DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on 08/14/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 4-9 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 are pending in Instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 112(f) interpretation: Applicant' s amendment to claims 1-10 has overcome the 112(f) interpretations raised in the previous action; therefore the 112(f) interpretations are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding 112(b) rejection: Applicant' s amendment to claims 1-10 has overcome the 112(b) rejection raised in the previous action; therefore the 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 102(a)(1) rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive Applicant argues that Ito fails to teach the amended claimed feature of "perform, when it is judged that the ship will turn, lowering processing for lowering the responsiveness of the ship speed control", recited in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Examiner would like to first point out that as stated in paragraph [0014] of the instant application, “the lowering processing can be performed by stopping the ship speed control.” With this statement form the specification, the claim can be interpretated as once the ship is determined to turn, the ship speed control will be lowered because the stopping of the ship speed control. With that said, Examiner would like to point to paragraph [0055] of the Ito reference where it states that “In a period from time T1 to time T2, the steering angle is changed by the predetermined threshold TH1 or greater. Due to this, the actual vessel velocity greatly decreases”. This indicates that based on the determination that the steering angle has changed by TH1 or greater, the vessel velocity decreases significantly. By the velocity decreasing, the control for the speed of the ship is not controlled anymore because there is no need to maintain the control of the speed. Also in paragraph 0055, it states that “after time T2, the actual vessel velocity gradually approaches to the target vessel velocity”. This also indicates that after T2, the speed control resumes in order for the velocity to increase back to the target velocity. Therefore, Ito does teach "perform, when it is judged that the ship will turn, lowering processing for lowering the responsiveness of the ship speed control" and as such meets the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (USPGPub 2017/0144740). As per claim 1, Ito discloses a ship control system, comprising: a main engine controller that performs, when controlling the rotational frequency of a main engine based on a target ship speed of a ship, feedback control of an actual ship speed of the ship to perform ship speed control for bringing the actual ship speed closer to the target ship speed (see at least paragraph 0046; wherein in Step S104, a target engine rotation speed ENt is determined based on a difference between the target vessel velocity Vt and the actual vessel velocity Va. The controller 6 herein determines the target engine rotation speed ENt such that the difference between the target vessel velocity Vt and the actual vessel velocity Va falls in a predetermined range of values. A command signal indicating the determined target engine rotation speed ENt is transmitted to the propulsion device 2); a processor configured to: judge whether or not the ship will turn (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein in Step S105, a steering angle SA is detected. The controller 6 herein receives a detection signal indicating the steering angle SA of the propulsion device 2 from the steering angle detector 34, and detects the steering angle SA based on the received detection signal); and performs, when it is judged that the ship will turn, lowering processing for lowering the responsiveness of the ship speed control (see at least paragraph 0055; wherein the steering angle is changed by the predetermined threshold TH1 or greater. Due to this, the actual vessel velocity greatly decreases). As per claim 7, Ito discloses wherein, when the turning judgment unit has judged, during the lowering processing, that turning of the ship was finished, the control change unit disables the lowering processing (see at least Figure 5A). As per claim 10, Ito discloses a control method for a ship control system, the control method comprising: performing, when controlling the rotational frequency of a main engine based on a target ship speed of a ship, feedback control of an actual ship speed of the ship to perform ship speed control for bringing the actual ship speed closer to the target ship speed (see at least paragraph 0046; wherein in Step S104, a target engine rotation speed ENt is determined based on a difference between the target vessel velocity Vt and the actual vessel velocity Va. The controller 6 herein determines the target engine rotation speed ENt such that the difference between the target vessel velocity Vt and the actual vessel velocity Va falls in a predetermined range of values. A command signal indicating the determined target engine rotation speed ENt is transmitted to the propulsion device 2); judging whether or not the ship will turn (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein in Step S105, a steering angle SA is detected. The controller 6 herein receives a detection signal indicating the steering angle SA of the propulsion device 2 from the steering angle detector 34, and detects the steering angle SA based on the received detection signal); and performing, when it is judged that the ship will turn in the judging, lowering processing for lowering the responsiveness of the ship speed control (see at least paragraph 0055; wherein the steering angle is changed by the predetermined threshold TH1 or greater. Due to this, the actual vessel velocity greatly decreases). As per claim 11, Ito discloses a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium storing a control program for a ship control system, the control program causing a computer to execute: performing, when controlling the rotational frequency of a main engine based on a target ship speed of a ship, feedback control of an actual ship speed of the ship to perform ship speed control for bringing the actual ship speed closer to the target ship speed (see at least paragraph 0046; wherein in Step S104, a target engine rotation speed ENt is determined based on a difference between the target vessel velocity Vt and the actual vessel velocity Va. The controller 6 herein determines the target engine rotation speed ENt such that the difference between the target vessel velocity Vt and the actual vessel velocity Va falls in a predetermined range of values. A command signal indicating the determined target engine rotation speed ENt is transmitted to the propulsion device 2); judging whether or not the ship will turn (see at least paragraph 0048; wherein in Step S105, a steering angle SA is detected. The controller 6 herein receives a detection signal indicating the steering angle SA of the propulsion device 2 from the steering angle detector 34, and detects the steering angle SA based on the received detection signal); and performing, when it is judged that the ship will turn in the judging, lowering processing for lowering the responsiveness of the ship speed control (see at least paragraph 0055; wherein the steering angle is changed by the predetermined threshold TH1 or greater. Due to this, the actual vessel velocity greatly decreases).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (USPGPub 2017/0144740) in view of Nojiri (USPGPub 2023/0227141). As per claim 2, Ito does not explicitly mention wherein, in the lowering processing, when it is judged that the ship will turn, the ship speed control is stopped, and control is performed such as to maintain the rotational frequency of the main engine at the time of the judgment. However Nojiri does disclose: wherein, in the lowering processing, when it is judged that the ship will turn, the ship speed control is stopped, and control is performed such as to maintain the rotational frequency of the main engine at the time of the judgment (see at least paragraph 0038; wherein in each case, a user watercraft 2 stops or is moving at slow speed. In either case, the system turns the user watercraft 2 to a state in which the front-rear direction of the user watercraft 2 is parallel to the moving direction of the target watercraft 11 and the heading direction of the user watercraft 2 is directed to the side of the approaching target watercraft 11. The direction in which the user watercraft 2 is turned is determined such that the angle of turn of the user watercraft 2 is 180° or less). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Nojiri with the teachings as in Ito. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a collision damage reduction system, see Nojiri abstract.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (USPGPub 2017/0144740) in view of Kato et al. (USPGPub 2022/0144389). As per claim 4, Ito does not explicitly mention wherein processor judges whether or not the ship will turn using an actual rudder angle of the ship. However Kato does disclose: wherein the processor judges whether or not the ship will turn using an actual rudder angle of the ship (see at least paragraph 0095; wherein the rudder angle sensor, for example, it may be determined that a right turn is being made when a steering angle to make a right turn exceeds or becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined reference right rudder angle, that a left turn is being made when a steering angle to make a left turn exceeds or becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined reference left rudder angle, and that the small planing watercraft 32 is heading straight when the steering angle is between the reference right rudder angle and the reference left rudder angle). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kato with the teachings as in Ito. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve visibility, see Kato paragraph 0177. As per claim 5, Kato discloses wherein, when the actual rudder angle of the ship becomes equal to or smaller than a predetermined value during the lowering processing, the processor judges that the turning of the ship has been finished (see at least paragraph 0095; wherein the rudder angle sensor, for example, it may be determined that a right turn is being made when a steering angle to make a right turn exceeds or becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined reference right rudder angle, that a left turn is being made when a steering angle to make a left turn exceeds or becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined reference left rudder angle, and that the small planing watercraft 32 is heading straight when the steering angle is between the reference right rudder angle and the reference left rudder angle).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (USPGPub 2017/0144740) in view of Kishimoto et al. (USPGPub 2019/0344875). As per claim 8, Ito does not explicitly mention wherein the processor judges whether or not the ship will turn using an actual ship position of the ship and a way point on a navigation plan of the ship. However Kishimoto does disclose: wherein the processor judges whether or not the ship will turn using an actual ship position of the ship and a way point on a navigation plan of the ship (see at least paragraph 0097; wherein the command steering angle calculating module 23 examines, for example, the positional information received from the GPS receiver 102. If the command steering angle calculating module 23 determines that the ship 10 travels in the turning tracking mode, and travels between the boundary point T1 and the boundary point T2, it may then calculate the course setting ψ0[n] based on the positions of the intermediate waypoint S and the center C, and a deviation REs[n] of the current position P0 of the ship 10 from the route R12). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kishimoto with the teachings as in Ito. The motivation for doing so would have been to accurately perform the traveling of the route, see Kishimoto paragraph 0008.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein, in the lowering processing, loop gain of the feedback control is made smaller than that before it is judged that the ship will turn.
Claim(s) 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor judges turning of the ship further using disturbance information including at least one of the speed of a tidal current near the ship, the direction of a tidal current near the ship, the wind speed near the ship, or the wind direction near the ship.
Claim(s) 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein, using an actual ship position, the actual ship speed, and the target ship speed of the ship and a way point on a navigation plan of the ship, the processor estimates a scheduled time at which the ship reaches the way point and judges that the ship will turn a predetermined period of time before the scheduled time.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2017/0308091 – Provides a method includes generating a non-continuous curvature end-of-row turn path for an agricultural vehicle, wherein the non-continuous curvature end-of-row turn path includes a plurality of initial segments that are curved or straight, adding at least one continuity segment between each of the plurality of initial segments, wherein the at least one continuity segment includes a clothoid segment, and the initial segments and the at least one continuity segment combine to form a continuous curvature end-of-row turn path, determining, via an iterative process, a maximum drivable speed based on a minimum speed and a target speed, and implementing the continuous end-of-row turn path at the maximum drivable speed. USPGPub 2005/0083174 – Provides an object sensor which is suitable for being used when a hand of a user of a vehicle approaching a door handle is detected in order to trigger an automatic unlocking operation of a passive entry system of the vehicle, for example, and a controller using the above sensor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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 at 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662