 36, 56-59, 74, 85 and 100). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Kato in view of King to be configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine or a speed of the marine vessel when the warning application has not been started (which is before the engine starts) as taught by Grajkowski in order to improve the security function and protect the vehicle from being damaged.
In Reference to Claim 10
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit a rotation speed of the engine (18) to limit the output of the engine (18) when the warning application has not been started on the information terminal (3) (which is before the engine starts) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least Grajkowski Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 7-8, 36, 56-59, 74, 85 and 100).
In Reference to Claim 11
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 9 (see rejection to claim 9 above), wherein the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit a maximum output of the engine (18) to at least about 40% and not more than about 70% of a maximum output of the engine (18) on which a limitation is not imposed when the warning application has not been started on the information terminal (Grajkowski teaches that “For example, ECM 12 may limit the maximum degree of opening of throttle valve 34 to about 50% open”) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least Grajkowski Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 94).
In Reference to Claim 17
Kato in view of King teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vessel operator warning support method according to claim 16 (see rejection to claim 16 above), further comprising: determining whether or not the warning application has been started (engine started) on the information terminal (3); and performing with the controller a control to limit an output of the engine (18) or a speed of the marine vessel (2) when the warning application has not been started (before the engine is on) on the information terminal (3) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116).
Kato in view of King is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the controller (400) is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine (18) or a speed of the marine vessel (20) when the warning application has not been started on the information terminal (3) (before the engine starts). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine or a speed of the marine vessel when the warning application has not been started (before the engine starts). For example, Grajkowski teaches to have a controller is configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine or a speed of the marine vessel when the engine starts has not been started. Grajkowski further teaches that performing such function improves the security function and protect the vehicle from being damaged (see at least Grajkowski Figs. 1-8 and paragraphs 7-8, 36, 56-59, 74, 85 and 100). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Kato in view of King to be configured or programmed to perform a control to limit an output of the engine or a speed of the marine vessel when the warning application has not been started (which is before the engine starts) as taught by Grajkowski in order to improve the security function and protect the vehicle from being damaged.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of King and further in view of Pub No. US 2009/0284482 A1 to Chin (Chin).
In Reference to Claim 12
Kato in view of King teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the information terminal (3) includes a touch panel, and is configured or programmed to lock or unlock a screen transition on the touch panel when the touch panel receives a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116).
Kato in view of King teaches that the information terminal (3) is a mobile device that has a screen and to input device from the user however does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the information terminal (3) includes a touch panel, and is configured or programmed to lock or unlock a screen transition on the touch panel when the touch panel receives a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mobile device a touch panel, and is configured or programmed to lock or unlock a screen transition on the touch panel when the touch panel receives a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel. For example, Chin teaches that the mobile device (100) have a touch screen (108) (see at least Chin Fig.1 and paragraphs 29-30). The substitution of one known element (mobile device as shown in Chin) for another (mobile device as shown in Kato in view of King) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the mobile device shown in Chin would have yielded predictable results, namely, outputting and inputting directions from the system of Kato in view of King and reduce multiple parts to a single part. Further Kato in view of King further in view of Chin do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the information terminal is configured or programmed to lock or unlock a screen transition on the touch panel (108) when the touch panel (108) receives a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (108). However Chin does teach to store the gestures for unlocking and locking the screen (108) which can be multiple gestures and Chin further teaches that gestures can be clockwise and counterclockwise circles as shown Fig. 4 (see at least Chin Figs. 1-4 and 7 and paragraphs 13, 29, 31, 34, 41). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Chin to try the known options such as requiring both clockwise and counterclockwise circles to be saved as gestures for locking and unlocking of the touch screen of Kato in view of King further in view of Chin since Chin teaches both gestures.
In Reference to Claim 13
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 12 (see rejection to claim 12 above), wherein the information terminal (3) is configured or programmed to lock or unlock the screen transition on the touch panel (Chin #108) when the touch panel (Chin #108) receives the first operation and the second operation of drawing the figure of a different size from the figure of the first operation in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (Chin #108) (since there are only two choices such that the circles being the same size or different size therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the circles gestures would be the different sizes since there are only limited choices to choose from) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least Chin Figs. 1-4 and 7 and paragraphs 13, 29, 31, 34, 41).
In Reference to Claim 14
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 12 (see rejection to claim 12 above), wherein the information terminal (3) is configured or programmed to lock or unlock the screen transition on the touch panel (Chin #108) when the touch panel (Chin #108) receives the first operation of drawing a circle and the second operation of drawing a circle in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (Chin #108) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least Chin Figs. 1-4 and 7 and paragraphs 13, 29, 31, 34, 41).
In Reference to Claim 15
The vessel operator warning support system according to claim 12 (see rejection to claim 12 above), wherein the information terminal (3) is configured or programmed to lock or unlock the screen transition on the touch panel (Chin #108) when the touch panel receives, in succession, the first operation and the second operation performed adjacent to each other so as to draw a figure eight while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (Chin #108) (since there are only four choices such that the circles being within each other, parts are connected to each other, only one parts are connected to each other, or two are separate from each other therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the circles gestures be drawn as figure eight since there are only limited choices to choose from) (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116) (see at least Chin Figs. 1-4 and 7 and paragraphs 13, 29, 31, 34, 41).
In Reference to Claim 18
Kato in view of King teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The vessel operator warning support method according to claim 16 (see rejection to claim 16 above), further comprising: determining whether or not a touch panel of the information terminal (3) has received a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel; and locking or unlocking a screen transition on the touch panel when the touch panel has received the first operation and the second operation in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (see at least Kato Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 106-116).
Kato in view of King teaches that the information terminal (3) is a mobile device that has a screen and to input device from the user however does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the information terminal (3) includes a touch panel, and performs the step of determining whether or not a touch panel of the information terminal (3) has received a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel; and locking or unlocking a screen transition on the touch panel when the touch panel has received the first operation and the second operation in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a mobile device a touch panel, and performs the step of determining whether or not a touch panel of the information terminal has received a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel; and locking or unlocking a screen transition on the touch panel when the touch panel has received the first operation and the second operation in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel.
For example, Chin teaches that the mobile device (100) have a touch screen (108) (see at least Chin Fig.1 and paragraphs 29-30). The substitution of one known element (mobile device as shown in Chin) for another (mobile device as shown in Kato in view of King) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the mobile device shown in Chin would have yielded predictable results, namely, outputting and inputting directions from the system of Kato in view of King and reduce multiple parts to a single part. Further Kato in view of King further in view of Chin do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) performs the step of determining whether or not a touch panel (108) of the information terminal has received a first operation of drawing a figure clockwise and a second operation of drawing a figure counterclockwise in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (108); and locking or unlocking a screen transition on the touch panel when the touch panel (108) has received the first operation and the second operation in succession while the warning application is displayed on the touch panel (108). However Chin does teach to store the gestures for unlocking and locking the screen (108) which can be multiple gestures and Chin further teaches that gestures can be clockwise and counterclockwise circles as shown Fig. 4 (see at least Chin Figs. 1-4 and 7 and paragraphs 13, 29, 31, 34, 41). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Chin to try the known options such as requiring both clockwise and counterclockwise circles to be saved as gestures for locking and unlocking of the touch screen of Kato in view of King further in view of Chin since Chin teaches both gestures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2013/0102206 A1 to Fujino et. al. (Fujino) teaches to operate in normal mode or limited mode based on the current position of the watercraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights