DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 were amended (in submission filed 10/06/2025).
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected (Final Rejection).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks referred to below were filed 10/06/2025.
Applicant’s amendments to the specification obviate the prior specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 19 obviate the prior 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 (a) and (b) rejections.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 12 and 18 and/or arguments obviate the prior 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.
For these reasons, the previous specification objection(s), and the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112 (a) and (b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, at Pages 3-5, filed 10/06/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (hereinafter “Applicant’s § 101 arguments”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As best understood, Applicant’s first § 101 arguments appear to be directed to arguing, under Step 2A Prong One of the USPTO’s 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea. However, this argument is unpersuasive because claim 1 requires: (a) using a model, which is interpreted as a mathematical concept/relationship based in part on Page 7 of USPTO’s “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples”, to determine propulsion resistance and thrust demand (a value(s)) and (b) updating a predicted value(s) (“propulsion power prediction) for a model based on a coefficient. Thus, because the models are interpreted as mathematical relationships/concepts, claim 1 is still interpreted as directed to those. Examiner Notes that the claim is not clear whether “running simulations” is positively recited, and for purposes of this action.
Applicant’s second § 101 arguments appear to be directed to arguing, under Step 2A Prong Two of the USPTO’s 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), that claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception because the specification allegedly describes an “increased efficiency and performance”. With respect to the Step 2A Prong Two arguments, the examiner respectfully agrees that the analysis may be different if the “running of simulations” and/or control of the propulsion system were separately clearly (“positively”) stated. However, that is not the case with the current claims as the current claims are directed to using a mathematical value to determine a value(s) and updating a part of a model (the propulsion power prediction).
Note: The USPTO’s Abstract Idea Examples 1-36 (dated December 16, 2014 - December 15, 2016) discuss “significantly more” in relation to Step 2B, which was before the 2019 PEG provided the “significantly more” analysis under (revised) Step 2A Prong Two.
For these reasons, although Applicant’s arguments are persuasive in part, the arguments are not fully persuasive because there appears to be a disconnect between the specification-based improvement and the claimed process. Namely, claim 1 does not require “running simulations” or positively recite “controlling propulsion system”.
Thus, Claim 1 still describes mathematical calculations on variables without significantly more than the abstract idea.
In conclusion, regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the independent claim is integrated into a practical application by presenting an improvement to the existing technology. The Applicant is reminded that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Applicant’s arguments could similarly be considered under Step 2B, and Step 2B would be responded to in a similar way: The applicant is reminded that “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). The described improvement is provided by the limitations that are identified as abstract ideas. Considering the claim as a whole, the independent claim 1 is not found to be significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/10/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous prior art (§§ 102 and 103) rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection under § 103 are made.
Requirement for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application. See MPEP 704.11.
In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
The specification has several citations to “Holtrop and Mennen’s model”, including “a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model 120 (e.g., Holtrop and Mennen's model …”. See Paras. [029]-[030] of the as-filed specification. Can Applicant please indicate what page(s) this model (and Equation 2) by “Holtrop and Mennen” is/are located at in the 1982 publication “An Approximate Power Prediction Method”?
The prior requirement for information, including prior request for Keynote Presentation is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mathematical calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claim 1 Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-11 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A method of configuring a propulsion system for a marine vessel, the method comprising:
with a propulsion resistance and thrust model integrated with a propulsion system and control scheme model for the marine vessel, determining propulsion resistance and thrust demand for the marine vessel, wherein determining the propulsion resistance and thrust demand includes estimating a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds; and
updating a propulsion power prediction for the integrated propulsion system and control scheme model stored in computer memory for the marine vessel based on the determined propulsion resistance and thrust demand to control operation of the propulsion system.
The limitations “with a propulsion resistance and thrust model integrated with a propulsion system and control scheme model for the marine vessel, determining propulsion resistance and thrust demand for the marine vessel, wherein determining the propulsion resistance and thrust demand includes estimating a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds” and “updating a propulsion power prediction for the integrated propulsion system and control scheme model … for the marine vessel based on the determined propulsion resistance and thrust demand to control operation of the propulsion system” are abstract ideas because they can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “of configuring a propulsion system for a marine vessel” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a marine propulsion system (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
• “stored in computer memory” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two additional elements. The first additional element is labeling the method as “of configuring a propulsion system for a marine vessel”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a propulsion system. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., a propulsion system), and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The second additional element is the generic computer components (“stored in computer memory”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-11 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 12 Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 12-17 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claim 12 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
12. A marine vessel comprising a powertrain system, the powertrain system comprising: an engine configured to power a generator to provide electrical energy to a power bus of the powertrain system; a secondary fuel system configured to provide electrical energy to the power bus; a propulsion driver device configured to drive a propulsion device using electrical energy received from the bus; an electrical energy storage system coupled to the power bus; and an energy management and power control system configured to control distribution of electrical energy between at least the energy storage system and the propulsion driver device based on estimated vessel performance parameters, wherein the estimated vessel performance parameters are determined by: applying computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model to generate estimated hull drag data, wherein the hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds, and applying vessel operation data, stability data, and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model to generate the estimated vessel performance parameters.
The limitations “wherein the estimated vessel performance parameters are determined by: applying computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model to generate estimated hull drag data, wherein the hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds, and applying vessel operation data, stability data, and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model to generate the estimated vessel performance parameters” are abstract ideas because they can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 12 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “a powertrain system, the powertrain system comprising: an engine configured to power a generator to provide electrical energy to a power bus of the powertrain system; a secondary fuel system configured to provide electrical energy to the power bus; a propulsion driver device configured to drive a propulsion device using electrical energy received from the bus; an electrical energy storage system coupled to the power bus; and an energy management and power control system configured to control distribution of electrical energy between at least the energy storage system and the propulsion driver device based on estimated vessel performance parameters” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a hybrid power marine propulsion system (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 12 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there is one set of additional elements. The set of additional elements are generic hybrid electric marine vessel components, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a hybrid power marine propulsion system. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., a hybrid power marine propulsion system), and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 12 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 12 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 13-17 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 18 Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 18-20 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Claim 18 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
18. A marine propulsion system modeling system comprising: a processor; a memory device storing instructions executable by the processor to: apply computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model to generate estimated hull drag data for a marine vessel, wherein the hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds; apply vessel operation data, stability data, and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model to estimate resistance for the marine vessel in fewer than six degrees of freedom and to generate estimated vessel performance parameters based on the estimated resistance; and update one or more control models for a propulsion system of the marine vessel stored in computer memory of the marine vessel based on the estimated vessel performance parameters, the one or more control models controlling energy generation and distribution in the propulsion system.
The limitations “apply computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model to generate estimated hull drag data for a marine vessel, wherein the hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds; apply vessel operation data, stability data, and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model to estimate resistance for the marine vessel in fewer than six degrees of freedom and to generate estimated vessel performance parameters based on the estimated resistance; and update one or more control models for a propulsion system of the marine vessel … based on the estimated vessel performance parameters” are abstract ideas because they can be performed using mathematical calculations/equations and therefore encompass mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 18 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “marine propulsion system modeling” and “of the marine vessel” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a marine propulsion system (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
• “a processor; a memory device storing instructions executable by the processor to:” and “stored in computer memory” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer).
Claim 18 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two additional elements. The first additional element is labeling the method as “marine propulsion system modeling” and “of the marine vessel”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a marine propulsion system. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., a propulsion system), and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The second additional element is the generic computer components (“processor”, “memory”), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 17 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 17 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 19 and 20 are further addressed below.
Dependent Claims 2-11, 13-17, 19 and 20
Regarding claims 2-9, 11, 16, 17, 19 and 20, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein determining propulsion resistance and thrust for the marine vessel includes determining hull resistance by: applying computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model to generate estimated hull drag data; and applying vessel operation data, stability data, and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model to generate estimated vessel performance parameters”, claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “wherein determining propulsion resistance and thrust for the marine vessel includes determining upper deck wind resistance based on a cross-sectional area of an upper deck of the marine vessel, and combining the upper deck wind resistance with an estimated water-induced resistance output from the low-order vessel drag regression model to determine a total resistance”, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites: “wherein determining propulsion resistance and thrust for the marine vessel includes calculating a propulsion thrust demand based on the determined total resistance and a mass acceleration of the marine vessel”, claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further recites: “further comprising performing an iterative calculation method to obtain a propeller rotational speed corresponding to the thrust demand”, claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites: “further comprising calculating torque demand based on the propeller rotational speed, the thrust demand, and a propeller coefficient, wherein the propeller coefficient is determined based on an output of a simulation having a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model of a propeller of the propulsion system as an input”, claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further recites: “further comprising combining the torque demand and the propeller rotational speed to determine a shaft power demand, and updating the integrated propulsion system and control scheme model stored in the computer memory in accordance with the shaft power demand”, claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the propulsion resistance and thrust model comprises a low-order model that estimates resistance in fewer than six degrees of freedom”, claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further recites: “wherein the low-order model estimates resistance in one degree of freedom corresponding to a surging direction of the marine vessel”, claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further comprising generating a power profile based on output from the propulsion resistance and thrust model, wherein updating the propulsion power prediction for the integrated propulsion system and control scheme model includes updating one or more control models of an energy management system that controls energy generation and distribution in the propulsion system based on the power profile”, claim 16 depends from claim 12 and further recites “wherein the propulsive shaft power demand is based on a backpropagation method using [a mathematical equation]”, claim 17 depends from claim 12 and further recites “wherein the estimated vessel performance parameters include a power profile for the marine vessel indicating estimated power demands for the marine vessel under different conditions”, claim 19 depends from claim 18 and further recites “wherein generating the estimated vessel performance parameters further comprises determining upper deck wind resistance based on a cross-sectional area of an upper deck of the marine vessel, and combining the upper deck wind resistance with an estimated water-induced resistance output from the low-order vessel drag regression model to determine a total resistance of the marine vessel in at least a surging direction of the marine vessel” and claim 20 depends from claim 19 and further recites “further comprising calculating a thrust demand from a propeller of the marine vessel based on the determined total resistance and a mass acceleration of the marine vessel, performing an iterative calculation method to obtain a propeller rotational speed corresponding to the thrust demand, calculating torque demand based on the propeller rotational speed, the thrust demand, and a propeller coefficient, and combining the torque demand and the propeller rotational speed to determine a shaft power demand, wherein updating the one or more control models for the propulsion system comprises updating the one or more control models based on the determined shaft power demand.” These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. The bolded portion of the additional feature are considered to further clarify the details of the mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 2-9, 11, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “further comprising outputting a powertrain system configuration indicating respective sizes or types for one or more components of the propulsion system based on the estimated vessel performance parameters.” These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. These additional features are considered to be directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); See also MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: ... v. Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claim 10 is considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 13-15, claim 13 depends from claim 12 and further recites: “wherein the energy management and power control system is further configured to control generation of electrical energy using the engine, the generator, and the secondary fuel system”, claim 14 depends from claim 12 and further recites: “wherein the secondary fuel system comprises a hydrogen fuel cell system”, and claim 15 depends from claim 12 and further recites: “wherein respective selected sizes, types, or configurations for the engine, secondary fuel system, or propulsion device of the marine vessel are selected based on an output of the low-order vessel drag regression model or wherein a selected shape or size of a hull of the marine vessel is selected based on an output of the low-order vessel drag regression model”. These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. These additional features are considered to be directed to the general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 13-15 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Modeling and Optimization of Green Ships Using Diesel/Natural Gas/Fuel Cell Hybrid or Pure Electric Propulsions” by Zuomin Dong (hereinafter “DONG”) in view of BLANKE et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0208377), and further in view of KOWALYSHYN et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0341729 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DONG discloses a method of configuring a propulsion system for a marine vessel (the development of the Hybrid Electric Marine Vessel - Model Based Design and Optimization Tool (HEMV-MBDOT) is to support the accurate and quantitative evaluations of different hybrid propulsion system designs and their associated costs, to allow the vessel designer and operator to identify the optimized design and operation control, DONG at Last Paragraph of Column 1 and all of Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also in this work, the previously introduced modelling tools have been modularized to support its flexible use in various applications … three different levels of propulsion power modelling, which can be used to support the integrated marine propulsion system modelling and simulation work, are discussed in this section, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); [Examiner’s Note: configuration of a propulsion system of a marine vessel is interpreted as corresponding to designing of a propulsion system of a marine vessel]), the method comprising: with a propulsion resistance and thrust model (the HEMV-MBDOT platform consists of four functional components: [including] a) model of vessel propulsion power demands; b) model of drag force from hull-water interaction; c) model of propulsion force from propulsor and potential cavitation noise; and d) model of powertrain system and power system, DONG at Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also the most comprehensive form of the integrated system model is based on the reduced-order hydrodynamic hull resistance and propeller thrust models, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)) integrated with a propulsion system and control scheme model for the marine vessel (the controls of these components, including off-line optimal control planning using Dynamics Programming (DP) and real-time implementation using DP result-based rule-based system, have been developed for each representative architectures … to evaluate the life-cycle cost of alternative propulsion system solutions, the investment, replacement, maintenance, and operation costs of these powertrain/power system components have been modelled when possible, DONG at Last Paragraph of Column 1 to First Paragraph of Column 2 on Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); See also hydrodynamic hull resistance and propeller thrust models, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); See also Ship Operation Profile Model, FIGS. 2 and 3 of DONG; [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0004], indicates that “a propulsion resistance and thrust model integrated with a propulsion system and control scheme for the vessel” corresponds to a vessel operation profile model, a vessel hull resistance and propulsor thrust hydrodynamic model and a vessel’s propulsion and power system models]), determining propulsion resistance and thrust demand for the marine vessel (the resistance and propulsion forces of a marine vessel are determined by hydrodynamic phenomena, DONG at Column 1 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also the most comprehensive form of the integrated system model is based on the reduced-order hydrodynamic hull resistance and propeller thrust models, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); See also the HEMV-MBDOT platform consists of four functional components: [including] a) model of vessel propulsion power demands; b) model of drag force from hull-water interaction; c) model of propulsion force from propulsor and potential cavitation noise; and d) model of powertrain system and power system, DONG at Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805)); and updating a propulsion power prediction (FIG. 3 of DONG shows predicted arrow leading to needed power) for the integrated propulsion system and control scheme model (the HEMV-MBDOT platform consists of four functional components: [including] a) model of vessel propulsion power demands; b) model of drag force from hull-water interaction; c) model of propulsion force from propulsor and potential cavitation noise; and d) model of powertrain system and power system, DONG at Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also complete technical information, hull and propeller computer models and a broad scope of operation data of each of these vessels are collected and acquired using dedicated data collection apparatus and through interfaces to the vessels Controller Area Network (CAN) data bus or operation data logger, DONG at Column 1 of Page 4 (labelled as Page 3807); [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “to control operation of the propulsion system” is interpreted as “intended use”, even though the DONG citations above appear to teach this limitation]).
DONG appears to fail to explicitly disclose determining the propulsion resistance and thrust demand includes estimating a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds. BLANKE, however, is in the same field of propulsion efficiency/propeller control of vessels (Para. [0001] of BLANKE) and teaches estimating a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel (results of simulations include shaft speed is shown in the subplot (d) … the optimizing controller produces the larger shaft speed variation but the thrust shows smaller oscillations compared to the conventional shaft speed controller … shaft speed obtained as a solution of the optimizing problem presents the largest values when the propeller efficiency is larger and vice versa, Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also propulsion efficiency may be given as the ratio of the average power delivered to propel the vessel and the average power consumed by the prime mover as stated by equation 16, Para. [0100] of BLANKE; See also Equation 16 is solved by deriving values of the propeller speed n which maximises the propulsion efficiency, i.e. the integral, for different values of advance speed ua, Para. [0101] of BLANKE) based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds (shaft speed obtained as a solution of the optimizing problem presents the largest values when the propeller efficiency is larger and vice versa, Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also FIG. 5 shows the result of a simulation … vessel speed, equal to the nominal advance speed in this case, is depicted in the subplot (a), Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also Paras. [0058], [0092] & [0103] of BLANKE; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds” is not “positively recited”, i.e., “intended use”, because it is not clear whether every reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) requires “running simulations”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power prediction functions of DONG with the shaft power demand prediction of BLANKE [to arrive at the claimed features] at least for the purpose of reducing power consumption (Para. [0097] of BLANKE).
Additionally, although DONG discloses a supercomputer and CAD workstations (Column 2 of Page 3 (labelled as Pate 3806)) and an operation data logger (DONG at Column 1 of Page 4 (labeled as Page 3807)), DONG and BLANKE appear to fail to explicitly disclose updating a memory, including updating a propulsion power prediction stored in computer memory for the marine vessel based on the determined propulsion resistance and thrust demand to control operation of the propulsion system. KOWALYSHYN, however, is in the same field of determining attributable factors in actual marine vessel operations (Para. [0002] of KOWALSHYN) and teaches updating a propulsion power prediction stored in computer memory for the marine vessel based on the determined propulsion resistance and thrust demand to control operation of the propulsion system (once the total horsepower needed has been determined, the propulsion-specific fuel consumption can then be estimated as a function of, for example, power turbine speed, total horsepower required, gas turbine degradation factor, specific fuel consumption correction factor, intake air temperature, number of turbines operating, and/or the fuel's lower heating value, Para. [0034] of KOWALYSHYN; See also resistance results are used directly as a full-scale coefficient for use in vessel performance calculations, Para. [0048] of KOWALYSHYN; See also all of this information may be stored as historical data at a server for the purposes of generating optimal courses for future missions for the vessel as well as for other vessels accessing the server, Para. [0091] of KOWALYSHYN; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “to control operation of the propulsion system” is not “positively recited”, i.e., “intended use”, even though the DONG and/or KOWALSHYN citations above appear to teach this limitation]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power prediction functions of DONG as modified by BLANKE with the server/memory structure of KOWALYSHYN [to arrive at the claimed features] at least for the purpose of generating optimal courses for future missions and/or for other vessels (Para. [0091] of KOWALYSHYN).
Regarding claim 2, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining propulsion resistance and thrust for the marine vessel includes determining hull resistance by: applying computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model (the reduced-order hull drag can be obtained from the existing vessel’s Stability Book, or obtained using one-pass vessel stability CFD simulations, DONG at Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)) to generate estimated hull drag data (FIG. 3 of DONG shows a low-order hull resistance model with a dedicated ship drag regression model; See also the hull and propeller coefficient matrices are obtained using the full-scale CFD simulations first … the compact and easy to calculate parameter based reduced-order models with the obtained hull and propeller coefficient matrices are then embedded into the integrated system model in MATLAB/Simulink codes … these parameter-based models can be executed quickly in Simulink with accurate results … verification of the calculated results showed resistance and propulsion force prediction errors at about 5 percent, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); [the predicted resistance is interpreted as corresponding to the estimated resistance]); and applying vessel operation data (FIG. 3 of DONG shows ship/vessel operation profile model with profile data, which is applied to the ship performance and low-order hull resistance model), stability data (Stability Book Data, FIG. 3 of DONG), and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model (Low-order Hull Resistance Model/Dedicated Ship Drag Regression Model in FIG. 3 of DONG; [modelled drag data is interpreted as corresponding to estimated drag data]) to generate estimated vessel performance parameters (as shown in FIG. 3 of DONG, the Low-order Hull Resistance Model/Dedicated Ship Drag Regression Model outputs predicted Ship Performance (Speed, Acceleration) and Needed Power).
Regarding claim 3, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining propulsion resistance and thrust for the marine vessel includes determining upper deck wind resistance based on a cross-sectional area of an upper deck of the marine vessel (Ship Operation Profile Model includes Operation Data including Wind, FIGS. 2 and 3 of DONG; See also Wind Map in FIG. 1 of DONG; See also aerodynamic resistance, can be a function of relative wind speed, aerodynamic resistance, and/or propulsive efficiency, Para. [0030] of KOWALYSHYN), and combining the upper deck wind resistance with an estimated water-induced resistance output from the low-order vessel drag regression model to determine a total resistance (a total horsepower required for the vessel to overcome total resistance can be determined … with the resistance components established in step 102, corresponding horsepower components can be determined … the horsepower that can be used to overcome, for example, aerodynamic resistance, can be a function of relative wind speed, aerodynamic resistance, and/or propulsive efficiency … the horsepower that can be used to overcome calm water resistance, on the other hand, can be a function of the vessel's speed through water, calm water resistance, and/or propulsive efficiency … the horsepower that can be used to overcome the added resistance due to, for example, waves can be a function of the vessel's speed through water, added resistance due to waves, and/or propulsive efficiency … the total horsepower required for propulsion through the water can be determined, for example, by summing the three horsepower variables described above, Para. [0030] of KOWALYSHYN).
Regarding claim 8, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the propulsion resistance and thrust model comprises a low-order model that estimates resistance in fewer than six degrees of freedom (FIG. 3 of DONG shows a low-order hull resistance model; [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [032], indicates that “with a 1 DOF consideration, the model is considered a low-order model”; hence, the low-order model of FIG. 3 of DONG is interpreted as having 1 DOF]).
Regarding claim 10, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising outputting a powertrain system configuration indicating respective sizes or types for one or more components of the propulsion system based on the estimated vessel performance parameters (the powertrain system, and associated power system for larger vessels, can have different architectures, sizes of key components, and system control/power management strategies … the combination of these leads to different “quality” and costs … this work, and the development of the HEMVMBDOT, is to support the accurate and quantitative evaluations of different hybrid propulsion system designs and their associated costs, to allow the vessel designer and operator to identify the optimized design and operation control, DONG at Col. 2 of Page 2 (labeled as Page 3805); See also FIG. 1 of DONG shows “design changes” including powertrain components, controls, hull and propeller).
Regarding claim 11, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a power profile based on output from the propulsion resistance and thrust model (FIG. 3 of DONG shows that the HEMV-MBDOT Platform predicts needed power based on the low-order hull resistance model), wherein updating the propulsion power prediction for the integrated propulsion system and control scheme model includes updating one or more control models of an energy management system that controls energy generation and distribution in the propulsion system based on the power profile (the control of the energy storage system (ESS) and hybrid (internal combustion engine and electric motor) vehicle operate at “highly efficient operating points” based on the model based design and operation (MBDO): See DONG at Column 2 of Page 1 (labelled as 3804) (“hybrid vehicle’s propulsion power demands are met by both an internal combustion engine (ICE) combined with an electric motor/generator (M/G) with a large battery energy storage system (ESS) … these are coordinated by dedicated controls in the system controller, allowing the ICE and M/G to operate at their highly efficient operating points and to deliver the needed power through interconnected mechanical and electric drives … the system design and operation control of a hybrid electric propulsion system have an enormous range of possible solutions due to the mutual influence among key powertrain components and the different operation modes”); See also FIG. 1 of DONG shows that the “Powertrain and Power System Models” update the “Propulsion Power Demand Model” which updates the “Energy Efficiency & Emissions” (emphasis added); [thus, the energy efficiency data is updated based on the power demand (power profile) and the energy efficiency data (e.g., highly efficient operating points) is used for control models of an energy management system); See also function of the integrated propulsion system modelling tools, HEMV-MBDOT, is to support the design and control optimization of marine propulsion systems, DONG at Column 1 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also FIG. 3 of DONG shows the HEMV-MBDOT where the ; [optimizing the control is interpreted as updating the control]; See also FIG. 3 of DONG shows the HEMV-MBDOT platform with low-order hydrodynamic models use data from (i.e., are updated by) the ship operation profile model, which includes operation data that includes “power (speed, torque”); [the ship operation profile is, at least in part, a power profile used to update the models used to directly or indirectly control the energy management [in an efficient manner]]; See also once the total horsepower needed has been determined, the propulsion-specific fuel consumption can then be estimated as a function of, for example, power turbine speed, total horsepower required, gas turbine degradation factor, specific fuel consumption correction factor, intake air temperature, number of turbines operating, and/or the fuel's lower heating value, Para. [0034] of KOWALYSHYN; See also resistance results are used directly as a full-scale coefficient for use in vessel performance calculations, Para. [0048] of KOWALYSHYN; See also all of this information may be stored as historical data at a server for the purposes of generating optimal courses for future missions for the vessel as well as for other vessels accessing the server, Para. [0091] of KOWALYSHYN).
Regarding claim 18, DONG discloses a marine propulsion system modeling system (the development of the Hybrid Electric Marine Vessel - Model Based Design and Optimization Tool (HEMV-MBDOT) is to support the accurate and quantitative evaluations of different hybrid propulsion system designs and their associated costs, to allow the vessel designer and operator to identify the optimized design and operation control, DONG at Last Paragraph of Column 1 and all of Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also in this work, the previously introduced modelling tools have been modularized to support its flexible use in various applications … three different levels of propulsion power modelling, which can be used to support the integrated marine propulsion system modelling and simulation work, are discussed in this section, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); [Examiner’s Note: configuration of a propulsion system of a marine vessel is interpreted as corresponding to designing of a propulsion system of a marine vessel]) comprising: a processor (a supercomputer and CAD workstations (Column 2 of Page 3 (labelled as Pate 3806)); a memory device storing instructions executable by the processor to: apply computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model (the reduced-order hull drag can be obtained from the existing vessel’s Stability Book, or obtained using one-pass vessel stability CFD simulations, DONG at Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)) to generate estimated hull drag data for a marine vessel (FIG. 3 of DONG shows a low-order hull resistance model with a dedicated ship drag regression model; See also the hull and propeller coefficient matrices are obtained using the full-scale CFD simulations first … the compact and easy to calculate parameter based reduced-order models with the obtained hull and propeller coefficient matrices are then embedded into the integrated system model in MATLAB/Simulink codes … these parameter-based models can be executed quickly in Simulink with accurate results … verification of the calculated results showed resistance and propulsion force prediction errors at about 5 percent, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); [the predicted resistance is interpreted as corresponding to the estimated resistance]; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “to generate estimated hull drag data for a marine vessel” is not “positively recited” and is interpreted as “intended use”, even though the DONG citations above appear to teach this limitation]); apply vessel operation data (FIG. 3 of DONG shows ship/vessel operation profile model with profile data, which is applied to the ship performance and low-order hull resistance model), stability data (Stability Book Data, FIG. 3 of DONG), and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model (Low-order Hull Resistance Model/Dedicated Ship Drag Regression Model in FIG. 3 of DONG; [modelled drag data is interpreted as corresponding to estimated drag data]) to estimate resistance for the marine vessel in fewer than six degrees of freedom (FIG. 3 of DONG shows a low-order hull resistance model; [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [032], indicates that “with a 1 DOF consideration, the model is considered a low-order model”; hence, the low-order model of FIG. 3 of DONG is interpreted as having 1 DOF]) and to generate estimated vessel performance parameters based on the estimated resistance (as shown in FIG. 3 of DONG, the Low-order Hull Resistance Model/Dedicated Ship Drag Regression Model outputs predicted Ship Performance (Speed, Acceleration) and Needed Power; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “to estimate resistance for the marine vessel in fewer than six degrees of freedom” and “to generate estimated vessel performance parameters based on the estimated resistance” are not “positively recited” and are interpreted as “intended use”, even though the DONG citations above appear to teach this limitation]); and update one or more control models (FIG. 3 of DONG shows predicted arrow leading to needed power) for a propulsion system of the marine vessel (the HEMV-MBDOT platform consists of four functional components: [including] a) model of vessel propulsion power demands; b) model of drag force from hull-water interaction; c) model of propulsion force from propulsor and potential cavitation noise; and d) model of powertrain system and power system, DONG at Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also complete technical information, hull and propeller computer models and a broad scope of operation data of each of these vessels are collected and acquired using dedicated data collection apparatus and through interfaces to the vessels Controller Area Network (CAN) data bus or operation data logger, DONG at Column 1 of Page 4 (labeled as Page 3807))), the one or more control models controlling energy generation and distribution in the propulsion system (function of this integrated propulsion system modelling tools, HEMV-MBDOT, is to support the design and control optimization of marine propulsion systems, DONG at Column 1 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805)).
DONG appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds. BLANKE, however, is in the same field of propulsion efficiency/propeller control of vessels (Para. [0001] of BLANKE) and teaches estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel (results of simulations include shaft speed is shown in the subplot (d) … the optimizing controller produces the larger shaft speed variation but the thrust shows smaller oscillations compared to the conventional shaft speed controller … shaft speed obtained as a solution of the optimizing problem presents the largest values when the propeller efficiency is larger and vice versa, Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also propulsion efficiency may be given as the ratio of the average power delivered to propel the vessel and the average power consumed by the prime mover as stated by equation 16, Para. [0100] of BLANKE; See also Equation 16 is solved by deriving values of the propeller speed n which maximises the propulsion efficiency, i.e. the integral, for different values of advance speed ua, Para. [0101] of BLANKE) based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds (shaft speed obtained as a solution of the optimizing problem presents the largest values when the propeller efficiency is larger and vice versa, Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also FIG. 5 shows the result of a simulation … vessel speed, equal to the nominal advance speed in this case, is depicted in the subplot (a), Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also Paras. [0058], [0092] & [0103] of BLANKE; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds” is not “positively recited”, i.e., “intended use”, because it is not clear whether every reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) requires “running simulations”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power prediction functions of DONG with the shaft power demand prediction of BLANKE [to arrive at the claimed features] at least for the purpose of reducing power consumption (Para. [0097] of BLANKE).
Additionally, although DONG discloses a supercomputer and CAD workstations (Column 2 of Page 3 (labelled as Pate 3806)) and an operation data logger (DONG at Column 1 of Page 4 (labeled as Page 3807)), DONG and BLANKE appear to fail to explicitly disclose a processor and memory device storing instructions executable by the processor to: update a memory, including update one or more control models stored in computer memory of the marine vessel based on the estimated vessel performance parameters. KOWALYSHYN, however, is in the same field of determining attributable factors in actual marine vessel operations (Para. [0002]) and teaches a processor (medium can contain instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to, Para. [0010] of KOWALYSHYN); a memory device storing instructions executable by the processor to (storage 904 and memory 906 can be combined, and can include one or more storage mediums or memory components, Para. [0094] of KOWALYSHYN): update one or more control models stored in computer memory of the marine vessel based on the estimated vessel performance parameters (once the total horsepower needed has been determined, the propulsion-specific fuel consumption can then be estimated as a function of, for example, power turbine speed, total horsepower required, gas turbine degradation factor, specific fuel consumption correction factor, intake air temperature, number of turbines operating, and/or the fuel's lower heating value, Para. [0034] of KOWALYSHYN; See also resistance results are used directly as a full-scale coefficient for use in vessel performance calculations, Para. [0048] of KOWALYSHYN; See also all of this information may be stored as historical data at a server for the purposes of generating optimal courses for future missions for the vessel as well as for other vessels accessing the server, Para. [0091] of KOWALYSHYN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power prediction functions of DONG as modified by BLANKE with the server/memory structure of KOWALYSHYN [to arrive at the claimed features] at least for the purpose of generating optimal courses for future missions and/or for other vessels (Para. [0091] of KOWALYSHYN).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Modeling and Optimization of Green Ships Using Diesel/Natural Gas/Fuel Cell Hybrid or Pure Electric Propulsions” by Zuomin Dong (hereinafter “DONG”) in view of BLANKE et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0208377) and KOWALYSHYN et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0341729 A1), and further in view of STAN (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0036760 A1).
Regarding claim 4, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 3 (as shown above) and determining propulsion resistance and thrust for the marine vessel (the resistance and propulsion forces of a marine vessel are determined by hydrodynamic phenomena, DONG at Column 1 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also the most comprehensive form of the integrated system model is based on the reduced-order hydrodynamic hull resistance and propeller thrust models, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); See also the HEMV-MBDOT platform consists of four functional components: [including] a) model of vessel propulsion power demands; b) model of drag force from hull-water interaction; c) model of propulsion force from propulsor and potential cavitation noise; and d) model of powertrain system and power system, DONG at Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805)).
However, DONG as modified by BLANKE and KOWALSHYN appears to fail to explicitly disclose calculating a propulsion thrust demand based on the determined total resistance and a mass acceleration of the marine vessel.
STAN, however, is in the field of watercraft propulsion (Para. [0002] of STAN) and teaches calculating a propulsion thrust demand based on the determined total resistance and a mass acceleration of the marine vessel (another view involves Newton's third principle; by accelerating a mass of fluid in one direction, thrust is created in the opposite direction … the amount of generated thrust is equal to fluid mass multiplied by acceleration, Para. [0035]; See also as speed increases, beside creating an increased drag force, not shown, it determine a reduction of thrust 45 augmentation, Para. [0046] of STAN; [drag is interpreted as corresponding to a total hull/water resistance]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the determining of propulsion resistance and thrust propulsion of DONG as modified by BLANKE and KOWALSHYN with the mass acceleration-focused thrust demand calculation of STAN for the purpose of increasing efficiency (Para. [0035] of STAN).
Regarding claim 5, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 4 (as shown above), further comprising performing an iterative calculation method to obtain a propeller rotational speed corresponding to the thrust demand (decouple the constantly changing and relatively low operation speed of the propeller shaft and the preferred stable and high operation speed of a diesel engine, Col. 2 of DONG at Page 4 (labelled as Page 3807); [speed of the propeller shaft is interpreted as corresponding to a propeller rotational speed]).
Claims 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Modeling and Optimization of Green Ships Using Diesel/Natural Gas/Fuel Cell Hybrid or Pure Electric Propulsions” by Zuomin Dong (hereinafter “DONG”) in view of BLANKE et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0208377) and KOWALYSHYN et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0341729 A1), and further in view of STAN (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0036760 A1) and “Characterization of Canadian Marine Vessel Operational Profiles and Hybrid Electric Propulsion System Modelling Tool Improvement for GHG and Ship Noise Reduction” (hereinafter “DONG_2”). DONG_2 was cited on Page 4 (first listed reference) in Applicant’s IDS dated 04/18/2022.
Regarding claim 6, DONG as modified discloses the method of claim 5 (as shown above), further comprising calculating torque demand based on the propeller rotational speed, the thrust demand, and a propeller coefficient (decouple the constantly changing and relatively low operation speed of the propeller shaft and the preferred stable and high operation speed of a diesel engine, Col. 2 of DONG at Page 4 (labelled as Page 3807); [speed of the propeller shaft is interpreted as corresponding to a propeller rotational speed]; See also propeller shaft can be driven by the engine, by the electric motor, or by both, DONG at Column 1 of Page 5 (labeled as Page 3808); See also hull and propeller coefficient matrices are obtained using the full-scale CFD simulations first, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)). However, DONG as modified by BLANKE, KOWALSHYN and STAN appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the propeller coefficient is determined based on an output of a simulation having a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model of a propeller of the propulsion system as an input.
DONG_2, however, is in the same field of hybrid electric propulsion system modelling tool improvement (title), apparently has the same author (as DONG) and teaches the propeller coefficient is determined based on an output of a simulation having a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model of a propeller of the propulsion system as an input (Geometric (CAD) Modelling of Ship Hull and Propeller·--· used to form the mesh data for CFD simulations, Page 40 of DONG_2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hybrid electric marine vessel modelling and calculation methods of DONG as modified by BLANKE, KOWALSHYN and STAN with the updated hybrid electric marine vessel modelling and calculation methods of DONG_2 because DONG_2 appears to be an updated version of DONG, and for the purpose of improving power performance, energy efficiency and emissions of marine vessels (DONG_2 at Page 9 (labelled as Page ix)).
Regarding claim 7, DONG as modified by BLANKE, KOWALSHYN, STAN and KOWALASHYN discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising combining the torque demand and the propeller rotational speed to determine a shaft power demand (FIG. 3 of DONG shows Low-order Propeller Thrust Model uses Propeller Thrust and Shaft Torque; See also decouple the constantly changing and relatively low operation speed of the propeller shaft and the preferred stable and high operation speed of a diesel engine, Col. 2 of DONG at Page 4 (labelled as Page 3807); [speed of the propeller shaft is interpreted as corresponding to a propeller rotational speed), and updating the integrated propulsion system and control scheme model stored in the computer memory in accordance with the shaft power demand (FIG. 3 of DONG shows Low-order Propeller Thrust Model uses Propeller Thrust and Shaft Torque; See also complete technical information, hull and propeller computer models and a broad scope of operation data of each of these vessels are collected and acquired using dedicated data collection apparatus and through interfaces to the vessels Controller Area Network (CAN) data bus or operation data logger, DONG at Column 1 of Page 4 (labeled as Page 3807); See also once the total horsepower needed has been determined, the propulsion-specific fuel consumption can then be estimated as a function of, for example, power turbine speed, total horsepower required, gas turbine degradation factor, specific fuel consumption correction factor, intake air temperature, number of turbines operating, and/or the fuel's lower heating value, Para. [0034] of KOWALYSHYN; See also resistance results are used directly as a full-scale coefficient for use in vessel performance calculations, Para. [0048] of KOWALYSHYN; See also all of this information may be stored as historical data at a server for the purposes of generating optimal courses for future missions for the vessel as well as for other vessels accessing the server, Para. [0091] of KOWALYSHYN).
Regarding claim 9, DONG as modified by BLANKE, KOWALSHYN, STAN and KOWALASHYN discloses the method of claim 8 (as shown above), wherein the low-order model estimates resistance in one degree of freedom (FIG. 3 of DONG shows a low-order hull resistance model; [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [032], indicates that “with a 1 DOF consideration, the model is considered a low-order model”; hence, the low-order model of FIG. 3 of DONG is interpreted as having at least one 1 DOF]; See also parameters of the reduced-order hull drag can be obtained from the existing vessel’s Stability Book, or obtained using one-pass vessel stability CFD simulations, DONG at Column 2 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3805); [hull drag is interpreted as corresponding to hull resistance, which is supported by, for example, Applicant’s specification, at Para. [041]: “hull viscous friction resistance, which is about 80% of the total drag”]; [one degree of freedom is interpreted as requiring at least one direction (e.g., of the resistance) based on Para. [032] of Applicant’s specification]).
DONG, BLANKE, KOWALSHYN and STAN appear to fail to explicitly disclose one degree of freedom corresponding to a surging direction of the marine vessel.
DONG_2, however, is in the same field of hybrid electric propulsion system modelling tool improvement (title), apparently has the same author and teaches one degree of freedom corresponding to a surging direction of the marine vessel (a 1-DOF longitude direction, motion model along the direction of ship movement has been implemented and verified in MATLAB/Simulink, as well as used in all case studies, DONG_2 at Page 60 (labelled as Page 34); [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [032], indicates a surging direction may also be referred to as a sailing and/or travel direction, and hence direction of ship movement is interpreted as corresponding to surging direction]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hybrid electric marine vessel modelling and calculation methods of DONG as modified by BLANKE, KOWALSHYN and STAN with the updated hybrid electric marine vessel modelling and calculation methods of DONG_2 because DONG_2 appears to be an updated version of DONG, and for the purpose of improving power performance, energy efficiency and emissions of marine vessels (DONG_2 at Page 9 (labelled as Page ix))..
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Modeling and Optimization of Green Ships Using Diesel/Natural Gas/Fuel Cell Hybrid or Pure Electric Propulsions” by Zuomin Dong (hereinafter “DONG”) in view of BLANKE et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0208377).
Regarding claim 12, DONG discloses a marine vessel comprising a powertrain system (hybrid electric powertrain system model, DONG at Column 2 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)), the powertrain system comprising: an engine configured to power a generator to provide electrical energy to a power bus of the powertrain system (use multiple engines, generators, and propulsion motors in the form of a micropower grid to meet the much higher power and energy demands of larger marine vessels, DONG at Column 2 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)); a secondary fuel system configured to provide electrical energy to the power bus (FIG. 7 of DONG shows a ship (marine vessel) with “diesel”, “hydrogen fuelcell” and “li-ion battery plug-in hybrid green ship”); a propulsion driver device configured to drive a propulsion device using electrical energy received from the bus (propeller shaft can be driven by the engine, by the electric motor, or by both, DONG at Column 1 of Page 5 (labeled as Page 3808); See also parallel hybrid electric powertrain system with parallel mechanical and electrical power flow consists of an engine, one or more electric motor/generators, an ESS, a propulsion power-merging gearbox, and a system controller, as shown in Figure 7, DONG at Column 1 of Page 5 (labelled as Page 3808)); an electrical energy storage system coupled to the power bus (energy storage system (ESS), Column 2 of DONG at Page 5 (labelled as Page 3808)); and an energy management and power control system configured to control distribution of electrical energy between at least the energy storage system and the propulsion driver device (parallel hybrid electric powertrain system with parallel mechanical and electrical power flow consists of an engine, one or more electric motor/generators, an ESS, a propulsion power-merging gearbox, and a system controller, as shown in Figure 7, DONG at Column 1 of Page 5 (labelled as Page 3808)) based on estimated vessel performance parameters (FIG. 3 of DONG shows predicted arrow leading to needed power; See also the HEMV-MBDOT platform consists of four functional components: [including] a) model of vessel propulsion power demands; b) model of drag force from hull-water interaction; c) model of propulsion force from propulsor and potential cavitation noise; and d) model of powertrain system and power system, DONG at Column 2 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805); See also complete technical information, hull and propeller computer models and a broad scope of operation data of each of these vessels are collected and acquired using dedicated data collection apparatus and through interfaces to the vessels Controller Area Network (CAN) data bus or operation data logger, DONG at Column 1 of Page 4 (labeled as Page 3807)), wherein the estimated vessel performance parameters are determined by: applying computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation data to a hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model (the reduced-order hull drag can be obtained from the existing vessel’s Stability Book, or obtained using one-pass vessel stability CFD simulations, DONG at Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)) to generate estimated hull drag data (FIG. 3 of DONG shows a low-order hull resistance model with a dedicated ship drag regression model; See also the hull and propeller coefficient matrices are obtained using the full-scale CFD simulations first … the compact and easy to calculate parameter based reduced-order models with the obtained hull and propeller coefficient matrices are then embedded into the integrated system model in MATLAB/Simulink codes … these parameter-based models can be executed quickly in Simulink with accurate results … verification of the calculated results showed resistance and propulsion force prediction errors at about 5 percent, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806); [the predicted resistance is interpreted as corresponding to the estimated resistance]; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “to generate estimated hull drag data” is not “positively recited”, i.e., “intended use”), and applying vessel operation data (FIG. 3 of DONG shows ship/vessel operation profile model with profile data, which is applied to the ship performance and low-order hull resistance model), stability data (Stability Book Data, FIG. 3 of DONG), and the estimated hull drag data to a low-order vessel drag regression model l (Low-order Hull Resistance Model/Dedicated Ship Drag Regression Model in FIG. 3 of DONG; [modelled drag data is interpreted as corresponding to estimated drag data]) to generate the estimated vessel performance parameters (as shown in FIG. 3 of DONG, the Low-order Hull Resistance Model/Dedicated Ship Drag Regression Model outputs predicted Ship Performance (Speed, Acceleration) and Needed Power; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “to generate the estimated vessel performance parameters” is not “positively recited”, i.e., “intended use”).
DONG appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds. BLANKE, however, is in the same field of propulsion efficiency/propeller control of vessels (Para. [0001] of BLANKE) and teaches estimates a propulsive shaft power demand for the marine vessel (results of simulations include shaft speed is shown in the subplot (d) … the optimizing controller produces the larger shaft speed variation but the thrust shows smaller oscillations compared to the conventional shaft speed controller … shaft speed obtained as a solution of the optimizing problem presents the largest values when the propeller efficiency is larger and vice versa, Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also propulsion efficiency may be given as the ratio of the average power delivered to propel the vessel and the average power consumed by the prime mover as stated by equation 16, Para. [0100] of BLANKE; See also Equation 16 is solved by deriving values of the propeller speed n which maximises the propulsion efficiency, i.e. the integral, for different values of advance speed ua, Para. [0101] of BLANKE) based at least in part on a propeller coefficient determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds (shaft speed obtained as a solution of the optimizing problem presents the largest values when the propeller efficiency is larger and vice versa, Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also FIG. 5 shows the result of a simulation … vessel speed, equal to the nominal advance speed in this case, is depicted in the subplot (a), Para. [0103] of BLANKE; See also Paras. [0058], [0092] & [0103] of BLANKE; [Examiner’s Note: additionally, “determined by running simulations using an array of surging speeds” is not “positively recited”, i.e., “intended use”, because it is not clear whether every reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) requires “running simulations”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the power prediction functions of DONG with the shaft power demand prediction of BLANKE [to arrive at the claimed features] at least for the purpose of reducing power consumption (Para. [0097] of BLANKE).
Regarding claim 13, DONG as modified BLANKE discloses the marine vessel of claim 12, wherein the energy management and power control system is further configured to control generation of electrical energy using the engine, the generator, and the secondary fuel system (parallel hybrid electric powertrain system with parallel mechanical and electrical power flow consists of an engine, one or more electric motor/generators, an ESS, a propulsion power-merging gearbox, and a system controller, as shown in Figure 7, DONG at Column 1 of Page 5 (labelled as Page 3808)).
Regarding claim 14, DONG as modified of BLANKE discloses the marine vessel of claim 12, wherein the secondary fuel system comprises a hydrogen fuel cell system (FIG. 7 of DONG shows a ship (marine vessel) with “diesel”, “hydrogen fuelcell” and “li-ion battery plug-in hybrid green ship”).
Regarding claim 15, DONG as modified by BLANKE discloses the marine vessel of claim 12, wherein respective selected sizes, types, or configurations for the engine, secondary fuel system, or propulsion device of the marine vessel are selected based on an output of the low-order vessel drag regression model (the powertrain system, and associated power system for larger vessels, can have different architectures, sizes of key components, and system control/power management strategies … the combination of these leads to different “quality” and costs … this work, and the development of the HEMVMBDOT, is to support the accurate and quantitative evaluations of different hybrid propulsion system designs and their associated costs, to allow the vessel designer and operator to identify the optimized design and operation control, DONG at Col. 2 of Page 2 (labeled as Page 3805); See also FIG. 1 of DONG shows “design changes” including powertrain components, controls, hull and propeller) OR wherein a selected shape or size of a hull of the marine vessel is selected based on an output of the low-order vessel drag regression model (Examiner notes the use of the disjunctive “OR” which broadens the claim 15 to require one of two “wherein” clauses including the original first wherein clause).
Regarding claim 16, DONG as modified by BLANKE discloses the marine vessel of claim 12, wherein a selected shape or size of a hull of the marine vessel is selected based on an output of the low-order vessel drag regression model (the powertrain system, and associated power system for larger vessels, can have different architectures, sizes of key components, and system control/power management strategies … the combination of these leads to different “quality” and costs … this work, and the development of the HEMVMBDOT, is to support the accurate and quantitative evaluations of different hybrid propulsion system designs and their associated costs, to allow the vessel designer and operator to identify the optimized design and operation control, DONG at Col. 2 of Page 2 (labeled as Page 3805); See also FIG. 1 of DONG shows “design changes” including powertrain components, controls, hull and propeller).
Regarding claim 17, DONG as modified by BLANKE discloses the marine vessel of claim 12, wherein the estimated vessel performance parameters include a power profile for the marine vessel indicating estimated power demands for the marine vessel under different conditions (as shown in FIG. 3 of DONG, the Low-order Hull Resistance Model/Dedicated Ship Drag Regression Model outputs predicted Ship Performance (Speed, Acceleration) and Needed Power; See also more flexible sailing routes, different hull shapes and propulsion selection, varying displacement under changing cargo loads, and fluctuating marine weather conditions (ocean current, wave, wind and tides) lead to substantial variations in the needed propulsion power, DONG at Column 1 of Page 2 (labelled as Page 3805)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Modeling and Optimization of Green Ships Using Diesel/Natural Gas/Fuel Cell Hybrid or Pure Electric Propulsions” by Zuomin Dong (hereinafter “DONG”) in view of BLANKE et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0208377) and KOWALYSHYN et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0341729 A1), and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art and/or Non-Patent Literature (NPL) entitled “An Approximate Power Prediction Method” by Holtrop and Mennen (published: 1982), hereinafter “HOLTROP).
Regarding claim 19, DONG as modified by BLANKE and KOWALSHYN discloses the marine propulsion system modeling system of claim 18 (as shown above) but appears to fail to explicitly disclose wherein the propulsive shaft power demand is based on a backpropagation method using the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
95
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
However, Applicant’s Specification, at Paras. [030] & [031] includes admitted prior art that includes the propulsive shaft power demand is based on a backpropagation method using the following equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
95
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Para. [031] of Applicant’s as-filed specification recite “Holtrop and Mennen's hull drag and vessel surging power deduced model 120, estimates the vessel's propulsive shaft power demand based on a backpropagation method using Equation 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
59
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; [in addition, Applicant’s remarks filed 10/06/2025, at page 1, indicate Equation 2 in paragraph [0031] of the subject application are from a 1982 publication entitled “An Approximate Power Prediction Method” by Holtrop and Mennen]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hybrid electric marine vessel modelling and calculation methods of DONG as modified by BLANKE), which include propulsive shaft power demand, with the Applicant Admitted Prior Art for the purpose of improving accuracy of propulsive power prediction modeling (Col. 1 of Page 1 of HOLTROP (which is labelled as Page 166)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Non-Patent Literature (NPL) “Modeling and Optimization of Green Ships Using Diesel/Natural Gas/Fuel Cell Hybrid or Pure Electric Propulsions” by Zuomin Dong (hereinafter “DONG”) in view of BLANKE et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0208377), KOWALYSHYN et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0341729 A1), and further in view of STAN (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0036760 A1).
Regarding claim 20, DONG as modified discloses the marine propulsion system modeling system of claim 19 (as shown above), further comprising performing an iterative calculation method to obtain a propeller rotational speed corresponding to the thrust demand (decouple the constantly changing and relatively low operation speed of the propeller shaft and the preferred stable and high operation speed of a diesel engine, Col. 2 of DONG at Page 4 (labelled as Page 3807); [speed of the propeller shaft is interpreted as corresponding to a propeller rotational speed]), calculating torque demand based on the propeller rotational speed, the thrust demand, and a propeller coefficient (decouple the constantly changing and relatively low operation speed of the propeller shaft and the preferred stable and high operation speed of a diesel engine, Col. 2 of DONG at Page 4 (labelled as Page 3807); [speed of the propeller shaft is interpreted as corresponding to a propeller rotational speed]; See also propeller shaft can be driven by the engine, by the electric motor, or by both, DONG at Column 1 of Page 5 (labeled as Page 3808); See also hull and propeller coefficient matrices are obtained using the full-scale CFD simulations first, DONG at Column 1 of Page 3 (labelled as Page 3806)) and combining the torque demand and the propeller rotational speed to determine a shaft power demand (FIG. 3 of DONG shows Low-order Propeller Thrust Model uses Propeller Thrust and Shaft Torque; See also decouple the constantly changing and relatively low operation speed of the propeller shaft and the preferred stable and high operation speed of a diesel engine, Col. 2 of DONG at Page 4 (labelled as Page 3807); [speed of the propeller shaft is interpreted as corresponding to a propeller rotational speed]), wherein updating the one or more control models for the propulsion system comprises updating the one or more control models based on the determined shaft power demand (FIG. 3 of DONG shows Low-order Propeller Thrust Model uses Propeller Thrust and Shaft Torque).
DONG, BLANKE and KOWLSHYN appear to fail to explicitly disclose calculating a thrust demand from a propeller of the marine vessel based on the determined total resistance and a mass acceleration of the marine vessel.
STAN, however, is in the field of watercraft propulsion (Para. [0002] of STAN) and teaches calculating a thrust demand from a propeller of the marine vessel based on the determined total resistance and a mass acceleration of the marine vessel (another view involves Newton's third principle; by accelerating a mass of fluid in one direction, thrust is created in the opposite direction … the amount of generated thrust is equal to fluid mass multiplied by acceleration, Para. [0035]; See also as speed increases, beside creating an increased drag force, not shown, it determine a reduction of thrust 45 augmentation, Para. [0046] of STAN; [drag is interpreted as corresponding to a total hull/water resistance]). Regarding total resistance, see also DONG as modified teaches total resistance (a total horsepower required for the vessel to overcome total resistance can be determined … with the resistance components established in step 102, corresponding horsepower components can be determined … the horsepower that can be used to overcome, for example, aerodynamic resistance, can be a function of relative wind speed, aerodynamic resistance, and/or propulsive efficiency … the horsepower that can be used to overcome calm water resistance, on the other hand, can be a function of the vessel's speed through water, calm water resistance, and/or propulsive efficiency … the horsepower that can be used to overcome the added resistance due to, for example, waves can be a function of the vessel's speed through water, added resistance due to waves, and/or propulsive efficiency … the total horsepower required for propulsion through the water can be determined, for example, by summing the three horsepower variables described above, Para. [0030] of KOWALYSHYN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the determining of propulsion resistance and thrust propulsion of DONG as modified by BLANKE and KOWLSHYN with the mass acceleration-focused thrust demand calculation of STAN for the purpose of increasing efficiency (Para. [0035] of STAN).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, the following references from Applicant’s IDS dated 04/18/2022 are considered pertinent:
PNG
media_image3.png
33
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
57
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
57
623
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
37
581
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
35
589
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
73
613
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189