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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to applicant’s filing dated 09/05/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-18 have been amended. Claims 19-20 are new claims. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. JP2021099136, filed on 06/15/2021.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “wherein the processing circuitry displays a risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship at, or, or over least one of the two or more continuous points”, appears to be grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takahiro Saito, US 20170284807 A1, in view of Stewart et al., US 20160125739 A1.
Applicants’ arguments submitted on 09/05/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 1, Applicant argues the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two because the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
In the Non-Final mailed 06/06/2025 examiner performs the analysis and clarifies that “the abstract idea noted in the independent claims…are directed to a “Mental Processes.” Hence, examiner has indicated that these identified limitations are directed to a mental process and has provided a justification for why these limitations fall within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind). This is sufficient under the guidelines of the 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update as cited above. Accordingly, it seems reasonable for the examiner to group the abstract idea under “Mental processes.” as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG.
Prong Two:
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In contrast, the instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. The claims do not recite an improvement to the underlying sensors, vehicle hardware or computer architecture, nor do they alter how the sensors operate or generate data.
Examiner submits that under the current 35 USC 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶ : Indeed, in this in instant case, the limitations simply narrow or limit the abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claims 17 and 18
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
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 first data generator configured to, a second data generator configured to 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea concept of a system (Claim 1) of calculating a risk value of a plurality of ships colliding each other. This abstract idea is described in at least claim 1 by, determine a risk value indicative of a risk of the first ship and the second ship colliding with each other, for each point of a plurality of points on an estimated course of the second ship, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, under a condition assuming that the first ship changes course and reaches at least one of the points of the plurality of points and determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold are considered mental process steps. These limitations can be done with the aid of pen and paper. The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
The limitations of determine a risk value indicative of a risk of the first ship and the second ship colliding with each other, for each point of a plurality of points on an estimated course of the second ship, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, under a condition assuming that the first ship changes course and reaches at least one of the points of the plurality of points and determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold as drafted, are process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system for generating nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
The claim recites additional elements to the abstract idea. However, these additional elements fail to integrate into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites, a first data generating part configured to generate first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship; a second data generating part configured to generate second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship; and processing circuitry configured to and display a risk area indicative of a heading of the second ship at the point where the risk value is more than a threshold, wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range. Which are mere data gathering that is simply employed as a tool to collect information and reporting results, which is insignificant extra solution activity as the step simply gathers data necessary to perform the abstract idea. These additional steps amount necessary data gathering and reporting results, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering or data output. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually or in combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of a first data generating part configured to generate first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship; a second data generating part configured to generate second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship; and processing circuitry configured to and display a risk area indicative of a heading of the second ship at the point where the risk value is more than a threshold, wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra- solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood routine and conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of a hardware sensor of a vehicle, a machine learning model on the plurality of features, and displaying the range estimation on a user interface within the vehicle, are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the processor may, for example, be configured to perform the operations by performing hardware implemented logical functions, executing stored instructions, or executing algorithms for performing each of the operations. Further the mere collection of data or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as itis here). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2-16 and 19-20:
Dependent claims 2-16 and 19-20 only recite limitations further defining the mental processes and recite further data gathering. These limitations are considered mental processes without significantly more elements to the abstract idea.
Examiner notes claims 17 and 18 are rejected under same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro Saito, US 20170284807 A1, in view of Stewart et al., US 20160125739 A1, hereinafter referred to as Saito and Stewart, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a ship monitoring system, comprising:
a first data generator configured to generate first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship (AIS information includes, for example, information such as a position represented by latitude and longitude – See at least ¶28. A distance of closest approach (DCPA) between two ships in a case where each of the two ships maintains a speed thereof at each point of time – See at least ¶55);
a second data generator configured to generate second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship (AIS information includes, for example, information such as a position represented by latitude and longitude – See at least ¶28. A distance of closest approach (DCPA) between two ships in a case where each of the two ships maintains a speed thereof at each point of time – See at least ¶55); and
processing circuitry configured to (processing unit – See at least ¶42):
determine a risk value indicative of a risk of the first ship and the second ship colliding with each other, for each point of a plurality of points on an estimated course of the second ship, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, under a condition assuming that the first ship changes course and reaches at least one of the points of the plurality of points (The ship travels into the sailing route from a lower side so as to approach the ship, and hence, turns a bow thereof to the right in a range A5. A DCPA between the ships is reduced by turning of bows of the ships with a risk of collision being increased by approaching thereof, and ship tracks thereof are caused to depart from a center line of the sailing route by turning of the bow of the ship to the left as illustrated in the range A4, so that sailing in a direction deviating from the sailing route is determined – See at least ¶61), and
display, on a display operatively coupled to the processing circuitry, a risk area indicative of a heading of the second ship based on the determined risk range (For example, a screen for setting a first threshold and a second threshold may be displayed on the display unit to be changeable by input from the input unit. A first threshold and a second threshold may be changed depending on kinds or sizes of two ships. For example, in a case where one of two ships is a ship with a package with a high risk being loaded thereon, a first threshold and a second threshold may be changed to large values. Whether a package has a high risk can be determined from, for example, sailing-related information that is included in AIS information – See at least ¶56).
Saito fails to disclose determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold and wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range.
However, Stewart teaches:
determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold (In various embodiments, the collision avoidance system may be configured to provide a collision risk with each of the course options and/or a collision risk with each of one or more detected mobile targets. Such collision risks may help the user rate or choose a course option to avoid colliding with mobile targets – See at least ¶86. Generation of such simplified image data may be selectively enabled by a user, for example, or may be enabled automatically when a mobile structure approaches within a predetermined minimum distance of a mobile target, when the number of detected mobile targets is above a predetermined threshold limit, when a detected collision or interception is imminent, and/or when other navigational safety risks and/or system parameters are detected – See at least ¶165) and
wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range (When a mobile target is detected, one or more displays of the collision avoidance system may be configured to display a graphical representation of the mobile target, a projected course of the mobile target, and/or one or more predicted collision points. In addition, an estimated risk of collision may be shown proximate to a predicted collision point. For example, such estimated risk may account for nearest approach, current sea conditions, expected wake interaction with navigation, relative and/or absolute speeds, and/or other determined and/or detected characteristics of mobile structure, the mobile target, and/or various environmental conditions. In some embodiments, the collision avoidance system may receive information corresponding to the mobile target through an AIS, a radar system, a lidar system, and/or other types of ranging sensors/systems, including multi-sensor ranging systems such as visual spectrum and/or infrared bearing and laser range-finding multi-sensor systems – See at least ¶87).
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 invention of Saito and include the feature of determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold and wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range, as taught by Stewart, to providing relatively belated collision alerts after such targets or obstacles have drawn near (See at least ¶7 of Stewart).
Regarding claim 2, Saito, as modified, discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the two or more continuous points with the determined risk value more than the threshold, and wherein the processing circuitry displays a risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship at or over least one of the two or more continuous points having the determined risk value more than the threshold (The extraction unit extracts two ships with a DCPA between the two ships being reduced to a value less than a first threshold and subsequently the DCPA between the two ships being changed to a value greater than or equal to a second threshold. The extraction unit also identifies a point of time T1 when a DCPA between two ships are reduced to a value less than a first threshold and a point of time T2 when the DCPA between the two ships is changed to a value greater than or equal to a second threshold – See at least ¶58).
Regarding claim 3, Saito discloses wherein the processing circuitry displays the risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship at a leading point in the heading direction of the second ship among the two or more continuous points (For example, a screen for setting a first threshold and a second threshold may be displayed on the display unit to be changeable by input from the input unit. A first threshold and a second threshold may be changed depending on kinds or sizes of two ships. For example, in a case where one of two ships is a ship with a package with a high risk being loaded thereon, a first threshold and a second threshold may be changed to large values. Whether a package has a high risk can be determined from, for example, sailing-related information that is included in AIS information – See at least ¶56).
Regarding claim 7, Saito, as modified, discloses wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship includes an index having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship (A direction of the sailing route is changed in front of the ship. The ship crosses the sailing route in front of the ship. In such a case, the extraction unit may expect a position where the ship sails along the sailing route while a distance between the center line of the sailing route and the ship is retained, and thereby, calculate a DCPA between the ships – See at least ¶80).
Regarding claim 8, Saito, as modified, discloses wherein the risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship includes an index having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship (A direction of the sailing route is changed in front of the ship. The ship crosses the sailing route in front of the ship. In such a case, the extraction unit may expect a position where the ship sails along the sailing route while a distance between the center line of the sailing route and the ship is retained, and thereby, calculate a DCPA between the ships – See at least ¶80).
Regarding claim 9, Saito, as modified, discloses wherein the risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship includes an index having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship (A direction of the sailing route is changed in front of the ship. The ship crosses the sailing route in front of the ship. In such a case, the extraction unit may expect a position where the ship sails along the sailing route while a distance between the center line of the sailing route and the ship is retained, and thereby, calculate a DCPA between the ships – See at least ¶80).
Regarding claim 17, Saito discloses a ship monitoring method, comprising:
generating, by a first data generator, first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship (AIS information includes, for example, information such as a position represented by latitude and longitude – See at least ¶28. A distance of closest approach (DCPA) between two ships in a case where each of the two ships maintains a speed thereof at each point of time – See at least ¶55);
generating, by a second data generator, second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship (AIS information includes, for example, information such as a position represented by latitude and longitude – See at least ¶28. A distance of closest approach (DCPA) between two ships in a case where each of the two ships maintains a speed thereof at each point of time – See at least ¶55);
determining, using a processor, a risk value indicative of a risk of the first ship and the second ship colliding with each other, for each point of a plurality of points on an estimated course of the second ship, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, under a condition assuming that the first ship changes course and reaches at least one of the points of the plurality of points (The ship travels into the sailing route from a lower side so as to approach the ship, and hence, turns a bow thereof to the right in a range A5. A DCPA between the ships is reduced by turning of bows of the ships with a risk of collision being increased by approaching thereof, and ship tracks thereof are caused to depart from a center line of the sailing route by turning of the bow of the ship to the left as illustrated in the range A4, so that sailing in a direction deviating from the sailing route is determined – See at least ¶61); and
displaying, on a display using the processor, a risk area indicative of a heading of the second ship (For example, a screen for setting a first threshold and a second threshold may be displayed on the display unit to be changeable by input from the input unit. A first threshold and a second threshold may be changed depending on kinds or sizes of two ships. For example, in a case where one of two ships is a ship with a package with a high risk being loaded thereon, a first threshold and a second threshold may be changed to large values. Whether a package has a high risk can be determined from, for example, sailing-related information that is included in AIS information – See at least ¶56).
Saito fails to disclose determining, using the processor, a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold and wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range.
However, Stewart teaches:
determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold (In various embodiments, the collision avoidance system may be configured to provide a collision risk with each of the course options and/or a collision risk with each of one or more detected mobile targets. Such collision risks may help the user rate or choose a course option to avoid colliding with mobile targets – See at least ¶86. Generation of such simplified image data may be selectively enabled by a user, for example, or may be enabled automatically when a mobile structure approaches within a predetermined minimum distance of a mobile target, when the number of detected mobile targets is above a predetermined threshold limit, when a detected collision or interception is imminent, and/or when other navigational safety risks and/or system parameters are detected – See at least ¶165) and
wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range (When a mobile target is detected, one or more displays of the collision avoidance system may be configured to display a graphical representation of the mobile target, a projected course of the mobile target, and/or one or more predicted collision points. In addition, an estimated risk of collision may be shown proximate to a predicted collision point. For example, such estimated risk may account for nearest approach, current sea conditions, expected wake interaction with navigation, relative and/or absolute speeds, and/or other determined and/or detected characteristics of mobile structure, the mobile target, and/or various environmental conditions. In some embodiments, the collision avoidance system may receive information corresponding to the mobile target through an AIS, a radar system, a lidar system, and/or other types of ranging sensors/systems, including multi-sensor ranging systems such as visual spectrum and/or infrared bearing and laser range-finding multi-sensor systems – See at least ¶87).
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 invention of Saito and include the feature of determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold and wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range, as taught by Stewart, to providing relatively belated collision alerts after such targets or obstacles have drawn near (See at least ¶7 of Stewart).
Regarding claim 18, Saito discloses an information processor, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to (processing unit – See at least ¶42):
determine a risk value indicative of a risk of a first ship and a second ship colliding with each other, for each point of a plurality of points on an estimated course of the second ship, based on first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of the first ship, and second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of the second ship, under a condition assuming that the first ship changes course and reaches at least one of the points of the plurality of points (The ship travels into the sailing route from a lower side so as to approach the ship, and hence, turns a bow thereof to the right in a range A5. A DCPA between the ships is reduced by turning of bows of the ships with a risk of collision being increased by approaching thereof, and ship tracks thereof are caused to depart from a center line of the sailing route by turning of the bow of the ship to the left as illustrated in the range A4, so that sailing in a direction deviating from the sailing route is determined – See at least ¶61); and
control display of, on a display, a risk area indicative of a heading of the second ship (For example, a screen for setting a first threshold and a second threshold may be displayed on the display unit to be changeable by input from the input unit. A first threshold and a second threshold may be changed depending on kinds or sizes of two ships. For example, in a case where one of two ships is a ship with a package with a high risk being loaded thereon, a first threshold and a second threshold may be changed to large values. Whether a package has a high risk can be determined from, for example, sailing-related information that is included in AIS information – See at least ¶56).
Saito fails to disclose determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold and wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range.
However, Stewart teaches:
determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold (In various embodiments, the collision avoidance system may be configured to provide a collision risk with each of the course options and/or a collision risk with each of one or more detected mobile targets. Such collision risks may help the user rate or choose a course option to avoid colliding with mobile targets – See at least ¶86. Generation of such simplified image data may be selectively enabled by a user, for example, or may be enabled automatically when a mobile structure approaches within a predetermined minimum distance of a mobile target, when the number of detected mobile targets is above a predetermined threshold limit, when a detected collision or interception is imminent, and/or when other navigational safety risks and/or system parameters are detected – See at least ¶165) and
wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range (When a mobile target is detected, one or more displays of the collision avoidance system may be configured to display a graphical representation of the mobile target, a projected course of the mobile target, and/or one or more predicted collision points. In addition, an estimated risk of collision may be shown proximate to a predicted collision point. For example, such estimated risk may account for nearest approach, current sea conditions, expected wake interaction with navigation, relative and/or absolute speeds, and/or other determined and/or detected characteristics of mobile structure, the mobile target, and/or various environmental conditions. In some embodiments, the collision avoidance system may receive information corresponding to the mobile target through an AIS, a radar system, a lidar system, and/or other types of ranging sensors/systems, including multi-sensor ranging systems such as visual spectrum and/or infrared bearing and laser range-finding multi-sensor systems – See at least ¶87).
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 invention of Saito and include the feature of determine a risk range based on two or more continuous points of the plurality of points having the determined risk value more than a threshold and wherein the displayed risk area indicates a length of the determined risk range, as taught by Stewart, to providing relatively belated collision alerts after such targets or obstacles have drawn near (See at least ¶7 of Stewart).
Regarding claim 19, Saito, as modified, discloses wherein the condition assumes that the first ship changes course and reaches at least one of the points of the plurality of points while maintaining a current speed (For example, the extraction unit calculates, as a risk of collision at each point of time, a distance of closest approach (DCPA) between two ships in a case where each of the two ships maintains a course and a speed thereof at each point of time – See at least ¶55).
Regarding claim 20, Saito fails to disclose wherein the length of the determined risk range of the displayed risk area includes a safe distance perpendicular to the heading of the second ship, wherein the displayed risk area excludes at least one of the plurality of points, wherein the two or more continuous points of the plurality of points associated with displayed risk area include a starting point or an ending point of the displayed risk area, and wherein the display includes a touch sensor.
However, Stewart teaches:
wherein the length of the determined risk range of the displayed risk area includes a safe distance perpendicular to the heading of the second ship, wherein the displayed risk area excludes at least one of the plurality of points, wherein the two or more continuous points of the plurality of points associated with displayed risk area include a starting point or an ending point of the displayed risk area, and wherein the display includes a touch sensor (In various embodiments, the collision avoidance system may be configured to provide a collision risk with each of the course options and/or a collision risk with each of one or more detected mobile targets. Such collision risks may help the user rate or choose a course option to avoid colliding with mobile targets – See at least ¶86. In some embodiments, image data may include a variety of touch selectable buttons and/or indicators – See at least ¶134. Generation of such simplified image data may be selectively enabled by a user, for example, or may be enabled automatically when a mobile structure approaches within a predetermined minimum distance of a mobile target, when the number of detected mobile targets is above a predetermined threshold limit, when a detected collision or interception is imminent, and/or when other navigational safety risks and/or system parameters are detected – See at least ¶165)
Claim(s) 4-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro Saito, in view of in view of Stewart et al., US 20160125739 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Imazu et al., US 20090315756 A1, hereinafter referred to as Saito, Stewart and Imazu, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein displayed the risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship (FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the display screen when the display unit is configured to display the display screen including a track and the expected route r of the own vessel by absolute coordinates based on the Mercator projection or the zenithal projection. FIG. 6 shows target vessels under way between land, an expected route of the target vessel, an OZT relating to the target vessel, an expected route of the target vessel, and an OZT relating to the target vessel – See at least ¶48).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship (FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the display screen when the display unit is configured to display the display screen including a track and the expected route r of the own vessel by absolute coordinates based on the Mercator projection or the zenithal projection. FIG. 6 shows target vessels under way between land, an expected route of the target vessel, an OZT relating to the target vessel, an expected route of the target vessel, and an OZT relating to the target vessel – See at least ¶48).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship (FIG. 6 illustrates an example of the display screen when the display unit is configured to display the display screen including a track and the expected route r of the own vessel by absolute coordinates based on the Mercator projection or the zenithal projection. FIG. 6 shows target vessels under way between land, an expected route of the target vessel, an OZT relating to the target vessel, an expected route of the target vessel, and an OZT relating to the target vessel – See at least ¶48).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the displayed risk area indicative of the heading of the second ship is an obstacle zone by target (OZT) having a shape indicative of the heading of the second ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an OZT of the second ship located to the left side.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship (First, referring to FIG. 1, a display screen of a navigation aid system according to the present invention displays an explanatory example of landscape on the water viewed from an own vessel that is virtually reproduced in the display screen. In the display screen of FIG. 1, a horizon is seen in front of the own vessel, and an image a of another vessel, that is, a target vessel, is displayed in left fore of a bow, in addition to images b, c, and d of different target vessels displayed in right fore of the bow – See at least ¶33).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship (First, referring to FIG. 1, a display screen of a navigation aid system according to the present invention displays an explanatory example of landscape on the water viewed from an own vessel that is virtually reproduced in the display screen. In the display screen of FIG. 1, a horizon is seen in front of the own vessel, and an image a of another vessel, that is, a target vessel, is displayed in left fore of a bow, in addition to images b, c, and d of different target vessels displayed in right fore of the bow – See at least ¶33).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship (First, referring to FIG. 1, a display screen of a navigation aid system according to the present invention displays an explanatory example of landscape on the water viewed from an own vessel that is virtually reproduced in the display screen. In the display screen of FIG. 1, a horizon is seen in front of the own vessel, and an image a of another vessel, that is, a target vessel, is displayed in left fore of a bow, in addition to images b, c, and d of different target vessels displayed in right fore of the bow – See at least ¶33).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship (First, referring to FIG. 1, a display screen of a navigation aid system according to the present invention displays an explanatory example of landscape on the water viewed from an own vessel that is virtually reproduced in the display screen. In the display screen of FIG. 1, a horizon is seen in front of the own vessel, and an image a of another vessel, that is, a target vessel, is displayed in left fore of a bow, in addition to images b, c, and d of different target vessels displayed in right fore of the bow – See at least ¶33).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship.
However, Imazu teaches wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship (First, referring to FIG. 1, a display screen of a navigation aid system according to the present invention displays an explanatory example of landscape on the water viewed from an own vessel that is virtually reproduced in the display screen. In the display screen of FIG. 1, a horizon is seen in front of the own vessel, and an image a of another vessel, that is, a target vessel, is displayed in left fore of a bow, in addition to images b, c, and d of different target vessels displayed in right fore of the bow – See at least ¶33).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the processing circuitry uses mutually different display modes for an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the right side of a heading line of the first ship and an obstacle zone by target (OZT) of the second ship located to the left side of the heading line of the first ship, as taught by Imazu, to detect a dangerous place with a high risk of collision accurately.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro Saito, US 20170284807 A1, in view of Stewart et al., US 20160125739 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rivers et al., US 20220326018 A1, hereinafter referred to as Saito, Stewart and Rivers, respectively.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first data generator is mounted on the first ship, and includes a GNSS receiver configured to detect the position of the first ship based on a radio wave received from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System).
However, Rivers teaches wherein the first data generator is mounted on the first ship, and includes a GNSS receiver configured to detect the position of the first ship based on a radio wave received from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) (GNSS may be implemented according to any global navigation satellite system (GNSS), including a GPS, GLONASS, and/or Galileo based receiver and/or other device capable of determining absolute and/or relative position of mobile structure – See at least ¶46).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the first data generator is mounted on the first ship, and includes a GNSS receiver configured to detect the position of the first ship based on a radio wave received from a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), as taught by Rivers, to identify and/or present multiple different types of navigational hazards to a pilot of a vessel in a simplified and intuitive manner.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Saito and Stewart fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second data generator is mounted on the first ship, and includes a radar configured to detect the position and the velocity of the second ship based on echo data generated by receiving a reflection wave of a radio wave transmitted around the first ship.
However, Rivers teaches wherein the second data generator is mounted on the first ship, and includes a radar configured to detect the position and the velocity of the second ship based on echo data generated by receiving a reflection wave of a radio wave transmitted around the first ship (For example, navigational database a may receive data from a smartphone of a user, from other vehicles, from GNSS satellites, from fixed devices such as traffic control services, from other communications systems such as radios and laser communications, and from cloud based interior database – See at least ¶69).
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 combination of Saito and Stewart and include the feature of wherein the second data generating part is mounted on the first ship, and includes a radar configured to detect the position and the velocity of the second ship based on echo data generated by receiving a reflection wave of a radio wave transmitted around the first ship, as taught by Rivers, to identify and/or present multiple different types of navigational hazards to a pilot of a vessel in a simplified and intuitive manner.
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 MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665