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 .
2. Pending claims 1-20 are filed on 7/22/2026 wherein claims 1, 9, 17-20 are amended
Responses
3. The examiner withdraws double-patenting rejections (Office Action 4/24/2026); however, rejections on prior art are maintained because the amended limitations are already suggested by Badic et al (US Pub. 20200229206 A1) Fig. 7 refs. 702 (a user), and 704 (an owner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
4. Claims 1-2, 9-10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (JP2002157485 A) hereinafter “Kitamura”, in view of Badic et al (US Pub. 20200229206 A), in view of Gaitan et al (US Pub 20160292596 A1), and in view of Hasan et al ’s "Smart peer car-pooling system," hereinafter “Hasan”).
A. Per independent claims 1, 9, and 17: Kitamura suggests a structure/system, a computer/server and a method to perform claimed features:
Kitamura teaches “A watercraft share-ride system for inviting a user to share a ride on an owner's watercraft (sec Kitamura para. [0007], and claim 5), comprising:
a computer (sec Kitamura Fig. 1 server 10), and see Hasan Fig. 4, a representation of “Database Server (@MEC “Middle East College”).
an owner terminal to provide first share-ride condition information of an owner to the computer (see Kitamura para. [0001], (0009), [0020]).
Kitamura does not disclose that data/information is about at least one of: equipment information for a share-ride; however, these are certain related data/information – non-functional descriptive material that do not change a limitation of “using certain data/information); Badic et al suggests about remotely exchanging related information about an object: (see Badic et al Fig. 7 refs. 702 (a user), and 704 (an owner).
Badic et al also teach a user terminal to provide second share-ride condition information of the user to the computer/server (see Badic et al Fig. 7 ref. 706); wherein the computer/server is programmed to:acquire share-ride request information corresponding to the vehicle/watercraft information (non-functional descriptive material) when the vehicle/watercraft information is selected by the user terminal see Kitamura Fig. i internet. NET communicates to exchange information: a smart phone on a boat, an owner of the boat, and a user); (i.e., information that a user request is output: see Hasan, section “III. SYSTEM CONCEPTS” lines 10-16).
Applicant adds claimed feature “watercraft information of an owner” Gaitan et al suggest detailed question which is similar expressions “What is your Date of Birth” and “What’s your mobile number (see Gaitan et al FIG. 3G).
Kitamura does not disclose about provide boat/watercraft information of the driver/owner to the user terminal when the first share-ride condition information and the second share-ride condition information match; however, they are considered as obvious non-functional descriptive material/related info; however, Gaitan suggests that idea (e.g., exchanging certain/related information including maintenance information: about what year is the watercraft built, or what is its current condition (outside conditions of shape/engine), see Gaitan et al Figs. 3G, 3H for exchanging related data between parties, a question of vehicle’s capacity “Number of available seats”) to determine a match (see Gaitan para. [0057]-[[0059]; Hasan also suggests this claimed matching feature (see Hasan Fig. 1, driver/owner’s profile and Passenger/user’s profile are matched)
A combination of Kitamura, et al, Gaitan et al and Hasan may not expressly disclose a user’s terminal, and an owner’s terminal; however, Badic et al Fig. 7 ref. 702 (representing an owner), and ref. 704 (representing a user) communicate via a server 714 to exchange related information – Badic et al teaches that a user’s terminal and an owner terminal are different terminals – they can exchange information via remote communications (e.g., exchanging electronic data using terminals, see Badic et al FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kitamura with Gaitan et al, Badic et al and Hasan to match related information for a good selection between an owner and a user to avoid any confliction for a smooth planned trip since this has been expected from an information exchanging process to select a best match.
B. Per dependent claims 2. and 10: The claims are directed to a structure, wherein
the first condition information is an intent of use of the owner (e.g., when) the second condition information is an intent of use of the user (e.g., how many people/a total weight/load, see Gaitan et al FIG. 3H “Number of available seats”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kitamura’s system with Badic et al, Gaitan et al, and Hasan for different specific intent of use because the certain information have been expected for exchanging related data; and further they are not required to be physical components of the claimed structure.
5. Claims 3-4, 7, 11-12, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Badic et al, in view of Hasan, and in view of Gaitan et al.
A, Per dependent claims 3 and 11: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
A combination of Kitamura, Badic et al, and Hasan, fail to disclose information about fuel consumption: however, Gaitan uses this information to calculate expenses for a trip (see Gaitan, para. [0038]).
Gaitan also suggests a fuel information acquirer to acquire fuel consumption information during navigation of the watercraft (e.g., using a familiar fuel gauge of a vehicle) wherein the computer is configured or programmed to calculate a fuel cost during navigation of the watercraft based on the fuel consumption information acquired from the communicator (see Gaitan, para. [0042] “the system will calculate the driver's estimated fuel cost and the number of seats in the driver's vehicle based on the make and model of the driver's vehicle and the distance of the driver's commute to work. In an exemplary embodiment, the customer information received from each customer by rideshare system 100, is processed by processor 180 and stored in a customer database in memory 160 of the rideshare system 100.”}.
Applicant also claims that “the user terminal is a different terminal from the owner terminal”; however, Badic et al Fig. 7 already indicates that a user’s terminal, and an owner terminal are different terminals – they can make remote communications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kitamura, Badic et al, Hasan with Gaitan to practically calculate a fuel cost for a travel expense since this claimed feature has been expected.
B. Per dependent claims 7, and 15: Gaitan also suggests about using a computer to:
- acquired user comment/evaluation information are sent to an owner, and
- acquired owner comment/evaluation information are sent to a user terminal, See Gaitan “One or more driver criteria may be received by the rideshare system 100 and stored in memory 160, Driver criteria may comprise, for example, a minimum age, a driving distance from the commuter address to the destination address, driver rating and/or driver history (i.e. number of tickets, number of accidents, driving experience, years driving,timeliness, comments or feedback from riders on the driver, etc.).”
The examiner respectfully submits that these claimed practices have been widely used/expected to have feedback after a service is done/performed for further improvement or for congratulations.
C. Per dependent claims 4, 12, and 18-19: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated.
It is noted that the claims require about detecting “a fuel amount”/"a fuel cost” from “a fuel infection” (e.g., providing fuel to run an engine} which have been expected for a craft to move a distance (see Gaitan para. [0042]); the uses of these well-known non-functional descriptive information are rejected as in claim 3 rationale because the claims require a similar fuel cost/consumption for a corresponding travel distance (e.g., using a fuel gauge on a watercraft for a maintenance task/(fuel calculations). Therefore, the same rationales and references set forth to reject claim 3/11 are also applied.
6. Claims 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Badic et al, in view of Hasan, in view of Gaitan, and in view of Notteco (JP 5895079 B1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated.
Kitamura, Badic et al, Hasan, and Gaitan do not expressly disclose a watercraft position detector (i.e., using a GPS on a boat) to detect watercraft position information of the watercraft and provide the watercraft position information to the computer (see Kitamura Fig.1 Internet. NET communicates to exchange information to a server 10); wherein the computer is configured or programmed to determine whether or not the watercraft starts navigating based on the watercraft position information; however, Notteco expressly discloses that a specific craft’s positions can be detected by using a GPS (see Notteco FIG. 4 “GPS receiver 207° and to calculate the fuel cost when the watercraft starts navigating — a reset to accurately calculate the fuel cost when a vehicle starts navigating is very obvious (see Gaitan para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kitamura, Badic et al, Hasan, and Gaitan with Notteco to have current location information of that watercraft detected from a GPS as Notteco’s Fig, 4 and to estimate a travel distance of a trip because this familiar information has been an expectation while planning a trip.
7. Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, in view of Badic et al, in view of Hasan, and in view of Roberts (US 20060149438 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Badic et al, does not expressly disclose: a terminal to provide maintenance information indicating an end of maintenance of the watercraft to the computer (i.e., using an input interface to input data to a computer/smartphone: a keypad); wherein the computer is configured or programmed to determine whether or not the first share-ride condition information and the second share-ride condition information match when the computer acquires the maintenance for external condition or new/old vessel information (a comparison of user now and a past user for a maintenance purpose – e.g., need to fill up a gas tank, or need to have an oil change: these information have been normally expected to make sure there is no extra effort is required from a customer); however, Roberts suggests above claimed features (see Roberts, para. [0012]-[0013], [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to implement Kitamura, Badic et al, and Hasan with Roberts to compare past users‘information for maintenance history/purpose according to a duration of time while using that vehicle avoid any mechanical breakdown since these related information have been expected for share-ride transactions.
8. Claims 8, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura in view of Hasan, and in view of Badic et al, further in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 20200065932 Al} hereafter “Nakanishi”,
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 7 are incorporated.
Applicant claims features:
- information includes user selection condition information indicating a condition when the owner selects the user (this is a “next step” of a procedure (in a flow-chart) has been normally expected after a step of selecting a user/decision for continuing a process, and
- using a computer to provide a watercraft information of the owner to the user when the user evaluation information satisfies/matches the user selection condition information. (see Nakanishi para. [0080]).
The examiner respectfully submits that these claimed limitations are merely certain information selections between two related parties (e.g., non-functional descriptive material); then further related information have been provided after a certain initial requirement (e.g., a destination for a fishing trip) are met – this claimed concept is already suggested by Gaitan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kitamura, Badic et al, Hasan, and Gaitan with Nakanishi for a motivation of filtering out users which are not fit for a match in order to narrow down a selection process – this claimed concept has been well-known.
Conclusion
9. Pending claims 1-20 are still rejected. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. 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 the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights