Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 02/24/2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed applications as ADS filed on 02/24/2025 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
4. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,259,481 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because from the comparison, the patent claims includes many more elements and more specific, and thereby, the patent claims encompass the broader scope of the instant claims. Accordingly, allowing the broader instant claims could cause unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees.
5.1. Patent Claim 1 renders the instant claim limitations obvious or anticipates the instant limitations of instant claim 1 as follows:
responsive to determining that GPS location of a vessel is within a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range, initiating monitoring for a mobile signal of a mobile device, the mobile signal emanating from a trajectory path of the vessel (lines 57-62 of col. 22);
responsive to detecting, during the monitoring, the mobile signal, associating the mobile device with the vessel (lines 62-63 of col. 22);
tracking a location of the vessel based on the mobile signal, the tracking resulting in a tracked location (lines 64-65 of col. 22); and
transmitting, to a responder device, the tracked location (lines 3-4 of col. 23).
5.2. The instant claims 8 and 15 are the computer product claim and the system claim reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of the instant claim 1. Accordingly, the instant claims 8 and 15 can be compared to the patent claims 8 and 15 respectively in the same way that the instant claim 1 is compared to the patent claim 1 set forth above.
5.3. The fact that the instant dependent claims are not discussed in details here is due to the following reasons: the patented dependent claims might render the dependent claims obvious; filing terminal disclaimer, TD, would overcome the obviousness type double patenting, ODP, rejection under 35 USC 101; without TD, amendment made to the claims in the future would necessitate determination again if ODP will still exist for the amended claims.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,940,543 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because from the comparison, the patent claims includes many more elements and more specific, and thereby, the patent claims encompass the broader scope of the instant claims. Accordingly, allowing the broader instant claims could cause unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees.
6.1. Patent Claim 1 renders the instant claim limitations obvious or anticipates the instant limitations of instant claim 1 as follows:
responsive to determining that GPS location of a vessel is within a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range, initiating monitoring for a mobile signal of a mobile device, the mobile signal emanating from a trajectory path of the vessel (lines 62-67 of col. 22);
responsive to detecting, during the monitoring, the mobile signal, associating the mobile device with the vessel (lines 1-3 of col. 23);
tracking a location of the vessel based on the mobile signal, the tracking resulting in a tracked location (lines 4-6 of col. 23); and
transmitting, to a responder device, the tracked location (lines 13-14 of col. 23).
6.2. The instant claims 8 and 15 are the computer product claim and the system claim reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of the instant claim 1. Accordingly, the instant claims 8 and 15 can be compared to the patent claims 8 and 15 respectively in the same way that the instant claim 1 is compared to the patent claim 1 set forth above.
6.3. The fact that the instant dependent claims are not discussed in details here is due to the following reasons: the patented dependent claims might render the dependent claims obvious; filing terminal disclaimer, TD, would overcome the obviousness type double patenting, ODP, rejection under 35 USC 101; without TD, amendment made to the claims in the future would necessitate determination again if ODP will still exist for the amended claims.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,675,089 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because from the comparison, the patent claims includes many more elements and more specific, and thereby, the patent claims encompass the broader scope of the instant claims. Accordingly, allowing the broader instant claims could cause unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees.
7.1. Patent claim 1 anticipates the instant limitations of the instant claim 1 or renders the instant limitation of claim 1 as follows:
responsive to determining that GPS location of a vessel is within a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range, initiating monitoring for a mobile signal of a mobile device, the mobile signal emanating from a trajectory path of the vessel (lines 54-67 of col. 22 and lines 1-2 of col. 23);
responsive to detecting, during the monitoring, the mobile signal, associating the mobile device with the vessel (lines 3-5 of col. 23);
tracking a location of the vessel based on the mobile signal, the tracking resulting in a tracked location (lines 6-7 of col. 23); and
transmitting, to a responder device, the tracked location (lines 14-16 of col. 23).
7.2. The instant claims 8 and 15 are the computer product claim and the system claim reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of the instant claim 1. Accordingly, the instant claims 8 and 15 can be compared to the patent claims 7 and 13 respectively in the same way that the instant claim 1 is compared to the patent claim 1 set forth above.
7.3. The fact that the instant dependent claims are not discussed in details here is due to the following reasons: the patented dependent claims might render the dependent claims obvious; filing terminal disclaimer, TD, would overcome the obviousness type double patenting, ODP, rejection under 35 USC 101; without TD, amendment made to the claims in the future would necessitate determination again if ODP will still exist for the amended claims.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,448,773 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because from the comparison, the patent claims includes many more elements and more specific, and thereby, the patent claims encompass the broader scope of the instant claims. Accordingly, allowing the broader instant claims could cause unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and possible harassment by multiple assignees.
8.1. Patent claim 1 anticipates the instant limitations of the instant claim 1 or renders the instant limitation of claim 1 as follows:
responsive to determining that GPS location of a vessel is within a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range, initiating monitoring for a mobile signal of a mobile device, the mobile signal emanating from a trajectory path of the vessel (lines 37-41 of col. 22);
responsive to detecting, during the monitoring, the mobile signal, associating the mobile device with the vessel (lines 41-44 of col. 22);
tracking a location of the vessel based on the mobile signal, the tracking resulting in a tracked location (lines 58-59 of col. 22); and
transmitting, to a responder device, the tracked location (lines 60-63 of col. 22).
8.2. The instant claims 8 and 15 are the computer product claim and the system claim reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations of the instant claim 1. Accordingly, the instant claims 8 and 15 can be compared to the patent claims 7 and 13 respectively in the same way that the instant claim 1 is compared to the patent claim 1 set forth above.
8.3. The fact that the instant dependent claims are not discussed in details here is due to the following reasons: the patented dependent claims might render the dependent claims obvious; filing terminal disclaimer, TD, would overcome the obviousness type double patenting, ODP, rejection under 35 USC 101; without TD, amendment made to the claims in the future would necessitate determination again if ODP will still exist for the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vries et al. Pub. No.: US 2004/0111195 A1 in view of Lacatus et al. Pub. No.: US 2014/0274225 A1 and Denninghoff Pub. No.: US 2020/0196102 A1.
Claim 1
Vries discloses a method (fig. 1-11 depict for marine satellite monitoring) comprising:
responsive to determining that GPS location of a vessel (GPS location in 1010-1015 in fig. 10, see fig. 6A-B) is within a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range (see 1040 in fig. 10 and par. 0055, herein, a threshold distance of a boundary is reasonably interpreted as geofence or radius about a fixed location explained in par. 0043 and see geofence 860 in fig. 8 and par. 0052), initiating monitoring for a mobile signal of a mobile device, the mobile signal emanating from a trajectory path of the vessel (par. 0051 and fig. 9);
responsive to detecting, during the monitoring, the mobile signal, associating the mobile device with the vessel (1015 in fig. 10 for updating signal from the system on boat of fig. 5A-B for location as depicted in fig. 6A-B);
tracking a location of the vessel based on the mobile signal, the tracking resulting in a tracked location (steps 1010-1040 in fig. 10 are tracking the location of the boat received in step 1015 in fig. 10); and
transmitting, to a responder device, the tracked location (1015-1020 in fig. 10 for providing the GPS location of the boat to Land-based control center; the boat sends a signal to the land-based control center in step 1120 in fig. 11 and par. 0056; see receiving messaging in par. 0036, to alert the boater to the message).
Although Vries does not explicitly disclose: “a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range; and initiating monitoring for a mobile signal emanating from a trajectory path of the water vessel”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range”, recall that Vries explains trip plans for using GPS position or coordinates (fig. 6A-B) and setting up the geofence or radius around the waypoint (860 in fig. 8 and par. 0052). However, Vries does not explain that when vessel is out of geofence, the vessel would be tracked by a mobile network or cellular network such as wide area network or long range communication. This kind of tracking arrangement could be found in Lacatus. In particular, Lacatus teaches that tracking areas for yacht or ship (par. 0053) could be defined transmission ranges include the base safe-zone 30 (the base safe-zone 30 may communicate via the short-range transmissions range but the geofence area 52 may be programmed by use of GPS coordinates to set the boundaries in fig. 2A and par. 0055), the geofence area 52 (fig. 2B and par. 0057) and a cellular network service area 54 (par. 0059 and fig. 2C). In summary, tracking the yacht the boat within the cellular network service area 54 in fig. 2A-D of Lacatus would have rendered the claim limitation “the GPS location is within a threshold distance of a boundary of detectable mobile signal range” obvious.
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 marine satellite monitoring of Vries by providing Wide area network for cellular service coverage as taught in Lacatus. Such a modification would have categorized tracking areas for power management to be covered via the short-range communication, GPS communication and cellular network communication so that the battery consumption could have been optimized for a mobile device and network overhead of the network as suggested in par. 0001 of Lacatus.
Secondly, to consider the obviousness of the claim limitation “initiating monitoring for a mobile signal emanating from a trajectory path of the water vessel”, recall that Lacatus discloses cellular service tracking (fig. 2A-D), and Vries explains that a user could access database (1025 in fig. 10) to monitor where the boat is heading and what the speed is (fig. 6A-6B and par. 0049). Thus, step 1025 in fig. 10 and fig. 6A-B of Vries and fig. 2A-D of Lacatus would have rendered the addressing claim limitation obvious or at least suggested the addressing claim limitation. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Denninghoff teaches monitoring movement of a target asset to determine if it’s not roadway-bound (steps 500-510-525-535 and 510-515-535 in fig. 5), and having determined as surface bound (1005-1020-1035 in fig. 10), setting the current position in two dimensions on the surface from most recent position of the target asset to project velocity and position into the future in those two dimensions (1035 in fig. 10 and par. 0187). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the addressing claim limitation to perform equally well with Vries and Denninghoff.
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 marine satellite monitoring of Vries in view of Lacatus by providing navigation, tracking and collocating in an electronic communication network as taught in Denninghoff to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a wireless communication system to collocate a tracking asset with a target asset and/or navigate a tracking asset to a location while minimizing unnecessary radio transmissions and receptions from both tracking and target assets so that battery could have been prolonged and bandwidth usage could have been reduced as suggested in par. 0002-0003 of Denninghoff.
Claim 2
Vries, in view of Lacatus and Denninghoff, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detected mobile signal is based on a transmission from a mobile Internet of Things (IoT) device on the vessel (Vries, fig. 10-11; Denninghoff, IoT in par. 0201), the mobile IoT device being coupled to a power supply of the vessel (Denninghoff, par. 0059, a tracking device is powered by a generator of a powered vehicle, or the smart phone is plugged into an automobile charging system; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claim to perform equally well with fig. 10 of Vries and par. 0059 & 0201 of Denninghoff).
Claim 3
Vries, in view of Lacatus and Denninghoff, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
466
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
identifying the mobile signal is being transmitted from the mobile device (Denninghoff, par. 0105, 15% deviation of the planned distance between the tracking asset and target asset; see par. 0185, the smallest horizontal angle between the current roadway direction projected across the intersection; see evidence in fig. 7 & 10 of Santiago et al. Pub. No.: US 2011/0140884 A1); and
receiving, from a central locator system (Vries, land based control center in fig. 10 & 11; Denninghoff, tracking service server 173 in fig. 1), information indicating that the mobile device is not registered with the vessel (Vries, stolen boat monitor – Inactive in fig. 6B; in the same way, one of ordinary skill in the art could have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to detect the mobile device is not registered, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale C; see evidence in fig. 7 & 10 of Santiago et al. Pub. No.: US 2011/0140884 A1).
Claim 4
Vries, in view of Lacatus and Denninghoff, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, from a client device being operated by a friend or a relative of a user associated with the mobile device (Vries, user accesses a web page to see boat location in fig. 6A-B and par. 0049, par. 0050 further allows the boater’s friends and family to track the boater’s progress on voyage through tracking the boat’s previous and present locations on an electronic map), a request to receive tracking updates of the mobile device transmitting the mobile signal on the vessel (Vries, 1025 of fig. 10, and par. 0056 describes that a user may access the database of information about the boat; hence, therefore, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 5
Vries, in view of Lacatus and Denninghoff, discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising providing, to the client device, the tracked location in parallel with providing, to the responder device, the tracked location (Vries, the boat sends a signal to the land-based control center in step 1120 in fig. 11 and par. 0056; see receiving messaging in par. 0036, to alert the boater to the message; See MPEP 2111, it’s important to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved in providing, the message, email, phone call could be transmitted in parallel more than one device; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious, see MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales F).
Claim 6
Vries, in view of Lacatus and Denninghoff, discloses the method of claim 1, the method further comprising:
responsive to the tracked location of the vessel deviating by a trajectory threshold distance from an estimated trajectory (Denninghoff, par. 0105, 15% deviation of the planned distance between the tracking asset and target asset; see par. 0185, the smallest horizontal angle between the current roadway direction projected across the intersection), transmitting an alert to the responder device (Vries, the boat sends a signal to the land-based control center in step 1120 in fig. 11 and par. 0056; see receiving messaging in par. 0036, to alert the boater to the message; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious, see MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationales F).
Claim 7
Vries, in view of Lacatus and Denninghoff, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a scheduled location of the vessel is received from a central locator system (Vries, land based control center in fig. 10 & 11; Denninghoff, tracking service server 173 in fig. 1; and thus, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 8-14
Claims 8-14 are computer product claims corresponding to method claims 1-7. All of limitations of claims 8-14 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 1-7. Accordingly, claims 8-14 are considered obvious by the same rationales in the rejection of claims 1-7 respectively, set forth above.
Claim 15-20
Claims 15-20 are structure claims corresponding to method claims 1-6. All of limitations of claims 15-20 are found reciting for the structures of the same scopes of the respective limitations in claims 1-6. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are considered obvious by the same rationales in the rejection of claims 1-6 respectively, set forth above. Additionally, Vries discloses a system (fig. 5A-B) comprising: memory with instructions encoded thereon (as depicted in fig. 6A-B, to provide user interfacing to select options, it could have included at least a typical memory and algorithm stored for user to interact the options for how to see report the location of boat or alert even): and one or more processors (TIU in fig. 5A-B and land-based control center in fig. 10-11) that, when executing instructions, are caused to perform operations (fig. 7-11).
Contact Information
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN A HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
