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 .
This is a Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/26/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 Line 5: “path” should read –path.—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 11), the recited limitation “determine an impact area of an underwater water based upon its size and movement” is indefinite because the claim does not specify what type of impact is being measured (e.g., physical collision/contact area with seabed or coral or something else, hydrodynamic disturbance area, acoustic/noise propagation area, sediment disturbance area, thermal affect area, or something else) and whether the impact area is a geometric region/size/boundary, probability zone or something else. Accordingly, this limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The term “sensitive areas” in claim 1 (similarly claim 11) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sensitive areas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 11), the recited limitation “path that minimizes environmental impact to the underwater ecosystem…” is indefinite because the claim does not provide an objective standard to determine/define whether a generated navigational path “minimizes environmental impact” because the phrase/term “environmental impact” is a relative and subjective term that may encompass multiple, potentially conflicting factors (e.g., physical disturbance, acoustic emission, sediment displacement, proximity to sensitive habitats, energy consumption, or the like) and the claim does not identify/define any environmental impact parameter being minimized (and what metric/threshold are used to measure this environmental impact); and whether minimizing requires an absolute minimum and comparison to what (some or all?) alternative navigational paths. Accordingly, this claim limitation renders the claim to be indefinite.
The dependent claims that dependent upon independent claims are also rejected under 112 second paragraph by the fact that they are dependent upon the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer implemented method, the method comprising:
determining an impact area of an underwater robot based upon its size and movement;
using a marine habitat map to avoid sensitive areas in an underwater ecosystem while the underwater robot travels from a starting point to a finish point;
generating a navigational path that minimizes environmental impact to the underwater ecosystem as the underwater robot navigates from the starting point to the finish point; and
providing the navigational path to the underwater robot.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the bolded limitation can be performed by a human, for example, a tour operator/guide planning a route for a mini-submarine carrying tourists first considers the submarine sizes and turning radius (corresponds to “determining an impact area…movement”), reviews a marine habitat map identifying coral reefs and protected seagrass in the water body (corresponds to “using a marine…finish point”), choose/draw a route that avoids environmentally sensitive areas while traveling from the dock to a sightseeing location (corresponds to “generating a navigational …finish point”) and subsequently, instructs the pilot to follow the planned route for avoiding sensitive areas (corresponds to “providing the navigational path…robot”).
Examiner would also note MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (driver behavior). Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer implemented method, the method comprising:
determining an impact area of an underwater robot based upon its size and movement;
using a marine habitat map to avoid sensitive areas in an underwater ecosystem while the underwater robot travels from a starting point to a finish point;
generating a navigational path that minimizes environmental impact to the underwater ecosystem as the underwater robot navigates from the starting point to the finish point; and
providing the navigational path to the underwater robot.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of providing the navigational path to the underwater robot, the examiner submits that the limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. post-solution activity) of displaying information which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solutions activities.
As explained, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S., 208,223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Electric Power Group, LLC v, Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)( Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that causes the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial except and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
As such, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significant more, and thus are ineligible.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 11-20, the claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 11-20 are directed toward a computer program which is software per se. Therefore, claims 11-20 are not within at least one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 17S USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, claim 11-20 do not fall within any statutory category.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornett et al. (US 2009/0157293 A1 hereinafter Cornett) in view of von der Goltz (US 2013/0174768 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 (similarly claim 11), Cornett teaches A computer implemented method (see at least Abstract), the method comprising:
determining an impact area of an underwater robot based upon its size and movement; (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Platform module 1310 comprises data 1315 representing the acoustic signature (i.e. profile of the noise generated by or the noise emission of the vehicle(s) during operation) of one or more vehicles (e.g., ships, submarines). In marine vessels, noise is generated by engines, propeller shafts, fuel pumps, air conditioning systems, the creation of gas bubbles caused by the turning of the propellers, the movement of water displaced by the hull of a moving vessel, and the like.)
using a marine habitat map to avoid sensitive areas in an underwater ecosystem while the underwater robot travels from a starting point to a finish point; (see at least Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Map module 1320 comprises data 1325 representing a model of one or more geographic areas. Terrain module 1330 comprises data 1335 representing a three-dimensional topographical model of the geographic area(s) stored in map module 1320. Processor 260 is also configured to determine the actual acoustic signature of the selected vehicle for the originally-selected route and each of the plurality of possible routes, and compare the actual acoustic signature of the vehicle for each of the routes. Examiner notes that acoustic signatures produced by the vehicle (e.g., by engine, propeller shafts, gas bubbles and movement of water displaced by the vessel hull) affects marine ecosystem such as coral reefs, marine mammals/fishes and kelp forest.)
generating a navigational path that minimizes environmental impact to the underwater ecosystem as the underwater robot navigates from the starting point to the finish point; and providing the navigational path to the underwater robot. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Processor 260 is also configured to determine the actual acoustic signature of the selected vehicle for the originally-selected route and each of the plurality of possible routes, and compare the actual acoustic signature of the vehicle for each of the routes. Processor 260 is also configured to then select another one of the plurality of routes as an alternative route if the actual acoustic signature of the other route is smaller than the actual acoustic signature of the initially-selected route. That is, processor 260 is configured to select another route to the destination while the vehicle is enroute to the destination if the other route provides a better opportunity to approach the destination in an acoustically less-detectable manner than the originally-selected route.)
it may be alleged that Cornett does not explicitly teach using a marine habitat map to avoid sensitive areas in an underwater ecosystem while the underwater robot travels from a starting point to a finish point;
von der Goltz is directed to system and method for underwater observation, von der Goltz teaches using a marine habitat map to avoid sensitive areas in an underwater ecosystem while the underwater robot travels from a starting point to a finish point; (see at least [0069-0072]: One or more of the navigation systems, can work in cooperation with a guidance and control system to pilot the water vehicle in a closed loop, e.g., servo, fashion during periods of operation. It is also understood that a preferred path of the water vehicle can be pre-programmed into such a control system to work in cooperation with nautical maps and charts and position information updated by a system, such as GPS. Such modes of operation can work in cooperation with other sensory systems, such as sonar or light detection and ranging (lidar) to avoid interference with local terrain features, such as coral reefs, or other nearby structures.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cornett’s system and method for diminishing effects of an acoustic signatures of vehicles on surrounding environment using map and terrain information while it’s enroute to a destination to incorporate the technique of incorporating nautical maps and charts to avoid sensitive areas such as coral reefs when planning a path as taught by von der Goltz with reasonable expectation of success and doing so would minimize acoustic disturbance by routing around ecologically sensitive areas because the vehicle reduces underwater noise exposure to reef fishes and avoids physical damages to coral reefs in order to protect valuable marine habitats.
Regarding Claim 2 (Similarly claim 12), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Cornett further teaches determining at least one of a water condition group for the navigational path, wherein the water condition group consisting of at least one of: water currents, depth of water, topography of underwater terrain, and combinations thereof; (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Terrain module 1330 comprises data representing three-dimensional topographical model of the geographic areas, e.g., geological formations (e.g., mountains, hills, canyons, valleys, plateaus, plains, etc.) and bodies of water, as well the physical characteristics of the geological formations (e.g., wooded, rocky, desert, coastal, grassland, jungle, swamp, etc.). Atmospheric conditions module 1340 comprises data 1345 representing a model of the current weather conditions of the geographic area(s) stored in map module 1320. The data may represent the wind velocity and direction, air temperature, air density, air pressure, turbulence, humidity, precipitation, water temperature, water current velocity and direction, depth of water, and/or any other condition that may amplify, dampen, block, and/or propagate sound emitted from a vehicle.) and
using at least one of the condition group to adjust the navigational path. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Processor 140 comprises a route planner module 1410 configured to retrieve the acoustic model of the selected vehicle from platform module 1310 , the model of the geographic area surrounding the destination from map module 1320 , the terrain model of the geographic area surrounding the destination from terrain module 1330 , and the current weather conditions model from atmospheric conditions module 1340 . Route planner module 1410 is also configured to determine a plurality of possible routes from the starting point to the destination. The route planner module 1410 is configured to select two or more routes having relatively small estimated acoustic signatures for the selected vehicle and present such routes along with the respective values for each route to the user.)
Regarding Claim 3 (Similarly claim 13), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1,
Cornett further teaches wherein determining the impact area of the underwater robot based upon its size and movement comprises at least one of an impact group consisting of: calculating a footprint of the underwater robot, calculating a potential navigational path to be undertaken by the underwater robot, using an intended speed of travel of the underwater robot in traveling the potential navigational path to be undertaken by the underwater robot, and combinations thereof. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Platform module 1310 comprises data 1315 representing the acoustic signature of one or more vehicles. That is, the data stored in platform module 1310 is a profile of the noise generated by or the noise emissions of the vehicle(s) during operation. In marine vessels, noise is generated by engines, propeller shafts, fuel pumps, air conditioning systems, the creation of gas bubbles caused by the turning of the propellers, the movement of water displaced by the hull of a moving vessel, and the like.)
Regarding Claim 4 (Similarly claim 14), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 3,
Cornett further teaches wherein determining the impact area of the underwater robot based upon its size and movement comprises using each one of the impact group. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Platform module 1310 comprises data 1315 representing the acoustic signature of one or more vehicles. That is, the data stored in platform module 1310 is a profile of the noise generated by or the noise emissions of the vehicle(s) during operation. In marine vessels, noise is generated by engines, propeller shafts, fuel pumps, air conditioning systems, the creation of gas bubbles caused by the turning of the propellers, the movement of water displaced by the hull of a moving vessel, and the like.)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising
Cornett further teaches determining potential navigational paths to be undertaken by the underwater robot when traveling from the starting point to the finish point. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Processor 140 is configured to determine a route from the starting location to the destination having the smallest acoustic signature for the selected vehicle. Route planner module 1410 is also configured to determine a plurality of possible routes from the starting point to the destination.)
Regarding Claim 6 (Similarly claim 15), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising
Cornett further teaches displaying a video or photograph of at least a portion of at least one of the potential navigational paths to be undertaken by the underwater robot when traveling from the starting point to the finish point. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Route planner module 1410 is configured to select the route including the smallest estimated acoustic signature for the selected vehicle as the optimal or preferred route, and present such route to the user (via display 120). In another embodiment, route planner module 1410 is configured to select two or more routes having relatively small estimated acoustic signatures for the selected vehicle and present such routes along with the respective values for each route to the user (via display 120).)
Regarding Claim 8 (Similarly claim 17), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising
Cornett further teaches accessing, after the underwater robot travels along the navigational path, the actual environmental impact inflicted by the underwater robot in traveling along the navigational path. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Processor 260 is also configured to receive data from acoustic sensor 220 , atmospheric conditions sensor 230 , wind sensor 240 , and/or GPS 250 and generate a real-time acoustic profile of the vehicle in relation to the surrounding area while the vehicle is en route to the destination and transmit the real-time acoustic profile to display 270 for presentation to a user. In one embodiment, the real-time acoustic profile may be represented as a “bubble” 2710 surrounding the vehicle as the vehicle travels along its route. In this embodiment, the different levels of noise emitted by the vehicle in relation to the area surrounding the vehicle may be represented by different colors or other manner capable of distinguishing the various noise levels.)
Regarding Claim 9 (Similarly claim 18), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising
Cornett further teaches displaying the potential navigational paths from the starting point to the finish point and using color to differentiate the potential navigational paths based upon the environmental impact inflicted by the respective potential navigational paths. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: The different levels of noise emitted by the vehicle in relation to the area surrounding the vehicle may be represented by different colors or other manner capable of distinguishing the various noise levels. For example, the area surrounding the vehicle propagating the smallest amount of noise may be a lighter shade of a single color that grows increasing darker as the amount of noise increases or different areas of bubble 2710 may be different colors representing the different noise levels of the vehicle. Accordingly, the operator of the vehicle can then vary the route to the destination in real-time based on which areas surrounding the vehicle exhibit a small acoustic signature for the vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 10 (Similarly claim 20), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising
Cornett further teaches displaying at least one of a visual group on a user display during at least a portion of the navigation path traveled by the underwater robot, wherein the visual group comprises of at least one consisting of: a video, a photograph, and combinations thereof. (see at least Abstract Fig. 1-2 [0011-0030]: Processor 260 is also configured to receive data from acoustic sensor 220 , atmospheric conditions sensor 230 , wind sensor 240 , and/or GPS 250 and generate a real-time acoustic profile of the vehicle in relation to the surrounding area while the vehicle is en route to the destination and transmit the real-time acoustic profile to display 270 for presentation to a user. In one embodiment, the real-time acoustic profile may be represented as a “bubble” 2710 surrounding the vehicle as the vehicle travels along its route. In this embodiment, the different levels of noise emitted by the vehicle in relation to the area surrounding the vehicle may be represented by different colors or other manner capable of distinguishing the various noise levels.)
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornett in view of von der Goltz and Moon et al. (US 2021/0114698 A1 hereinafter Moon).
Regarding Claim 7 (Similarly claim 16), the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The method of Claim 1, further comprising
It may be alleged that the combination of Cornett in view of Von der Goltz does not explicitly teach using at least one of a calculation group consisting of at least one of: deep learning, machine learning, cognitive learning, and combinations thereof to determine the potential navigational paths to be undertaken by the underwater robot when traveling from the starting point to the finish point.
Moon is directed to system and method for autonomous ship navigation, Moon teaches using at least one of a calculation group consisting of at least one of: deep learning, machine learning, cognitive learning, and combinations thereof to determine the potential navigational paths to be undertaken by the underwater robot when traveling from the starting point to the finish point. (see at least [0022, 0034-0049]: the autonomous ship navigation apparatus 100 may determine a ship sailing method (e.g., a ship speed and a bow direction) through deep reinforcement learning based on the first feature information and the second feature information. For example, the autonomous ship navigation apparatus 100 may determine a speed and a bow direction for autonomous navigation on the basis of the first feature information and the second feature information so that a risk factor (e.g., third-party ships, obstacles, reefs, and dangerous regions) can be avoided while the surrounding marine dangerousness is in a specified range (e.g., a range specified to stably sail the ship). The ship sailing method may indicate the determined ship speed and bow direction or a ship control command corresponding to the determined ship speed and bow direction.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cornett and von der Goltz to incorporate the technique of utilizing deep reinforcement learning to determine navigation route information and control instructions to be undertaken by the autonomous ship when traveling from the starting point to the destination as taught by Moon with reasonable expectation of success would allow autonomous marine vehicle to learn how to make sequential navigation decision by interacting with its environment and optimizing long term mission objectives by enabling the vehicle to adapt to changing environments.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornett in view of von der Goltz and Noffsinger et al. (US 2010/0168942 A1 hereinafter Noffsinger).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Cornett in view of von der Goltz teaches The computer program product according to Claim 11, wherein determining one or more potential navigational paths to be undertaken by an underwater robot when traveling from a starting point to a finish point comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, configure the at least one hardware processor to
Noffsinger is directed to system and method for optimizing a path for a marine vessel through a waterway, Noffsinger teaches calculate the one or more potential navigational paths by prioritizing potential navigational paths based upon at least one of a selection group consisting of: the distance of the potential navigational path, the energy efficiency of the potential navigational path, and combinations thereof. (see at least [0043]: an optimal plan which minimizes fuel use and/or emissions produced subject to speed limit constraints along the route with desired start and end times is computed to produce a trip profile 12 (more generally, a mission plan or profile). The profile contains the optimal speed and power (throttle) settings the vehicle train (or individual marine vessel or other powered vehicle) is to follow, expressed as a function of distance and/or time, and such vehicle/vehicle train operating limits, including but not limited to, the maximum throttle power and brake settings, and speed limits as a function of location, and the expected fuel used and emissions generated.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Cornett and von der Goltz to incorporate the technique of optimizing a potential navigation paths based on at least one of a selection group of the distance and the energy efficiency of the potential navigational path as taught by Noffsinger with reasonable expectation of success to ensure the marine vessel maintains a path along the optimized path provided by the system such that the operator need not manually operate the marine vessel, based on limited information about the waterway (Noffsinger [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights