DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-19 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/22/2024 and 12/20/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding 103(a) rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of amendments, Examiner brings forth a new rejection, which can be found down below.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“First operation unit” in claim 1, 13-15
“Bow direction detection unit” in claim 1, 14-15
“Ship control device” in claim 1, 3, 8-13, and 16-19
“Input device” in claim 1, 3, 8-13, and 16-19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specification for some of the above limitations:
“first operation unit” – [0012], steering wheel
“bow direction detection unit” in claim 1, 14-15
“Ship control device” – [0012], part of the ship control system, element 11C
“input device” – [0021], remotely navigating steering via a communication device
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-13, and 16-19 recites “input device..”. The “emergency stop device” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be described, in sufficient detail, what the structure, material, or acts of the input device (that is carried by the operator, and that apparently includes in the specification a second operation unit) is, or by what algorithm(s) or steps/procedure the input device functioned to be "capable of receiving an input operation from the ship operator from outside the ship". Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of any or all input device(s) may be covered/encompassed by the claim.
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, 3-5, 8-13, and 16-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 3, 8-13, and 16-19 recites limitations “input device” in which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “input device” in is recited in the claim as having the function of capable of receiving an input operation from the ship operator from outside the ship. However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiramatsu (US 20110166724) in view of Ward (US 20190361446) in further view of Stevens (US 20180335780).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiramatsu discloses A ship control system that includes a ship and an input device, wherein the ship includes: (Hiramatsu, see at least Fig. 1, marine vessel 1 also see at least [0073] wherein the operation console 6 includes a joystick unit 10, a steering wheel 15 and a remote control lever unit 16)
an actuator having a function of generating thrust for the ship and a function of generating a moment in the ship; (Hiramatsu, see at least [0075] “steering ECUs 14R and 14L control steering actuators 53 (see FIG. 2) included in the steering units 12R and 12L to pivot the outboard motors 11R and 11L in right and left directions according to the target steering angles.”)
a first operation unit configured to receive an input operation from a ship operator; (Hiramatsu, see at least [0073] wherein an operation console includes a steering wheel ** steering wheel can receive input from operator of the ship.)
a ship control device configured to activate the actuator; (Hiramatsu, see at least [0074] wherein the pivoting operation of knob 8 is input into hull ECU 20 ** activating the actuator)
and a bow direction detection unit configured to detect an actual bow direction of the ship, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0035] “marine vessel propulsion control apparatus according to a preferred embodiment of the present invention further includes a heading detecting unit that is arranged to detect the heading of the hull”)
the ship control device includes a first operation mode and a second operation mode, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0030] “a mode switching unit that is arranged to switch a control mode of the control unit between an ordinary maneuvering mode and a joystick maneuvering mode”)
the actuator is activated on the basis of the input operation received by the input device in the second operation mode, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0030] “a mode switching unit that is arranged to switch a control mode of the control unit between an ordinary maneuvering mode and a joystick maneuvering mode”)
the ship control device executes bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of a deviation between a target bow direction and an actual bow direction of the ship in the second operation mode, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0178-0179] wherein hull ECU 20 compares the heading detected by the heading sensor (current heading of the hull) and the target heading. The hull ECU 20 judges whether or not the magnitude of the deviation between the current heading value and the target heading value is no less than a predetermined value.)
and in the second operation mode, when the input device is receiving the input operation from the ship operator to move or turn/circle the ship to a target direction, the ship control device moves, turns around or circles the ship in the target direction received by the input device while executing the bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of a deviation between a target bow direction and the detected actual bow direction, without an instruction of the bow direction to the input device by the ship operator. (Hiramatsu, see at least [0032] “In the joystick maneuvering mode, the behavior of the marine vessel can be controlled at high precision by operation of the joystick unit. For example, the marine vessel may be provided with a pair of right and left propulsion units and a corresponding pair of right and left steering units. In this case, in the joystick maneuvering mode, the steering angles of the pair of right and left steering units may be controlled..” Also see at least [0034]-[0035] wherein the control unit is arranged and programmed to maintain the heading of the hull by applying an appropriate stem turning movement in one direction or the other direction to the hull without changing the steering angle. Also see [0178-0179] wherein hull ECU 20 compares the heading detected by the heading sensor (current heading of the hull) and the target heading. The hull ECU 20 judges whether or not the magnitude of the deviation between the current heading value and the target heading value is no less than a predetermined value. ** the heading is relative to the boat’s position, therefore changes in steering adjusts the heading of the boat, if instructions are given to change a ships steering adjustments, the heading is essentially changed to maintain the desired direction/instruction.)
Hiramatsu does not explicitly disclose a moment is generated in the ship on the basis of the input operation received by the first operation unit in the first operation mode,
However, Ward discloses a moment is generated in the ship on the basis of the input operation received by the first operation unit in the first operation mode, (Ward, see at least [0026] “The steering wheel 32 and the throttle/shift levers 34 function in the conventional manner, such that rotation of the steering wheel 32 for example activates a transducer that provides a signal to the control module 24 regarding a desired direction of the vessel 10. The control module 24 in turn sends signals to the PCMs 26a, 26b (and/or TVMs or additional modules if provided), which in turn activate steering actuators to achieve desired orientations of the propulsion devices 12a, 12b.”)
While Hiramatsu discloses a steering wheel (first operation unit) in which can be operated in first operation mode, since Hiramatsu explicitly discloses that the first operation mode comprises ordinary maneuvers, it’s implicitly the case that the steering wheel would generate ship movements based on how an operator operates the steering wheel, however, since it’s implicitly the case, Examiner brings forth reference Ward. 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 Hiramatsu with Ward, to include the capability of utilizing a steering wheel to cause the ship to rotate in a desired direction as taught by Ward with reasonable expectation that this would allow for ship to change a ship’s position and therefore can allow for turning moments to cause the ship to rotate.
Hiramatsu in view of Ward does not explicitly disclose the input device is a communication device separate from the ship, is carried by the ship operator, and is capable of receiving an input operation from the ship operator from outside the ship,
Stevens discloses the input device is a communication device separate from the ship, is carried by the ship operator, and is capable of receiving an input operation from the ship operator from outside the ship, (Stevens, see at least Fig. 1 wherein showcased is a input device in which is separate from the ship)
While Hiramatsu discloses a joystick (second operation unit) in which can be operated in second operation mode, since Hiramatsu explicitly discloses that the input device is capable of receiving input operations from outside the ship, Examiner brings forth reference Stevens. 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 Hiramatsu with Stevens, to include the capability of utilizing a device outside the ship in which would cause the ship to rotate in a desired direction as taught by Hiramatsu with reasonable expectation that this would allow for ship to change a ship’s position and therefore can allow for turning moments to cause the ship to rotate.
Regarding Claim 3, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein, even if the input device the second operation unit does not receive an input operation from the ship operator in the second operation mode, the ship control device executes bow direction holding control that is feedback control of holding an actual bow direction of the ship in a target bow direction on the basis of the deviation between the target bow direction and the actual bow direction of the ship. (Hiramatsu, see at least [0175-0177] wherein a fixed point maintenance commanding unit is arranged (therefore no input is being received from the operator), the hull ECU 20 sets the target position to the position being detected by the position detector 17 at the time and sets the target heading to the heading being detected by the heading sensor. Also see at least Fig. 15)
Regarding Claim 4, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein when the input device has received an input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle in the second operation mode, the ship control device changes the target bow direction of the ship, which had been received the input operation from the ship operator before the input device has received the input operation to turn around or circle, by a predetermined angle, and executes the bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of a deviation between the target bow direction that is changed by the predetermined angle and the actual bow direction at the time the input operation has received, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0032] “In the joystick maneuvering mode, the behavior of the marine vessel can be controlled at high precision by operation of the joystick unit. For example, the marine vessel may be provided with a pair of right and left propulsion units and a corresponding pair of right and left steering units. In this case, in the joystick maneuvering mode, the steering angles of the pair of right and left steering units may be controlled..” Also see at least [0034]-[0035] wherein the control unit is arranged and programmed to maintain the heading of the hull by applying an appropriate stem turning movement in one direction or the other direction to the hull without changing the steering angle. Also see [0178-0179] wherein hull ECU 20 compares the heading detected by the heading sensor (current heading of the hull) and the target heading. The hull ECU 20 judges whether or not the magnitude of the deviation between the current heading value and the target heading value is no less than a predetermined value. ** the heading is relative to the boat’s position, therefore changes in steering adjusts the heading of the boat, if instructions are given to change a ships steering adjustments, the heading is essentially changed to maintain the desired direction/instruction.)
and in a state in which the input device continues to receive the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle after a predetermined period of time has elapsed, the ship control device adds an amount of change in the target bow direction of the ship to the predetermined angle, and executes the bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of a deviation between the target bow direction of the amount of change added to the predetermined angle and the actual bow direction at the time the predetermined period of time has elapsed. (Hiramatsu, see at least Fig. 5, wherein target steering angle setting is set, and during S1, and S7, right/left and stem turning inputs are checked to see if they are inputted, and if they are not, target steering angles are maintained.)Regarding Claim 5, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 4, (see rejection above)
Ward further discloses wherein, when the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle at a time when the ship control device executes the bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of the deviation between the target bow direction that is changed by the predetermined angle and the actual bow direction or at a time when the ship control device executes the bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of a deviation between the target bow direction of the amount of change added to the predetermined angle and the actual bow direction, the ship control device executes the bow direction holding control of the ship, using the actual bow direction at a time when the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle as the target bow direction. (Ward, see at least [0041] “In response to receiving a signal from the joystick 30, an algorithm determines whether or not a rotation (shown by moment 70) about the center of gravity 60 is requested by the operator. If forward translation with no rotation is requested, the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are oriented so that their thrust vectors align in a forward parallel orientation, as shown in FIG. 4, and so long as the magnitude and direction of T1 are equal to that of T2, the vessel 10 will travel in a forward direction. If, on the other hand, the signal from the joystick 30 indicates that a rotation about the center of gravity 60 is requested, the first and second thrust vectors T1, T2 are directed along lines 68 and 66 that do not intersect at the center of gravity 60, but instead intersect at another point 64 along the centerline 62. As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, this intersection point 64 can be forward from the center of gravity 60. The thrusts T1 and T2 shown in FIG. 6 result in a clockwise rotation (shown by moment 70) of the vessel 10. Alternatively, if the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are rotated so that they intersect at a point along the centerline 62 that is behind the center of gravity 60, an opposite effect could be realized, all else being equal. It should also be recognized that, with an intersection point 64 forward of the center of gravity 60, the directions of the first and second thrust vectors T1, T2 could be reversed to cause a rotation of the vessel 10 in a counterclockwise 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 Hiramatsu with Ward, to include the capability of utilizing a steering wheel to cause the ship to rotate in a desired direction when the direction of the turning of the ship is are measured and are compared to a threshold, as taught by Ward with reasonable expectation that this would allow for ship to change a ship’s position and therefore can allow for turning moments to cause the ship to rotate.
Regarding Claim 8, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein, in a state in which the input device has received an input operation from the ship operator to move the ship in one of left and right directions in the second operation mode, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0032] “the marine vessel may be provided with a pair of right and left propulsion units and a corresponding pair of right and left steering units. In this case, in the joystick maneuvering mode, the steering angles of the pair of right and left steering units may be controlled so that the lines of action of the propulsive forces of the right and left propulsion units define a V shape or an inverted V shape.”)
the ship control device rotates the ship in a first rotation direction without an instruction of the rotation to the input device by the ship operator while executing the bow direction feedback control of the ship, using a bow direction obtained by rotating the actual bow direction or the target bow direction at the time when the input device has received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship laterally in the one of the left and right directions to the other of the left and right directions by a predetermined angle as the target bow direction, and (Hiramatsu, see at least [0032] “the marine vessel may be provided with a pair of right and left propulsion units and a corresponding pair of right and left steering units. In this case, in the joystick maneuvering mode, the steering angles of the pair of right and left steering units may be controlled so that the lines of action of the propulsive forces of the right and left propulsion units define a V shape or an inverted V shape.”)
while the input device continues to receive the input operation for lateral movement, the ship control device continues to move the ship backward without an instruction for movement backward to the input device; and then when the input device stops receiving the input operation for the lateral movement, the ship control device rotates the ship in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction without an instruction of the rotation to the input device by the ship operator while executing the bow direction feedback control of the ship, using the actual bow direction or the target bow direction at the time when the input device has received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship laterally in the one direction at an end of the lateral movement of the ship in the one direction as the target bow direction after the end of the lateral movement of the ship in the one direction. (Hiramatsu, see at least Fig. 5, wherein target steering angle setting is set, and during S1, and S7, right/left and stem turning inputs are checked to see if they are inputted, and if they are not, target steering angles are maintained.)
Regarding Claim 9, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 1, wherein, in a state in which the input device has received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship in one of the left and right directions in the second operation mode, (see rejection above)
the ship control device rotates the ship in a first rotation direction without an instruction of the rotation to the input device by the ship operator while executing the bow direction feedback control of the ship and executes control of moving the ship forward, using a bow direction obtained by rotating the actual bow direction or the target bow direction at the time when the input device has received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship laterally in the one of the left and right directions to the other of the left and right directions by a predetermined angle as the target bow direction, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0032] “the marine vessel may be provided with a pair of right and left propulsion units and a corresponding pair of right and left steering units. In this case, in the joystick maneuvering mode, the steering angles of the pair of right and left steering units may be controlled so that the lines of action of the propulsive forces of the right and left propulsion units define a V shape or an inverted V shape.”)
while the input device continues to receive the input operation for the lateral movement, the ship control device continues to move the ship forward without an instruction for movement forward to the input device; (Hiramatsu, see at least [0032] “the marine vessel may be provided with a pair of right and left propulsion units and a corresponding pair of right and left steering units. In this case, in the joystick maneuvering mode, the steering angles of the pair of right and left steering units may be controlled so that the lines of action of the propulsive forces of the right and left propulsion units define a V shape or an inverted V shape.”)
and then when the input device stops receiving the input operation for the lateral movement, the ship control device rotates the ship in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction without an instruction of the rotation to the input device by the ship operator while executing the bow direction feedback control of the ship, using the actual bow direction or the target bow direction at the time when the input device has received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship laterally in the one direction at an end of the lateral movement of the ship in the one direction as the target bow direction after the end of the lateral movement of the ship in the one direction. (Hiramatsu, see at least Fig. 5, wherein target steering angle setting is set, and during S1, and S7, right/left and stem turning inputs are checked to see if they are inputted, and if they are not, target steering angles are maintained.)
Regarding Claim 10, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the ship control device changes the target bow direction of the ship by a predetermined angle, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0035] “ the control unit is arranged and programmed to control the output of the propulsion unit and the steering angle of the steering unit based on an output of the heading detecting unit so that when a predetermined command input is provided”)
and executes the bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of the deviation between the target bow direction that is changed by the predetermined angle and the actual bow direction when the input device has received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle in one of clockwise and counterclockwise directions in the second operation mode, (Hiramatsu, see at least [0104, and 0178-0179] wherein hull ECU 20 compares the heading detected by the heading sensor (current heading of the hull) and the target heading. The hull ECU 20 judges whether or not the magnitude of the deviation between the current heading value and the target heading value is no less than a predetermined value. ** the hull ECU 20 sets the target steering angles of the right and left steering units, the target shift positions, and the target engine speeds. Therefore, if the heading deviation is negative, the ship will turn in a left turning direction (counterclockwise) and if the heading deviation is position, the ship will turn in a right turning direction (clockwise).)
Hiramatsu does not explicitly disclose and when an angular speed of the turning or to circle of the ship in the one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions becomes equal to or less than a threshold value after the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or circle in the one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions, the ship control device executes the bow direction holding control of the ship, using the actual bow direction at a time when the angular speed of the turning or circling of the ship in one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions becomes equal to or less than the threshold value as the target bow direction.
However, Ward discloses and when an angular speed of the turning or to circle of the ship in the one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions becomes equal to or less than a threshold value after the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or circle in the one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions, the ship control device executes the bow direction holding control of the ship, using the actual bow direction at a time when the angular speed of the turning or circling of the ship in one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions becomes equal to or less than the threshold value as the target bow direction. (Ward, see at least [0041] “In response to receiving a signal from the joystick 30, an algorithm determines whether or not a rotation (shown by moment 70) about the center of gravity 60 is requested by the operator. If forward translation with no rotation is requested, the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are oriented so that their thrust vectors align in a forward parallel orientation, as shown in FIG. 4, and so long as the magnitude and direction of T1 are equal to that of T2, the vessel 10 will travel in a forward direction…if the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are rotated so that they intersect at a point along the centerline 62 that is behind the center of gravity 60, an opposite effect could be realized, all else being equal. It should also be recognized that, with an intersection point 64 forward of the center of gravity 60, the directions of the first and second thrust vectors T1, T2 could be reversed to cause a rotation of the vessel 10 in a counterclockwise 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 Hiramatsu with Ward, to include the capability of utilizing a steering wheel to cause the ship to rotate in a desired direction when the direction of the turning of the ship is are measured and are compared to a threshold, as taught by Ward with reasonable expectation that this would allow for ship to change a ship’s position and therefore can allow for turning moments to cause the ship to rotate.
Regarding Claim 11, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 10, (see rejection above)
Ward further discloses wherein, when the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle in one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions, the ship control device generates a moment for causing the ship to turn around or to circle in the other of the clockwise or counterclockwise directions in the ship, and thereby the angular speed of the turning or circling of the ship in the one of the clockwise or counterclockwise directions becomes equal to or less than a threshold value. (Ward, see at least [0041] “In response to receiving a signal from the joystick 30, an algorithm determines whether or not a rotation (shown by moment 70) about the center of gravity 60 is requested by the operator. If forward translation with no rotation is requested, the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are oriented so that their thrust vectors align in a forward parallel orientation, as shown in FIG. 4, and so long as the magnitude and direction of T1 are equal to that of T2, the vessel 10 will travel in a forward direction…if the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are rotated so that they intersect at a point along the centerline 62 that is behind the center of gravity 60, an opposite effect could be realized, all else being equal. It should also be recognized that, with an intersection point 64 forward of the center of gravity 60, the directions of the first and second thrust vectors T1, T2 could be reversed to cause a rotation of the vessel 10 in a counterclockwise 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 Hiramatsu with Ward, to include the capability of utilizing a steering wheel to cause the ship to rotate in a desired direction when the direction of the turning of the ship is are measured and are compared to a threshold, as taught by Ward with reasonable expectation that this would allow for ship to change a ship’s position and therefore can allow for turning moments to cause the ship to rotate.
Regarding Claim 12, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 10, (see rejection above)
Ward further discloses wherein, when the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle in one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions, the ship control device generates a moment for causing the ship to turn around or to circle in the other of the clockwise or counterclockwise directions in the ship, using the actual bow direction at the time when the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to cause the ship to turn around or to circle in one of the clockwise and counterclockwise directions as the target bow direction. (Ward, see at least [0041] “In response to receiving a signal from the joystick 30, an algorithm determines whether or not a rotation (shown by moment 70) about the center of gravity 60 is requested by the operator. If forward translation with no rotation is requested, the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are oriented so that their thrust vectors align in a forward parallel orientation, as shown in FIG. 4, and so long as the magnitude and direction of T1 are equal to that of T2, the vessel 10 will travel in a forward direction. If, on the other hand, the signal from the joystick 30 indicates that a rotation about the center of gravity 60 is requested, the first and second thrust vectors T1, T2 are directed along lines 68 and 66 that do not intersect at the center of gravity 60, but instead intersect at another point 64 along the centerline 62. As shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, this intersection point 64 can be forward from the center of gravity 60. The thrusts T1 and T2 shown in FIG. 6 result in a clockwise rotation (shown by moment 70) of the vessel 10. Alternatively, if the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are rotated so that they intersect at a point along the centerline 62 that is behind the center of gravity 60, an opposite effect could be realized, all else being equal. It should also be recognized that, with an intersection point 64 forward of the center of gravity 60, the directions of the first and second thrust vectors T1, T2 could be reversed to cause a rotation of the vessel 10 in a counterclockwise 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 Hiramatsu with Ward, to include the capability of utilizing a steering wheel to cause the ship to rotate in a desired direction when the direction of the turning of the ship is are measured and are compared to a threshold, as taught by Ward with reasonable expectation that this would allow for ship to change a ship’s position and therefore can allow for turning moments to cause the ship to rotate.
As per claim 13, the claim is directed towards a ship that recites similar limitations performed by the ship control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Hiramatsu in view of Ward in further view of Stevens used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 14, the claim is directed towards a ship control method of controlling a ship that recites similar limitations performed by the ship control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Hiramatsu in view of Ward in further view of Stevens used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon statements and instructions in a machine-executable form causing a computer installed in a ship including an actuator that has a function of generating thrust of the ship and a function of generating a moment in the ship that recites similar limitations performed by the ship control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Hiramatsu in view of Ward in further view of Stevens used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 16, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 16, (see rejection above)
Hiramatsu further discloses wherein, in the second operation mode, when the input device is receiving an input operation from the ship operator to move the ship forward or backward, the ship control device causes the ship to move forward or backward in the direction received by the input device without changing the input operation to the input device, by executing bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of a deviation between the target bow direction and the detected actual bow direction, even if a disturbance occurs. (Hiramatsu, see at least Fig. 10 wherein when input is received for front/rear direction and a stem turning input, the steering angle can be set in accordance with the operation. The ship is then moved in the direction received.)
Regarding Claim 17, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 16, (see rejection above)
Hiramatsu further discloses wherein, in the second operation mode, when the input device has received an input operation from the ship operator to move the ship forward or backward, the ship control device, after setting the actual bow direction at the time the input device received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship forward or backward as the target bow direction, executes the bow direction feedback control of the ship on the basis of a deviation between the set target bow direction of the ship and the actual bow direction detected during movement. (Hiramatsu, see at least Fig. 10 wherein when input is received for front/rear direction and a stem turning input, the steering angle can be set in accordance with the operation.)
Regarding Claim 18, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 16, (see rejection above)
Ward further discloses wherein, in the second operation mode, when the input device receives an input operation from the ship operator to move the ship forward or backward, and the actual bow direction of the ship is changing, the ship control device sets the actual bow direction at the time when the angular velocity of the actual bow direction of the ship becomes equal to or less than a threshold value as the target bow direction for moving the ship forward or backward. (Ward, see at least [0041] “In response to receiving a signal from the joystick 30, an algorithm determines whether or not a rotation (shown by moment 70) about the center of gravity 60 is requested by the operator. If forward translation with no rotation is requested, the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are oriented so that their thrust vectors align in a forward parallel orientation, as shown in FIG. 4, and so long as the magnitude and direction of T1 are equal to that of T2, the vessel 10 will travel in a forward direction…if the first and second propulsion devices 12a, 12b are rotated so that they intersect at a point along the centerline 62 that is behind the center of gravity 60, an opposite effect could be realized, all else being equal. It should also be recognized that, with an intersection point 64 forward of the center of gravity 60, the directions of the first and second thrust vectors T1, T2 could be reversed to cause a rotation of the vessel 10 in a counterclockwise 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 Hiramatsu with Ward, to include the capability of utilizing a steering wheel to cause the ship to rotate in a desired direction when the direction of the turning of the ship is are measured and are compared to a threshold, as taught by Ward with reasonable expectation that this would allow for ship to change a ship’s position and therefore can allow for turning moments to cause the ship to rotate.
Regarding Claim 19, Hiramatsu in view of Ward discloses The ship control system according to claim 16, (see rejection above)
Hiramatsu further discloses wherein, when the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship forward or backward, the ship control device executes the bow direction holding control of the ship using an actual bow direction at a time when the input device has not received the input operation from the ship operator to move the ship forward or backward as a target bow direction. (Hiramatsu, see at least Fig. 10, wherein target steering angle setting is set, and during S11, and S20, right/left and stem turning inputs are checked to see if they are inputted, and if they are not, target steering angles are maintained.)
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150166159 – A vessel propulsion system includes two propulsion devices that are disposed on a left side and on a right side, respectively, with respect to a central line extending in a front-rear direction through a rotational center of a hull, an operating device that outputs a lateral movement command including a commanded direction, and a controller. The controller is configured and programmed to control the thrust and the steering angle of each of the two propulsion devices so that, when the operating device outputs a lateral movement command, a first propulsion device on a side existing in the commanded direction generates a backward thrust, whereas a second propulsion device generates a forward thrust, and so that an operating point of a resultant force of the thrusts of the two propulsion devices is positioned to deviate to the side in the commanded direction from the central line, and so that a direction of action of the resultant force follows the commanded direction.
US 20080171479 – The present invention relates to methods of steering aquatic vessels, for example to methods of steering fishing boats, pleasure boats, high speed boats and similar. Moreover, the present invention also concerns apparatus for steering aquatic vessels. Furthermore, the invention relates to software executable on computing hardware for implementing steering control pursuant to the method of the invention.
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 NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664