DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 2-21 are pending. Claims dated 12/16/2025 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/07/2024 and 08/22/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Note
This Office Action acknowledges receipt of the 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.
As this application is associated with a large number of priority applications with differing filing dates, in order to continue to maintain proper examination, the Examiner requests the Applicant to provide the effective filing date of any amendments to the claims and which portion(s) of the provisional(s) and/or related applications provide the written description and enablement support for the specific amended claim element(s) submitted in future responses.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
“logic device configured to…” in at least claim 2 and 20
“first logic configured to…” and “second logic configured to…” in at least claim 5
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. Specifically, per para [0052] of the PGPUB US-20240319746-A1 , Controller 130 may be implemented as any appropriate logic device (e.g., processing device, microcontroller, processor, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), field programmable gate array (FPGA), memory storage device, memory reader, or other device or combinations of devices) that may be adapted to execute, store, and/or receive appropriate instructions, such as software instructions implementing a control loop for controlling various operations of navigation control system 190, mobile structure 101, and/or other elements of system 100, for example.
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 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 10 and 19-21 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitations “the target linear and/or angular velocities”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear which these limitations are referring to. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets these limitations as user demanded velocities.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites the limitations “the target linear and/or angular velocities”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear which these limitations are referring to. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets these limitations as user demanded velocities.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitations “the target linear and/or angular velocities”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is not clear which these limitations are referring to. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets these limitations as user demanded velocities.
Claim 21 is similarly rejected, because of its dependency on rejected claim 20.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 2-5, 9-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gustin et al. (US-20110172858-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Gustin.
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):
(A) 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)
(B) 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).
Regarding claim 3, Gustin 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 (A) and (B) respectively ([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 teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches comprising a manual switch configured to switch the logic device between (A) and (B) (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 5, Gustin teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches wherein the logic device comprises: first logic configured to generate thrust demand from the velocity demand in (B); 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 thrust demand from the first logic in (B), and from the user interface demand signals in (A), and determine the one or more control signals based at least in part on the received 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 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 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 the target linear and/or angular velocities are 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 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 teaches a method comprising using the system of claim 2.
Gustin also teaches wherein the method comprises:
switching the logic device between (A) and (B); 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 in (A) and in (B) (FIG. 3C provides maneuvering commands 36C and/or 36D).
Regarding claim 12, Gustin 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 (A) and (B) respectively ([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 teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin also teaches comprising switching the logic device between (A) and (B) 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 teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin also teaches wherein the logic device comprises: first logic generating thrust demand from the velocity demand in (B); 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 thrust demand from the first logic in (B), and from the user interface demand signals in (A), and determining the one or more control signals based at least in part on the received 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 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 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 the target linear and/or angular velocities are 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 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 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 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 determining the one or more control signals comprises: determining 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 determining the wind and/or water current disturbances comprises:
placing the mobile structure in a hover mode where the target linear and/or angular velocities are 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 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 21, Gustin teaches a method for using the system of claim 20.
Gustin also teaches the method comprising: placing the system in a hover mode where the target linear and/or angular velocities are 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 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).
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 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustin, 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 teaches the system of claim 5.
Gustin does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to provide the 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 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 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 thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for displaying the 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 thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for displaying the 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 thrust demand generated by the first logic to the user interface for displaying the 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 teaches the system of claim 2.
Gustin does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to warn the user before external disturbances overwhelm a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg teaches wherein the logic device is configured to warn the 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 the 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.
Regarding claim 15, Gustin teaches the method of claim 14.
Gustin does not explicitly teach further comprising displaying on the user interface the thrust demand generated by the first logic.
However, Kongsberg teaches further comprising displaying on the user interface the 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 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 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 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 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 teaches the method of claim 11.
Gustin does not explicitly teach further comprising generating by the logic device a warning to the 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 the 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 the 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.
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
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