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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “indicates when the individual one of the plurality of racing sailboats has successfully restarted the race to exonerate itself of the contravention.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claims do not previously disclose ending the race, restarting the race, or a contravention.
Claim 8 recites “the second starting mark position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 10 recites “the starting system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Examiner’s Note: It would seem that in drafting the instant claims in view of the parent Application # 17/178,882, Applicant has perhaps inadvertently excluded previously recited required limitations that would, if present in the instant application, render the claims as definite.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12222204 (Whitmyer hereafter) in view of Silfven (US 2017/0343359 Continuation of application No. 14/866495 filed September 25, 2015).
Whitmeyer recites A sailboat race tracking system comprising: an event organizer computing device accessible via a telecommunication network at least a portion of which is wireless, the event organizer computing device providing starting mark position data of the race; a plurality of sailboat computing devices each mounted on a respective sailboat and authenticated to said event organizer computing device via sailboat identification and via event race registration; said event organizer computing device being configured for setting a time indicative of a race start for the race; said event organizer computing device transmitting the race start time and the starting mark position data to the plurality of sailboat computing devices; one of the sailboat computing devices calculating a position of the starting line of the race and a time until the respective sailboat crosses the starting line; and the one of the sailboat computing devices displaying a time remaining until the race start time and the time until the sailboat crosses the starting line (Claim 1)
Whitmeyer and the present invention differ in that the present invention further requires “said plurality of sailboat computing devices receiving a signal indicative of a position of the respective sailboat”.
Such a limitation is well-known in the art such as in any generic GPS navigation system.
Silvfen discloses a navigation device for sail boats in a race in which starting time and starting location are transmitted to competing boats (para 0112, 0113), and in which each respective boat has its own GPS sensor for ascertaining own position in order to create a navigation route (para 0039).
As such, it would have been obvious to modify the invention such that it comprised the above limitations, as taught by Silfven, in order for the boat to determine optimal course and arrival time for a race start (Silfven para 0004, 0007-0009)
Additional claims are rejected at least for their dependence upon the above rejected independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Silfven (US 2017/0343359 Continuation of application No. 14/866495 filed September 25, 2015).
Claim 1: Silfven discloses A sailboat race management system comprising:
an event organizer computing device accessible via a telecommunication network at least a portion of which is wireless, the event organizer computing device providing starting mark position data of the race (para 0055, 0112, 0113)
a plurality of sailboat computing devices each mounted on a respective sailboat and authenticated to said event organizer computing device via sailboat identification and via event race registration ()fig 1 element 102, para 0028, 0029)
said plurality of sailboat computing devices receiving a signal indicative of a position of the respective sailboat (para 0039).
said event organizer computing device being configured for setting a time indicative of a race start for the race (para 0055, 0112, 0113)
said event organizer computing device transmitting the race start time and the starting mark position data to the plurality of sailboat computing devices (para 0055, 0112, 0113);
at least one of the sailboat computing devices calculating a position of the starting line of the race and a time until the sailboat race starts (para 0114); and
the at least one sailboat computing device displaying a time remaining until the race start time and a distance until the sailboat reaches the starting line (para 0048, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0115-0121)
Claim 2: Silfven discloses said event organizer computing device transmits a starting system comprising signals indicative of a starting sequence of the race (para 0055, 0112, 0113)
Claim 3: Silfven discloses the signals comprise a virtual flag indicative of a stage of the starting sequence (para 0055, 0112, 0113 see “boundary line”)
Claim 4: Silfven discloses said event organizer computing device provides a countdown sequence for time remaining before the race start to the plurality of sailboat computing devices (para 0055)
Claim 5: Silfven discloses the starting mark position data transmitted by said event organizer computing device comprises a starting line, which is determined based on the starting mark position (para 0055, 0112, 0113 see “boundary line”)
Claim 6: Silfven discloses said event organizer computing device transmits a rate metric to each sailboat computing device (para 0055, 0112, 0113), the rate metric being calculated using the position data transmitted by the respective sailboat computing device and indicative of a rate of progress to the starting line (para 0048, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0115-0121)
Claim 7: Silfven discloses said event organizer computing device indicates when the individual one of the plurality of racing sailboats has successfully restarted the race to exonerate itself of the contravention (para 0048, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0103, 0115-0121)
Claim 8: Silfven discloses another event organizer computing device which provides the second starting mark position (para 0055, 0112, 0113),
Claim 9: Silfven discloses said event organizer computing device uses the starting line to calculate a course axis and transmits the course axis to the plurality of sailboat computing devices (para 0055, 0112, 0113)
Claim 10: Silfven discloses a race computer that receives the race start time, the starting system, and the starting mark position data from said event organizer computing device, the race computer being accessible by a spectator computing device for displaying the race start time, the starting system, and/or the starting mark position data (para 0048, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0057, 0103, 0115-0121)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M BYTHROW whose telephone number is (571)270-1468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 830am-5pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PETER M BYTHROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights