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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 25 November 2025, amendments and/or arguments have been filed and placed in the application file. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025, regarding the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues;
“Applicant traverses the rejections of claims 1 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claims clearly recite that the features recited in these claims are performed by a device. Thus, the recited features are not performed in a human mind. Furthermore, Applicant traverses any finding that Applicant's recited features could be performed in a human mind. However, assuming arguendo that Applicant's recited features could be performed in a human mind, the claims clearly recite that these features are performed by a device, thereby automating any hypothetical performance in a human mind. Thus, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are moot.”
Examiner notes MPEP 2106.05(b), specifically wherein “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept)” and further wherein, “Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014)”. Examiner contends wherein Applicant’s “device” comprising, “an electronic memory” and “processing circuitry”, as claimed, is a generic computing device with generic computing components that perform generic computing functions that merely automate the otherwise abstract idea. As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and remain rejected, as set forth below. Examiner notes wherein the 35 USC § 101 rejection below has been augmented to better clarify the rejection in light of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-19 under 35 USC § 102 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, which was necessitated based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, a ship monitoring device, comprising:
an electronic memory; and
processing circuitry configured to:
acquire first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship,
acquire second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship,
determine whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, or an overtaking relationship based on the first ship data and the second ship data,
retrieve predetermined maritime navigation rules from the electronic memory; and
determine whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a ship monitoring device (i.e. system), therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “acquire first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human acquires (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sensors (i.e. accelerometer, GPS, speed/velocity sensor, etc.) provided with a first ship. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the first ship in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “acquire second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human acquires (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sensors (i.e. accelerometer, GPS, speed/velocity sensor, etc.) provided with a second ship. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the second ship in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determine whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, or an overtaking relationship based on the first ship data and the second ship data”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates an “encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship” based on the previously acquired ship data and further through mental observation to compare how the first ship and second ship are positioned (i.e. approaching) with respect to each other.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “retrieve predetermined maritime navigation rules from the electronic memory”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human retrieves (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sources/database(s) (i.e. memory, storage medium, human mind, etc.). Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the predetermined maritime navigation rules in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determine whether at least one of the first ship and the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates if “at least one of the first ship and the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” based on the previously acquired ship data and known (i.e., previously established) maritime navigation rules relating towards an encounter relationship to mentally designate the first ship and/or second ship as one or more of a stand-on ship, a give-way ship or neither thereof, based on said preestablished/known criteria.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Regarding the claimed limitation(s)/element(s) of a “device” comprising “an electronic memory” and “processing circuitry”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are simply computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality to which the abstract ideas are applied. These generic computing elements merely automate the abstract idea(s) presented above, without adding significantly more to distinguish themselves, such as by having unique structural components that incorporate features that cannot be done in the human mind. Regarding the claimed “device” and “electronic memory”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph 0025, “The ship monitoring device 1 may be a computer including a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, a nonvolatile memory, and an input/output interface. The CPU of the ship monitoring device 1 may perform information processing according to a program loaded to the RAM from the ROM or the nonvolatile memory” and further regarding the claimed “processing circuitry”, as stated in paragraph 0120, “A processor can include electrical circuitry configured to process computer-executable instructions. In another embodiment, a processor includes an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable device that performs logic operations without processing computer-executable instructions.” Thus for the additional element(s) of claim 1 analyzed individually, and/or taken as a whole, there is insufficient reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications, since the additional elements merely recite automating the abstract ideas. Accordingly the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
With regards to Step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as described above in Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, the claimed “device”, “electronic memory” and the “processing circuitry” as defined in the specification, only recite applying generic computing elements to execute functions of the claim, and therefore do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Generally, applying an exception using generic computing element(s) or receiving and interpreting data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, since independent claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-13 and 16-17, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite an abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that are not well understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, claims 2-13 and 16-17 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Examiner notes wherein incorporating a” controller configured to control one of the first ship or second ship based on the determined ship being one of a stand-on ship or give-way ship” into the independent claim(s) (as similarly provided in at least claim(s) 14 and/or 15), would overcome the currently provided 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections provided herein.
Regarding claim 18, a ship monitoring method performed by ship monitoring device, the ship monitoring method comprising:
acquiring first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship;
acquiring second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship;
determining, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, or an overtaking relationship;
retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules from an electronic memory of the ship monitoring device; and
determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a ship monitoring method (i.e. process), therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “acquiring first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human acquires (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sensors (i.e. accelerometer, GPS, speed/velocity sensor, etc.) provided with a first ship. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the first ship in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “acquiring second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human acquires (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sensors (i.e. accelerometer, GPS, speed/velocity sensor, etc.) provided with a second ship. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the second ship in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, or an overtaking relationship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates an “encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship” based on the previously acquired ship data and further through mental observation to compare how the first ship and second ship are positioned (i.e. approaching) with respect to each other.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules from an electronic memory of the ship monitoring device”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human retrieves (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sources/database(s) (i.e. memory, storage medium, human mind, etc.). Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the predetermined maritime navigation rules in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates if “at least one of the first ship and the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” based on the previously acquired ship data and known (i.e., previously established) maritime navigation rules relating towards an encounter relationship to mentally designate the first ship and/or second ship as one or more of a stand-on ship, a give-way ship or neither thereof, based on said preestablished/known criteria.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 18 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Regarding the claimed limitation(s)/element(s) of a “device” including “an electronic memory”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are simply computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality to which the abstract ideas are applied. These generic computing elements merely automate the abstract idea(s) presented above, without adding significantly more to distinguish themselves, such as by having unique structural components that incorporate features that cannot be done in the human mind. Regarding the claimed “device” and “electronic memory”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph 0025, “The ship monitoring device 1 may be a computer including a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, a nonvolatile memory, and an input/output interface. The CPU of the ship monitoring device 1 may perform information processing according to a program loaded to the RAM from the ROM or the nonvolatile memory”. Thus for the additional element(s) of claim 18 analyzed individually, and/or taken as a whole, there is insufficient reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications, since the additional elements merely recite automating the abstract ideas. Accordingly the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 18 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
With regards to Step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 18 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as described above in Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, the claimed “device” and “electronic memory” as defined in the specification, only recite applying generic computing elements to execute functions of the claim, and therefore do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Generally, applying an exception using generic computing element(s) or receiving and interpreting data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, since independent claim 18 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 18 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 19, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing, the processing that is executed by the computer comprising:
acquiring first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship;
acquiring second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship;
determining, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, or an overtaking relationship;
retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules stored in an electronic memory; and
determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing (i.e. system), therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “acquiring first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human acquires (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sensors (i.e. accelerometer, GPS, speed/velocity sensor, etc.) provided with a first ship. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the first ship in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “acquiring second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human acquires (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sensors (i.e. accelerometer, GPS, speed/velocity sensor, etc.) provided with a second ship. Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the second ship in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is any one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, and an overtaking relationship”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates an “encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship” based on the previously acquired ship data and further through mental observation to compare how the first ship and second ship are positioned (i.e. approaching) with respect to each other.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules stored in an electronic memory”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human retrieves (i.e. receives, obtains, etc.) data from one or more sources/database(s) (i.e. memory, storage medium, human mind, etc.). Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the predetermined maritime navigation rules in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates if “at least one of the first ship and the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” based on the previously acquired ship data and known (i.e., previously established) maritime navigation rules relating towards an encounter relationship to mentally designate the first ship and/or second ship as one or more of a stand-on ship, a give-way ship or neither thereof, based on said preestablished/known criteria.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 19 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Regarding the claimed limitation(s)/element(s) of “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing” and “an electronic memory”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are simply computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality to which the abstract ideas are applied. These generic computing elements merely automate the abstract idea(s) presented above, without adding significantly more to distinguish themselves, such as by having unique structural components that incorporate features that cannot be done in the human mind. Regarding the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph 0118, “All of the processes described herein may be embodied in, and fully automated via, software code modules executed by a computing system that includes one or more computers or processors. The code modules may be stored in any type of non-transitory computer-readable medium or other computer storage device.” Regarding the claimed “electronic memory”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, is/are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph 0025, “The ship monitoring device 1 may be a computer including a CPU, a RAM, a ROM, a nonvolatile memory, and an input/output interface. The CPU of the ship monitoring device 1 may perform information processing according to a program loaded to the RAM from the ROM or the nonvolatile memory”. Thus for the additional element(s) of claim 19 analyzed individually, and/or taken as a whole, there is insufficient reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications, since the additional elements merely recite automating the abstract ideas. Accordingly the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 19 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
With regards to Step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 19 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as described above in Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, the “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing” and “electronic memory” as defined in the specification, only recite applying generic computing elements to execute functions of the claim, and therefore do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Generally, applying an exception using generic computing element(s) or receiving and interpreting data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, since independent claim 19 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 19 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “retrieve predetermined maritime navigation rules from the electronic memory”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding the terminology “predetermined maritime navigation rules” and as such is silent regarding “predetermined navigation rules” being stored in a “memory” and therefore, claim 1 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Additionally, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “determine whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, Applicant’s disclosure, as noted above, is silent regarding “the predetermined maritime navigation rules” and as such, the disclosure fails to provide with the written description in such full, clear, concise and exact terms to enable one skilled in the art to understand what the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” correlate to and/or how they are utilized to determine if a ship is identified as “a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” and/or what “scenarios” are included in the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules”, and therefore claim 1 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 2-17, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules from an electronic memory of the ship monitoring device”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding the terminology “predetermined maritime navigation rules” and as such is silent regarding “predetermined navigation rules” being stored in a “memory” and therefore, claim 18 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Additionally, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, Applicant’s disclosure, as noted above, is silent regarding “the predetermined maritime navigation rules” and as such, the disclosure fails to provide with the written description in such full, clear, concise and exact terms to enable one skilled in the art to understand what the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” correlate to and/or how they are utilized to determine if a ship is identified as “a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” and/or what “scenarios” are included in the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules”, and therefore claim 18 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules stored in an electronic memory”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, Applicant’s disclosure is silent regarding the terminology “predetermined maritime navigation rules” and as such is silent regarding “predetermined navigation rules” being stored in a “memory” and therefore, claim 19 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Additionally, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, Applicant’s disclosure, as noted above, is silent regarding “the predetermined maritime navigation rules” and as such, the disclosure fails to provide with the written description in such full, clear, concise and exact terms to enable one skilled in the art to understand what the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” correlate to and/or how they are utilized to determine if a ship is identified as “a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” and/or what “scenarios” are included in the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules”, and therefore claim 19 is rejected under this section for failing to satisfy the written description requirement. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “retrieve predetermined maritime navigation rules from the electronic memory”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” encompass, and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Additionally, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “determine whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, however, based on the currently provided claim language it is unclear how the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” are utilized to determine (i.e. identify, classify, etc.) if “at least one of the first ship or second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” and further it is unclear what the defined “scenarios” are with respect to the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 2-17, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules from an electronic memory of the ship monitoring device”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” encompass, and therefore claim 18 is rendered indefinite. Additionally, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, however, based on the currently provided claim language it is unclear how the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” are utilized for determining (i.e. identifying, classifying, etc.) if “at least one of the first ship or second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” and further it is unclear how the claimed “scenarios” are defined with respect to the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” and therefore claim 18 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “retrieving predetermined maritime navigation rules stored in an electronic memory”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” encompass, and therefore claim 19 is rendered indefinite. Additionally, Applicant provides the claim limitation, “determining, based on the predetermined maritime navigation rules, the first ship data, the second ship data, and the encounter relationship, whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or neither thereof, each of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship being defined according to scenarios included in the predetermined maritime navigation rules”, however, based on the currently provided claim language it is unclear how the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” are utilized for determining (i.e. identifying, classifying, etc.) if “at least one of the first ship or second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof” and further it is unclear how the claimed “scenarios” are defined with respect to the claimed “predetermined maritime navigation rules” and therefore claim 19 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramstrum, Jr (US 2020/0105143 A1, hereinafter Ramstrum) in view of the Navigation Rules and Regulations Handbook by DHS and USCG (hereinafter NRRH).
Regarding claim 1, Ramstrum teaches a ship monitoring device (collision avoidance system), comprising:
an electronic memory (at least as in paragraphs 0028-0029); and
processing circuitry (at least as in paragraphs 0028-0029) configured to;
acquire first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step 510, and as further in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “At step 510, the operator inputs an ownship planned track, including waypoints, speed, course and depth.”),
acquire second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least paragraph 0007, wherein the collision avoidance system performs “monitoring, by a computer, selected objects in a predetermined geospatial area, wherein each of said selected objects includes at least one of a position, a speed, and a course.” and further as in Figure 5, step 520, and as in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “It is contemplated that the courses of action visualization may be employed to input or update some or the entire ownship planned track. The collision avoidance system may then automatically compute CPAs of nearby ships at step 520.”),
determine whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is any one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, and an overtaking relationship based on the first ship data and the second ship data (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step(s) 530/540, and as further in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “The collision avoidance system may also automatically compute “shortest time to transit” of nearby ships at step 530. The collision avoidance system may then compute CPA and “shortest time to transit” of identified hazards at step 540.”),
determine whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof based on (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step 550, and as in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “any time either ownship or nearby ships change speed, course or depth, the collision avoidance system may then recompute CPAs and “shortest time to transit” at step 550.”, and further as in at least paragraph 0032, regarding wherein the collision avoidance system and method is operative to provide affirmative solutions to queries (1)-(8)). As noted in the referenced sections herein, Ramstrum teaches wherein a relative positional relationship is determined between two ships to determine one or more collision avoidance maneuvers for the respective ships. That said, Ramstrum is silent specifically regarding wherein predetermined maritime navigation rules are implemented as part of the collision avoidance system to determine whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof.
NRRH, in the same field of endeavor of collision avoidance between vessels, teaches predetermined maritime navigation rules and regulations, and specifically wherein the rules and regulations dictate the conduct of vessels in sight of one another, and how each of the respective vessels are identified as a “stand-on vessel” or a “give-way vessel” and potential scenarios that dictate how the respective vessels should be controlled such that collision between said vessels is avoided (at least as in pages 16-17 and 23-29, regarding Rules 8 & 11-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the collision avoidance system of Ramstrum, to include NRRH’s rules and regulations for conducting the behavior of vessels based on their relative positional relationship, since NRRH teaches wherein the preestablished rules and regulations provide increased situational awareness as well as promoting collision avoidance between vessels. Examiner further notes wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique (i.e. NRRH’s navigation rules and regulations) to a known device (i.e. Ramstrum’s collision avoidance system) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to the stand-on ship or the give-way ship, when an index indicative of an approach of the second ship to the first ship reaches a given criterion (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically at least as in paragraph 0029, wherein “COA may be computed or recomputed if moderate alert threshold or a high alert threshold for a CPA exists or changes at step 570.”, and further as in at least paragraph 0032, regarding wherein the collision avoidance system and method is operative to provide affirmative solutions to queries (1)-(8)).
Regarding claim 3, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, NRRH further teaches wherein at least one of the predetermined maritime navigation rules is dependent on a course difference between the first ship and the second ship (at least as in pages 16-17 and 23-29, regarding Rules 8 & 11-18).
Regarding claim 4, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to the stand-on ship or the give-way ship: when a time until the second ship crosses a heading line of the first ship, or when a time until the second ship approaches the first ship the closest becomes less than a reference period defined according to a course difference between the first ship and the second ship, or when a distance between the first ship and the second ship becomes less than a reference distance defined according to the course difference between the first ship and the second ship (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 5, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to the stand-on ship or the give-way ship: when a time until the second ship crosses a heading line of the first ship, or when a time until the second ship approaches the first ship the closest becomes less than a reference period defined according to a course difference between the first ship and the second ship, or when a distance between the first ship and the second ship becomes less than a reference distance defined according to the course difference between the first ship and the second ship (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to the stand-on ship or the give-way ship, when a time until the second ship crosses a heading line of the first ship, or when a time until the second ship approaches the first ship the closest becomes less than a reference period defined according to a course difference between the first ship and the second ship, or when a distance between the first ship and the second ship becomes less than a reference distance defined according to the course difference between the first ship and the second ship (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to neither of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship, when the time exceeds the reference period and when the distance exceeds the reference distance (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 8, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to neither of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship, when the time exceeds the reference period and when the distance exceeds the reference distance (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to neither of the stand-on ship and the give-way ship, when the time exceeds the reference period and when the distance exceeds the reference distance (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum further teaches wherein at least one of the reference period or the reference distance increases with an increase in the course difference within at least a part of the whole range of the course difference (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 11, Ramstrum further teaches wherein, when the time becomes less than the reference period or the distance becomes less than the reference distance, the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to the give-way ship: when the encounter relationship is the head-on relationship, or when the encounter relationship is the crossing relationship in which the first ship sees the second ship at the starboard side (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 12, Ramstrum further teaches wherein, when the time becomes less than the reference period or the distance becomes less than the reference distance, the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to the stand-on ship: when the encounter relationship is the overtaking relationship, or when the encounter relationship is the crossing relationship in which the first ship sees the second ship at the port side (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 13, Ramstrum further teaches wherein, when the time becomes less than another reference period shorter than the reference period or the distance becomes less than another reference distance shorter than the reference distance, the processing circuitry determines that the first ship corresponds to the give-way ship: when the encounter relationship is the overtaking relationship, or when the encounter relationship is the crossing relationship in which the first ship sees the second ship at the port side (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum teaches wherein the ship monitoring device is configured to be installed in the first ship, and further comprises a navigation controller adapted to navigate the first ship so that the velocity of the first ship is maintained, when the first ship is determined to be a stand-on ship (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the above combination of Ramstrum and NRRH, Ramstrum teaches wherein the ship monitoring device is configured to be installed in the first ship, and further comprises a navigation controller adapted to navigate the first ship so that the first ship avoid the course of the second ship, when the first ship is determined to be a give-way ship (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032).
Regarding claim 17, Ramstrum further teaches wherein the ship monitoring device is configured to be installed in the first ship, and wherein the second ship data is generated based on data detected by a radar, an Automatic Identification System (AIS), or a camera mounted on the first ship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “The collision avoidance system may then automatically compute CPAs of nearby ships at step 520.”).
Regarding claim 18, Ramstrum teaches a ship monitoring method performed by ship monitoring device (collision avoidance system), the ship monitoring method comprising:
acquiring first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step 510, and as further in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “At step 510, the operator inputs an ownship planned track, including waypoints, speed, course and depth.”);
acquiring second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least paragraph 0007, wherein the collision avoidance system performs “monitoring, by a computer, selected objects in a predetermined geospatial area, wherein each of said selected objects includes at least one of a position, a speed, and a course.” and further as in Figure 5, step 520, and as in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “It is contemplated that the courses of action visualization may be employed to input or update some or the entire ownship planned track. The collision avoidance system may then automatically compute CPAs of nearby ships at step 520.”);
determining, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, or an overtaking relationship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step(s) 530/540, and as further in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “The collision avoidance system may also automatically compute “shortest time to transit” of nearby ships at step 530. The collision avoidance system may then compute CPA and “shortest time to transit” of identified hazards at step 540.”);
determining, based on (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step 550, and as in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “any time either ownship or nearby ships change speed, course or depth, the collision avoidance system may then recompute CPAs and “shortest time to transit” at step 550.”, and further as in at least paragraph 0032, regarding wherein the collision avoidance system and method is operative to provide affirmative solutions to queries (1)-(8)). That said, Ramstrum is silent specifically regarding wherein predetermined maritime navigation rules are implemented as part of the collision avoidance system to determine whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof.
NRRH, in the same field of endeavor of collision avoidance between vessels, teaches predetermined maritime navigation rules and regulations, and specifically wherein the rules and regulations dictate the conduct of vessels in sight of one another, and how each of the respective vessels are identified as a “stand-on vessel” or a “give-way vessel” and potential scenarios that dictate how the respective vessels should be controlled such that collision between said vessels is avoided (at least as in pages 16-17 and 23-29, regarding Rules 8 & 11-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the collision avoidance system of Ramstrum, to include NRRH’s rules and regulations for conducting the behavior of vessels based on their relative positional relationship, since NRRH teaches wherein the preestablished rules and regulations provide increased situational awareness as well as promoting collision avoidance between vessels. Examiner further notes wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique (i.e. NRRH’s navigation rules and regulations) to a known device (i.e. Ramstrum’s collision avoidance system) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Ramstrum teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing (at least as in paragraphs 0028-0029), the processing that is executed by the computer comprising:
acquiring first ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a first ship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step 510, and as further in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “At step 510, the operator inputs an ownship planned track, including waypoints, speed, course and depth.”);
acquiring second ship data indicative of a position and a velocity of a second ship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least paragraph 0007, wherein the collision avoidance system performs “monitoring, by a computer, selected objects in a predetermined geospatial area, wherein each of said selected objects includes at least one of a position, a speed, and a course.” and further as in Figure 5, step 520, and as in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “It is contemplated that the courses of action visualization may be employed to input or update some or the entire ownship planned track. The collision avoidance system may then automatically compute CPAs of nearby ships at step 520.”);
determining, based on the first ship data and the second ship data, whether an encounter relationship between the first ship and the second ship is one of a head-on relationship, a crossing relationship, or an overtaking relationship (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step(s) 530/540, and as further in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “The collision avoidance system may also automatically compute “shortest time to transit” of nearby ships at step 530. The collision avoidance system may then compute CPA and “shortest time to transit” of identified hazards at step 540.”);
determining, based on (Figures 4 & 5; at least as in paragraphs 0007, 0027 and 0029-0032, specifically as in at least Figure 5, step 550, and as in at least paragraph 0029, wherein “any time either ownship or nearby ships change speed, course or depth, the collision avoidance system may then recompute CPAs and “shortest time to transit” at step 550.”, and further as in at least paragraph 0032, regarding wherein the collision avoidance system and method is operative to provide affirmative solutions to queries (1)-(8)). That said, Ramstrum is silent specifically regarding wherein predetermined maritime navigation rules are implemented as part of the collision avoidance system to determine whether at least one of the first ship or the second ship corresponds to a stand-on ship, a give-way ship, or corresponds to neither thereof.
NRRH, in the same field of endeavor of collision avoidance between vessels, teaches predetermined maritime navigation rules and regulations, and specifically wherein the rules and regulations dictate the conduct of vessels in sight of one another, and how each of the respective vessels are identified as a “stand-on vessel” or a “give-way vessel” and potential scenarios that dictate how the respective vessels should be controlled such that collision between said vessels is avoided (at least as in pages 16-17 and 23-29, regarding Rules 8 & 11-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the collision avoidance system of Ramstrum, to include NRRH’s rules and regulations for conducting the behavior of vessels based on their relative positional relationship, since NRRH teaches wherein the preestablished rules and regulations provide increased situational awareness as well as promoting collision avoidance between vessels. Examiner further notes wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique (i.e. NRRH’s navigation rules and regulations) to a known device (i.e. Ramstrum’s collision avoidance system) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramstrum, Jr (US 2020/0105143 A1, hereinafter Ramstrum) as modified by the Navigation Rules and Regulations Handbook by DHS and USCG (hereinafter NRRH) above, and further in view of Harnett (US 2017/0365175 A1).
The teachings of Ramstrum and NRRH have been discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Ramstrum teaches wherein the ship monitoring device is configured to be installed in the first ship (Figures 2-5; at least as in paragraphs 0019-0025, 0027 and 0029-0032). That said Ramstrum, as modified by NRRH above, is silent regarding wherein the ship monitoring device further comprises a notice transmitter configured to notify the second ship that the first ship has been determined by the shop monitoring device to be the stand-on ship or the give-way ship.
Harnett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an watercraft navigation safety system, method and computer-readable medium for providing navigation safety and collision prevention for a watercraft based on collected marine data from any one or more of a radar system, sonar system, a position system, a tracking system and/or a chart system. Harnett, goes on to teach wherein said system may include a tracking system, such as an Automatic Identification System (“AIS”) which is utilized by watercraft for communicating with other nearby watercraft, satellites, and AIS base stations, and specifically wherein said tracking systems of each respective watercraft “may transmit position, velocity, and projected path information to other transponders in the area, and each tracking system 410 may receive corresponding position, velocity, and projected path information from nearby watercraft” (Figures 5 & 6; at least as in paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Ramstrum, as modified by NRRH above, to include Harnett’s teaching of providing an AIS with each watercraft/vessel for communicating ship data (i.e. position, velocity, path, etc.) between respective watercraft/vessel(s), since Harnett teaches wherein such a device improves navigation safety and increases situational awareness, thereby providing a more robust and dynamic collision avoidance system for watercraft/vessel(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, and also reads on many of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 11,794,865 B1, issued to Derginer et al, which is directed towards a proximity sensing system and corresponding method for a marine vessel for detecting one or more objects relative to said marine vessel.
US 2018/0057132 A1, issued to Ward et al, which is directed towards methods for controlling movement of a marine vessel near a detected object.
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 JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657