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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the limitation “in a state where a ship operator or an occupant carrying the communication device is away from the ship, when the ship receives an automatic steering request, the ship control device enters the automatic ship handling mode”, the applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach this limitation, specifically “Stevens, Hashizume and Mayall, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest “(a) in a state where a ship operator or an occupant carrying the communication device is away from the ship, when the ship receives an automatic steering request, the ship control device enters the automatic ship handling mode, wherein, in the automatic ship handling mode,…”.
However Stevens teaches a “user device” which includes a “communication unit” for sending “electronic signals” such as “an emergency beacon” to “generate navigation instructions for piloting the PWC to the user device”, wherein the watercraft is instructed to “automatically travel to the location of the user” and further “a PWC autopilot application” which “enables a user of the device to summon the PWC to their location” of a user’s “portable electronic device” (Stevens, Para. 0022 and 0035-0038), where the “electronic signals” and application function as the “automatic steering request” and the watercraft is instructed to automatically navigate the watercraft, or ship.
In regards to the second amended limitation “in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device” the applicant argues that Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall does not teach this limitation.
However, Stevens teaches where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is a “predetermined distance from the user device”, or communication device, “such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down” (Para. 0009 and 0052-0053), such that Stevens teaches in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, such as 5 feet, the ship control device controls to the speed of the ship, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device, which in the case of Stevens is a “user device” including a “communication unit”. Stevens teaches shifting the actuator to “neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down” when near the user, where it is known in the art that if an actuator is in “neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”, a watercraft’s speed will decrease, as the engine is disconnected from the impeller.
Furthermore, as previously cited in the previous final action, as Stevens does not explicitly teach “the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero”. However, the combination of Stevens in view of Hashizume teaches the full limitation “in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device”, where Hashizume teaches “the engine 52 is stopped and rescue is awaited with the boat 1 kept stopped”, such that the speed of the boat is zero, because it is “stopped” (Hashizume, Para. 0064). The applicant claims that Hashizume does not teach the limitation “in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device”, however, the combination of Stevens in view of Hashizume teaches the full limitation, where it would be obvious modify Stevens in order to provide the machinery to move the ship forwards and backwards, such that it can navigate and to prevent collision of the ship with a person by stopping the ship.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens, et al., hereinafter Stevens (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0335780) in view of Hashizume, et al., hereinafter Hashizume (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0253310), and further in view of .
Regarding Claim 1, Stevens teaches: An automatic ship handling system (Stevens, Para. 0008 – “a personal watercraft auto-return system”) that includes a ship (Stevens, Para. 0008 – a personal watercraft) and a communication device (Stevens, Para. 0009 – where the system including a user device includes “a communication unit”), wherein the ship includes
an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Stevens, Para. 0024-0026 and Claim 1 – an “engine”, which spins an impeller shaft and impeller of the ship, which is used to move the ship) and a function of generating a turning moment on the ship (Stevens, Para. 0025-0026 – where the “PWC controller” causes “the engine nozzle to transition between a right turn orientation (arrow a′) and a left turn orientation (arrow b′)” in order to “cause the craft to turn right and left”),
an operation unit that receives an input operation for activating the actuator (Stevens, Para. 0008, 0025-0026, and 0049 – a “steering handle”, or operation unit, which is operated by a user or receives “an instruction from the PWC [personal watercraft] controller”, for “controlling the engine and throttle controls of the watercraft”; where a “user interface” enables a user to provide instructions to the unit), and
a ship control device that activates the actuator on the basis of at least the input operation received by the operation unit (Stevens, Para. 0024 and 0052 – an “onboard computer 5, such as an Engine Control Unit (ECU)” which controls the engine by sending signals; where the personal watercraft controller activates the steering unit and the ECU), wherein the ship control device has
a manual ship handling mode in which the actuator is activated on the basis of the input operation received by the operation unit (Stevens, Para. 0049 – where a user interface accepts “user inputs to provide operating instructions to the unit” to “enable the user to take manual control of the PWC” to direct the movement of the watercraft), and
an automatic ship handling mode in which the actuator is activated without a need for the operation unit to receive the input operation (Stevens, Para. 0022 and 0049 – an “autopilot unit” which “instruct[s] the craft to automatically travel to the location of the user”), and
in a state where a ship operator or an occupant carrying the communication device is away from the ship, when the ship receives an automatic steering request, the ship control device enters the automatic ship handling mode (Stevens, Para. 0009, 0022, 0035-0038, and 0052-0053 – where a “user device” includes a “communication unit” for sending “electronic signals” such as “an emergency beacon” to “generate navigation instructions for piloting the PWC to the user device” and further “a PWC autopilot application” which “enables a user of the device to summon the PWC to their location” of a user’s “portable electronic device”) wherein, in the automatic ship handling mode, the ship control device controls a speed of the ship on the basis of a relative distance between the ship and the communication device (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0053 – where the “autopilot unit” determines the distance between the watercraft and the user device, which includes the “communication unit”, and the autopilot unit can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, where the user device is with the user is away from the watercraft; for example, when the distance is 5 feet, the system “can instruct the engine to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”), and
in a case where the relative distance is greater than a threshold value, the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship in a direction approaching the communication device such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value as the relative distance becomes smaller (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0054 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the PWC enters a “predetermined distance from the user device, such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”, which are actuator positions which reduce the speed of the PWC, such that the engine is shifted forward before entering 5 feet; where the PWC is piloted “to the user device upon determining that the rider is not located within a set proximity of the PWC, such as 200 feet”),
in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is a “predetermined distance from the user device”, or communication device, “such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”).
While Stevens teaches an actuator for the ship, Stevens does not explicitly teach an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship and the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value. Additionally, while Stevens teaches in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device Stevens does not explicitly teach the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero.
However, Hashizume teaches an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Hashizume, Para. 0029-0038 – an engine in connection with motors which “produce propelling power (driving force) to move the boat 1 forward or backward”), and the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero (Hashizume, Para. 0064 – “the engine 52 is stopped and rescue is awaited with the boat 1 kept stopped”, such that the speed of the boat is zero, because it is “stopped”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic ship handling system of Stevens to include an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship and the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero, as taught by Hashizume, in order to provide the machinery to move the ship forwards and backwards, such that it can navigate and prevent collision of the ship with a person.
Stevens in view of Hashizume does not teach the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value.
However, Mayall teaches the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value (Mayall, Para. 0017-0018 – where the controller of a lifeboat is “adapted to control the propulsion unit for a two stage approach enabling a relatively fast approach to the vicinity of the casualty and a relatively slow approach to the casualty per se”, such that the lifeboat operates at a high speed at large distances from a casualty and at a “reduced speed” within a “close range”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to include the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value, as taught by Mayall, in order to reduce the speed of a ship to prevent collision of the ship with a person when approaching a position where a person has fallen overboard.
In regards to Claim 3, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 1, and Stevens further teaches wherein the communication device (Stevens, Para. 0009 – a user device which includes “a communication unit”) includes
a communication device position detection unit that detects a position of the communication device (Stevens, Para. 0034, 0048, and 0051 – where the communication unit includes instructions to receive and store information of “the location of the user device” by a “rider location determination unit”), and
a first communication unit that transmits information indicating the position of the communication device detected by the communication device position detection unit to the ship (Stevens, Para. 0034, 0048, and 0051 – where the “rider location determination unit” can “determine the location of the user device” and send the location to “the autopilot system” of the watercraft by the rider location determination unit/communication unit), wherein the ship includes
a ship position detection unit that detects a position of the ship (Stevens, Para. 0052 – a “onboard PWC location determination unit” which “can determine the location” of the personal watercraft (PWC)),
a second communication unit that receives the information indicating the position of the communication device transmitted by the first communication unit (Stevens, Claim 1 – a communication unit of the watercraft which receives the “location of the user device” from the communication unit of the user device), and
a relative distance calculation unit that calculates the relative distance on the basis of the position of the communication device detected by the communication device position detection unit and the position of the ship detected by the ship position detection unit (Stevens, Para. 0029-0034 and 0052 – where the personal watercraft controller includes instructions for calculating “the distance, trajectory and other such separation parameters between the PWC and the user device to perform a trilateration of the respective devices” using the “location of the user device” and “the location of the PWC”), and
wherein, in the automatic ship handling mode, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship on the basis of the relative distance calculated by the relative distance calculation unit (Stevens, Para. 0009, 0029-0034, and 0052-0053 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is 5 feet, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”; where the distance is calculated by the memory and processor of the PWC controller).
In regards to Claim 4, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 3, and Stevens further teaches wherein, after the occupant of the ship is detected to have fallen overboard where a system can “allow a rider who has fallen off of a watercraft to send location information to the craft” and the PWC controller determines the distance between the personal watercraft and the user device of the rider by instructions stored in the memory; where the rider becomes separated from the PWC and selects a button/screen to inform the PWC they have been separated/fallen overboard), but Stevens does not teach wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard.
However, Hashizume teaches wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard (Hashizume, Para. 0056-0058 – an “emergency discriminating unit” which determines if a person has “encountered an emergency (fallen overboard)” on a boat by using the “strength of a radio-wave signal” between a user and boat transmitter).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic ship handling system including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to further include wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard, as taught by Hashizume, in order to include a system to automatically detect when an occupant has fallen overboard in the case where the occupant is in immediate danger and cannot inform the ship themselves.
In regards to Claim 5, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 1, and Stevens further teaches wherein the ship includes a relative distance detection unit that detects the relative distance (Stevens, Para. 0029-0034 and 0052 – where the personal watercraft controller includes instructions for calculating “the distance, trajectory and other such separation parameters between the PWC and the user device to perform a trilateration of the respective devices” using the “location of the user device” and “the location of the PWC”), and wherein, in the automatic ship handling mode, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship on the basis of the relative distance detected by the relative distance detection unit (Stevens, Para. 0009, 0029-0034, and 0052-0053 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is 5 feet, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”; where the distance is calculated by the memory and processor of the PWC controller).
In regards to Claim 6, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 5, and Stevens further teaches wherein, after the occupant of the ship is detected to have fallen overboard where a system can “allow a rider who has fallen off of a watercraft to send location information to the craft” and the PWC controller determines the distance between the personal watercraft and the user device of the rider by instructions stored in the memory; where the rider becomes separated from the PWC and selects a button/screen to inform the PWC they have been separated/fallen overboard), but Stevens does not teach wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard.
However, Hashizume teaches wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard (Hashizume, Para. 0056-0058 – an “emergency discriminating unit” which determines if a person has “encountered an emergency (fallen overboard)” on a boat by using the “strength of a radio-wave signal” between a user and boat transmitter).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic ship handling system including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to further include wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard, as taught by Hashizume, in order to include a system to automatically detect when an occupant has fallen overboard in the case where the occupant is in immediate danger and cannot inform the ship themselves.
In regards to Claim 7, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 1, and Stevens further teaches wherein, after the disembarkation of the occupant of the ship is detected where a system can “allow a rider who has fallen off of a watercraft to send location information to the craft” and the PWC controller determines the distance between the personal watercraft and the user device of the rider by instructions stored in the memory; where the rider becomes separated from the PWC and selects a button/screen to inform the PWC they have been separated/fallen overboard, such that they have disembarked), but Stevens does not teach wherein the ship includes a disembarkation detection unit that detects disembarkation of an occupant of the ship.
However, Hashizume teaches wherein the ship includes a disembarkation detection unit that detects disembarkation of an occupant of the ship (Hashizume, Para. 0056-0058 – an “emergency discriminating unit” which determines if a person has “encountered an emergency (fallen overboard)”, such that they have disembarked, on a boat by using the “strength of a radio-wave signal” between a user and boat transmitter).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic ship handling system including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to further include wherein the ship includes a disembarkation detection unit that detects disembarkation of an occupant of the ship, as taught by Hashizume, in order to include a system to automatically detect when an occupant has disembarked and needs to be retrieved by the ship.
In regards to Claim 8, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 1, and Stevens further teaches wherein the communication device (Stevens, Para. 0009 – a user device which includes “a communication unit”) includes
a relative distance detection unit that detects the relative distance (Stevens, Para. 0029-0034 and 0052 – where the personal watercraft controller includes instructions for calculating “the distance, trajectory and other such separation parameters between the PWC and the user device to perform a trilateration of the respective devices” using the “location of the user device” and “the location of the PWC”), and
a first communication unit that transmits information indicating the relative distance detected by the relative distance detection unit to the ship (Stevens, Para. 0029-0034 and 0052 – where a communication unit receives and stores user location information and determines a distance from the ship; where the user device communication unit sends location information to the ship), and
wherein, in the automatic ship handling mode, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship on the basis of the relative distance detected by the relative distance detection unit (Stevens, Para. 0009, 0029-0034, and 0052-0053 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is 5 feet, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”; where the distance is calculated by the memory and processor of the PWC controller).
In regards to Claim 9, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 8, and Stevens further teaches wherein, after the occupant of the ship is detected to have fallen overboard where a system can “allow a rider who has fallen off of a watercraft to send location information to the craft” and the PWC controller determines the distance between the personal watercraft and the user device of the rider by instructions stored in the memory; where the rider becomes separated from the PWC and selects a button/screen to inform the PWC they have been separated/fallen overboard), but Stevens does not teach wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard.
However, Hashizume teaches wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard (Hashizume, Para. 0056-0058 – an “emergency discriminating unit” which determines if a person has “encountered an emergency (fallen overboard)” on a boat by using the “strength of a radio-wave signal” between a user and boat transmitter).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic ship handling system including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to further include wherein the ship includes an overboard fall detection unit that detects that an occupant of the ship has fallen overboard, as taught by Hashizume, in order to include a system to automatically detect when an occupant has fallen overboard in the case where the occupant is in immediate danger and cannot inform the ship themselves.
In regards to Claim 10, Stevens in view of Hashizume and Mayall teaches the automatic ship handling system of Claim 8, and Stevens further teaches wherein, after the disembarkation of the occupant of the ship is detected where a system can “allow a rider who has fallen off of a watercraft to send location information to the craft” and the PWC controller determines the distance between the personal watercraft and the user device of the rider by instructions stored in the memory; where the rider becomes separated from the PWC and selects a button/screen to inform the PWC they have been separated/fallen overboard, such that they have disembarked), but Stevens does not teach wherein the ship includes a disembarkation detection unit that detects disembarkation of an occupant of the ship.
However, Hashizume teaches wherein the ship includes a disembarkation detection unit that detects disembarkation of an occupant of the ship (Hashizume, Para. 0056-0058 – an “emergency discriminating unit” which determines if a person has “encountered an emergency (fallen overboard)”, such that they have disembarked, on a boat by using the “strength of a radio-wave signal” between a user and boat transmitter).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic ship handling system including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to further include wherein the ship includes a disembarkation detection unit that detects disembarkation of an occupant of the ship, as taught by Hashizume, in order to include a system to automatically detect when an occupant has disembarked and needs to be retrieved by the ship.
Regarding Claim 11, Stevens teaches: A ship control device provided in a ship capable of communicating with a communication device (Stevens, Para. 0008-0009 and 0035-0038 – “a personal watercraft auto-return system”; where the system including a user device includes “a communication unit” of for sending “electronic signals” to the PWC), the ship comprising:
an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Stevens, Para. 0024-0026 and Claim 1 – an “engine”, which spins an impeller shaft and impeller of the ship, which is used to move the ship) and a function of generating a turning moment on the ship (Stevens, Para. 0025-0026 – where the “PWC controller” causes “the engine nozzle to transition between a right turn orientation (arrow a′) and a left turn orientation (arrow b′)” in order to “cause the craft to turn right and left”); and
an operation unit that receives an input operation for activating the actuator (Stevens, Para. 0008, 0025-0026, and 0049 – a “steering handle”, or operation unit, which is operated by a user or receives “an instruction from the PWC [personal watercraft] controller”, for “controlling the engine and throttle controls of the watercraft”; where a “user interface” enables a user to provide instructions to the unit), wherein the ship control device has
a manual ship handling mode in which the actuator is activated on the basis of the input operation received by the operation unit (Stevens, Para. 0049 – where a user interface accepts “user inputs to provide operating instructions to the unit” to “enable the user to take manual control of the PWC” to direct the movement of the watercraft), and
an automatic ship handling mode in which the actuator is activated without a need for the operation unit to receive the input operation (Stevens, Para. 0022 and 0049 – an “autopilot unit” which “instruct[s] the craft to automatically travel to the location of the user”), and
in a state where a ship operator or an occupant carrying the communication device is away from the ship, when the ship receives an automatic steering request, the ship control device enters the automatic ship handling mode (Stevens, Para. 0009, 0022, 0035-0038, and 0052-0053 – where a “user device” includes a “communication unit” for sending “electronic signals” such as “an emergency beacon” to “generate navigation instructions for piloting the PWC to the user device” and further “a PWC autopilot application” which “enables a user of the device to summon the PWC to their location” of a user’s “portable electronic device”),
wherein, in the automatic ship handling mode, the ship control device controls a speed of the ship on the basis of a relative distance between the ship and a communication device (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0053 – where the “autopilot unit” determines the distance between the watercraft and the user device, which includes the “communication unit”, and the autopilot unit can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”; for example, when the distance is 5 feet, the system “can instruct the engine to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”), and
in a case where the relative distance is greater than a threshold value, the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship in a direction approaching the communication device such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value as the relative distance becomes smaller (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0054 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the PWC enters a “predetermined distance from the user device, such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”, which are actuator positions which reduce the speed of the PWC, such that the engine is shifted forward before entering 5 feet; where the PWC is piloted “to the user device upon determining that the rider is not located within a set proximity of the PWC, such as 200 feet”),
in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is a “predetermined distance from the user device, such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”).
While Stevens teaches an actuator for the ship, Stevens does not explicitly teach an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship and the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value. Additionally, while Stevens teaches in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device Stevens does not explicitly teach the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero.
However, Hashizume teaches an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Hashizume, Para. 0029-0038 – an engine in connection with motors which “produce propelling power (driving force) to move the boat 1 forward or backward”), and the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero (Hashizume, Para. 0064 – “the engine 52 is stopped and rescue is awaited with the boat 1 kept stopped”, such that the speed of the boat is zero, because it is “stopped”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ship control device of Stevens to include an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship and the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero, as taught by Hashizume, in order to provide the machinery to move the ship forwards and backwards, such that it can navigate and prevent collision of the ship with a person.
Stevens in view of Hashizume does not teach the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value.
However, Mayall teaches the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value (Mayall, Para. 0017-0018 – where the controller of a lifeboat is “adapted to control the propulsion unit for a two stage approach enabling a relatively fast approach to the vicinity of the casualty and a relatively slow approach to the casualty per se”, such that the lifeboat operates at a high speed at large distances from a casualty and at a “reduced speed” within a “close range”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ship control device including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to include the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value, as taught by Mayall, in order to reduce the speed of a ship to prevent collision of the ship with a person when approaching a position where a person has fallen overboard.
Regarding Claim 12, Stevens teaches: A ship control method for controlling a ship (Stevens, Para. 0019 and Fig. 7 – a “method of utilizing the personal watercraft auto-return system”) capable of communicating with a communication device (Stevens, Para. 0008-0009 and 0035-0038 – “a personal watercraft auto-return system”; where the system including a user device includes “a communication unit” of for sending “electronic signals” to the PWC), the ship including
an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Stevens, Para. 0024-0026 and Claim 1 – an “engine”, which spins an impeller shaft and impeller of the ship, which is used to move the ship) and a function of generating a turning moment on the ship (Stevens, Para. 0025-0026 – where the “PWC controller” causes “the engine nozzle to transition between a right turn orientation (arrow a′) and a left turn orientation (arrow b′)” in order to “cause the craft to turn right and left”), and
an operation unit that receives an input operation for activating the actuator (Stevens, Para. 0008, 0025-0026, and 0049 – a “steering handle”, or operation unit, which is operated by a user or receives “an instruction from the PWC [personal watercraft] controller”, for “controlling the engine and throttle controls of the watercraft”; where a “user interface” enables a user to provide instructions to the unit), the method comprising:
a ship control step of activating the actuator on the basis of at least the input operation received by the operation unit (Stevens, Para. 0008, 0025-0026, and 0049 – controlling the engine and throttle controls of the watercraft based on user input or an instruction from the controller), wherein the ship control step includes
a manual ship handling step of activating the actuator on the basis of the input operation received by the operation unit (Stevens, Para. 0049 – where a user interface accepts “user inputs to provide operating instructions to the unit” to “enable the user to take manual control of the PWC” to direct the movement of the watercraft), and
an automatic ship handling step of activating the actuator without a need for the operation unit to receive the input operation (Stevens, Para. 0022 and 0049 – an “autopilot unit” which “instruct[s] the craft to automatically travel to the location of the user”), and
in a state where a ship operator or an occupant carrying the communication device is away from the ship, when the ship receives an automatic steering request, the ship control device enters the automatic ship handling step (Stevens, Para. 0009, 0022, 0035-0038, and 0052-0053 – where a “user device” includes a “communication unit” for sending “electronic signals” such as “an emergency beacon” to “generate navigation instructions for piloting the PWC to the user device” and further “a PWC autopilot application” which “enables a user of the device to summon the PWC to their location” of a user’s “portable electronic device”),
wherein, in the automatic ship handling step, a speed of the ship is controlled on the basis of a relative distance between the ship and a communication device (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0053 – where the “autopilot unit” determines the distance between the watercraft and the user device, which includes the “communication unit”, and the autopilot unit can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”; for example, when the distance is 5 feet, the system “can instruct the engine to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”), and
in a case where the relative distance is greater than a threshold value, the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship in a direction approaching the communication device such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value as the relative distance becomes smaller (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0054 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the PWC enters a “predetermined distance from the user device, such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”, which are actuator positions which reduce the speed of the PWC, such that the engine is shifted forward before entering 5 feet; where the PWC is piloted “to the user device upon determining that the rider is not located within a set proximity of the PWC, such as 200 feet”),
in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship 0053 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is a “predetermined distance from the user device, such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”).
While Stevens teaches an actuator for the ship, Stevens does not explicitly teach an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship and the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value. Additionally, while Stevens teaches in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device Stevens does not explicitly teach the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero.
However, Hashizume teaches an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Hashizume, Para. 0029-0038 – an engine in connection with motors which “produce propelling power (driving force) to move the boat 1 forward or backward”), and the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero (Hashizume, Para. 0064 – “the engine 52 is stopped and rescue is awaited with the boat 1 kept stopped”, such that the speed of the boat is zero, because it is “stopped”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ship control method of Stevens to include an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship and the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero, as taught by Hashizume, in order to provide the machinery to move the ship forwards and backwards, such that it can navigate and prevent collision of the ship with a person.
Stevens in view of Hashizume does not teach the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value.
However, Mayall teaches the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value (Mayall, Para. 0017-0018 – where the controller of a lifeboat is “adapted to control the propulsion unit for a two stage approach enabling a relatively fast approach to the vicinity of the casualty and a relatively slow approach to the casualty per se”, such that the lifeboat operates at a high speed at large distances from a casualty and at a “reduced speed” within a “close range”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ship control method including the above limitations of Stevens in view of Hashizume to include the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value, as taught by Mayall, in order to reduce the speed of a ship to prevent collision of the ship with a person when approaching a position where a person has fallen overboard.
Regarding Claim 13, Stevens teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a ship to execute a ship control step comprising (Stevens, Para. 0032-0034 – a “program code” for performing watercraft control stored on “memory” which can include “one or more physical memory devices”), the ship, capable of communicating with a communication device (Stevens, Para. 0008-0009 and 0035-0038 – “a personal watercraft auto-return system”; where the system including a user device includes “a communication unit” of for sending “electronic signals” to the PWC), including
an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Stevens, Para. 0024-0026 and Claim 1 – an “engine”, which spins an impeller shaft and impeller of the ship, which is used to move the ship) and a function of generating a turning moment on the ship (Stevens, Para. 0025-0026 – where the “PWC controller” causes “the engine nozzle to transition between a right turn orientation (arrow a′) and a left turn orientation (arrow b′)” in order to “cause the craft to turn right and left”), and
an operation unit that receives an input operation for activating the actuator, the ship control step being a step of activating the actuator on the basis of at least the input operation received by the operation unit (Stevens, Para. 0008, 0025-0026, and 0049 – a “steering handle”, or operation unit, which is operated by a user or receives “an instruction from the PWC [personal watercraft] controller”, for “controlling the engine and throttle controls of the watercraft”; where a “user interface” enables a user to provide instructions to the unit), wherein the ship control step includes
a manual ship handling step of activating the actuator on the basis of the input operation received by the operation unit (Stevens, Para. 0049 – where a user interface accepts “user inputs to provide operating instructions to the unit” to “enable the user to take manual control of the PWC” to direct the movement of the watercraft), and
an automatic ship handling step of activating the actuator without a need for the operation unit to receive the input operation (Stevens, Para. 0022 and 0049 – an “autopilot unit” which “instruct[s] the craft to automatically travel to the location of the user”), and
in a state where a ship operator or an occupant carrying the communication device is away from the ship, when the ship receives an automatic steering request, the ship control step enters the automatic ship handling step (Stevens, Para. 0009, 0022, 0035-0038, and 0052-0053 – where a “user device” includes a “communication unit” for sending “electronic signals” such as “an emergency beacon” to “generate navigation instructions for piloting the PWC to the user device” and further “a PWC autopilot application” which “enables a user of the device to summon the PWC to their location” of a user’s “portable electronic device”),
wherein, in the automatic ship handling step, a speed of the ship is controlled on the basis of a relative distance between the ship and the communication device (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0053 – where the “autopilot unit” determines the distance between the watercraft and the user device, which includes the “communication unit”, and the autopilot unit can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”; for example, when the distance is 5 feet, the system “can instruct the engine to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”), and
in a case where the relative distance is greater than a threshold value, the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship in a direction approaching the communication device such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value as the relative distance becomes smaller (Stevens, Para. 0009 and 0052-0054 – where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the PWC enters a “predetermined distance from the user device, such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”, which are actuator positions which reduce the speed of the PWC, such that the engine is shifted forward before entering 5 feet; where the PWC is piloted “to the user device upon determining that the rider is not located within a set proximity of the PWC, such as 200 feet”),
in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship where the “autopilot unit” can “make corrections in speed and steering en-route”, for example, when the distance is a “predetermined distance from the user device, such as 5 feet”, the system “can instruct the engine”, or actuator, “to shift to neutral, hover, reverse and/or shut down”).
While Stevens teaches an actuator for the ship, Stevens does not explicitly teach an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship and the ship control device causes the actuator to generate a propulsion force for the ship such that the speed of the ship becomes to a smaller value. Additionally, while Stevens teaches in a case where the relative distance is equal to or less than the threshold value that is greater than zero, the ship control device controls the speed of the ship, in proximity to the ship operator or the occupant carrying the communication device Stevens does not explicitly teach the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero.
However, Hashizume teaches an actuator that has a function of generating a propulsion force for the ship (Hashizume, Para. 0029-0038 – an engine in connection with motors which “produce propelling power (driving force) to move the boat 1 forward or backward”), and the ship control device controls the speed of the ship to zero (Hashizume, Para. 0064 – “the engine 52 is stopped and rescue is awaited with the boat 1 kept stopped”, such that the speed of the boat is zero, because it is “stopped”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-transitory computer-readable storage