DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 are currently pending.
2. Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are canceled.
3. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 20120129410 A1) in view of Barrett (US 20080027597 A1).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Tyers teaches a method for marine vessel position control, the method comprising (Tyers: [0005]):
Receiving a position hold signal from a human-machine interface of a marine vessel (Tyers: [0037]);
In response to receiving the position hold signal, monitoring sensor data from at least one sensor (Tyers: [0037] and [0048]),
Wherein the at least one sensor is configured to interact with at least one of at least one real-time-kinematic base and at least one target, and wherein the at least one of the at least one real-time kinematic base and the at least one target is disposed on a structure within a vicinity of to the marine vessel (Tyers: [0048], [0049], and [0052] Note that the dock is equivalent to the target and the real-time kinematic base is equivalent to the reference points on the dock.);
Determining a hold position based at least on the monitored sensor data (Tyers: [0037] and [0048]);
And selectively controlling a thruster system of the marine vessel to hold the marine vessel in the hold position using the monitored sensor data (Tyers: [0034], [0037], and [0049] Note that selectively controlling a thruster system of the marine vessel for a period of time to hold the marine vessel in a hold position is equivalent to the marine vessel remaining the same lateral position relative to the dock by engaging the forward or reverse drive. The period of time is broad interpreted as any moment the marine vessel is maintained at the set distance from the dock.).
Tyers fails to explicitly teach in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel, delaying at least one control input of the thruster system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barrett teaches in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel, delaying at least one control input of the thruster system (Barrett: [0012], [0059], and [0060] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that momentum is dependent on mass and velocity of the vessel. Delaying a bow thruster of the marine vessel that is heavier in the stern is equivalent to delaying a control input of the thruster system in response to an increased inertial mass. The bow thruster is delayed because of the difference in response times between the bow and stern thrusters (a function of at least the size/weight distribution of the marine vessel).).
Tyers and Barrett are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Barrett to add a delay period in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel because it provides the benefit of controlling the vessel to be maintained on an accurate heading without further input from the vessel operator. Barret explains the delay time is set based on the size and weight distribution of the marine vessel so that the vessel moves in an intuitive manner.
9. Regarding Claim 2, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one sensor includes at least one of a light detection and ranging sensor, a radio detection and ranging sensor, a sound navigation and ranging sensor, an optical sensor, at least one pendant set, and an image capturing senor (Tyers: [0048]).
10. Regarding Claim 6, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one target includes at least one of a reflective target, a magnetic target, a hi-contrast target, a radio-frequency target, and a radio-frequency identification target (Tyers: [0034] and [0048] Note that the stationary object reflects radar waves from the radar sensor.).
11. Regarding Claim 7, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Tyers teaches the thruster system includes at least one thruster disposed on the marine vessel (Tyers: [0049]).
12. Regarding Claim 8, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one thruster includes at least one bow thruster of the marine vessel (Tyers: [0049]).
13. Regarding Claim 9, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one thruster includes at least one stern thruster of the marine vessel (Tyers: [0049]).
14. Regarding Claim 10, Tyers teaches a system for marine vessel position control, the system comprising (Tyers: [0005]):
A processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Tyers: [0050] and [0052]):
Receive a position hold signal from a human-machine interface of a marine vessel (Tyers: [0037]);
In response to receiving the position hold signal, monitor sensor data from at least one sensor (Tyers: [0037] and [0048]),
Wherein the at least one sensor is configured to interact with at least one of at least one real-time-kinematic base and at least one target, and wherein the at least one of the at least one real-time kinematic base and the at least one target is disposed on a structure within a vicinity of to the marine vessel (Tyers: [0048], [0049], and [0052] Note that the dock is equivalent to the target and the real-time kinematic base is equivalent to the reference points on the dock.);
Determine a hold position based at least on the monitored sensor data (Tyers: [0037] and [0048]);
And selectively controlling a thruster system of the marine vessel to hold the marine vessel in the hold position using the monitored sensor data (Tyers: [0034], [0037], and [0049] Note that selectively controlling a thruster system of the marine vessel for a period of time to hold the marine vessel in a hold position is equivalent to the marine vessel remaining the same lateral position relative to the dock by engaging the forward or reverse drive. The period of time is broad interpreted as any moment the marine vessel is maintained at the set distance from the dock.).
Tyers fails to explicitly teach in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel, delaying at least one control input of the thruster system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barrett teaches in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel, delaying at least one control input of the thruster system (Barrett: [0012], [0059], and [0060] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that momentum is dependent on mass and velocity of the vessel. Delaying a bow thruster of the marine vessel that is heavier in the stern is equivalent to delaying a control input of the thruster system in response to an increased inertial mass. The bow thruster is delayed because of the difference in response times between the bow and stern thrusters (a function of at least the size/weight distribution of the marine vessel).).
Tyers and Barrett are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Barrett to add a delay period in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel because it provides the benefit of controlling the vessel to be maintained on an accurate heading without further input from the vessel operator. Barret explains the delay time is set based on the size and weight distribution of the marine vessel so that the vessel moves in an intuitive manner.
15. Regarding Claim 11, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one sensor includes at least one of a light detection and ranging sensor, a radio detection and ranging sensor, a sound navigation and ranging sensor, an optical sensor, at least one pendant set, and an image capturing senor (Tyers: [0048]).
16. Regarding Claim 15, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one target includes at least one of a reflective target, a magnetic target, a hi-contrast target, a radio-frequency target, and a radio-frequency identification target (Tyers: [0034] and [0048] Note that the stationary object reflects radar waves from the radar sensor.).
17. Regarding Claim 16, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Tyers teaches the thruster system includes at least one thruster disposed on the marine vessel (Tyers: [0049]).
18. Regarding Claim 17, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one thruster includes at least one bow thruster of the marine vessel (Tyers: [0049]).
19. Regarding Claim 18, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Tyers teaches the at least one thruster includes at least one stern thruster of the marine vessel (Tyers: [0049]).
20. Regarding Claim 19, Tyers teaches an apparatus for marine vessel position control, the apparatus comprising (Tyers: [0005]):
A processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Tyers: [0050] and [0052]):
Receive a position hold signal from a human-machine interface of a marine vessel, the position hold signal indicating at least a hold distance between the marine vessel and an object (Tyers: [0037]);
In response to receiving the position hold signal, determine an initial distance between the marine vessel and the object using sensor data from one or more sensors (Tyers: [0037] and [0048]),
Wherein the at least one sensor is configured to interact with at least one of at least one real-time-kinematic base and at least one target, and wherein the at least one of the at least one real-time kinematic base and the at least one target is disposed on a structure within a vicinity of to the marine vessel (Tyers: [0048], [0049], and [0052] Note that the dock is equivalent to the target and the real-time kinematic base is equivalent to the reference points on the dock.);
In response to the initial distance being greater than the hold distance, selectively control a thruster system of the marine vessel, using at least one thruster of the thruster system, to propel the marine vessel toward the object (Tyers: [0029], [0050], and [0055] Note that the thrusters move the marine vessel from the initial distance (10 to 30 feet away from the dock) to the selected hold distance (4 feet away from the dock). The initial distance is greater than the hold distance.);
Wait a delay period (Tyers: [0034] Note that continuous real time monitoring and controlling is equivalent to waiting a delay period because there is at least a moment in time between a first and second real time monitoring/control.);
Determine a current distance between the marine vessel and the object (Tyers: [0046]);
And in response to a determination that the current distance corresponds to the hold distance, selectively control the thruster system, using the at least one thruster to hold the marine vessel in the hold position (Tyers: [0034], [0037], and [0049] Note that selectively controlling a thruster system of the marine vessel for a period of time to hold the marine vessel in a hold position is equivalent to the marine vessel remaining the same lateral position relative to the dock by engaging the forward or reverse drive. The period of time is broad interpreted as any moment the marine vessel is maintained at the set distance from the dock.).
Tyers fails to explicitly teach in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel, delaying at least one control input of the thruster system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barrett teaches in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel, delaying at least one control input of the thruster system (Barrett: [0012], [0059], and [0060] Note that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that momentum is dependent on mass and velocity of the vessel. Delaying a bow thruster of the marine vessel that is heavier in the stern is equivalent to delaying a control input of the thruster system in response to an increased inertial mass. The bow thruster is delayed because of the difference in response times between the bow and stern thrusters (a function of at least the size/weight distribution of the marine vessel).).
Tyers and Barrett are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Barrett to add a delay period in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel because it provides the benefit of controlling the vessel to be maintained on an accurate heading without further input from the vessel operator. Barret explains the delay time is set based on the size and weight distribution of the marine vessel so that the vessel moves in an intuitive manner.
21. Regarding Claim 20, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 19, and further, Tyers teaches the one or more sensors includes at least one sensor disposed on the object and at least one sensor disposed on the marine vessel (Tyers: [0048]).
22. Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 20120129410 A1), in view of Barrett (US 20080027597 A1), and in further view of Pedersen (US 20200277031 A1).
23. Regarding Claim 3, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Tyers and Barrett fail to explicitly teach the at least one sensor includes at least one of a real-time kinematic sensor, a global positioning system sensor, and a global navigation satellite system sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen teaches the at least one sensor includes at least one of a real-time kinematic sensor, a global positioning system sensor, and a global navigation satellite system sensor (Pedersen: [0051]).
Tyers, Barrett, and Pedersen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyers and Barrett to incorporate the teachings of Pedersen to include a real time kinematic sensor because it provides the benefit of using additional data and sensors for controlling the marine vessel based on a delay to improve the awareness of the operators. Adding a delay period allows the operator more time to determine if an increase in thruster power is still required to move into the desired position.
24. Regarding Claim 12, Tyers and Barrett remains as applied above in Claim 10.
Tyers and Barrett fail to explicitly teach the at least one sensor includes at least one of a real-time kinematic sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pedersen teaches the at least one sensor includes at least one of a real-time kinematic sensor (Pedersen: [0051]).
Tyers, Barrett, and Pedersen are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyers and Barrett to incorporate the teachings of Pedersen to include a real time kinematic sensor because it provides the benefit of using additional data and sensors for controlling the marine vessel based on a delay to improve the awareness of the operators. Adding a delay period allows the operator more time to determine if an increase in thruster power is still required to move into the desired position.
Response to Arguments
25. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Barrett (US 20080027597 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of delaying at least one control input of the thruster system in response to an increased inertial mass of the marine vessel in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0012], [0059], and [0060]. Barrett teaches to change the delay time based on the size and weight distribution of the marine vessel due to the stern being heavier than the bow. As a result, the bow thrusters are delayed until the momentum of the stern increases.
26. Tyers (US 20120129410 A1), in view of Barrett (US 20080027597 A1), and in further view of Pedersen (US 20200277031 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
27. Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kinoshita (US 20040087222 A1)
29. 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.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights