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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 4/09/2025.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-27 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1-4, 6,7-12, 14-15, 17-20, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmeyer Jr (US Pub 20240351669 A1).
A. Per independent claim 1: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat, comprising:
a smartphone (see Whitmeyer Jr. para.[0043], claim 21) ;
a first instance of an app, executing on said smartphone (see Whitmeyer Jr. para.[0043])
for displaying at least speed over ground (see Whitmeyer Jr. abstract, para. [0043], [0091], and claims 1, 10) of the sailboat as sensed by said smartphone;
a bracket (see Whitmeyer Jr Figs. 16A-C, para. [0008])/(e.g., a bracket to screw a camera to a tripod) for receiving at least an edge of said smartphone for mounting said smartphone to another object (e.g., the sailboat) (this familiar limitation is a very insignificant feature, because that “for mounting” is a fundamental function of a bracket).
Whitmeyer Jr.’669 does not disclose that a different smartphone is bracketed to the first smart phone (e.g., a well-known use/duplicate of another smartphone for a different intend of use); however, this is a very familiar concept of “coupling two object together” using an available bracket, a smart phone can perform millions of different functions/tasks (as using 2 smartphones for an intent of use - a sailing race. It is clearly obvious to use 2 cameras in the place of one camera’s microprocessor to reduce constraints or for different status reports.
a second smartphone having one or more cameras (e.g., on a smartphone) “available for use other smartphone functions; (see Whitmeyer Jr para. [0008] “all of the connectivity, charging, transmission, analysis and other smartphone functions are available for use by racing sailboat instrumentation.”);
said bracket (see Whitmeyer Jr para.[0008]) for receiving an edge of different smartphone for mounting/coupling two objects together (see Whitmeyer Jr. Figs 16A,16B, 16C, claim 1) and
a second instance of said app, (see Whitmeyer Jr.’669 [0057], claim 1) executing on said second smartphone for taking on-board video of the sailboat (this is merely a function of Whitmeyer Jr smartphone’s app (see Whitmeyer Jr para.[0043], claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Whitmeyer Jr to suggest another smartphone is bracketed to the first smart phone because this coupling/using two smartphones on an instrument by a bracket.is a duplication – this is not an inventive concept – which task has been a successful expectation (e.g., coupling two batteries together).
B. Per dependent claims 2, 7, 22: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat, having an app ‘s command/instruction (e.g., “READY” and “GO”) to activate another remote object based on a signal received (see Whitmeyer Jr. abs, and claim 6) .
C. Per dependent claims 3, 8, 10: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat, using an app to activate a camera of a smartphone when receiving a time signal (e.g., an ability to remote control with Bluetooth “the case 200 also may include other buttons 224, which may serve a variety of purposes in controlling the smartphone 101 and/or the lamps 202.” see Whitmeyer Jr para. [0057],[0064], claims 9, 19) .
D. Per dependent claims 4, 9, 11: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat can transmit a signal to activate a smartphone’s camera when an app receiving a location signal (e.g., from GPS, see Whitmeyer Jr para.[0002], [0052], claims 7, 13) .
E. Per independent claims 6, 14-15, 19: Whitmeyer Jr teaches similar claimed limitations in these claims; therefore, similar rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are also applied.
F. Per dependent claim 10: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat can transmit a signal to activate a smartphone’s camera when an app receiving a location signal (e.g., from GPS, see Whitmeyer Jr para.[0052], claims 7, 13) .
G. Per dependent claim 12: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat using a coordinate from GPS for locating a sailboat, see Whitmeyer Jr para.[0052], claims 7, 13) .
H. Per dependent claim 17: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat using a bracket for mounting objects a bracket (e.g., including a back-to-back configuration, see Whitmeyer Jr Figs. 16A-C, para. [0008], claim 1).
I. Per dependent claim 20: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat using a position of the sailboat relative to a map of a sailboat race course (e.g., an instrument receives related parameters, see Whitmeyer Jr para. [0004],[0057]) .
J. Per dependent claims 21, 23: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat using an app as a boat captain instance (a boat captain – of the app - is merely a “virtual” representation of a “registered” boat in a certain race/usage which is not an inventive subject matter) this claimed limitation is about an ability of receiving remote signal(s) – see Whitmeyer Jr.’669 para. [0043]).
K. Per dependent claim 24: Whitmeyer Jr teaches an instrument for a sailboat using a clock in an app, wherein the app counts the time (e.g., an app starting a “racing” clock – see Whitmeyer Jr claim 9).
L. Per independent claim 25: Whitmeyer Jr also teaches an instrument for a sailboat using an app executing on the smartphone (see Whitmeyer Jr claim 1, para. [0043]), for controlling the camera based on a time until a sailboat race starts (see Whitmeyer Jr claims 9, 20), or proximity of a mark of a sailboat race (see Whitmeyer Jr. para. [0002]), or a position of the sailboat (see Whitmeyer Jr. para. [0002]), or a speed of the sailboat (see Whitmeyer Jr. para. [0002]), wherein the app permit a user to select parameters for controlling the camera (to start a “racing” clock – see ‘669 claim 9).
M. Per independent claim 26: Whitmeyer Jr also teaches an instrument for a sailboat using an app to receive a signal remotely . Whitmeyer Jr claim 7 suggests a user to sense/receive a parameter .
N. Per independent claim 27: Whitmeyer Jr also teaches an instrument for a sailboat to sense a proximity/distance of a second object/sailboat based on a wireless communication with another mobile device (see Whitmeyer Jr. para. [0043])
5. Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmeyer Jr in view of in view of Lu et al (US 20240108976 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Whitmeyer Jr teaches a smartphone is oriented with a wide-angle camera can be adjusted to facing towards a direction (e.g., facing a stern of the sailboat (iPhones use a wide-angle-camera to widen the range of contact angles to a useful range. This “adjusted direction” is simply a placement of an instrument using a bracket – which is an intent of use) (e.g., iPhone 14/14 Plus with a wide-angle camera) (Lu‘669 discloses that a position of a smartphone is adjusted – to face a stern of a boat, see Lu’976 para.[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Whitmeyer Jr with Lu et al to facing a camera toward a stern of the sailboat for a choice – which task has been a successful expectation.
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmeyer Jr in view of Rolnik, (US 20240405550 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 10 are incorporated.
Whitmeyer Jr fails to disclose that a first or a second mobile computing devices (e.g., smartphones) charges the other mobile computing device (e.g., Whitmeyer Jr in view of Rolnik suggests about sending a remote signal (including a charging signal) to another mobile device, see Rolnik‘550 para. [0002] [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Whitmeyer Jr with Lu et al to provide/charging electric energy to another mobile device – which task has been a successful expectation.
7. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitmeyer Jr in view of Wei’628 (US Pub 20180197628 A1)
The rationales and reference(s) for a rejection of claim 17 are incorporated.
Whitmeyer Jr fails to disclose an air gap behind one or both of the first and second mobile computing devices for cooling; however, Wei’628 suggests this idea (e.g., a common/naturally gap between smartphones is included by a designer – using air cooling to prevent overheats , see Wei’628 para. [0286])“ Where entities are shown as being directly coupled together, or described as coupled together without description of any intervening entity, it should be understood that those entities can be indirectly coupled together as well unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Whitmeyer Jr with Lu et al to have a gap between mobile devices to prevent possible overheats from mobile devices – this has been a successful practice in electronic designs.
Conclusion
8. Pending claims 1-27 are rejected.
9. 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, BENDIDI RACHID 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 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.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664