DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 are pending. Claims dated 07/20/2026 are being examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/20/2026 with regards to the interpretations under 112(f) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the 112(f) interpretations with the understanding that the logic device is interpreted in light of the specification (para [0052] of the PGPUB US-20240319746-A1).
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/20/2026 with respect to the 102/103 rejections to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner Note
Based on Applicant’s submission filed 12/16/2025 in response to the Rule 1.105, Claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14-21 are examined with the effective filing date of June 16, 2017. Claims 4 and 13 are examined with the effective filing date of June 15, 2018.
Applicant has not provided an effective filing date for the amendments to the claims filed 07/20/2026. It will be presumed that the same effective filing dates as disclosed by the Applicant in the response to the Rule 1.105 apply to these amendments based on Applicant’s statement that “no new subject matter has been added” (p. 9 of remarks). If this is not the case, Applicant must provide showing that another effective filing date is present.
For future responses, as this application is associated with a large number of applications with differing filing dates, the Examiner requests the Applicant to provide a statement of the effective filing date and support for the amended claims (i.e., some indication that the effective filing date has changed or is maintained). In p. 9 of remarks, filed 07/20/2026, Applicant indicates support for amendments is provided throughout the filed application, but this statement does not provide to the Examiner any concrete idea or indication as to what the effective filing date of the amended claims would be, only showing that the amendments are supported by the filing date of the instant application which is 02/12/2024. In the case the Examiner is unable to discern and/or does not receive information as to what the effective filing date is, another requirement for information may be requested to ensure any cited art is before the effective filing date and continue to maintain proper examination 35 USC 131.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites a “second” hover mode. Applicant indicated in p. 9 of remarks, “support for this amendment can be found throughout the application including at least at page 15 lines 1-5, page 28 lines 27-31, and page 43 lines 21-34”. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to explain where this amended limitation is found as these paragraphs do not appear to recite any kind of “second” hover mode. While one hover mode is disclosed, as cited to page 56, lines 6-15 of the 346 Application in Applicant’s response to the Rule 1.105, the Examiner does not see any distinguishing means of a “first” hover mode verses a “second” hover mode in the specification. Reciting two hover modes when the specification only recites one hover mode is new matter.
Double Patenting
Claims 2-5 and 11-14 of the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11899465.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12205473. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 2 recites the same logic switching functionalities as that presented in claim 3 of the US Patent.
Claim 2 of 18/439,717
Claim 3 of US-11899465-B2
A system comprising: a logic device configured to communicate with a user interface mounted on a mobile structure and to provide one or more control signals to a navigation control system for the mobile structure, wherein the logic device is configured to: receive user interface demand signals from the user interface; determine the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on the user interface demand signals and based, at least in part, on a proximity of a hazard and/or obstacle; and provide the one or more control signals to the navigation control system;
wherein the logic device is switchable between: interpreting the user interface demand signals as a thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals; and
interpreting the user interface demand signals as a velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals.
The system of claim 1, wherein the logic device is switchable between the following options (A) and (B):
(B) interpreting the docking assist parameters as providing the user demand for velocity of the marine vessel; and
(A) interpreting the docking assist parameters as providing a thrust demand, the logic device then determining one or more control signals for the navigation control system based at least in part on the thrust demand.
Both claims employ the same logic switching functionality as claimed in the patented system claim 3, would have constituted no more than an obvious variation in implementing the same disturbance estimation and compensation methodology. Accordingly, claims 2-5 and 11-14 are rejected under the doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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 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 2-5, 9-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin et al. (US-20110172858-A1), in view of Bertetti et al. (US-20050075016-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Gustin and Bertetti, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Gustin teaches a system comprising:
a logic device configured to communicate with a user interface mounted on a mobile structure and to provide one or more control signals to a navigation control system for the mobile structure, wherein the logic device is configured to ([0010] The maneuvering system includes at least one pilot controllable joystick for generating propulsion and maneuvering control inputs representing vessel motions desired by a pilot and a maneuvering processor including an input loop controller and an actuator loop controller responsive to the pilot joystick control input for generating corresponding control outputs to the at least one thruster and to the at least one engine to control the translational and rotational motions of the vessel in compliance with the joystick control inputs):
receive user interface demand signals from the user interface; determine the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on the user interface demand signals; and ([0028] As described in detail in the following, the input loop 30 receives a pilot's inputs from a joystick 1 representing vessel motions desired by the pilot and generates maneuvering commands representing the magnitudes and directions of the vessel motions desired by the pilot)
provide the one or more control signals to the navigation control system (FIG. 3C provides maneuvering commands 36C and/or 36D);
wherein the logic device is switchable between (FIG. 3C method selection switch 38A and 38B; [0052] …wherein first method selection switch 38A selectively connects vector difference outputs 36B to one of force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B. Second method selection switch 38B in turn connects the maneuvering commands 36C or 36D from force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B to the input of the actuator loop 32):
interpreting the user interface demand signals as a thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals; and (FIG. 36A force command processor; [0031] In the force command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the acceleration of the vessel 2; [0028] The actuator loop 32, in turn, translates the maneuvering commands from the input loop 30 into control signals to the thrusters 24, the engines 16 and the rudders 22A to control these elements to generate the forces necessary for the vessel 2 to follow the pilot's input commands)
interpreting the user interface demand signals as a velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals (FIG. 36B rate command processor; [0031] …and in the rate command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the velocity of the vessel 2).
Gustin does not explicitly teach determine the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on a proximity of a hazard and/or obstacle.
However, Bertetti teaches determine the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on a proximity of a hazard and/or obstacle ([0021] The operation of all the propulsion and direction control members of the boat (including possible rudders, not illustrated) is controlled by a central control and processor unit UC which monitors the control of the boat as a whole and which receives signals from a plurality of devices, described hereinbelow, mounted on board the boat for detection of obstacles; [0012] … automatically limit the speed of a boat approaching a bank or a jetty, or in the presence of obstacles detected by one or more detection systems).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Bertetti to include determine the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on a proximity of a hazard and/or obstacle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of a safer maneuver of approaching docking (Bertetti [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches wherein the user interface comprises a joystick with a joystick controller switching between being a thrust controller and being a velocity controller by the logic device switching between interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals and interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals ([0031] In a presently preferred embodiment of a joystick controlled propulsion and maneuvering system 10 the pilot may select between these command modes as desired and according, for example, the method the pilot feels most comfortable with or the method the pilot feels is most appropriate for a given set of circumstances).
Regarding claim 4, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches further comprising: a manual switch configured to switch the logic device between interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals and interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals. (FIG. 3C method selection switch 38A embodied as a single pole double throw switch; [0031] In a presently preferred embodiment of a joystick controlled propulsion and maneuvering system 10 the pilot may select between these command modes as desired and according, for example, the method the pilot feels most comfortable with or the method the pilot feels is most appropriate for a given set of circumstances; [0052] … wherein first method selection switch 38A selectively connects vector difference outputs 36B to one of force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B).
Examiner interprets the structure of a manual switch in light of Applicant’s PGPUB US-20240319746-A1 [0140] “manual override switch 480 may be implemented as a switch (e.g., a dual throw switch)”. In Gustin the manual switch is a single pole double throw switch shown in FIG. 3C 38A.
Gustin does not explicitly teach a perimeter ranging system, wherein the logic device is further configured to receive perimeter sensor data from the perimeter ranging system and to determine the proximity ofthe hazard and/or obstacle based at least in part on the perimeter sensor data.
However, Bertetti teaches a perimeter ranging system, wherein the logic device is further configured to receive perimeter sensor data from the perimeter ranging system and to determine the proximity of the hazard and/or obstacle based at least in part on the perimeter sensor data ([0021] The operation of all the propulsion and direction control members of the boat (including possible rudders, not illustrated) is controlled by a central control and processor unit UC which monitors the control of the boat as a whole and which receives signals from a plurality of devices, described hereinbelow, mounted on board the boat for detection of obstacles; [0012] … automatically limit the speed of a boat approaching a bank or a jetty, or in the presence of obstacles detected by one or more detection systems).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Bertetti to include a perimeter ranging system, wherein the logic device is further configured to receive perimeter sensor data from the perimeter ranging system and to determine the proximity ofthe hazard and/or obstacle based at least in part on the perimeter sensor data, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of a safer maneuver of approaching docking (Bertetti [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches wherein the logic device comprises: first logic configured to generate second thrust demand from the velocity demand when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals; and (FIG. 36B rate command processor; [0031] …and in the rate command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the velocity of the vessel 2)
second logic configured to receive the second thrust demand from the first logic when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals, and from the user interface demand signals when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals, and determine the one or more control signals based at least in part on the received second thrust demand (FIG. 36A force command processor; [0031] In the force command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the acceleration of the vessel 2; [0028] The actuator loop 32, in turn, translates the maneuvering commands from the input loop 30 into control signals to the thrusters 24, the engines 16 and the rudders 22A to control these elements to generate the forces necessary for the vessel 2 to follow the pilot's input commands).
Regarding claim 9, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 5.
Gustin also teaches wherein the second logic is configured to receive data on wind and/or water current disturbances and provide the one or more control signals to the navigation control system (FIG. 3C input loop 32 includes wind and current sensors 46).
Regarding claim 10, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches wherein the logic device is configured to: determine wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure; and (FIG. 3C input loop 32 includes wind and current sensors 46)
determine the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the one or more control signals are configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure according to the received user interface demand signals ([0062] Noise inputs 541 are selected signals that represent “noise” disturbances, such as environmental forces acting on the vessel 2 as a result of, for example, wind and waves. Corrections processor 54 corrects vessel control commands 52C of such noise disturbances, and generates and provides the final vessel propulsion commands 40 as described above);
wherein determining the wind and/or water current disturbances comprises: placing the mobile structure in a hover mode where a target linear and/or a target angular velocity of the mobile structure is zero; and ([0013] …when in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode of operation, the system holds constant a current vessel bearing and position; [0032] A combined hold bearing and hold position mode in which the vessel 2 bearing, rotation and position are all held constant – Examiner interprets that in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode, user desired target velocity commands are zero as the vessel bearing and position are required to be held in place)
using a thrust provided by the system in hover mode as an indication of the wind and/or water current disturbances ([0062] vessel control commands 52C from smart command processor 52 are provided to a corrections processor 54 which also receives “noise” inputs 541 comprised, for example, of certain of propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N. Noise inputs 541 are selected signals that represent “noise” disturbances, such as environmental forces acting on the vessel 2 as a result of, for example, wind and waves. Corrections processor 54 corrects vessel control commands 52C of such noise disturbances, and generates and provides the final vessel propulsion commands 40 as described above – Examiner interprets that the corrective thrust provided by the corrections processor in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode is an indication of wind and/or water current disturbances).
Regarding claim 11, Gustin, as modified, teaches a method comprising using the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches wherein the method comprises:
switching the logic device between interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals and interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals; and (FIG. 3C method selection switch 38A and 38B; [0052] …wherein first method selection switch 38A selectively connects vector difference outputs 36B to one of force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B. Second method selection switch 38B in turn connects the maneuvering commands 36C or 36D from force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B to the input of the actuator loop 32)
providing the one or more control signals to the navigation control system when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals and when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals (FIG. 3C provides maneuvering commands 36C and/or 36D).
Regarding claim 12, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin also teaches wherein the user interface comprises a joystick with a joystick controller switching between being a thrust controller and being a velocity controller by the logic device switching between interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals and interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals ([0031] In a presently preferred embodiment of a joystick controlled propulsion and maneuvering system 10 the pilot may select between these command modes as desired and according, for example, the method the pilot feels most comfortable with or the method the pilot feels is most appropriate for a given set of circumstances).
Regarding claim 13, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin also teaches comprising switching the logic device between interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals and interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals by a manual switch (FIG. 3C method selection switch 38A embodied as a single pole double throw switch; [0031] In a presently preferred embodiment of a joystick controlled propulsion and maneuvering system 10 the pilot may select between these command modes as desired and according, for example, the method the pilot feels most comfortable with or the method the pilot feels is most appropriate for a given set of circumstances; [0052] … wherein first method selection switch 38A selectively connects vector difference outputs 36B to one of force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B).
Examiner interprets the structure of a manual switch in light of Applicant’s PGPUB US-20240319746-A1 [0140] “manual override switch 480 may be implemented as a switch (e.g., a dual throw switch)”. In Gustin the manual switch is a single pole double throw switch shown in FIG. 3C 38A.
Regarding claim 14, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin also teaches wherein the logic device comprises: first logic generating a second thrust demand from the velocity demand when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals; and (FIG. 36B rate command processor; [0031] …and in the rate command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the velocity of the vessel 2)
second logic receiving the second thrust demand from the first logic when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the velocity demand in determining the one or more control signals, and from the user interface demand signals in when interpreting the user interface demand signals as the thrust demand in determining the one or more control signals, and determining the one or more control signals based at least in part on the received second thrust demand (FIG. 36A force command processor; [0031] In the force command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the acceleration of the vessel 2; [0028] The actuator loop 32, in turn, translates the maneuvering commands from the input loop 30 into control signals to the thrusters 24, the engines 16 and the rudders 22A to control these elements to generate the forces necessary for the vessel 2 to follow the pilot's input commands).
Regarding claim 18, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 14.
Gustin also teaches further comprising: receiving data by the second logic on wind and/or water current disturbances; and providing, by the second logic, the one or more control signals to the navigation control system (FIG. 3C input loop 32 includes wind and current sensors 46).
Regarding claim 19, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin also teaches further comprising determining by the logic device wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure; and (FIG. 3C input loop 32 includes wind and current sensors 46)
determining the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the one or more control signals are configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure according to the received user interface demand signals ([0062] Noise inputs 541 are selected signals that represent “noise” disturbances, such as environmental forces acting on the vessel 2 as a result of, for example, wind and waves. Corrections processor 54 corrects vessel control commands 52C of such noise disturbances, and generates and provides the final vessel propulsion commands 40 as described above);
wherein the determining wind and/or water current disturbances comprises: placing the system in a hover mode where a target linear velocity and/or a target angular velocity of the system is zero; and ([0013] …when in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode of operation, the system holds constant a current vessel bearing and position; [0032] A combined hold bearing and hold position mode in which the vessel 2 bearing, rotation and position are all held constant – Examiner interprets that in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode, user desired target velocity commands are zero as the vessel bearing and position are required to be held in place)
using a thrust provided by the system in hover mode as an indication of the wind and/or water current disturbances ([0062] vessel control commands 52C from smart command processor 52 are provided to a corrections processor 54 which also receives “noise” inputs 541 comprised, for example, of certain of propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N. Noise inputs 541 are selected signals that represent “noise” disturbances, such as environmental forces acting on the vessel 2 as a result of, for example, wind and waves. Corrections processor 54 corrects vessel control commands 52C of such noise disturbances, and generates and provides the final vessel propulsion commands 40 as described above – Examiner interprets that the corrective thrust provided by the corrections processor in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode is an indication of wind and/or water current disturbances).
Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin, in view of Bertetti, in view of Non-Patent Literature: “Kongsberg Maritime AS, K-Pos DP (OS) Dynamic Positioning System – Operator Manual, Release 8.2, Rev. C, June 2014” and herein after will be referred to as Kongsberg.
Regarding claim 6, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 5.
Gustin does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to provide the second thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for display.
However, Kongsberg teaches wherein the logic device is configured to provide the second thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for display (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 316, Section: Display views: Thrust Force displayed as 338 kN).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the logic device is configured to provide the second thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for display, with a reasonable expectation of success to show thruster forces (Kongsberg pages 306-323), which by extension provides operator feedback regarding vessel maneuvering forces.
Regarding claim 7, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 6.
Gustin does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to provide the second thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for displaying the second thrust demand generated by the first logic relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg also teaches wherein the logic device is configured to provide the second thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for displaying the second thrust demand generated by the first logic relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the logic device is configured to provide the second thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for displaying the second thrust demand generated by the first logic relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator of exceeding the limit value for percentage of available thrust (Kongsberg pages 312-314).
Regarding claim 8, Gustin, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to: warn a user before external disturbances overwhelm a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg teaches wherein the logic device is configured to: warn a user before external disturbances overwhelm a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 272, Section: Display views: This displays the warning and alarm limits for position and heading deviation. Green indicates that the limits are currently active; page 278, Section: Display views: These are position warning and alarm limit circles (centred on the position setpoint). With automatic surge and sway control, and with position limits enabled, these circles indicate the warning and alarm limits for position deviation. When the vessel reference point crosses the warning limit circle, a warning is given. When the vessel reference point crosses the alarm limit circle, an alarm is given. […] The short lines, dashed and solid, are heading warning and alarm limit markers (centred on the heading setpoint). With automatic yaw control, and with heading limits enabled, these markers indicate the warning and alarm limits for heading deviation. When the vessel heading crosses the warning limit, a warning is given. When the vessel heading crosses the alarm limit, an alarm is given; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the logic device is configured to: warn a user before external disturbances overwhelm a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator before significant positional and/or heading deviations due to external disturbances occur.
Gustin does not explicitly teach receive perimeter sensor data from a perimeter ranging system; and determine the proximity of the hazard and/or obstacle based at least in part on the perimeter sensor data.
However, Bertetti teaches receive perimeter sensor data from a perimeter ranging system; and determine the proximity of the hazard and/or obstacle based at least in part on the perimeter sensor data ([0021] The operation of all the propulsion and direction control members of the boat (including possible rudders, not illustrated) is controlled by a central control and processor unit UC which monitors the control of the boat as a whole and which receives signals from a plurality of devices, described hereinbelow, mounted on board the boat for detection of obstacles; [0012] … automatically limit the speed of a boat approaching a bank or a jetty, or in the presence of obstacles detected by one or more detection systems).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Bertetti to include receive perimeter sensor data from a perimeter ranging system; and determine the proximity of the hazard and/or obstacle based at least in part on the perimeter sensor data, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of a safer maneuver of approaching docking (Bertetti [0012]).
Regarding claim 15, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 14.
Gustin does not explicitly teach further comprising displaying on the user interface the second thrust demand generated by the first logic.
However, Kongsberg teaches further comprising displaying on the user interface the second thrust demand generated by the first logic (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 316, Section: Display views: Thrust Force displayed as 338 kN).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include further comprising displaying on the user interface the second thrust demand generated by the first logic, with a reasonable expectation of success to show thruster forces (Kongsberg pages 306-323), which by extension provides operator feedback regarding vessel maneuvering forces.
Regarding claim 16, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15.
Gustin does not explicitly teach comprising displaying the second thrust demand generated by the first logic relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg also teaches comprising displaying the second thrust demand generated by the first logic relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include comprising displaying the second thrust demand generated by the first logic relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator of exceeding the limit value for percentage of available thrust (Kongsberg pages 312-314).
Regarding claim 17, Gustin, as modified, teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin does not explicitly teach further comprising generating by the logic device a warning to a user before external disturbances overwhelm a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg teaches further comprising generating by the logic device a warning to a user before external disturbances overwhelm a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 272, Section: Display views: This displays the warning and alarm limits for position and heading deviation. Green indicates that the limits are currently active; page 278, Section: Display views: These are position warning and alarm limit circles (centred on the position setpoint). With automatic surge and sway control, and with position limits enabled, these circles indicate the warning and alarm limits for position deviation. When the vessel reference point crosses the warning limit circle, a warning is given. When the vessel reference point crosses the alarm limit circle, an alarm is given. […] The short lines, dashed and solid, are heading warning and alarm limit markers (centred on the heading setpoint). With automatic yaw control, and with heading limits enabled, these markers indicate the warning and alarm limits for heading deviation. When the vessel heading crosses the warning limit, a warning is given. When the vessel heading crosses the alarm limit, an alarm is given; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include further comprising generating by the logic device a warning to a user before external disturbances overwhelm a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator before significant positional and/or heading deviations due to external disturbances occur.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin, in view of Bertetti, in view of Tamura et al. (US-20190041857-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Tamura.
Regarding claim 20, Gustin teaches a system comprising:
a logic device configured to communicate with a user interface mounted on a mobile structure and provide one or more control signals to a navigation control system for the mobile structure, wherein the logic device is configured to ([0010] The maneuvering system includes at least one pilot controllable joystick for generating propulsion and maneuvering control inputs representing vessel motions desired by a pilot and a maneuvering processor including an input loop controller and an actuator loop controller responsive to the pilot joystick control input for generating corresponding control outputs to the at least one thruster and to the at least one engine to control the translational and rotational motions of the vessel in compliance with the joystick control inputs):
receive user interface demand signals from the user interface; determine the one or more control signals; and ([0028] As described in detail in the following, the input loop 30 receives a pilot's inputs from a joystick 1 representing vessel motions desired by the pilot and generates maneuvering commands representing the magnitudes and directions of the vessel motions desired by the pilot);
provide the one or more control signals to the navigation control system (FIG. 3C provides maneuvering commands 36C and/or 36D);
wherein determining the one or more control signals comprises: determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure (FIG. 3C input loop 32 includes wind and current sensors 46; [0062] Noise inputs 541 are selected signals that represent “noise” disturbances, such as environmental forces acting on the vessel 2 as a result of, for example, wind and waves. Corrections processor 54 corrects vessel control commands 52C of such noise disturbances, and generates and provides the final vessel propulsion commands 40 as described above);
wherein determining the wind and/or water current disturbances comprises:
placing the mobile structure in a first hover mode where a target linear velocity and/or a target angular velocity of the mobile structure is zero; and ([0013] …when in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode of operation, the system holds constant a current vessel bearing and position; [0032] A combined hold bearing and hold position mode in which the vessel 2 bearing, rotation and position are all held constant – Examiner interprets that in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode, user desired target velocity commands are zero as the vessel bearing and position are required to be held in place)
using a thrust provided by the system in the first hover mode as an indication of the wind and/or water current disturbances ([0062] vessel control commands 52C from smart command processor 52 are provided to a corrections processor 54 which also receives “noise” inputs 541 comprised, for example, of certain of propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N. Noise inputs 541 are selected signals that represent “noise” disturbances, such as environmental forces acting on the vessel 2 as a result of, for example, wind and waves. Corrections processor 54 corrects vessel control commands 52C of such noise disturbances, and generates and provides the final vessel propulsion commands 40 as described above – Examiner interprets that the corrective thrust provided by the corrections processor in the combined hold bearing and hold position mode is an indication of wind and/or water current disturbances).
[…] wherein the navigation control system is configured to maneuver the mobile structure according to the received user interface demand signals ([0028] As described in detail in the following, the input loop 30 receives a pilot's inputs from a joystick 1 representing vessel motions desired by the pilot and generates maneuvering commands representing the magnitudes and directions of the vessel motions desired by the pilot).
Gustin does not explicitly teach determining the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances.
However, Tamura teaches: determining the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances ([0062] In step S125, a thrust setting value at the time of the determination in step S123 and the determination in step S124, i.e., a thrust setting value representing the thrust balanced with the external force is stored as a reference value; [0063] In step S126, the reference value is added (vector added) to the thrust setting value resulting from the PD control […] As a result of the learning of the external force performed in such a manner, the reference value is added to the feedback term of the PD control. This makes it possible to cancel the external force acting on the ship 100, and to calculate a thrust setting value used to cause the ship 100 to move closer to the target position).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify use of the determined wind and/or water current disturbances in Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Tamura to include determining the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of canceling the external force when it is desired to move to a target position (Tamura [0063]).
Gustin does not explicitly teach determining a proximity to a hazard; and determining the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on a proximity of a hazard and/or obstacle.
However, Bertetti teaches determining a proximity to a hazard; and determine the one or more control signals based, at least in part, on a proximity of a hazard and/or obstacle ([0021] The operation of all the propulsion and direction control members of the boat (including possible rudders, not illustrated) is controlled by a central control and processor unit UC which monitors the control of the boat as a whole and which receives signals from a plurality of devices, described hereinbelow, mounted on board the boat for detection of obstacles; [0012] … automatically limit the speed of a boat approaching a bank or a jetty, or in the presence of obstacles detected by one or more detection systems).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Gustin to incorporate the teachings of Bertetti to include determining a proximity to a hazard; and determine the one or more control signals is also based, at least in part, on a proximity of a hazard and/or obstacle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of a safer maneuver of approaching docking (Bertetti [0012]).
Regarding claim 21, Gustin, as modified, teaches a method for using the system of claim 20.
Gustin also teaches the method comprising: placing the system in a second hover mode where a second target linear and/or a second target angular velocity of the system is zero; and ([0013] According to the present invention, the operator selects a mode of operation from at least one of a normal mode of operation, a hold bearing mode of operation, a hold position mode of operation and a combined hold bearing and hold position mode of operation. […] When in the hold bearing mode of operation, the system holds constant a current bearing of the vessel – Examiner interprets that in the hold bearing mode, user desired target linear velocity commands are zero as the vessel bearing is required to be held in place. It is noted the claimed first hover mode corresponds to Gustin’s “combined hold bearing and hold position mode” whereas the claimed second hover mode corresponds to Gustin’s “hold bearing mode”)
using the thrust provided by the system in the second hover mode as a second indication of the wind and/or water current disturbances ([0062] vessel control commands 52C from smart command processor 52 are provided to a corrections processor 54 which also receives “noise” inputs 541 comprised, for example, of certain of propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N. Noise inputs 541 are selected signals that represent “noise” disturbances, such as environmental forces acting on the vessel 2 as a result of, for example, wind and waves. Corrections processor 54 corrects vessel control commands 52C of such noise disturbances, and generates and provides the final vessel propulsion commands 40 as described above – Examiner interprets that the corrective thrust provided by the corrections processor in the hold bearing mode is an indication of wind and/or water current disturbances).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170253314-A1: Ward teaches [0026] and FIG. 5 station keeping mode relevant to claim 10
US-20070089660-A1: Bradley is also teaching station keeping mode relevant to claim 10
US-20170015265-A1: Watanabe teaches determining risk of capsize of a boat due to wind and displaying warning, relevant to claim 8
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights