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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 3/2/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 13-17 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-22 and 25 are presently pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments, see remarks, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5-10, 12-15, 17-22 and 25 under 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant has amended Claim 1 to include recite that the control system comprises:
“at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors to measure force, pressure, torque or strain that are indicative of a current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure; and
a controller configured to control the operation of the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel so that the current set of forces substantially match a set of desired forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure”
Applicant has argued that the cited prior art does not disclose the limitation of amended Claim 1.
Application has argued that Levander does not disclose measuring and minimizing the errors between the set of forces so that the current set of forces substantially match the set of forces.
Applicant states that Levander fails to disclose a controller configured to control the operation of the propulsion and steering system so that the current set of forces substantially match a set of desired forces between the fender arrangement and external structure, as required by amended Claim 1.
Levander discloses a controller configured to control the operation of the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel that measures the current set of forces acting on a plurality of sensors and the controller controls the amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel:
Fig. 2a, Fig 2b, Fig. 3,
[0018] The force sensor 103 is configured to measure the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, and the tug controller unit 107 may control an amount of thrust provided by the tug 100 on the vessel 105 based on the measured amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105.
[0018] The tug controller unit 107 may then use that information to optimize the maneuver of the vessel 105.
[0021] If the plurality of sensors measures 103 different impact values, then the tug controller unit 107 may instruct the propulsion controller 302 to change not only the speed of the tug 100, but also the direction of the tug to optimize the direction of the pushing force on the side 104 of vessel 105. (steering)
[0023] the captain may provide predetermined instructions to the tug controller unit 107 that autonomously carries out the controlling of the approach
[0024] When the tug 100 is maneuvering the vessel 105, the tug controller unit 107 may receive information from the at least one force sensor 103 regarding the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105,
[0024] The tug controller unit may 107 then instruct the propulsion controller 302 change the amount of thrust being provided by the tug 100 on the vessel 105 based on the received information.
[0024] If the plurality of force sensors 103 measures different force values, then the tug controller unit 107 may instruct the propulsion controller 302 to change not only the amount of thrust being provided on the vessel 105, but also the direction of the thrust to optimize the maneuver of the vessel 105.
[0025] The DP control system 303 determines when, where and how the tug 100 should be moved. When the DP control system 303 determines that the tug 100 should move, the DP control system 303 outputs movement instructions including speed and direction to the propulsion control unit 302
While Levander does not explicitly disclose that the current set of forces substantially match a set of desired forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure (vessel 105) but it teaches using the information for optimization of the maneuver of the vessel 105. One such maneuver would be to have provide enough propulsion and steering to maintain contact between the fender arrangement and the vessel.
However, if the applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation of Levander, then Hubner teaches a method for landing a watercraft on a building structure, comprising the step:
“detecting the pressure exerted on the building structure (20) by the watercraft (10), and
controlling the control and drive system of the watercraft (10) to reach a predetermined pressure directed by the watercraft (10) against the building structure (20)”
Applicant has argued that the tug controller unit in Levander operates using fundamentally different principles than the claimed invention which focuses on adaptively maintaining a pre-set contact force with the fender rather than determining whether the vessel is oriented sideways as in Levander.
Levander discloses a tug comprising:
[0005] at least one force sensor in a contact area between the tug and the vessel, the force sensor being configured to measure the amount of force being transmitted to the vessel, and a tug control unit controlling an amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel based on the measured amount of force being transmitted to the vessel.
[0018] The force sensor 103 is configured to measure the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, and the tug controller unit 107 may control an amount of thrust provided by the tug 100 on the vessel 105 based on the measured amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105.
Thus, Levander discloses an adaptive thrust control system ensuring a contact force and a maneuvering force between the tug and vessel.
Applicant states that the background of the present invention is to improve the safety of personnel and equipment during transfer between the vessel and the external structure.
Hubner is landing safety centric and teaches:
[Abstract] “approaching the position of the building structure (20), bringing the watercraft (10) into contact with the building structure (20), detecting the pressure exerted on the building structure (20) by the watercraft (10), and controlling the control and drive system of the watercraft (10) to reach a predetermined pressure directed by the watercraft (10) against the building structure (20)”
Levander discloses a marine vehicle with pressure sensors at the bow and a dynamic positioning control system controlling the amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel based on a plurality of input parameters, and Hubner teaches the control and drive system of the watercraft to reach a predetermined pressure directed by the watercraft against the building structure.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Levander with application of predetermined pressure as taught by Hubner, with a reasonable expectation of success, to keep the contact pressure and thus the friction constant (Page 1, paragraph 7).
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for Claim 1 is made in view of Hubner.
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.
Claim 1 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.
The term “substantially match” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially match” 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. It is unclear to what level of granularity the individual force in the longitudinal, lateral and or vertical direction need to match for them to “substantially match”. The closest reference in Applicant’s specification does not appear to clarify (see at least [Page 5, line 31-32] The method further comprises controlling the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel so that the current set of forces substantially matches the first set of desired forces, and [Page 6, line 1-4] comprises controlling the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel so that the current set of forces substantially matches the second set of desired forces after the current set of forces substantially matches the first set of desired forces for a time period).
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oskar Levander US20190317209A1 (“Levander”) in view of Harald Hubner WO2016192719A1 (“Hubner”).
As per Claim 1 and 25
Levander discloses,
A control system for a marine vessel having a propulsion and steering system (see at least [0001] invention relates to a tug comprising a tug controller unit controlling an approach of the tug towards a vessel to be towed, and [0025] The tug controller unit 107 may therefore comprise a dynamic positioning (DP) control system 303 that receives a plurality of input parameters from sensors 102, 103, 305 and navigational systems 304).
and a fender arrangement at the bow of the marine vessel to provide contact between the marine vessel and an external structure (see at least [0015] The contact area 101 is provided with resilient tug fenders that absorb energy during contact and protects both colliding surfaces)
the control system comprising: at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors to measure force, pressure, torque or strain that are indicative of a current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure (see at least Fig. 2a, Fig. 2b, and [0024] When the tug 100 is maneuvering the vessel 105, the tug controller unit 107 may receive information from the at least one force sensor 103 regarding the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, [0024] In the case the at least one force sensor 103 comprises an array of a plurality of force sensors 103, the tug controller unit 107 receives force, or thrust, data from the plurality of force sensors 103.)
a controller configured to control the operation of the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel (see at least [0021] If the plurality of sensors measures 103 different impact values, then the tug controller unit 107 may instruct the propulsion controller 302 to change not only the speed of the tug 100, but also the direction of the tug to optimize the direction of the pushing force on the side 104 of vessel 105, [0023] the captain may provide predetermined instructions to the tug controller unit 107 that autonomously carries out the controlling of the approach, and [0024] The tug controller unit may 107 then instruct the propulsion controller 302 change the amount of thrust being provided by the tug 100 on the vessel 105 based on the received information).
so that the current set of forces substantially match a set of desired forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure (see at least [0016] the tug controller unit 107 may determine to adjust the direction of the tug 100 to optimize the direction of the pushing force on the side 104 of vessel 105, [0018] The force sensor 103 is configured to measure the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, and the tug controller unit 107 may control an amount of thrust provided by the tug 100 on the vessel 105 based on the measured amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, and [0018] The tug controller unit 107 may then use that information to optimize the maneuver of the vessel 105).
While Levander does not explicitly disclose that the current set of forces substantially match a set of desired forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure (vessel 105) but it teaches using the information for optimization of the maneuver of the vessel 105. One such maneuver would be to have provide enough propulsion and steering to maintain contact between the fender arrangement and the vessel.
However, if the applicant disagrees with the examiner’s interpretation of Levander, then;
Hubner teaches
a controller to control the operation of the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel to substantially obtain or maintain desired forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure (see at least [Abstract] approaching the position of the building structure (20), bringing the watercraft (10) into contact with the building structure (20), detecting the pressure exerted on the building structure (20) by the watercraft (10), and controlling the control and drive system of the watercraft (10) to reach a predetermined pressure directed by the watercraft (10) against the building structure (20), [Page 1, Paragraph 3] Starting the position of the structure, bringing the watercraft into contact with the structure, detecting the pressure acting on the structure by the watercraft, and actuating the control and propulsion system of the watercraft in order to reach a predetermined pressure directed from the watercraft against the structure, and [Page 1, Paragraph 9] In the docking mode of the vessel, sensors arranged in the bow fender are used for this purpose, which convert a decrease of the contact pressure into counteracting machine commands. At the same time, the performance limit of vessels with regard to the significant wave height (Hs) is a decisive factor in operation for safety and efficiency).
Thus, Levander discloses a marine vehicle with pressure sensors at the bow and a dynamic positioning control system controlling the amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel based on a plurality of input parameters, and Hubner teaches the control and drive system of the watercraft to reach a predetermined pressure directed by the watercraft against the building structure.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Levander with application of constant pressure as taught by Hubner, with a reasonable expectation of success, to keep the contact pressure and thus the friction constant (Page 1, paragraph 7).
As per Claim 2 and 15,
Levander discloses,
wherein a sum of the desired forces forms a target force (see at least [0024] the tug controller unit 107 may receive information from the at least one force sensor 103 regarding the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105. The tug controller unit may 107 then instruct the propulsion controller 302 change the amount of thrust being provided by the tug 100 on the vessel 105 based on the received information, and [0024] If the plurality of force sensors 103 measures different force values, then the tug controller unit 107 may instruct the propulsion controller 302 to change not only the amount of thrust being provided on the vessel 105, but also the direction of the thrust to optimize the maneuver of the vessel 105).
As per Claim 3, 16 and 17,
Levander discloses
wherein the controller is configured to increase a forward thrust vector applied by the propulsion and steering system if a sum of the current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the structure is below the target force, and/or
wherein the controller is configured to reduce a forward thrust vector applied by the propulsion and steering system if a sum of the current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the structure is above the target force (see at least [0018] FIGS. 2a-2b shows an exemplary embodiment of the invention seen in perspective view, where the tug 100 is maneuvering the vessel 105. The force sensor 103 is configured to measure the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, and the tug controller unit 107 may control an amount of thrust provided by the tug 100 on the vessel 105 based on the measured amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, [0018] the tug controller unit 107 may determine to adjust the direction of the thrust to optimize the direction of the pushing force on the side 104 of vessel 105. In the case illustrated in FIG. 2b , the tug controller, for example, may determine adjust the direction of thrust to move the stern of the tug 100 in starboard direction, and [0024] the tug controller unit 107 may receive information from the at least one force sensor 103 regarding the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105).
Levander does not disclose,
if a sum of the current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure is below the target force, and/or if a sum of the current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the structure is above the target force
Hubner teaches,
if a sum of the current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure is below the target force, and/or if a sum of current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the structure is above the target force (see at least [Page 1, Paragraph 3] Starting the position of the structure, bringing the watercraft into contact with the structure, detecting the pressure acting on the structure by the watercraft, and actuating the control and propulsion system of the watercraft in order to reach a predetermined pressure directed from the watercraft against the structure, and [Page 1, Paragraph 9] In the docking mode of the vessel, sensors arranged in the bow fender are used for this purpose, which convert a decrease of the contact pressure into counteracting machine commands. At the same time, the performance limit of vessels with regard to the significant wave height (Hs) is a decisive factor in operation for safety and efficiency.
Thus, Levander discloses a marine vehicle with pressure sensors at the bow and a dynamic positioning control system controlling the amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel based on a plurality of input parameters, and Hubner teaches the control and drive system of the watercraft to reach a predetermined pressure directed by the watercraft against the building structure.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Levander with application of constant pressure as taught by Hubner, with a reasonable expectation of success, to keep the contact pressure and thus the friction constant (Page 1, paragraph 7).
As per Claim 6 and 19,
Levander discloses,
wherein the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors comprise:
at least one port-side sensor to measure force, pressure, torque or strain that is indicative of at least one port-side force between a port side of the fender arrangement and the external structure, and at least one starboard-side sensor to measure force, pressure, torque or strain that is indicative of at least one starboard-side force between a starboard side of the fender arrangement and the external structure (see at least Fig. 2a, Fig. 2b, and [0016] The at least one force sensor 103 may comprise an array of a plurality of force sensors. The plurality of force sensors may be spatially distributed along the contact point 101, e.g. substantially parallel with the water surface).
wherein the set of desired forces comprise at least one desired port-side force between the port side of the fender arrangement and the external structure and at least one desired starboard- side force between the starboard side of the fender arrangement and the external structure (see at least [0018] The at least one force sensor 103 may comprise an array of a plurality of force sensors. The plurality of force sensors 103 may be spatially distributed along the contact point 101, e.g. substantially parallel with the water surface. When the contact surface 101 of the tug is not perpendicular on the side of the vessel 105 as illustrated in FIG. 2b , the plurality of sensors will measure different thrust values, [0021] The tug controller unit 107 may also receive information from the at least one force sensor 103 regarding the impact between the contact area 101 and the marine vessel 105, and [0021] If the plurality of sensors measures 103 different impact values, then the tug controller unit 107 may instruct the propulsion controller 302 to change not only the speed of the tug 100, but also the direction of the tug to optimize the direction of the pushing force on the side 104 of vessel 105).
As per Claim 9,
Levander discloses,
further comprising:
at least one wind sensor, wherein the controller is configured in response to signals from the wind sensor to determine a required operation of the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel to obtain or maintain desired forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure based on the force, pressure, torque or strain measurements from the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors (see at least Fig. 4, and [0027] The DP control system 303 may calculate the movement from the desired location or path, e.g. the drift, based on meteorological parameters and environmental input parameters such as wind direction, wind strength, water temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, wave height etc. The input parameters are provided by relevant sensors connected to DP control system such as a wind meter, thermometer, barometer etc. When the DP-control system 303 has calculated the drift, the system output movement instructions to counteract the drift. Other input parameters to calculate the drift may include data from movement sensors such as a gyro, an accelerometer, a gyrocompass and a turn-rate indicator).
As per Claim 10,
Levander discloses,
further comprising:
at least one wave sensor, wherein the controller is configured in response to signals from the wave sensor to determine a required operation of the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel to obtain or maintain a desired force or pressure between the fender arrangement and the external structure based on the force, pressure, torque or strain measurements from the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors (see at least Fig. 4, and [0027] The DP control system 303 may calculate the movement from the desired location or path, e.g. the drift, based on meteorological parameters and environmental input parameters such as wind direction, wind strength, water temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, wave height etc. The input parameters are provided by relevant sensors connected to DP control system such as a wind meter, thermometer, barometer etc. When the DP-control system 303 has calculated the drift, the system output movement instructions to counteract the drift. Other input parameters to calculate the drift may include data from movement sensors such as a gyro, an accelerometer, a gyrocompass and a turn-rate indicator).
As per Claim 12,
Levander discloses,
further comprising:
at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU), wherein the controller is configured in response to signals from the IMU to determine a required operation of the propulsion and steering system of the marine vessel to obtain or maintain desired attitude (see at least Fig. 4, and [0027] The DP control system 303 may calculate the movement from the desired location or path, e.g. the drift, based on meteorological parameters and environmental input parameters such as wind direction, wind strength, water temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, wave height etc. The input parameters are provided by relevant sensors connected to DP control system such as a wind meter, thermometer, barometer etc. When the DP-control system 303 has calculated the drift, the system output movement instructions to counteract the drift. Other input parameters to calculate the drift may include data from movement sensors such as a gyro, an accelerometer, a gyrocompass and a turn-rate indicator).
As per Claim 13,
Levander discloses,
further comprising:
at least one data storage to record the force, pressure, torque or strain measurements from the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors, forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure and/or desired forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure (see at least Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0026] The DP control system 303 may check parameters relating meteorological input parameters 402, environmental input parameters 403, movement of the tug 404, distance between the contact area and the marine vessel 407, speed of approach of the tug towards the vessel 408 and impact between the contact area and the marine vessel 409. If the tug 100 has drifted away, or is likely to drift away, from the vessel 105, or the position of the tug 100 relative to the vessel 105 has changed, the DP control system 303 outputs movement instructions to counteract the drift or change in position, and [0031] the dynamic positioning control system 303 and the propulsion control unit 302 may be implemented in a computer having at least one processor and at least one memory).
As per Claim 14,
Levander discloses,
A marine vessel comprising:
[0018] FIGS. 2a-2b shows an exemplary embodiment of the invention seen in perspective view, where the tug 100 is maneuvering the vessel 105]
a propulsion and steering system;
a fender arrangement positioned at the bow of the marine vessel (see at least [0016] The tug 100 may also comprise at least one force sensor 103 in the contact area 101. The force sensor 103 may be integrated in a tug fender)
and a control system as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors are associated with the fender arrangement configured to obtain force, pressure, torque or strain measurements indicative of a current set of forces between the fender arrangement and the external structure (see at least Fig. 2a, Fig. 2b, and [0024] When the tug 100 is maneuvering the vessel 105, the tug controller unit 107 may receive information from the at least one force sensor 103 regarding the amount of force being transmitted to the marine vessel 105, [0024] In the case the at least one force sensor 103 comprises an array of a plurality of force sensors 103, the tug controller unit 107 receives force, or thrust, data from the plurality of force sensors 103.)
As per Claim 22,
Levander discloses,
The marine vessel of claim 14, wherein some or all of the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors are configured to obtain force, pressure, torque or strain measurements in a substantially longitudinal direction of the marine vessel, and/or wherein some or all of the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors are configured to obtain force, pressure, torque or strain measurements in substantially vertical direction(s) relative to the length of the marine vessel, and/or wherein some or all of the at least two force, pressure, torque or strain sensors are configured to obtain force, pressure, torque or strain measurements in substantially lateral direction(s) relative to the length of the marine vessel (see at least Fig. 4, [0026] if the tug 100 has drifted away, or is likely to drift away, from the vessel 105, or the position of the tug 100 relative to the vessel 105 has changed, the DP control system 303 outputs movement instructions to counteract the drift or change in position, [0027] Wind, waves and sea currents acting on the tug 100 or vessel 105 causes the tug or vessel to move from the desired location or path, and [0027] The DP control system 303 may calculate the movement from the desired location or path, e.g. the drift, based on meteorological parameters and environmental input parameters such as wind direction, wind strength, water temperature, air temperature, barometric pressure, wave height etc. The input parameters are provided by relevant sensors connected to DP control system such as a wind meter, thermometer, barometer etc. When the DP-control system 303 has calculated the drift, the system output movement instructions to counteract the drift. Other input parameters to calculate the drift may include data from movement sensors such as a gyro, an accelerometer, a gyrocompass and a turn-rate indicator).
Claims 5, 7-8, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levander in view Hubner as per Claim 1, and further in view of Robert A. Morvillo US20200369356A1 (“Morvillo”)
As per Claim 5 and 18,
Levander does not disclose,
wherein the controller is configured to adjust engine RPM of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust a position of a reverse deflector of a waterjet unit of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust a pitch of a propeller of the propulsion and steering system to increase or reduce the forward thrust vector
Morvillo teaches,
The control system of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to adjust engine RPM of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust a position of a reverse deflector of a waterjet unit of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust a pitch of a propeller of the propulsion and steering system to increase or reduce the forward thrust vector (see at least [0071] FIG. 5A, the system diagram illustrates a control system for a marine vessel having two waterjets nozzles, 558P and 558S, two reversing buckets, 552P and 552S, and two trim deflectors, 554P and 554S, [0073] The reversing bucket actuators 553P and 553S can retract or extend to move the reversing buckets up or down to appropriately redirect the waterjet stream and provide forward or reversing thrust, [0076] an output of the control processor unit 530 provides actuator control signals to control a port and starboard prime mover, or engines 502P and 502S. An actuator may be any device or element able to actuate or set an actuated device. Here the engine's rotation speed (RPM) or another aspect of engine power or throughput may be so controlled using a throttle device).
Thus, Levander discloses a marine vehicle with pressure sensors at the bow and a dynamic positioning control system controlling the amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel based on a plurality of input parameters, and Morvillo teaches controlling a marine vessel having first and second steering nozzles and first and second trim deflectors.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Levander with propulsion system taught by Morvillo, with a reasonable expectation of success, to develop a system that modifies any of the net yawing force, the net rolling force, and the net trimming force to the marine vessel to account for the detected parameters (0035).
As per Claim 7 and 20,
Levander does not disclose,
The control system of claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to:
control the propulsion and steering system to produce a yaw effect to increase the at least one starboard-side force and/or decrease the at least one port-side force if the at least one starboard-side force is lower than the at least one desired starboard-side force and/or if the at least one port-side force is higher than the at least one desired port-side force; or
control the steering and propulsion system to produce a yaw effect to increase the at least one port-side force and/or decrease the at least one starboard-side force if the at least one port-side force is lower than the at least one desired port-side force and/or if the at least one starboard-side force is higher than the at least one desired starboard-side force
Morvillo teaches,
control the propulsion and steering system to produce a yaw effect to increase the at least one starboard-side force and/or decrease the at least one port-side force if the at least one starboard-side force is lower than the at least one desired starboard-side force and/or if the at least one port-side force is higher than the at least one desired port-side force; or
control the steering and propulsion system to produce a yaw effect to increase the at least one port-side force and/or decrease the at least one starboard-side force if the at least one port-side force is lower than the at least one desired port-side force and/or if the at least one starboard-side force is higher than the at least one desired starboard-side force ( see at least [0022] the acts of generating the first set of actuator control signals and the second set of actuator control signals and coupling first set of actuator control signals and the second set of actuator control signals results in inducing a net minor yawing force to the marine vessel to port or to starboard by maintaining the first and second steering nozzles in a neutral position and actuating one of the first and second trim deflectors, [0023] the acts of generating the first set of actuator control signals and the second set of actuator control signals and coupling first set of actuator control signals and the second set of actuator control signals results in inducing a net yawing force to the marine vessel without inducing any substantial rolling forces to marine vessel, by actuating each of the first and second steering nozzles and one of the first and second trim deflectors, [0081] Referring to another embodiment as illustrated in FIG. 4g , there is illustrated another aspect of the invention that can induce a rolling movement to the craft 10 and/or substantially eliminate unwanted yawing forces induced to the vessel. With this arrangement select trim tabs and steering nozzles are activated to provide a desired rolling effect. For example, the port steering nozzle 12 and starboard steering nozzle 14 can be deflected to starboard, at least slightly to cancel any unwanted yaw force 34 created by the trim tab 20 being activated (with the trim tab 22 either not activated or only slightly activated so that there is a difference in activation between the trim tabs 20, 22), so as to induce a desired rolling force 42, e.g. in the clockwise direction, to the vessel, and [0099] If the craft were to roll to port in response to an influence external to the control system such as a wave or wind gust, the embodiment of the control system illustrated in FIG. 16 would need the operator of the system to push the trim/roll controller 102 in the starboard direction to compensate for the external disturbance force).
Thus, Levander discloses a marine vehicle with pressure sensors at the bow and a dynamic positioning control system controlling the amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel based on a plurality of input parameters, and Morvillo teaches controlling a marine vessel having first and second steering nozzles and first and second trim deflectors.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Levander with propulsion system to produce a yaw effect taught by Morvillo, with a reasonable expectation of success, to develop a system that modifies any of the net yawing force, the net rolling force, and the net trimming force to the marine vessel to account for the detected parameters (0035).
As per Claim 8 and 21,
Levander does not disclose,
wherein the controller is configured to adjust steering of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust differential engine RPM of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust differential positions of reverse deflectors of waterjet units of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust the differential pitch of propellers of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust thrust of a bow and/or stern thruster of the propulsion and steering system to produce the yaw effect.
Morvillo teaches,
wherein the controller is configured to adjust steering of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust differential engine RPM of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust differential positions of reverse deflectors of waterjet units of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust the differential pitch of propellers of the propulsion and steering system and/or to adjust thrust of a bow and/or stern thruster of the propulsion and steering system to produce the yaw effect (see at least [0069] this corrective force in the waterjets is a result of an impedance of water flow into the waterjet 12 on the same side of the bow movement resulting from the external influence, thereby resulting in a lower waterjet force acting in the direction of the disturbance, and thereby creating a differential force resulting from the combination of the waterjet 12 and the waterjet 14 on the opposite side that opposes the external disturbance, and [0089] Taking the example maneuver shown in FIGS. 4c and 4f , a yaw command to port will correspond to a Port Nozzle Position signal 128 and Starboard Nozzle Position signal 129 that each direct corresponding nozzles 12 and 14 to be tuned to port. The same yaw command to port will actuate the port and starboard trimtabs 20, 22 differentially).
Thus, Levander discloses a marine vehicle with pressure sensors at the bow and a dynamic positioning control system controlling the amount of thrust provided by the tug on the vessel based on a plurality of input parameters, and Morvillo teaches controlling a marine vessel having first and second steering nozzles and first and second trim deflectors.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Levander with propulsion system to produce yaw effect by creating a differential force as taught by Morvillo, with a reasonable expectation of success, to develop a system that modifies any of the net yawing force, the net rolling force, and the net trimming force to the marine vessel to account for the detected parameters (0035).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights