DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 09/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10, 21-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2026.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seltzer et al. [US 20230202625].
As to claim 11. Seltzer discloses An anchor-down alarm system for a watercraft, comprising:
an anchor deployment sensor, [fig. 3, 0040] sensor 360, configured to detect whether an anchor is in a deployed position or a stowed position, [0040];
a programmable electronic controller, [fig. 3, 0040] processor 350, operatively connected to the anchor deployment sensor, [fig. 3, 0040]; and
an alarm, [fig. 11, 0042] indicator 1150, operatively connected to the electronic controller, [0042] indicator 1150 coupled to the base module 110, and [figs. 1, 11, 0040] the base module 110 coupled with the sensor 360 to indicate the status of the sensor by modifying payload data 910 that is communicated to the base module 110;
wherein the electronic controller is configured to trigger the alarm when the anchor deployment sensor detects that the anchor is in the deployed position, [0040] and a motor of the watercraft is started, [0042] indicator 1150 activated to warn if the anchor is deployed and ignition system is ON, or engaged into gear.
As to claim 13. Seltzer discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the alarm comprises at least one of: an audible alarm, a visual indicator on a display screen, or a notification sent to a mobile device, [fig. 11, 0042].
As to claim 17. Seltzer discloses The system of claim 11, wherein the electronic controller is further operatively connected to a touch screen or user interface, and the alarm is displayed visually on the screen, [0042] indicator 1150 is a display.
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 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.
Claim(s) 14, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer in view of Spatola [US 20230012717].
As to claim 14. Seltzer fails to disclose The system of claim 11, wherein the anchor deployment sensor comprises a proximity sensor operatively positioned to detect the presence or absence of a portion of the anchor within a retracted anchor housing.
Spatola teaches an anchor stowage system with a sensor assembly 10 to sense when the anchor 17 is stowed, [fig. 2, 0017]; wherein the sensor can be a proximity sensor, [0016].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seltzer with that of Spatola so that the winch can be deployed and retrieved easily.
As to claim 19. Seltzer fails to disclose The system of claim 11, wherein the alarm system is further configured to send a remote notification to a mobile device if the anchor is detected in the deployed position while the vessel is underway.
Spatola teaches an anchor stowage system with a sensor assembly 10 to sense when the anchor 17 is stowed, [fig. 2, 0017]; wherein the system communicates the stowage status of the anchor to smartphones, [0022].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seltzer with that of Spatola so that the user can be notified even if the user is not close to the onboard notification system.
As to claim 20. Seltzer fails to disclose The system of claim 11, wherein the anchor deployment sensor and the electronic controller are components of a windlass anchor system.
Spatola teaches an anchor stowage system with a sensor assembly 10 to sense when the anchor 17 is stowed, [fig. 2, 0017]; wherein the system includes a windlass anchor system, [0016].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seltzer with that of Spatola so that the winch can be deployed and retrieved easily.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer in view of Yao et al. [CN 105004303].
As to claim 15. Seltzer fails to disclose The system of claim 11, wherein the anchor deployment sensor comprises a retro-reflective sensor, a through-beam sensor, or an inductive proximity sensor.
Yao teaches a sensor for a windlass anchor chain length measuring method in the field of ship machinery, [abs.], comprising an inductive proximity sensor, [0054].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seltzer with that of Yao so that the system can user the inherent properties of the chain to determine the location of the anchor.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seltzer in view of Motsenbocker [US 20040090195].
As to claim 16. Seltzer fails to disclose The system of claim 11, wherein the electronic controller is further configured to receive input from a motor RPM sensor, and is programmed to determine whether the motor is running based on RPM values.
Motsenbocker teaches monitoring for vehicles such as watercraft comprising a device to detect an anchor down condition, including a means to generate electrical signal proportional to propeller rpm, [0049].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seltzer with that of Motsenbocker so that the vehicle controller can have basic operation parameters of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
