Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/296,950

Route Generation Device

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 25, 2021
Examiner
NGUYEN, CUONG H
Art Unit
3664
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Yanmar Power Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
6 (Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 1013 resolved
+26.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1033
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.3%
-29.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
11.4%
-28.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1013 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 2. This Office Action is an answer to pending claims filed on 12/24/2025 (after 9/24/2025 RCE). Claims 1-9 are pending. Response 3. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive since Kaji in view of AKUZAWA’750 already suggested applicant’s claimed language. A berthing facility is a designated location within a port or harbor where a vessel is moored or docked, typically for the purpose of loading and unloading cargo, passengers, or for maintenance and repairs. It's essentially a dedicated space or "parking spot" for a ship at a port. In boating, "bearing" refers to the direction from one point to another point or object, typically measured in degrees clockwise from true north. It's a fundamental concept in navigation, used to determine the direction and distance of other vessels, landmarks, or obstacles. 4. Applicant argues on the REMARKS (9/24/2025) that Kaji does not disclose “the ship moves automatically from the first position to the second position while maintaining the bearing of the ship parallel with the direction of the berthing facility. The examiner changes to different grounds of rejections that Kaji in view of SHU AKUZAWA’750 (WO 2018100750 A1); their combinations obviously suggest the claimed steps. “Berthing a ship” has been a well-known task taught by a prior art of Kaji. Kaji does not expressly spell-out “while maintaining the bearing of the ship parallel...”; however, that task still requires maintaining the ship’s posture along the direction of berthing facility. For applicant’s argument of claim 1 “the route is generated so that the ship moves automatically (see Kaji col. 20 lines37-52) from the first position to the second position while maintaining a bearing of the ship in a direction along the berthing facility.”. The examiner submits that Kaji in view of SHU AKUZAWA’750 (WO 2018100750 A1) discloses claim 1’s limitations. Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103 5. Claims 1-2, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaji et al (US Pat. 7389735 B2 - hereafter “Kaji”), in view of SHU AKUZAWA’750 (WO 2018100750 A1 – hereafter “AKUZAWA’750”). A. Per independent claim 1: Kaji teaches about generating a route to dock a ship automatically at a berthing facility (i.e., “the marine vessel can be navigated to the target berthing position in a water area having sufficient water depths” see Kaji, Figs.4B, 9, claim 7, and col. 4 line 64 - col. 5 line 3) including: a first position as a position displaced from a docking position for the ship in the berthing facility by distance in a direction perpendicular to a direction of the berthing facility (see Kaji, Fig.4B ref. 41, Fig. 9 moving from position C to position D, and see Kaji Fig. 12 is moving with “a bold-face arrow” along line B in a perpendicular direction to a regression line A (i.e., from point 52 to point 82 with axis yb is perpendicular to A, see Kaji, Figs. 10-11), and col. 18 line 61 to col. 19 line 7). and a second position as the docking position for the ship in the berthing facility (see Kaji, Fig. 4B ref. 43, Fig. 9 position D). Kaji teaches that the route is generated so that the ship moves automatically (see Kaji, col. 17 lines 38-46, and col. 20 lines 37-53) from the first position to the second position while maintaining a bearing of the ship in a direction along the berthing facility; Kaji teaches about maintaining a bearing of a ship in a direction along a berthing facility. Applicant changes a claimed limitation to read: “while maintaining the bearing of the ship parallel with the direction of the berthing facility”. the claimed feature has similar meanings. Kaji does not expressly spell-out “while maintaining the bearing of the ship parallel...”; however, AKUZAWA’750 clearly suggests that limitation in FIGs. 14-15, and 10 wherein TP2, and TP1 are target positions, L is an offset amount, W is a ship’s width, Heading_err is modified so that a ship is parallel to docking position (as TP2 posture), Ph1 is that ship’s route. PNG media_image1.png 543 563 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 388 572 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 530 470 media_image3.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kaji’s disclosure with AKUZAWA’750 “ while maintaining the bearing of the ship parallel with the direction of the berthing facility.”. in order to visually showing a feature of “the bearing of the ship parallel with the bearing of the bearing facility”. B. Per dependent claim 2: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated. Kaji also teaches the route is generated as to link a plurality of positions (i.e., displaying a ship’s position sequentially by using a map, and a position detection unit, (see Kaji Fig. 3 S13 “DISPLAY MAP, VESSEL POSITION, TARGET BERTHING POSITION…” claim 7, col. 18 lines 29-34, and col. 19 lines 45-56), and the first position is immediately before the second position on the route in an order to be fulfilled by the ship (this claimed limitation is inherent, see Kaji Fig. 12 with ship’s positions “52” – see also AKUZAWA’750 points TP1 and TP2 above). C. Per dependent claim 8: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated. Kaji, also teaches a device comprising a unit that displaying, with a figure 12, the first position and the second position as well as direction(s) to be fulfilled by a ship 50 in the first position 52 and the second position (see Kaji, FIG. 12” – see also AKUZAWA’750 points TP1 and TP2 above).). D. Per dependent claim 9: AKUZAWA’750 also suggests a berthing of a ship at a destination encompasses the steps of: changing/adjusting a bearing (from a travel/driving mode), determining a target position at an intermediate position, and determining a target bearing is determined (see AKUZAWA’750 FIGs. 14-15 as shown above). Automatic ship berthing is a complex autonomous navigation task where a vessel maneuvers/(adjust a ship bearing) itself into an intermediate position, then a docked/target position (i.e., adjusting the bearing setting mode) without human intervention, using advanced control systems to overcome environmental factors like wind, waves, and currents. This requires precision, low-speed maneuverability, and robust control techniques such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) or optimal control to manage the ship's nonlinear dynamics and ensure safety. Key technologies involve sophisticated sensors for accurate ship-shore position detection and AI algorithms for path planning and control, improving safety and efficiency in port operations. Kaji also teaches about generating a route to dock a ship automatically at a berthing facility (i.e., “the marine vessel can be navigated to the target berthing position in a water area having sufficient water depths” see Kaji, Figs.4B, 9, claim 7, and col. 4 line 64 - col. 5 line 3); this “ship berthing” task encompasses claimed steps: adjusting the bearing setting mode, a target position at each intermediate position is determined first, and then a target bearing is determined during a berthing procedure. 6. Claims 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kaji”), in view of SHU AKUZAWA’750, in view of in view of Okazaki & Ohtsu’s NPL (IDS 5/25/2021) (hereinafter “Okazaki’) and in view of Seo’s “Safer and More Efficient Ship Handling with the Pivot Point Concept”. A. Per dependent claim 3: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated. Kaji in view of AKUZAWA’750 teaches a route generation device according to claim 2, wherein: the route includes one or more intermediate positions (e.g., any point during navigation before berthing) the intermediate positions preceding the first position in the order to be fulfilled by the ship (i.e., a position before berthing - during navigation - see Kaji col. 6 lines 46-57 and see Kaji col. 4 lines 33-44; see above AKUZAWA’750 TP1 and TP2). Kaji does not disclose about using a pivotal turn at an intermediate position to begin applying “same bearings” of a ship; however, Seo suggests a pivotal turn concept (i.e., using a center of ship gravity to make a turn – which Kaji already discloses about horizontally pivoting a ship camera 4 - see Seo pg. 606 section 2.1 – section 2.3, this activity has been well-understood, routine, and conventional) before parallel movement modes taught by Okazaki (see Okazaki Figure 9, in which the ship having reached the intermediate positions pivotally turns in the intermediate positions so as to cause the bearing of the ship to agree with a bearing to be fulfilled by the ship in a next position and moves to the next position while maintaining a bearing after turning (see Okazaki, Figure 9); and repeating that process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kaji, in view of AKUZAWA’750 with Okazaki and with Seo to use pivotal turns for proper berthing a ship in order to maintain same bearings as suggested by Okazaki (see Okazaki, Figure 9). B. Per dependent claim 4: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated. Kaji does not expressly disclose a route generation device according to claim 3, wherein the bearing setting mode includes a pivotal turn before forward movement mode, in which the ship having reached the intermediate positions pivotally turns in the intermediate positions so as to cause the bearing of the ship to agree with a bearing directed to the next position and moves to the next position; however, Seo suggests this idea for moving an object (see Seo pg. 606 sect. 2.1-2.3) while maintaining a bearing after turning (see Okazaki, Figure 9). C. Per dependent claim 7: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated. Okazaki also suggests an orientation/bearing setting mode is adjusted/changed based on an “angle change” of the route in the intermediate position B (see Figure 9, a ship’s position B where the ship is adjusting a path’s angle). 7. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji, in view of SHU AKUZAWA’750, in view of Okazaki, in view of Seo, and in view of Naoki Mizuno’s “Quasi Real-Time Optimal Control Scheme for Automatic Berthing”. A. Per dependent claim 5: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated. A combination of Kaji, Okazaki, and Seo do not expressly disclose a route generation device wherein the orientation/bearing setting mode is changed based on a direct distance between the intermediate position and the second position or a direct distance between the intermediate position and the first position; however, Mizuno suggests that claimed idea (i.e., based on coordinate/distance of a ship: a direct distance between the intermediate position and the first position, see Mizuno, Fig. 3 “Optimal Path”, and see Okazaki Fig. 9 wherein a first position is at point A and an intermediate position is at point B) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kaji, AKUZAWA’750, Okazaki and Seo with Mizuno based on a guided distance of a ship to utilize an optimal path to prepare a berthing process using an assisting device of Kaji to achieve a minimum-time berthing (see Mizuno, the abstract). B. Per dependent claim 6: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated. Applicant claims: a bearing is changed based on different distances. In boating definition, "bearing" refers to the direction from one point (like your boat) to another point or object, typically measured in degrees clockwise from true north. It's a fundamental concept in navigation, used to determine the direction and distance of other vessels, landmarks, or obstacles Seo also suggests a route generation device according to claim 3, wherein the orientation/bearing setting mode is adjusted/changed based on a distance on the route between the intermediate positions and the second position or a distance on the route between the intermediate positions and the first position (i.e., “The neural network can generate the real-time maneuvering solution corresponding the berthing distance (see Naoki Mizuno, page 307 at the end of section 2.3). Since claimed “the bearing setting mode” is related as a function of a distance, it has been well-understood, routine, and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art that a bearing would be practically, and effectively changed based on that “distance” relationship. Conclusion 8. Pending claims 1-9 are rejected. 9. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. This Office Action is made FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 10. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 25, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 15, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 18, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
May 22, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Aug 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 13, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 21, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591600
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS OF AVIATION DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12565216
AUTHENTICATED TRAFFIC SIGNS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552317
INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552034
Robot System
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545369
MARINE WASTE DISPOSAL APPARATUS USING SATELLITE IMAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+8.6%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1013 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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