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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant has argued that amendments made to independent claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 10. These arguments are persuasive, specifically as the addition of the limitation, “an onboard system including a plurality of watercraft devices on a watercraft…the plurality of watercraft devices include a propulsion device including an engine as a power source”. This limitation amounts to an additional element that is sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas of the claim into a practical application thus causing the subject matter of the claim to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The applicant has argued that Inoue (US 2021/0312538) does not “remotely teach or suggest transmitting information including a reverse rotation count, or that any advantages or benefits would or could have been obtained thereby” and therefore Inoue does not disclose or render obvious the amended claim limitations. This argument is not persuasive. “Reverse rotation count” is not clearly defined in the specification of the instant application and can reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, “reverse rotation count” can refer to a count of the number of times an engine was placed into a reverse mode or to the amount of revolutions in the reverse direction that the engine made in total, among other reasonable interpretations. As no definitive interpretation is asserted in the specifications, interpretation of this limitation must be made with relation to the information about the parameter that is present in the specification. Paragraph [0105] of the specification discloses several tracked parameters including “reverse rotation count” as representing “maintenance time estimation” which leads to the interpretation that “reverse rotation count” is a parameter that is meant to be used to determine an estimate of the maintenance time that will be required for a vehicle and therefore, as no clear interpretation of the specific parameter is provided, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any parameter that lends itself to the same prediction of future maintenance time could be reasonably used in place of “reverse rotation count”. Inoue, in Paragraph [0269] teaches estimating maintenance fee based on tracked engine load such as engine rotation speed (representative of a predictive maintenance parameter). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that maintenance fee is directly related to maintenance time (see also Paragraph [0268]) and would therefore also find it obvious that Inoue at least suggests the broadest reasonable interpretation of the newly amended limitations. Accordingly, the rejection previously rendered under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is being replaced with a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (US 2021/0312538) in view of Morris (US 2012/0200407).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Morris in view of Nye (US 2005/0267736).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Morris. These references are analogous as both relate to reporting of vehicle status (see Paragraph [0074] of Morris and Paragraphs [0002]-[0004]).
As per Claim 1:
Inoue discloses all of the following limitations:
“A watercraft information collecting system comprising: an onboard system including a plurality of watercraft devices on a watercraft, an onboard network on the watercraft and connected to the plurality of watercraft devices, and a communication terminal communicable with the plurality of watercraft devices via the onboard network”
Inoue Figure 2 discloses these features.
“and a server outside the watercraft and communicable with the communication terminal”
Inoue Figure 2 discloses an outside server communicably connected to communication terminals.
“wherein the communication terminal is configured or programmed to perform an information collection process to collect information about the plurality of watercraft devices, a use termination detection process to detect a termination of use of the onboard system, and an information transmission process to transmit the information collected by the information collection process to the server,.”
Inoue Paragraphs [0072]-[0074] discloses a detection of the termination of the function of navigation which coincides with the cessation of at least the engine of the watercraft.
“the server is configured or programmed to register the information transmitted from the communication terminal in a storage”
Inoue Paragraph [0130] discloses a storage for a cloud server in which device information is stored.
“the information transmission process includes …a termination transmission process to transmit the termination transmission information collected by the information collection process to the server in response to the detection of the termination of the use of the onboard system by the use termination detection process.”
Inoue Paragraph [0074] discloses relaying information after the deactivation of navigation devices.
“the plurality of watercraft devices include a propulsion device including an engine as a power source; and the termination transmission information includes a reverse rotation count”
Inoue Paragraph [0031] teach an engine and a detection parameter for maintenance prediction.
Inoue does not suggest the following limitations that Morris suggests:
“…the use termination detection process including to monitor an information periodically appearing on the onboard network and determine the use of the onboard system is terminated when the information no longer periodically appears on the onboard network…the communication terminal is configured or programmed to determine that the onboard system is started when a message is outputted from any of the plurality of the watercraft devices to the onboard network, and, upon determination that the onboard systemis started, to perform the information collection process; the communication terminal is configured or programmed to classify the information collected by the information collection process into periodic transmission information and termination transmission information…a periodic transmission process to transmit the periodic transmission information to the server at a predetermined periodic transmission interval during the use of the onboard system…”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Inoue with the periodic reporting information suggested Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective providing regular reporting.
With regards to Claim 10, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“A watercraft comprising: a hull; and the onboard system for use in the watercraft information collecting system according to claim 1.”
Inoue [Abstract] discloses a watercraft which contains a hull.
As per Claim 14: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 3, Inoue in view of Morris discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“and the termination transmission information includes one or more of a maximum engine speed, an over-revolution count, an overheat count, a lower oil pressure count, a knocking control count, a rapid acceleration count, a reverse rotation count, an engine speed range-based operation period, a shift count, a start count, or a fuel tank volume.”
Inoue Paragraph [0074] discloses fuel consumption metrics which is an analogous measurement to fuel tank volume as the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes a measurement of the relative volumes of the fuel and the tank itself.
With regards to Claim 4, Inoue in view of Morris discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the plurality of watercraft devices include a steering device including a steering actuator; and the termination transmission information includes one or more of a load range-based steering actuator driving period or a total steering operation angle.”
Inoue Paragraphs [0072]-[0074] suggests sending information at the ending of navigation, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that end of navigation could be representative of any number of arbitrary controls being monitored including steering actuators.
With regards to Claim 5, Inoue in view of Morris discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“and the periodic transmission information includes one or more of an engine speed, a coolant pressure, a total engine operation period, a fuel consumption rate, a trouble code, a residual battery capacity, a watercraft speed, an ignition timing, a fuel injection period, a fuel pressure, or an engine temperature.”
Morris Paragraph [0070] suggests engine operation information being included in periodic monitoring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Inoue with the periodic reporting information suggested Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective providing regular reporting.
With regards to Claim 6, Inoue in view of Morris discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the termination transmission information includes information usable to estimate a maintenance time of any of the plurality of watercraft devices in the onboard system.”
Inoue Paragraphs [0268]-[0269] suggests estimating the maintenance information based on usage data, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that estimating the maintenance fee associated with a maintenance activity is analogous to estimating the maintenance time of a maintenance activity as the time associated with known maintenance activities is also a known element in the art.
With regards to Claim 7, Inoue in view of Morris discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the server is configured or programmed to perform a notification process to notify the maintenance time based on the termination transmission information.”
Inoue Paragraph [0269] discloses the server estimating maintenance information.
With regards to Claim 17, Inoue in view of Morris suggests all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further teach the following limitations:
“wherein the termination transmission information further includes one or more of a maximum engine speed, an over-revolution count, an overheat count, a lower oil pressure count, a knocking control count, a rapid acceleration count an engine speed range-based operation period, a shift count, a start count, or a fuel tank volume”
Inoue Paragraph [0071] teaches fuel consumption information.
With regards to Claim 18, Inoue in view of Morris suggests all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further teach the following limitations:
“wherein the periodic transmission information includes one or more of an engine speed, a coolant pressure, a total engine operation period, a fuel consumption rate, a trouble code, a residual battery capacity, a watercraft speed, an ignition timing, a fuel injection period, a fuel pressure, or an engine temperature”
Inoue Paragraph [0071] teaches fuel consumption information.
With regards to Claim 19, Inoue in view of Morris suggests all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further teach the following limitations:
“wherein the plurality of watercraft devices include a steering device including a steering actuator; and the termination transmission information further includes one or more of a load range-based steering actuator driving period or a total steering operation angle”
Inoue Figure 3B teaches navigation of a watercraft, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that such a watercraft would have a steering device capable of navigating said watercraft.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Morris in view of Nye. These references are analogous as they are both related providing information to a user (see Paragraph [0001] of Nye).
With regards to Claim 8, Inoue discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Nye does disclose:
“further comprising a communication terminal power supply to maintain a power supply to the communication terminal at least until the termination transmission process ends after the termination of the use of the onboard system.”
Nye Paragraph [0025] discloses an uninterruptable power supply for the purpose of maintaining power during a transmission event.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Inoue with the uninterruptible power supply suggested by Nye. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more redundant by providing an uninterruptible power supply to ensure uninterrupted messaging.
Relevant References
Choi (US 7,293,236)
Hooper (US 2024/0027193)
Inoue (US 2022/0414757)
Dobashi (US 2021/0021463)
Chen (US 2015/0378029)
Okuyama (US 2003/0061076)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
