DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is a non-final rejection on the merits of this application. In response to Applicant’s amendment of 25 February 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claims 2 and 6 are canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Hamamatsu describes a model that considers performance influenced by disturbances in addition to calm water. Calm water is interpreted as a state where no external force is applied. Hamamatsu includes both states where there are disturbances and absence of disturbances (calm water/no forces applied). Therefore, Hamamatsu teaches a state in which no forces are applied (calm water). Further Applicant argues that Arbuckle does not (1) use the desired forces and moments to estimate an external force vector and does not (2) calculate hull resistance and internal mass … using the hull motion model in a state where no external force is applied. Examiner respectfully disagrees since Arbuckle teaches the first point where it calculates a counter force that would keep a zero-position error. The counter force is equal in magnitude to the external force in order to keep the vessel in the same position (see paragraph 33, 34 and 48, Arbuckle). Secondly, the hull resistance and inertial mass is calculated in a state where no external force is applied since Arbuckle teaches roughness condition metrics is calibrated to handle calm water conditions which is interpreted as a state where no external force is applied to the vessel (see ¶ 48, Arbuckle). Examiner clarifies interpretation of “a state where no external force is applied” to be the “roughness condition (a state) metrics calibrated to handle calm water (where no external force is applied” (¶48, Arbuckle).
Further, examiner raises 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for “external force vector” and “external force” of claim 1-10 as described below.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a route command unit in claim 1
an information detector in claim 1
an external force vector estimation unit in claim 1, 3-4 and 7-8
a control command unit in claim 1
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.
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.
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a route command unit:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], Route command unit 50, Fig. 2
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an information detector:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], Information Detector 21, Fig. 2
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for an external force vector estimation unit:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], external force vector estimation unit, 28, Fig. 2
Upon reviewing of the specification, the following appears to be the corresponding structure for a control command unit:
" Each block shown in the block diagrams of FIGS. 2 and 3 can be implemented by an element, such as a processor, a CPU, or memory of a computer, an electronic circuit, or a mechanism in terms of hardware, and by a computer program or the like in terms of software.", [¶ 32], control command unit 15, Fig. 2
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 1, 3-5, and 7-10 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 is indefinite because it is not clear if “external force vector” force exerted by wind/waves/current, or if the external force is a force exerted by the vessel, or if the external force is gravity or buoyancy of the vessel. Further it is unclear how it is possible for the vessel to be in a state where no external force is applied since gravity and buoyancy must always be acting on the vessel.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamatsu et al. (US 20120259489 A1) in view of Arbuckle (US 20220161908 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Hamamatsu teaches, A ship control system (Ship Maneuvering Device 3, see at least, Fig.1, 2, Hamamatsu), comprising: a route command unit that outputs a route command including a target ship position and a target bow direction of a ship (Fig.2 depicts a route information input unit 15 which receives operator’s external inputs of information regarding a route which is must have target ship position and the ship maneuvering device 3 determines a ship maneuvering condition including bow azimuth for causing ship 2 to sail along set route, see at least, ¶76-78, Fig.2, Hamamatsu); an information detector that detects ship information including an actual ship position and an actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.3 depicts positional information 58 and azimuth information 59, see at least, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); an external force vector estimation unit that estimates an external force vector received by the ship (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave. The model takes into account the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu), using the ship information and a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig.3 positional information 58, azimuth information 59, and hull motion model 55 are used in the short -term planned route designation portion 28, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); and a control command unit that controls both rotational frequency of a main engine and a rudder angle of the ship, based on the route command, the ship information, and the external force vector (Fig. 2 depicts the propulsor 17 that includes a main propulsor 21 and rudder 22 that operate in accordance with the input commands from the controller 16, see at least, ¶80, Fig.2, Hamamatsu) wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates the external force vector using a hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. The model calculates the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector. A ship in calm water is interpreted to be a state where no external force is applied or disturbances equal to zero, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu)
Hamamatsu does not explicitly teach an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied.
Arbuckle, directed to a method for maintaining a marine vessel at a target position in a body of water teaches, an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction (The PID feedback controller 17 computes a desired force in the forward/back and left/right directions with reference to the marine vessel 10, along with a desired yaw moment relative to the marine vessel 10, in order to null the error elements. Forward/back left/right directions are interpreted as bow and transverse directions and the force is a function of the Mass of the vessel. Inertial Mass equivalent to gravitational mass which must be known to calculate the force using F=ma, Yaw moment is a rotational force for a vehicle to rotate in the yaw or turning direction see at least, ¶34, Arbuckle) and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied (Arbuckle teaches the PID feedback controller 12 computes the desired force taking into account roughness condition metrics calibrated to handle calm water conditions which is interpreted as a state where no external force is applied to the vessel, see paragraph 48, Arbuckle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu’s hull motion model where no force is applied to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied, since they are both related to methods of positioning ships and incorporation of the teachings of Arbuckle would increase the accuracy of controls so the vessel is controlled to stay on its desired location taking into account the roughness of the water.
Regarding Claim 3, Hamamatsu in view of Arbuckle teaches, The ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates an external force vector using an actual ship speed and actual acceleration or deceleration (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. Fig. 4 depicts the disturbance factors which are used to generate the actual marine are performance simulation model, the terminal device 7 calculates the actual marine area performance information such as the sea margin distribution depicted by figures 12a of hull resistance increase and decrease (resistance is a function of acceleration F=ma, see at least, ¶68, and 57, Fig.1, Fig.4, Fig. 12a, Hamamatsu) in the actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.12A depicts hull resistance along the direction (deg) axis that spans 0 to 180 degrees. 0 degrees and 180 degrees which includes the actual bow direction of the ship, see at least, Fig. 12A, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamamatsu teaches, the ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates an external force vector using an actual ship speed and actual acceleration or deceleration (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. Fig. 4 depicts the disturbance factors which are used to generate the actual marine are performance simulation model, the terminal device 7 calculates the actual marine area performance information such as the sea margin distribution depicted by figures 12a of hull resistance increase and decrease (resistance is a function of acceleration F=ma, and Figure 12b which depicts upward and downward acceleration of the actual marine area performance of the ship), see at least, ¶68, and 57, Fig.1, Fig.4, Fig. 12a, Fig. 12b, Hamamatsu) in a direction perpendicular to the actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.12A depicts hull resistance along the direction (deg) axis that spans 0 to 180 degrees. 90 degrees is perpendicular to the bow direction of the ship, see at least, Fig. 12A, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamamatsu teaches, The ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector is estimated using a measurement result of an external force received by the ship from at least one of wind or a tidal current (Fig.4 depicts calculating the actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave, ocean current and swell, see at least, ¶68, Fig. 4, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 7, Hamamatsu teaches, The ship control system according to claim 1, wherein the external force vector estimation unit performs part or all of processing of generating or updating the hull motion model, using a device outside the ship via a communication means connected with the device outside the ship using wireless communication network (Fig.1 depicts the terminal Device 7 where the actual marine area performance simulation model is built, which is received by the planned route designing device 4 through wireless communication means with a land office, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, Hamamatsu).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamamatsu teaches, An external force vector estimation device, comprising an external force vector estimation unit that estimates, using ship information including an actual ship position and an actual bow direction of a ship and a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship, an external force vector received by the ship (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave. The model takes into account the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu) (Fig.3 positional information 58, azimuth information 59, and hull motion model 55 are used in the short-term planned route designation portion 28, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu), wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates the external force vector using the hull motion model in a state where no external force is applied (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. The model calculates the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector. A ship in calm water is interpreted to be a state where no external force is applied, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu),
Hamamatsu does not explicitly teach an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied.
Arbuckle, directed to a method for maintaining a marine vessel at a target position in a body of water teaches, an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction (The PID feedback controller 17 computes a desired force in the forward/back and left/right directions with reference to the marine vessel 10, along with a desired yaw moment relative to the marine vessel 10, in order to null the error elements. Forward/back left/right directions are interpreted as bow and transverse directions and the force is a function of the Mass of the vessel. Inertial Mass equivalent to gravitational mass which must be known to calculate the force using F=ma, Yaw moment is a rotational force for a vehicle to rotate in the yaw or turning direction see at least, ¶34, Arbuckle) and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied (Arbuckle teaches the PID feedback controller 12 computes the desired force taking into account roughness condition metrics calibrated to handle calm water conditions which is interpreted as a state where no external force is applied to the vessel, see paragraph 48, Arbuckle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu’s hull motion model where no force is applied to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied, since they are both related to methods of positioning ships and incorporation of the teachings of Arbuckle would increase the accuracy of controls so the vessel is controlled to stay on its desired location taking into account the roughness of the water.
Regarding Claim 9, Hamamatsu teaches, A control method for a ship control system (Ship Maneuvering Device 3, see at least, Fig.1, 2, Hamamatsu), the control method comprising: outputting a route command including a target ship position and a target bow direction of a ship (Fig.2 depicts a route information input unit 15 which receives operator’s outputs information regarding a route which is must have target ship position and the ship maneuvering device 3 determines a ship maneuvering condition including bow azimuth for causing ship 2 to sail along set route, see at least, ¶76-78, Fig.2, Hamamatsu); detecting ship information including an actual ship position and an actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.3 depicts detecting positional information 58 and azimuth information 59, see at least, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); estimating an external force vector received by the ship (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave. The model takes into account the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu), using the ship information and a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig.3 positional information 58, azimuth information 59, and hull motion model 55 are used in the short-term planned route designation portion 28, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); and controlling both rotational frequency of a main engine and a rudder angle of the ship, based on the route command, the ship information, and the external force vector (Fig. 2 depicts the propulsor 17 that includes a main propulsor 21 and rudder 22 that operate in accordance with the input commands from the controller 16, see at least, ¶80, Fig.2, Hamamatsu), wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates the external force vector using the hull motion model in a state where no external force is applied (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. The model calculates the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector. A ship in calm water is interpreted to be a state where no external force is applied, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu),
Hamamatsu does not explicitly teach an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied.
Arbuckle, directed to a method for maintaining a marine vessel at a target position in a body of water teaches, an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction (The PID feedback controller 17 computes a desired force in the forward/back and left/right directions with reference to the marine vessel 10, along with a desired yaw moment relative to the marine vessel 10, in order to null the error elements. Forward/back left/right directions are interpreted as bow and transverse directions and the force is a function of the Mass of the vessel. Inertial Mass equivalent to gravitational mass which must be known to calculate the force using F=ma, Yaw moment is a rotational force for a vehicle to rotate in the yaw or turning direction see at least, ¶34, Arbuckle) and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied (Arbuckle teaches the PID feedback controller 12 computes the desired force taking into account roughness condition metrics calibrated to handle calm water conditions which is interpreted as a state where no external force is applied to the vessel, see paragraph 48, Arbuckle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu’s hull motion model where no force is applied to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied, since they are both related to methods of positioning ships and incorporation of the teachings of Arbuckle would increase the accuracy of controls so the vessel is controlled to stay on its desired location taking into account the roughness of the water.
Regarding Claim 10, Hamamatsu teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable memory medium storing a control program for a ship control system (Fig. 2 Storage Portion 63 stores computer programs executed by the controller of the ship maneuvering device, see at least, ¶80, Fig.2, Hamamatsu), the control program causing a computer to perform: outputting a route command including a target ship position and a target bow direction of a ship (Fig.2 depicts a route information input unit 15 which receives operator’s external inputs of information regarding a route which is must have target ship position and the ship maneuvering device 3 determines a ship maneuvering condition including bow azimuth for causing ship 2 to sail along set route, see at least, ¶76-78, Fig.2, Hamamatsu); detecting ship information including an actual ship position and an actual bow direction of the ship (Fig.3 depicts positional information 58 and azimuth information 59, see at least, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); estimating an external force vector received by the ship (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances such as wind, wave. The model takes into account the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu), using the ship information and a hull motion model related to a hull motion of the ship (Fig.3 positional information 58, azimuth information 59, and hull motion model 55 are used in the short-term planned route designation portion 28, ¶83, Fig.3, Hamamatsu); and controlling both rotational frequency of a main engine and a rudder angle of the ship, based on the route command, the ship information, and the external force vector (Fig. 2 depicts the propulsor 17 that includes a main propulsor 21 and rudder 22 that operate in accordance with the input commands from the controller 16, see at least, ¶80, Fig.2, Hamamatsu), wherein the external force vector estimation unit estimates the external force vector using the hull motion model in a state where no external force is applied (Fig.1 depicts the planned route designing device 4 , which calculates an actual marine area performance simulation model set to take into account the performance of the ship 2 in calm water and the performance of the ship 2 influenced by disturbances. The model calculates the transverse force by the disturbances on the hull which is interpreted as an external force vector. A ship in calm water is interpreted to be a state where no external force is applied, see at least, ¶68, Fig.1, 4, Hamamatsu),
Hamamatsu does not explicitly teach an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied.
Arbuckle, directed to a method for maintaining a marine vessel at a target position in a body of water teaches, an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction (The PID feedback controller 17 computes a desired force in the forward/back and left/right directions with reference to the marine vessel 10, along with a desired yaw moment relative to the marine vessel 10, in order to null the error elements. Forward/back left/right directions are interpreted as bow and transverse directions and the force is a function of the Mass of the vessel. Inertial Mass equivalent to gravitational mass which must be known to calculate the force using F=ma, Yaw moment is a rotational force for a vehicle to rotate in the yaw or turning direction see at least, ¶34, Arbuckle) and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied (Arbuckle teaches the PID feedback controller 12 computes the desired force taking into account roughness condition metrics calibrated to handle calm water conditions which is interpreted as a state where no external force is applied to the vessel, see paragraph 48, Arbuckle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hamamatsu’s hull motion model where no force is applied to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches an inertial mass in the actual bow direction and a transverse direction, and a hull resistance and a moment of inertia in a turning direction, and the hull resistance and the inertial mass in the actual bow direction and the transverse direction, and the hull resistance and the moment of inertia in the turning direction are calculated by using the hull motion model in the state where no external force is applied, since they are both related to methods of positioning ships and incorporation of the teachings of Arbuckle would increase the accuracy of controls so the vessel is controlled to stay on its desired location taking into account the roughness of the water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights