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 . Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 16-20 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 11/20/25.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) filed on 11/20/25, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are partially persuasive in view of amendments filed 11/20/25.
Amendments of 11/20/25 correct some of the clarity issues presented in the previous rejection, however they do not sufficiently clarify the claims such that the scope of the invention is fulfils the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The rejections have been updated to account for the amendments and include further recommendations on how to overcome the rejection such as by utilizing consistent terminology throughout the claims and the dependencies including order of operations and when certain steps are performed relative to when their results are further utilized as well as narrowing the actual terminology claimed from broad concepts such as “value” or “derivative” related to ____. Utilizing the specific terms with which the values are describing or what derivative of what factor is being discussed may overcome the rejection.
See 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) section below for further information.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed on 11/20/25, regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 11/20/25. 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103. filed on 11/20/25, regarding 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections are persuasive in view of amendments filed 11/20/25.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of further citations to the art of record below.
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, 3-6, 8-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 16-18 calculate a command rudder angle then correct the angle based on either the first or second estimated value, then correct it again utilizing the instantaneous value if keeping the course or correct it again using the first or second estimated value when turning? It is unclear as to what is actually being done here and when since it appears in independent claim 1 that the command is already corrected based on the first or second estimated value and then again using the same estimated values in dependent claims 8 and 16 when turning, or corrected again using the instantaneous value. Without finite definition clarifying what is actually being done and when the claim will be interpreted utilizing BRI below.
Additionally the claims first present the correction being performed using the first or second estimated values, but then dependent claims situationally correct the angle using either the estimated values or the instantaneous values, but contradict with other dependent claims which only generate the first estimated value when turning and additionally calculate the instantaneous values either when turning or when keeping the course (claims 5 and 6 respectively).
Generally the consistency of when certain steps are being performed under which circumstances to perform them contradict each other throughout the claims as being required in different states, or being utilized then conditionally generated after it was generated and used already.
Without clear distinction and flow of what steps are performed under what conditions and then using the results of those conditional steps regardless of whether the original and/or contradictory steps were completed, it is impossible to accurately limit the scope of the claims.
Further correction is required.
Claims 10 and 18 recite additional instances including for example:
“calculate an estimated value of the trim rudder angle before turning, and an estimated value of the trim rudder angle after turning, based on the information on the hydrodynamic force of the ship body, and the ship body state and disturbance information,”
It is unclear as to what is being calculated based on what information. Without breaking down different iterations of possible interpretations as done above, the claim language present throughout the claims are found to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter due to the lack of clarity tying different claim elements together with proper semantic/grammatic English. The listed examples above are not limiting.
The claims recite multiple claim elements without proper antecedent basis, either repeating previously claimed elements with “a” or “an” as if they are new or different claim elements or initially introducing claim elements with “the” as if they had previously been recited in preceding claims.
Another example, claim 9 recites the claim element “calculate a value including a derivative related to a hydrodynamic force based on the shape of the ship body, as the information on the hydrodynamic force” where “a first estimated value of a trim rudder angle with reference to the disturbance information” is recited previously recited in claim 1. It is unclear as to whether these are the same values or whether they are the same value. A derivative related to hydrodynamic force and a value of a trim rudder angle with reference to disturbance information where both are derived from the shape of the ship body could be the same thing. It is further unclear as to whether these are the same values or not. Other values throughout the claims include numerical distinguishing elements to finitely distinguish between them.
Similar instances of different “information” being presented as either “the information”, “the disturbance information”, “the information regarding the hydrodynamic force” appear throughout the claims and do not sufficiently distinguish from each other as either a single grouping of information or distinct pieces of information.
Further correction is required.
These examples are not limiting as other claim elements throughout the claims such as the different directions, headings, commands, settings, and values, to name a few, contain improper antecedent support. The first recitation of a feature should use “a” or “an” and when referring back to the same element should use “the” or “said.”
Further recommendation as to actually defining what the different elements actually are, such as the first estimated value is an angle, the second estimated value is based on the first estimated value (first estimated trim rudder angle?) and is an angular offset or adjustment? The numerous utilization of similar broad terminology without maintaining standard usages throughout the application makes the actual scope of the invention extremely unclear.
While properly and consistently labeled “value” terms can be sufficient to clearly define the scope of the invention, it is advised to replace the broad terminology such as but not limited to “values”, “information”, and “derivative”, with the actual type of value (i.e. first, second, third, actual, estimated, trim, steering, target, etc. angle/heading/direction/angular rotation/steering adjustment/etc.).
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims likewise rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawatani et al. (US 2024/0134377).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Kawatani discloses a ship control system including a ship body control device/method/non-transient computer-readable recording medium, comprising (Abstract and ¶80):
processing circuitry configured to (¶80):
acquire a ship body state of a ship body on a water surface and disturbance information (¶25-28 and ¶34 – ship navigation information corresponding to the recited ship body state and disturbance information corresponding to the recited disturbance information),
the disturbance information includes a wind speed and a wind direction (¶62 – disturbance information includes a wind speed and direction), and
the ship body state includes a ship speed and a heading (¶34-35 – ship speed and bow direction corresponding to the recited ship speed and a heading); and
generate a first estimated value of a trim rudder angle with reference to the disturbance information, based on the ship body state, the disturbance information, and information regarding a hydrodynamic force of the ship body, the information being determined based on a shape of the ship body (¶41 and ¶58-62 – calculate the target rudder angle corresponding to the recited generate a first estimated value of a trim rudder angle which is determined utilizing the turning judgement unit which considers wind speed/direction corresponding to the recited disturbance information as well as current speed and direction relative to the ship corresponding to the recited hydrodynamic force of the ship body determined by the shape of the ship since the direction of the current relative to the direction of the ship movement utilizes the shape of the ship body in the water),
calculate a command rudder angle based on a target direction and the heading; and correct the command rudder angle calculated based on the first estimated value or a second estimated value generated based on the first estimated value, to output a corrected command rudder angle to control a rudder of the ship body (¶41 and ¶58-65 – target rudder angle is iteratively processed to complete the turn such that the actual ship speed and equal the target ship speed and angle corresponding to the recited target direction and heading utilized to calculate the command rudder angle which is then iteratively corrected utilizing the updated targets corresponding to the recited estimated value of a trim rudder angle to perform ship control corresponding to the recited output a corrected command).
Regarding claim 3, Kawatani further discloses generate the first estimated value when turning of the ship body (¶36-41 – target rudder angle corresponding to the recited first estimated value is calculated when turning judgement unit has judged that the ship will turn).
Regarding claim 4, Kawatani further discloses calculate an actual measurement of the trim rudder angle; and generate the second estimated value of the trim rudder angle based on the first estimated value and the actual measurement (¶43 – detecting an actual rudder angle corresponding to the recited calculate an actual measurement of the trim rudder angle, and calculating the deviation of the actual rudder angle from the target rudder angle where the deviation corresponding to the recited second estimated value of the trim rudder angle).
Regarding claim 5, Kawatani further discloses calculate an instantaneous value of the trim rudder angle based on the heading and the target direction that are obtained from a direction setting of the ship body (¶34 and ¶39-43 – differentiating a change in actual ship position including direction corresponding to the recited instantaneous value of the trim rudder angle based on actual bow direction corresponding to the recited heading and target bow direction corresponding to the recited target direction), and
calculate the actual measurement based on a statistical value of the instantaneous values at a plurality of timings (¶43 – actual rudder angle corresponding to the recited actual measurement is calculated utilizing a feedback control loop relative to the deviation between the actual ship position and target direction over time until the deviation is eliminated corresponding to the recited statistical value of the instantaneous values at a plurality of timings).
Regarding claim 6, Kawatani further discloses calculate an instantaneous value when keeping the course of the ship body, and calculate the actual measurement based on a statistical value of the instantaneous values when the keeping the course (¶34, ¶39-43, and ¶57-58 – differentiating a change in actual ship position including direction corresponding to the recited calculating an instantaneous value of the trim rudder angle, which when the difference is smaller than a predetermined threshold, i.e. the actual angle is within a threshold difference of the target angle the ship is determined to be going straight ahead and the turn is finished corresponding to the recited keeping the course of the ship, where based on the difference corresponding to the recited instantaneous value being within a threshold value corresponding to the recited statistical value of the instantaneous values the actual measurement is calculated).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Kawatani further discloses correct the command rudder angle based on the instantaneous value when keeping a course of the ship body (¶33-34, ¶39-43, and ¶57-58 – differentiating a change in actual ship position including direction corresponding to the recited calculating an instantaneous value of the trim rudder angle, which when the difference is smaller than a predetermined threshold, i.e. the actual angle is within a threshold difference of the target angle the ship is determined to be going straight ahead and the turn is finished corresponding to the recited keeping the course of the ship where the ship maintains the difference between the actual and target angle corresponding to the recited instantaneous value when going straight corresponding to the recited keeping the course); and
correct the command rudder angle based on the first estimated value or the second estimated value when turning (¶33 and ¶41-43 – automatic steering gear control corresponding to the recited command rudder angle is calculated to determine adjustments controls of the rudder angle corresponding to the recited corrected command rudder angle based on the target rudder angle corresponding to the recited first estimated value as well as the difference between the target rudder angle and the actual rudder angle corresponding to the recited second estimated value).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Kawatani further discloses calculate an estimated value of the trim rudder angle before turning, and an estimated value of the trim rudder angle after turning, based on the information regarding the hydrodynamic force of the ship body, the ship body state, and the disturbance information, calculate an actual measurement of the trim rudder angle immediately after turning is started, based on the target direction that is obtained from a direction setting and the heading of the ship body, generate a third estimated value of the trim rudder angle after turning, based on the actual measurement of the trim rudder angle immediately after turning is started, the estimated value of the trim rudder angle before turning, and the estimated value of the trim rudder angle after turning, and generate a fourth estimated value of a present trim rudder angle, based on a present heading, a present direction setting, the direction setting before turning, the actual measurement of the trim rudder angle immediately after turning is started, and the third estimated value (¶41-43 and ¶61 – target rudder angle, actual rudder angle, and the difference between the two are determined in a feedback loop before, during, and after turning based on the wind speed/direction and current speed/direction corresponding to the recited hydrodynamic force of the ship body and the ship body state and disturbance information and the target bow direction corresponding to the recited target direction and the actual bow direction corresponding to the recited heading of the ship body).
Regarding claim 11, Kawatani further discloses a ship control system comprising the ship body control device of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises (¶32 - information processing unit 12 corresponding to the recited ship control system, see rejection to claim 1 for ship body control device of claim 1):
an anemometer configured to measure a wind speed and a wind direction as the disturbance information (¶25 – judgement utilizing wind speed and wind direction as disturbance information implicitly includes a sensor capable of measuring those values);
a ship speed sensor configured to measure a ship speed as the ship body state (¶18 - feedback control of an actual ship speed of the ship implicitly includes a ship speed sensor); and
a direction sensor configured to observe the heading as the ship body state (¶34 – gyro corresponding to the recited direction sensor).
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.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawatani et al. (US 2024/0134377), as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, in view of
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Kawatani further discloses calculate, as the information regarding the hydrodynamic force, a value including a derivative related to a hydrodynamic force based on the shape of the ship body (¶41 and ¶62 – calculate the target rudder angle corresponding to the recited generate a first estimated value of a trim rudder angle based on the current speed and direction relative to the ship corresponding to the recited hydrodynamic force of the ship body determined by the shape of the ship since the direction of the current relative to the direction of the ship movement utilizes the shape of the ship body in the water where the current speed and direction corresponding to the recited value including a derivative related to information on the hydrodynamic force based on the shape of the ship body relative to the current).
While Kawatani does disclose adjusting ship controls based on disturbance information relative to the ship positioning therefore disclosing the influence of the disturbance/hydrodynamic information on the ship body, it does not explicitly disclose the shape of the ship body includes length/draft/width information of the ship body.
However, Kabel discloses a marine vessel navigation device including determining vessel routing information based on the shape of the ship body includes a length, an amount of draft, and a width of the ship body (¶86 – vessel data includes the length of the vessel, the width of the vessel, and draft of the vessel)
The combination of the rudder angle control based on disturbance impact on the ship of Kawatani with the detailed vessel data of Kabel fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the rudder angle control based on disturbance impact on the ship of Kawatani with the detailed vessel data of Kabel in order to determine the most efficient and safe route to follow between the origination point and the destination for a particular vessel (Kabel - ¶94).
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oehlgrien et al. (US 2010/0094491) discloses an automatic stabilizing unit for watercraft including automatic longitudinal trim control when moving straight ahead or when turning with respect to the water surface in accordance with hydrodynamic laws, in order to exploit the more economical gliding movement as quickly and permanently as possible with the use of measurements from anemometers to estimate the wind forces on the vessel. (¶8 and ¶91).
Stephens et al. (US 2015/0346730) discloses a system for dynamic positioning of a vessel where estimates of vessel position, vessel velocity, and weather forces are transmitted to the control system, which calculates thrust demands that maintain the vessel position and heading. The control of the vessel heading ensures that the side force due to the weather is minimized. (¶7)
Tamura et al. (US 2017/0351259) discloses a ship handling device including a turn correction control employed for correcting the movement direction θ(n) in the movement control to the target movement direction θt(n). (¶135-139)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665