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 final action is in response to Applicant’s filing dated October 22, 2025. Independent claims 1 and 19-20 have been amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered, as provided in more detail below.
*Examiner Note: Claim language is bolded. Cited References and Applicant’s arguments are italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and considered moot because the arguments are directed to the newly amended claims that have necessitated a new ground of rejection as outlined below. While the new ground of rejection may rely on some of the previous references applied in the prior rejection of record, a new additional reference has been added to the combination and introduced for Applicant’s consideration given the amended independent claims as discussed in detail below. The original primary reference of Nakahama has been maintained and new secondary reference to Yoshikawa has been introduced. The amended claims are taught by the combination of Nakahama and Yoshikawa. Nakahama defines the collision risk area as a displayed, ship-specific graphical element and Yoshikawa teaches how systems receive user specification of displayed graphical elements. Yoshikawa teaches receipt of a user specification of a displayed graphical element via a user input. Nakahama teaches that the collision risk areas are displayed graphical elements generated for and associated with specific ships. As further discussed below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of the collision risk areas of Nakahama to include the selection mechanism as taught in Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success such that the system receives a user specification of displayed collision risk area.
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC §101 have been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 103, the amendments made to the claims have necessitated new grounds of rejections as outlined below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahama (US2017/0067984 A1) in view of Yoshikawa (US 2016/0328118 A1).
Regarding amended claim 1, Nakahama discloses A ship monitoring device (see at least
para. [0046] of Nakahama which discloses “The radar image display device 100 is electrically connected with the radar antenna 90, receives reception signals (information) from the radar antenna 90, creates a radar image reflecting states of detection target objects (second ship(s), island(s) etc. around the first ship, may simply be referred to as the “target object” hereinafter), and displays the radar image”), comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 2, 30 and see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing” and see at least para. [0118] of Nakahama which discloses “A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions”, *This corresponds to the controller 30 including the processing circuitry and notes that Nakahama discloses a controller including modules that generate navigational information including positions and velocities of the first ship, which corresponds to the claimed first data generating part) configured to:
accept a specification (see at least para. [0023] of Nakahama which discloses “The information display device may further include a target ship selecting module configured to select, in a case where the second ship includes a plurality of second ships, one of the displayed second ships to be a target ship”) of a position in an image an image (see at least para. [0061] of Nakahama which discloses “positions Psa, Psb, Pa and Pb of the first and second ships, and risk areas Aa and Ab of the first ship” and see at least para. [0043] of Nakahama which discloses “a display example of an image on a display screen 10”. It is evident that Nakahama discloses processing circuitry configured to accept a specification of a position in an image because Nakahama teaches a target ship selecting module configured to select one of a plurality of displayed second ships. Selecting one of the displayed ships constitutes specification of the position of that ship in the displayed image, which is received and processed by the controller) displayed (see Fig. 1 of Nakahama which illustrates an image displayed on a display screen) on a display (Fig. 1, 10 and see at least para. [0048] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the display screen (display unit) 10”),
acquire first ship data (see at least para. [0048] of Nakahama which discloses “the radar image display device 100 obtains a distance from the first ship, a size, and an azimuth of the target object, creates the radar image, and displays it on the display screen (display unit) 10”, and see at least para. [0056] of Nakahama which discloses “, the course information and the speed information of the first ship may be obtained based on data”, *The disclosure evidences acquisition of ship position and velocity data since the distance form the first ship and size data is obtained) indicative of a position and a velocity (see at least para. [0006] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “a relative position and a velocity vector of the target ship and a speed of the first ship”) of a first ship (Fig. 3, S and see at least para. [0011] of Nakahama which discloses “a first ship” and see para. [0061] of Nakahama which describes “current positions of the first ship S”),
acquire a plurality of second ship data indicative of positions and velocities (see at least para. [0061] of Nakahama which disclose “current positions of the first ship S and second ships Ea and Eb” and see at least para. [0111] of Nakahama which discloses “velocity vectors of the second ships”) of a plurality of second ships (Fig. 3, Ea and Eb and see para. [0061] of Nakahama which discloses “second ships Ea and Eb”),
calculate a collision risk area (see at least para. [0059] of Nakahama which discloses “The risk area is defined based on a predicted position of the first ship for a particular timing yet to come, and is a rough indication that a risk of the first ship colliding with the second ship is high when a predicted” and see at least para. [0006] of Nakahama which discloses “each calculated collision point by a line segment, displays the range defined by the line segment as a collision risk range, and superimposes the first-ship position and one of a velocity vector and a target ship position thereon”, *This corresponds to calculating a collision risk area) where a risk of the first ship colliding each of the second ships becomes more than a given value, based on the first ship data and the plurality of second ship data (see at least para. [0077] of Nakahama which discloses “the possibilities of the collision of the second ships Ea and Eb with the first ship S increase if they enter therein are generated centering on the closest approach positions Psa and Psb of the first ship S, respectively. That is, the risk areas Aa and Ab are always displayed centering on a point on the course of the first ship S", *the disclosure indicates that since the possibility of collision increases, this satisfies the claim limitation of the risk of the first ship colliding each of the second ships becomes more than a given value based on position of the first ship), and
display a plurality of ship objects indicative of the plurality of second ships, and the collision risk area disposed at corresponding positions in the image (see at least para. [0061] of Nakahama which discloses “positions Psa, Psb, Pa and Pb of the first and second ships, and risk areas Aa and Ab of the first ship” and see at least para. [0043] of Nakahama which discloses “a display example of an image on a display screen 10”).
Nakahama may not explicitly disclose upon receipt of specification of the collision risk area
is accepted, display the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area so as to be discriminated from other ship objects.
However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshikawa discloses receipt of a user specification of
a displayed graphical element via a user input to teach upon receipt of specification of the collision risk area (see at least para. [0059] of Yoshikawa which discloses “when one other target symbol S2 is designated and the select button is pressed, the display can be switched to a target detail screen 18 on which detailed information related to the designated other target is displayed”, *This portion of Yoshikawa teaches the newly added limitation directed to receipt of a user specification of a displayed graphical element via a user input because the user designates a displayed target symbol via a user input (i.e., pressing a select button) and, in response, the system displays information associated with the designated target) is accepted (see at least para. [0058] of Yoshikawa which discloses “when the user performs an operation of designating an other target symbol S2 with the cursor 17 (more specifically, an operation of pressing a select button (not shown) after the cursor 17 is superposed over the other target symbol S2), detailed information related to that other target can be displayed” and see at least para. [0059] of Yoshikawa which discloses “when one other target symbol S2 is designated and the select button is pressed, the display can be switched to a target detail screen 18 on which detailed information related to the designated other target is displayed”, *Examiner interprets this a evidence of accepting a specification of a position in an image), display the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “the risk of collision between the host vessel and another target can be displayed based on the relative bearing of the host vessel and the other target, the heading of the host vessel and the other target, and the relative distance between the host vessel and the other target”) so as to be discriminated from other ship objects (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects. In summary, Nakahama teaches that collision risk areas are generated for and displayed as assigned to a corresponding second ship, such that the collision risk area portrays the collision relationship of certain ships with the first ship. Therefore, the collision risk area functions as a graphical representation of the ship object represented by the ship icon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the collision risk area display of Nakahama such that upon receipt of specification ofas taught in Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the user to designate the ship icon or the associated collision risk area as an alternative to facilitate a user’s ability to gain more knowledge of potential targets in the area so that situation awareness is improved and as a predictable application of known graphical user interface options. See para. [0058]-[0059] of Yoshikawa for motivation.
Regarding claim 2, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry (Fig. 2, 30 and see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing” and see at least para. [0118] of Nakahama which discloses “A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions”, *Examiner interprets the controller 30 to include the processing circuitry) performs the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) by displaying an information indication object including ship information (see at least para. [0067] of Nakahama which discloses “the large ship-shaped mark is displayed to indicate the position at which the first ship S currently navigates. The small ship-shaped mark is displayed to indicate the position of the first ship S at the closest approach timing regarding the first and second ships S and Ea (closest approach position Psa). Therefore, the current position and the closest approach position Psa of the first ship S are easily grasped based on the large and small ship-shaped marks indicating the first ship S”, *Examiner interprets the ship-shaped mark to be the information indication object since ship information is included) so as to be associated with the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area (see at least para. [0066] of Nakahama which discloses “the navigational information, such as the current positions, the closest approach positions, the courses, etc. of the first and second ships S and Ea. Further, the helmsman can grasp collision risk information, such as there is a risk that the first ship S collides with the second ship Ea if the first ship S continues to navigate at the current course and speed”, *Examiner interprets this to be information associated with the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area).
Regarding claim 3, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry performs the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) by using a different display mode (see at least para. [0109] of Nakahama which discloses “The display mode of the closest approach time period may arbitrarily be changed”, *Examiner interprets this as evidence of the existence of different display modes) of the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area from other ship objects (see at least para. [0031] of Nakahama which discloses “In a case where the second ship includes a plurality of second ships having different levels of risk, the display controlling module may cause the display screen to display at least one of the risk area and the closest approach position of the second ship, in different modes among the plurality of second ships”).
Regarding claim 4, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry (Fig. 2, 30 and see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing” and see at least para. [0118] of Nakahama which discloses “A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions”, *Examiner interprets the controller 30 to include the processing circuitry) performs one of the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects)of the ship object (see at least para. [0072] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea to Ed are displayed as different marks (symbols) from each other as needed. Thus, when the plurality of second ships Ea to Ed are displayed, they are displayed so that the information of the second ships is easily distinguished from each other” and see at least para. [0073] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea and Eb which have the risk of colliding with the first ship S is displayed in different colors (modes) so that the helmsman can easily distinguish the information from each other. Note that in FIG. 3, different colors are expressed by changing the thickness of the lines”, *Examiner interprets the different marks and the different colors displayed to be evidence that the collision risk area is discriminated from the other ship objects) corresponding to the collision risk area, and given processing accompanying specification of another object, when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with the another object is specified (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship concerned”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry (Fig. 2, 30 and see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing” and see at least para. [0118] of Nakahama which discloses “A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions”, *Examiner interprets the controller 30 to include the processing circuitry) performs one of the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) of the ship object (see at least para. [0072] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea to Ed are displayed as different marks (symbols) from each other as needed. Thus, when the plurality of second ships Ea to Ed are displayed, they are displayed so that the information of the second ships is easily distinguished from each other” and see at least para. [0073] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea and Eb which have the risk of colliding with the first ship S is displayed in different colors (modes) so that the helmsman can easily distinguish the information from each other. Note that in FIG. 3, different colors are expressed by changing the thickness of the lines”, *Examiner interprets the different marks and the different colors displayed to be evidence that the collision risk area is discriminated from the other ship objects) corresponding to the collision risk area, and given processing accompanying specification of another object, when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with the another object is specified (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship concerned”).
Regarding claim 6, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry (Fig. 2, 30 and see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing” and see at least para. [0118] of Nakahama which discloses “A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions”, *Examiner interprets the controller 30 to include the processing circuitry) performs given processing accompanying specification of another object (see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing, especially when there is a possibility of colliding with a plurality of second ships”, *Examiner interprets this as performance of given processing), without performing the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) of the ship object corresponding to the collision risk area (see at least para. [0057] of Nakahama which discloses “the navigational information of the second ship may be acquired by using an Automatic Identification System (AIS)”, *Examiner interprets use of this alternative system to be evidence of the performance of processing accompanying specification of another object without performing the discriminating indication of the ship object) , when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with the another object is specified (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship concerned”).
Regarding claim 7, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry (Fig. 2, 30 and see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing” and see at least para. [0118] of Nakahama which discloses “A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions”, *Examiner interprets the controller 30 to include the processing circuitry) performs given processing accompanying specification of another object (see at least para. [0091] of Nakahama which discloses “the controller 30 performing the above processing, especially when there is a possibility of colliding with a plurality of second ships”, *Examiner interprets this as performance of given processing), without performing the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) of the ship object corresponding to the collision risk area (see at least para. [0057] of Nakahama which discloses “the navigational information of the second ship may be acquired by using an Automatic Identification System (AIS)”, *Examiner interprets use of this alternative system to be evidence of the performance of processing accompanying specification of another object without performing the discriminating indication of the ship object) , when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with the another object is specified (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship concerned”).
Regarding claim 8, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the another
object is the ship object (see at least para. [0046] of Nakahama which discloses “reflecting states of detection target objects (second ship(s), island(s) etc. around the first ship, may simply be referred to as the “target object” hereinafter)”, *Examiner interprets the target objects to be the ship object), and wherein the given processing accompanying the specification of the another object is processing to display an information indication object including ship information so as to be associated with the specified ship object (see at least para. [0067] of Nakahama which discloses “the large ship-shaped mark is displayed to indicate the position at which the first ship S currently navigates. The small ship-shaped mark is displayed to indicate the position of the first ship S at the closest approach timing regarding the first and second ships S and Ea (closest approach position Psa). Therefore, the current position and the closest approach position Psa of the first ship S are easily grasped based on the large and small ship-shaped marks indicating the first ship S”, *Examiner interprets the ship-shaped mark to be the information indication object since ship information is included).
Regarding claim 10, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry performs the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) of the ship object corresponding to the collision risk area (see at least para. [0073] of Nakahama which discloses “the information regarding the second ships Ea and Eb which have the risk of colliding with the first ship S is displayed in different colors (modes) so that the helmsman can easily distinguish the information from each other”) when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with another object is specified in a first specifying mode, and performs given processing accompanying specification of the another object when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with the another object is specified in a second specifying mode (see at least para. [0029] of Nakahama which discloses “the display controlling module may cause the display screen to display the risk area and the closest approach position of the second ship, in different modes among the plurality of second ships”, *Examiner interprets the different modes to be a first and second specifying mode).
Regarding claim 11, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry performs the discriminating indication (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) of the ship object corresponding to the collision risk area (see at least para. [0073] of Nakahama which discloses “the information regarding the second ships Ea and Eb which have the risk of colliding with the first ship S is displayed in different colors (modes) so that the helmsman can easily distinguish the information from each other”) when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with another object is specified in a first specifying mode, and performs given processing accompanying specification of the another object when a position at which the collision risk area overlaps with the another object is specified in a second specifying mode (see at least para. [0029] of Nakahama which discloses “the display controlling module may cause the display screen to display the risk area and the closest approach position of the second ship, in different modes among the plurality of second ships”, *Examiner interprets the different modes to be a first and second specifying mode).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nakahama in view of Yoshikawa, discloses wherein,
when a position at which a plurality of the collision risk areas overlap with each other is specified (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship concerned”), the processing circuitry discriminatingly displays one of the plurality of ship objects (see at least para. [0072] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea to Ed are displayed as different marks (symbols) from each other as needed. Thus, when the plurality of second ships Ea to Ed are displayed, they are displayed so that the information of the second ships is easily distinguished from each other” and see at least para. [0073] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea and Eb which have the risk of colliding with the first ship S is displayed in different colors (modes) so that the helmsman can easily distinguish the information from each other. Note that in FIG. 3, different colors are expressed by changing the thickness of the lines”, *Examiner interprets the different marks and the different colors displayed to be evidence that the collision risk area is discriminated from the other ship objects).
Yoshikawa further discloses that is determined based on a degree of a collision risk, a
distance from the specified position, a distance from the first ship, or a degree of interference with traveling of the first ship (see at least para. [0069] of Yoshikawa which discloses “the distance between the other target symbol S2 and the icon-use host vessel symbol S3) by the range that fits within the outer circle 20, according to changes in the distance between the host vessel and the other target. In this case, the distance from the host vessel to the other target can also be grasped from the display of the icon 19” and see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “the risk of collision between the host vessel and another target can be displayed based on the relative bearing of the host vessel and the other target, the heading of the host vessel and the other target, and the relative distance between the host vessel and the other target. To give a specific example, the distance when the host vessel and the other target are at their closest point of approach, and the time until the closest point of approach between the host vessel and the other target are estimated by calculation, and if the resulting estimated distance and estimated time are short, at least part of the display of the icon 19 is changed (The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here”, *Examiner interprets that since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., a degree of a collision risk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the ship monitoring device of Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa to determine based on a degree of a collision risk, a distance from the specified position, a distance from the first ship, or a degree of interference with traveling of the first ship, as further taught by Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce a more accurate and effective display of the ship object based on a given condition. See para. [0069] and [0071] of Yoshikawa for motivation.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nakahama in view of Yoshikawa, discloses wherein,
when a position at which a plurality of the collision risk areas overlap with each other is specified (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship concerned”), the processing circuitry discriminatingly (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) displays one of the plurality of ship objects (see at least para. [0072] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea to Ed are displayed as different marks (symbols) from each other as needed. Thus, when the plurality of second ships Ea to Ed are displayed, they are displayed so that the information of the second ships is easily distinguished from each other” and see at least para. [0073] of Nakahama which discloses “the second ships Ea and Eb which have the risk of colliding with the first ship S is displayed in different colors (modes) so that the helmsman can easily distinguish the information from each other. Note that in FIG. 3, different colors are expressed by changing the thickness of the lines”, *Examiner interprets the different marks and the different colors displayed to be evidence that the collision risk area is discriminated from the other ship objects).
Yoshikawa further discloses that is determined based on a degree of a collision risk, a
distance from the specified position, a distance from the first ship, or a degree of interference with traveling of the first ship (see at least para. [0069] of Yoshikawa which discloses “the distance between the other target symbol S2 and the icon-use host vessel symbol S3) by the range that fits within the outer circle 20, according to changes in the distance between the host vessel and the other target. In this case, the distance from the host vessel to the other target can also be grasped from the display of the icon 19” and see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “the risk of collision between the host vessel and another target can be displayed based on the relative bearing of the host vessel and the other target, the heading of the host vessel and the other target, and the relative distance between the host vessel and the other target. To give a specific example, the distance when the host vessel and the other target are at their closest point of approach, and the time until the closest point of approach between the host vessel and the other target are estimated by calculation, and if the resulting estimated distance and estimated time are short, at least part of the display of the icon 19 is changed (The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here”, *Examiner interprets that since these limitations are cited in the alternative only 1 limitation is required, i.e., a degree of a collision risk).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the ship monitoring device of Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa to determine based on a degree of a collision risk, a distance from the specified position, a distance from the first ship, or a degree of interference with traveling of the first ship, as further taught by Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to produce a more accurate and effective display of the ship object based on a given condition. See para. [0069] and [0071] of Yoshikawa for motivation.
Regarding claim 14, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein, when a
position at which a plurality of the collision risk areas overlap with each other is specified (see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the radar image display device 100 of this embodiment, the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship”), the processing circuitry discriminatingly (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects) displays the plurality of ship objects corresponding to the plurality of specified collision risk areas (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0020] of Nakahama which discloses “the positional relationship of the first ship with the second ship having the risk of collision can be displayed simply”).
Regarding claim 15, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein, when a
position at which a plurality of the collision risk areas overlap with each other is specified (see at least para. [0087] of Nakahama which discloses “the radar image display device 100 of this embodiment, the information described above is displayed only when the closest approach position of the second ship is in (overlaps with) the risk area of the first ship S corresponding to the second ship”), the processing circuitry discriminatingly displays the plurality of ship objects corresponding to the plurality of specified collision risk areas (see at least para. [0019] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position of the second ship and the risk area may be displayed by the display controlling module when overlapped with each other” and see at least para. [0020] of Nakahama which discloses “the positional relationship of the first ship with the second ship having the risk of collision can be displayed simply”).
Regarding claim 17, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the second
ship data includes a position and a velocity (see at least para. [0111] of Nakahama which discloses “velocity vectors of the second ships Ta and Tb, instead of/in addition to the predicted tracks Ta and Tb of the second ships”) of the second ship that are detected by a radar mounted on the first ship (see at least para. [0114] of Nakahama which discloses “a radar connected with a radar antenna, and a multi-function display capable of integrally displaying various information” and see at least para. [0092] of Nakahama which discloses “the radar image display device 100 of this embodiment, the helmsman may also control the user interface 20 to display information regarding a selected target ship”).
Regarding claim 18, Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the second
ship data includes a position and a velocity (see at least para. [0111] of Nakahama which discloses “velocity vectors of the second ships Ta and Tb, instead of/in addition to the predicted tracks Ta and Tb of the second ships”) of the second ship that are detected by an AIS (Automatic Identification System) mounted on the first ship (see at least para. [0057] of Nakahama which discloses “the navigational information of the second ship may be acquired by using an Automatic Identification System (AIS)”).
Regarding amended claim 19, Nakahama discloses A ship monitoring method, comprising:
generating, by a first data generating part (Fig. 2, 30 which includes elements 32/33/34/35 and see at least para. [0052] of Nakahama which discloses “the controller 30 includes a closest approach position estimating module 32, a closest approach time period estimating module 33, a risk area generating module 34, and a display data generating module (display controlling module) 35” and see at least para. [0055] of Nakahama which discloses “The closest approach position estimating module 32 calculates the closest approach positions of the first and second ships which are positions when they approach each other the closest, based on navigational information of the first ship and navigational information of the second ship. Note that, the closest approach positions may be calculated by a known method based on the navigational information of the first ship and the second ship”), *Examiner notes that Nakahama discloses a controller including modules that generate navigational information including positions and velocities of the first ship, which corresponds to the claimed first data generating part), first ship data (see at least para. [0048] of Nakahama which discloses “the radar image display device 100 obtains a distance from the first ship, a size, and an azimuth of the target object, creates the radar image, and displays it on the display screen (display unit) 10”, and see at least para. [0056] of Nakahama which discloses “, the course information and the speed information of the first ship may be obtained based on data”, * The disclosure evidences acquisition of ship position and velocity data since the distance form the first ship and size data is obtained) indicative of a position and a velocity (see at least para. [0006] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “a relative position and a velocity vector of the target ship and a speed of the first ship”) of a first ship (Fig. 3, S and see at least para. [0011] of Nakahama which discloses “a first ship” and see para. [0061] of Nakahama which describes “current positions of the first ship S”);
generating, by a second data generating part (Fig. 1, 90 and see at least para. [0046] of Nakahama which discloses “The radar image display device 100 is electrically connected with the radar antenna 90, receives reception signals (information) from the radar antenna 90, creates a radar image”), a plurality of second ship data indicative of positions and velocities (see at least para. [0061] of Nakahama which disclose “current positions of the first ship S and second ships Ea and Eb” and see at least para. [0111] of Nakahama which discloses “velocity vectors of the second ships”) of a plurality of second ships (Fig. 3, Ea and Eb and see para. [0061] of Nakahama which discloses “second ships Ea and Eb”);
calculating a collision risk area (see at least para. [0059] of Nakahama which discloses “The risk area is defined based on a predicted position of the first ship for a particular timing yet to come, and is a rough indication that a risk of the first ship colliding with the second ship is high when a predicted” and see at least para. [0006] of Nakahama which discloses “each calculated collision point by a line segment, displays the range defined by the line segment as a collision risk range, and superimposes the first-ship position and one of a velocity vector and a target ship position thereon”, *This corresponds to calculating a collision risk area) where a risk of the first ship colliding each of the second ships becomes more than a given value, based on the first ship data and the plurality of second ship data (see at least para. [0077] of Nakahama which discloses “the possibilities of the collision of the second ships Ea and Eb with the first ship S increase if they enter therein are generated centering on the closest approach positions Psa and Psb of the first ship S, respectively. That is, the risk areas Aa and Ab are always displayed centering on a point on the course of the first ship S", *the disclosure indicates that since the possibility of collision increases, this satisfies the claim limitation of the risk of the first ship colliding each of the second ships becomes more than a given value based on position of the first ship);
displaying, by a display (Fig. 1, 10 and see at least para. [0048] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “the display screen (display unit) 10”), an image (see at least para. [0061] of Nakahama which discloses “positions Psa, Psb, Pa and Pb of the first and second ships, and risk areas Aa and Ab of the first ship” and see at least para. [0043] of Nakahama which discloses “a display example of an image on a display screen 10”) where a plurality of ship objects indicative of the plurality of second ships (see at least para. [0072] of Nakahama which discloses “the plurality of second ships Ea to Ed is displayed, in the radar image display device 100”), and the collision risk area are disposed at corresponding positions (see at least para. [0006] of Nakahama which discloses “displays the range defined by the line segment as a collision risk range” and see at least para. [0009] of Nakahama which discloses “the plurality of displayed collidable regions (collision risk ranges)”, *This corresponds to disposing the collision risk area at corresponding positions of the image).
Nakahama may not explicitly disclose upon receipt of specification of the collision risk area,
displaying the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area so as to be discriminated from other ship objects.
However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshikawa discloses receipt of a user specification of
a displayed graphical element via a user input to teach upon receipt of specification of the collision risk area (see at least para. [0058] of Yoshikawa which discloses “when the user performs an operation of designating an other target symbol S2 with the cursor 17 (more specifically, an operation of pressing a select button (not shown) after the cursor 17 is superposed over the other target symbol S2), detailed information related to that other target can be displayed” and see at least para. [0059] of Yoshikawa which discloses “when one other target symbol S2 is designated and the select button is pressed, the display can be switched to a target detail screen 18 on which detailed information related to the designated other target is displayed”, *This portion of Yoshikawa teaches the newly added limitation directed to receipt of a user specification of a displayed graphical element via a user input because the user designates a displayed target symbol via a user input (i.e., pressing a select button) and, in response, the system displays information associated with the designated target), displaying the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “the risk of collision between the host vessel and another target can be displayed based on the relative bearing of the host vessel and the other target, the heading of the host vessel and the other target, and the relative distance between the host vessel and the other target”) so as to be discriminated from other ship objects (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects). In summary, Nakahama teaches that collision risk areas are generated for and displayed as assigned to a corresponding second ship, such that the collision risk area portrays the collision relationship of certain ships with the first ship. Therefore, the collision risk area functions as a graphical representation of the ship object represented by the ship icon)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the collision risk area display of Nakahama such that upon receipt of specification ofis displayed so as to be discriminated from other ship objects; as taught in Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the user to designate the ship icon or the associated collision risk area as an alternative to facilitate a user’s ability to gain more knowledge of potential targets in the area so that situation awareness is improved and as a predictable application of known graphical user interface options. See para. [0059] of Yoshikawa for motivation.
Regarding amended claim 20, Nakahama discloses A non-transitory computer-readable
medium (see at least para. [0116] of Nakahama which discloses a “non-transitory computer-readable medium or other computer storage device”) having stored thereon computer-executable instructions (see at least para. [0118] of Nakahama which discloses “electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions”) which, when executed by a computer (see at least para. [0052] of Nakahama which discloses “the controller 30 is configured as a computer built in the radar image display device 100”), cause the computer to:
acquire first ship data (see at least para. [0048] of Nakahama which discloses “the radar image display device 100 obtains a distance from the first ship, a size, and an azimuth of the target object, creates the radar image, and displays it on the display screen (display unit) 10”, and see at least para. [0056] of Nakahama which discloses “, the course information and the speed information of the first ship may be obtained based on data”, * The disclosure evidences acquisition of ship position and velocity data since the distance form the first ship and size data is obtained) indicative of a position and a velocity (see at least para. [0006] of Nakahama et al. which discloses “a relative position and a velocity vector of the target ship and a speed of the first ship”) of a first ship (Fig. 3, S and see at least para. [0011] of Nakahama which discloses “a first ship” and see para. [0061] of Nakahama which describes “current positions of the first ship S”);
acquire a plurality of second ship data indicative of positions and velocities (see at least para. [0061] of Nakahama which disclose “current positions of the first ship S and second ships Ea and Eb” and see at least para. [0111] of Nakahama which discloses “velocity vectors of the second ships”) of a plurality of second ships (Fig. 3, Ea and Eb and see para. [0061] of Nakahama which discloses “second ships Ea and Eb”);
calculate a collision risk area (see at least para. [0059] of Nakahama which discloses “The risk area is defined based on a predicted position of the first ship for a particular timing yet to come, and is a rough indication that a risk of the first ship colliding with the second ship is high when a predicted” and see at least para. [0006] of Nakahama which discloses “each calculated collision point by a line segment, displays the range defined by the line segment as a collision risk range, and superimposes the first-ship position and one of a velocity vector and a target ship position thereon”, *This corresponds to calculating a collision risk area) where a risk of the first ship colliding each of the second ships becomes more than a given value, based on the first ship data and the plurality of second ship data (see at least para. [0077] of Nakahama which discloses “the possibilities of the collision of the second ships Ea and Eb with the first ship S increase if they enter therein are generated centering on the closest approach positions Psa and Psb of the first ship S, respectively. That is, the risk areas Aa and Ab are always displayed centering on a point on the course of the first ship S", *the disclosure indicates that since the possibility of collision increases, this satisfies the claim limitation of the risk of the first ship colliding each of the second ships becomes more than a given value based on position of the first ship);
display on a display a plurality of ship objects indicative of the plurality of second ships, and the collision risk area disposed at corresponding positions in an image (see at least para. [0061] of Nakahama which discloses “positions Psa, Psb, Pa and Pb of the first and second ships, and risk areas Aa and Ab of the first ship” and see at least para. [0043] of Nakahama which discloses “a display example of an image on a display screen 10”).
Nakahama may not explicitly disclose upon receipt of specification of the collision risk area,
displaying the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area so as to be discriminated from other ship objects.
However, in the same field of endeavor Yoshikawa discloses receipt of a user specification of
a displayed graphical element via a user input to teach upon receipt of specification of the collision risk area (see at least para. [0058] of Yoshikawa which discloses “when the user performs an operation of designating an other target symbol S2 with the cursor 17 (more specifically, an operation of pressing a select button (not shown) after the cursor 17 is superposed over the other target symbol S2), detailed information related to that other target can be displayed” and see at least para. [0059] of Yoshikawa which discloses “when one other target symbol S2 is designated and the select button is pressed, the display can be switched to a target detail screen 18 on which detailed information related to the designated other target is displayed”, *This portion of Yoshikawa teaches the newly added limitation directed to receipt of a user specification of a displayed graphical element via a user input because the user designates a displayed target symbol via a user input (i.e., pressing a select button) and, in response, the system displays information associated with the designated target), displaying the ship object corresponding to the specified collision risk area (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “the risk of collision between the host vessel and another target can be displayed based on the relative bearing of the host vessel and the other target, the heading of the host vessel and the other target, and the relative distance between the host vessel and the other target”) so as to be discriminated from other ship objects (see at least para. [0071] of Yoshikawa which discloses “The method for determining the risk of collision by the above-mentioned estimation is known, and therefore will not be described in detail here). For example, it is conceivable that the inside of the outer circle 20 will be displayed in orange or another color that stands out, or that the color of the outer circle 20 itself is changed, or that the displayed is flashed. This makes it easier for the user to notice an important situation, so the user can quickly take measures to avoid a collision”, *Examiner notes that this cited portion of Yoshikawa explicitly teaches a user’s ability to discriminate based on different colors used inside or outside of the outer circle 20. Because the outer circle represents the collision relationship of a specific ship, emphasizing the outer circle correspondingly emphasizes the associated ship object relative to other ship objects). In summary, Nakahama teaches that collision risk areas are generated for and displayed as assigned to a corresponding second ship, such that the collision risk area portrays the collision relationship of certain ships with the first ship. Therefore, the collision risk area functions as a graphical representation of the ship object represented by the ship icon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the collision risk area display of Nakahama such that upon receipt of specification ofis displayed so as to be discriminated from other ship objects; as taught in Yoshikawa with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the user to designate the ship icon or the associated collision risk area as an alternative to facilitate a user’s ability to gain more knowledge of potential targets in the area so that situation awareness is improved and as a predictable application of known graphical user interface options. See para. [0059] of Yoshikawa for motivation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahama (US2017/0067984 A1) in view of Yoshikawa (US 2016/0328118 A1) and further in view of Nakamichi et al. (US 2014/0064025 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakahama, as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the processing
circuitry displays the image (see at least para. [0043] of Nakahama which discloses “an image on a display screen 10”) an echo object indicative of an area where an echo intensity is more than a given value, based on echo data (see at least para. [0032] of Nakamichi which discloses “outputting a reception signal corresponding to an intensity of an echo with respect to a transmission signal, generating echo data corresponding to a depth of the reception signal”) generated by a radar mounted on the first ship (see at least para. [0044] of Nakahama which discloses “The radar image display device (information display device) 100 of FIG. 1 displays various information regarding a ship and has a Target Tracking (TT) function as a function to assist a navigation of the ship on which the radar image display device 100 is installed (hereinafter, this ship is simply referred to as “the ship” or “the first ship”)”, *Examiner interprets the radar image display device to include radar and considers this radar mounted on the first ship), wherein the another object is the echo object (see at least para. [0057] of Nakamichi which discloses “The ultrasonic wave reflected on the target object is received by the transducer 110 as an echo”), and wherein the given processing accompanying the specification of the another object is processing to register the specified echo object (see at least para. [0057] of Nakamichi which discloses “The ultrasonic wave reflected on the target object is received by the transducer 110 as an echo. The transducer 110 outputs the reception signal corresponding to the intensity of the received echo, to the reception circuit 105“, *Examiner interprets this as processing to register the specified echo object) as a tracking target (see at least para. [0044] of Nakahama which discloses “a Target Tracking (TT) function as a function to assist a navigation of the ship on which the radar image display device”).
Nakahama, as modified by Yoshikawa, may not explicitly disclose displayed in the image an
echo object indicative of an area where an echo intensity is more than a given value, based on echo data generated, wherein the another object is the echo object, and wherein the given processing accompanying the specification of the another object is processing to register the specified echo object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakamichi discloses an echo object indicative of an
area where an echo intensity is more than a given value, based on echo data (see at least para. [0032] of Nakamichi which discloses “outputting a reception signal corresponding to an intensity of an echo with respect to a transmission signal, generating echo data corresponding to a depth of the reception signal”) generated, wherein the another object is the echo object (see at least para. [0057] of Nakamichi which discloses “The ultrasonic wave reflected on the target object is received by the transducer 110 as an echo”), and wherein the given processing accompanying the specification of the another object is processing to register the specified echo object (see at least para. [0057] of Nakamichi which discloses “The ultrasonic wave reflected on the target object is received by the transducer 110 as an echo. The transducer 110 outputs the reception signal corresponding to the intensity of the received echo, to the reception circuit 105“, *Examiner interprets this as processing to register the specified echo object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the ship monitoring device of Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa to disclose an echo object indicative of an area where an echo intensity is more than a given value, based on echo data generated, wherein the another object is the echo object, and wherein the given processing accompanying the specification of the another object is processing to register the specified echo object as taught in Nakamichi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively prevent potential processing conflicts when a position where the collision risk area and the echo object overlap is specified. See para. [0073] of Nakamichi for motivation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahama (US2017/0067984 A1) in view of Yoshikawa (US 2016/0328118 A1) and further in view of Vanhakartano et al. (US 2020/0278433 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Nakahama, as modified by Yoshikawa, discloses wherein the first ship
data includes a position of the first ship (see at least para. [0067] of Nakahama which discloses “the large ship-shaped mark is displayed to indicate the position at which the first ship S currently navigates. The small ship-shaped mark is displayed to indicate the position of the first ship S at the closest approach timing regarding the first and second ships S and Ea (closest approach position Psa). Therefore, the current position and the closest approach position Psa of the first ship S are easily grasped based on the large and small ship-shaped marks indicating the first ship S”).
Nakahama, as modified by Yoshikawa, may not explicitly disclose a GNSS (Global Navigation
Satellite System) receiver mounted on the first ship.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Vanhakartano discloses a position of the first ship
detected by a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver (see at least para. [0078] of Vanhakartano which discloses “a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver of the marine vessel 150”) mounted on the first ship.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the ship monitoring device of Nakahama as modified by Yoshikawa to include a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver mounted on the first ship as taught in Vanhakartano with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively use radio waves to detect the position of the ship and to accurately produce information for display on the current position. See para. [0078] – [0080] of Vanhakartano for motivation.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki (US 20200035106) discloses a method performed by a computer for a collision risk calculation includes: executing acquisition processing that includes acquiring travel information regarding a position and velocity of each of a first vessel and a second vessel; executing region calculation processing that includes calculating a region having a possibility of future collision between the first vessel and the second vessel from the travel information of each of the first vessel and the second vessel; and executing first risk calculation processing that includes calculating a first risk value based on a maneuvering amount used by the first vessel or the second vessel in order to avoid the region. Nguyen (US 2020/0012283 A1) discloses a method for maritime hazard mitigation on a maritime vessel, the method comprising the steps of: providing a maritime vessel; providing a maritime hazard mitigation system onboard the maritime vessel, the maritime hazard mitigation system comprising: at least one computer having a processor, software executing on the processor, and a data storage, and at least one sensor in communication with the at least one computer, wherein maritime data is loaded onto the data storage, the maritime data including information stored on a database including a marine data model.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 DANA IVEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4896. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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.
/DANA D IVEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/D.D.I/December 21, 2025
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662