Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 14, 2026
Application No. 19/276,799

Sailboat Race Management System with Camera

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 22, 2025
Priority
Jul 22, 2024 — provisional 63/673,886
Examiner
NEWLIN, TIMOTHY R
Art Unit
2424
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Whitserve LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 7m
Est. Remaining
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allowance Rate
594 granted / 718 resolved
+24.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
747
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 718 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 (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 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. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., US 2020/0057488 in view of Kondo et al., US 6,104,864, further in view of Biancale et al., US 2022/0024549. 1. Johnson teaches a sailboat racing rule enforcement system comprising: a camera for recording video of at least one racing sailboat [camera/imaging system 108, Figs. 1A, 1B, paras. 46, 76, 85, 93]; a mobile computing device for controlling said camera [controller 130, Figs. 1A, 1B, paras. 49, 51, 72, 76, 86, 93]; a GPS antenna for resolving a current position of said camera [GNSS 146 determines position of structure 101, to which imaging system is mounted, Fig. 1A, paras. 45, 47, 73, 85, 105-107]; a processor for determining a desired position of said camera [camera/imager orientation is adjusted (as desired) based on control signals, paras. 76, 86, 103, 114] based on a GPS position selected from a group including a position of a mark of a race course, a position of a sailboat [position of sailboat, and thus camera, is based on GNSS 146, Fig. 1A, paras. 45, 47, 73, 85, 105-107], a position of two racing sailboats, a position of reference marks on the sailboat, and combinations of these; an electric motor for moving said camera from the current position to the desired position [actuator 109, pan/tilt motors to adjust position/orientation of imaging system in order to capture desired image, Fig. 1B, paras. 65, 76, 86, 103, 162] to record a video of at least one boat [e.g. boat 213, Figs. 2, 3, paras. 94, 121, 128]. Johnson is silent on racing boats in particular, and on analyzing video for rule violations. Kondo teaches a boat racing management system including analyzing the video of the at least one racing sailboat for racing rule violations [Figs. 2, 6-8, 14, 20, 22, 23, col. 2, 13-48; col. 12, 49-64; col. 13, 55-63; col. 16, 62-64; col. 24, 39-67]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using Johnson’s technique to ensure a fair competition without manually watching each competing boat. The above references are silent on AI software for analyzing boat images. Biancale teaches a system for imaging and measuring positions of objects in water, including using software including AI to do so. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate Biancale, automating the measurement of distances to obviate the need for manual computation and improving efficiency of race monitoring. 2. Johnson teaches the sailboat racing rule enforcement system of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device comprises a smartphone [smartphone, paras. 67, 185]. 3. Johnson teaches the sailboat racing rule enforcement system of claim 1, wherein there is a GPS antenna on at least one sailboat [paras. 47, 49, 79, 92]. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, Kondo, and Biancale as cited above in view of Reeds, US 5,731,788. 4 (from 1). The above references are silent on GPS on a marker. Reeds teaches a race management system wherein there is a GPS antenna on at least one mark of a racecourse [GPS on a start line buoy, Figs. 1, 7; col. 4, 5-37; cols. 11-12, 46-12]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, placing GPS on buoys in order to establish the location of race markers enabling the measurement of distances therefrom and improving the efficiency and accuracy of race management. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time. 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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. /TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12707105
SYNTHETIC TOTAL AUDIENCE RATINGS
2y 3m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12695947
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CONTENT ACCORDING TO SKIP LIKELIHOOD
1y 7m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12689795
ADVERTISEMENT USER INTERFACE
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12689799
METHODS, SYSTEMS, ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE, AND APPARATUS TO ESTIMATE AUDIENCE POPULATION
1y 11m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12669329
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR AREA MAPPING
3y 0m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+13.3%)
2y 8m (~1y 7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 718 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month