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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation "in response to the user selecting one of the points" in line 2 of the claim. These points are recited in claim 12 to be “located on the representation of one of the candidate trajectories”. However, claim 1 instead establishes these points to be starting points “which correspond to a current location of the surface vessel”. Therefore, claim 12 is indefinite as it is unclear whether these points are supposed to be starting points where the vessel currently is, or points on the candidate trajectories upon where the vessel will be in the future.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. Claim 1 reads as follows:
A method for assisting the guidance of a surface vessel intended to tow an underwater device by means of a tow cable, the method comprising:
a) discretizing a geographical sector around the surface vessel into a plurality of zones with a discretization unit, with each zone being classified according to a degree of accessibility from among a set of degrees of accessibility, as a function of a bathymetry of the geographical sector and of current navigation parameters of the surface vessel comprising a length of the tow cable;
b) computing a set of candidate trajectories of the surface vessel in said geographical sector with a first computation unit, with each candidate trajectory corresponding to a different gyration rate from a current position of the surface vessel, wherein each of the candidate trajectories has a starting point which corresponds to a current location of the surface vessel and substantially continues in a form of an arc of a circle, over a predefined length;
c) classifying each candidate trajectory as a function of the degree of accessibility of the zone of the geographical sector traversed by a possible trajectory, and as a function of a feasibility of one or more predefined actions on said candidate trajectory with a classification unit; and
d) generating a display of the zones and of the candidate trajectories on a human-machine interface, as a function of their classification and/or a transmission of instructions relating to said actions.
The bolded limitations above are considered abstract ideas in the form of mental processes. These processes can be performed in the human mind as the step of “computing a set of candidate trajectories” amounts to drawing out trajectories of a surface vessel with a pen and paper, and “classifying each candidate trajectory”, when given input data such as the accessibility of zones, such as in the form of a grid-map, amounts to determining if a trajectory passes over certain inaccessible zones.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because no significant extra-solution activity is present in the claim. The step of “discretizing the geographic sector” amounts to necessary data gathering, and the step of “generating a display” is considered a necessary outputting of the generated and classified trajectories that lacks the specific detail necessary to represent a sufficient integration. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they fail to go beyond what is well understood in the art. For the step of “discretizing the geographical sector”, various forms of developing a grid-style map that is indicative of the depth of a region is well known to those in the art. For the step of “generating a display”, the generic language used to describe the display that is generated fails to demonstrate an inventive concept that is a significant departure from what is ordinarily understood in the art. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected.
Claims 2-13 fail to recite elements that remove the mental processes from being able to be performed in the human mind, and fail to integrate these processes into a practical application with sufficient detail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Therefore, claims 2-13 are also rejected.
Claims 14 and 15 recite a system with processing units that perform the ineligible subject matter of claim 1. As these systems fail to recite structure that leads to significantly more than the mental processes performed and instead amount to “applying” the mental processes, these claims are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsutsui et al. (JP 2005193767 A) in view of Bitar et al. (US 20070276553 A1) and Willners et al. (see included NPL ‘Online 3-Dimensional Path Planning with Kinematic Constraints in Unknown Environments Using Hybrid A* with Tree Pruning’).
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsui discloses a surface vessel intended to tow an underwater device by means of a tow cable, wherein said underwater device is controlled by processing units as a function of the bathymetry of the geographical sector ([0013]) and of current navigation parameters of the surface vessel comprising a length of the tow cable ([0007] and [0015], wherein a point of interference is determined by the oncoming seafloor and the length of the tow cable).
The invention of Tsutsui is directed towards controlling a towed underwater device to avoid collisions with a seafloor. It examines the trajectory of the vessel to determine if a future position of the underwater device risks damage ([0013]), and displays this and other metrics to an operator for their assistance ([0019]). However, it does not teach the method for assisting the guidance of the vessel as claimed.
In the same field of guidance assistance methods for aiding operators in navigation through different terrain depths, Bitar discloses a method for assisting the guidance of a method for assisting the guidance of a vehicle, the method comprising:
discretizing a geographical sector around the vehicle into a plurality of zones with a discretization unit, with each zone being classified according to a degree of accessibility from among a set of degrees of accessibility ([0113] and see Fig. 10);
computing a set of candidate trajectories of the vehicle in said geographical sector with a first computation unit, with each candidate trajectory corresponding to a different gyration rate from a current position of the vehicle ([0088-0091], wherein the trajectories are the curvilinear distances and shortest distances calculated between various points),
wherein each of the candidate trajectories has a starting point which corresponds to a current location of the vehicle and substantially continues over a predefined length ([0088-0091], [0174], and Figs. 10 and 13, where the trajectories are over a certain length necessary to have the vehicle travel from a current position to a zone of free lateral movement);
classifying each candidate trajectory as a function of the degree of accessibility of the zone of the geographical sector traversed by a possible trajectory, and as a function of a feasibility of one or more predefined actions on said candidate trajectory with a classification unit ([0091-0092], wherein the trajectories are classified based on certain criterion, including whether the trajectories circumvent impracticable zones and whether they change course); and
and generating a display of the zones and of the candidate trajectories on a human-machine interface, as a function of their classification and/or a transmission of instructions relating to said actions ([0093] and [0110] and see Fig. 10, where a location grid including dangerous zones is signaled by a navigation map display device; [0165-0166], where the map displayed informs the crew of possible joining routes, i.e. trajectories, which circumvent impracticable zones while mentioning lateral deployment constraints).
A skilled artisan would have been able to combine the surface vessel of Tsutsui with the guidance method of Bitar, thereby adding navigational functionality to the vessel. Tsutsui already teaches obtaining the bathymetry of the sector around the surface vessel and is directed towards controlling the depth of the towing device so as to avoid collisions with the seafloor. As a result of this, and as grid-maps indicative of the depth of a seafloor are well known to nautical navigation devices, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the discretizing of the geographical sector performed by the guidance method is based on the depth determined by bathymetry and navigation parameters of the surface vessel as that is indicative of the current traveling conditions of the vessel, thereby providing the guidance method with the data necessary for its operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the vessel of Tsutsui to include the guidance method taught by Bitar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the vessel is operating in safe conditions, and that an operator of said vessel is alerted and given recommendations when the nearby seafloor creates conditions that jeopardize this safe operation.
Bitar teaches that the process for generating and analyzing the trajectories is repeated over each mesh cell, and that the process repeats for each mesh cell, with invalid cells resulting in the restarting of the process for a new cell ([0182-0183] and Figs. 15A-15B, where a failed points are discarded). Bitar does not teach that the trajectories generated and analyzed substantially continue in a form of an arc of a circle.
In the same field of path analyzing for water vessels, Willners teaches an enhanced path planning algorithm that plans candidate trajectories that substantially continue in a form of an arc of a circle (see Figs 1(c) and Fig. 2, where the generated trajectories are of variable turning radius and continue in the form of an arc of a circle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the previous combination with the enhanced algorithm of Willners based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of enhanced path finding for water vessels. Willners teaches that aquatic vehicles need to be able to adapt to the uncertainty of the underwater domain (Page 3, Para. 2), and teaches that their method advantageously allow for smooth paths that account for the feasible constraints of the vehicle, and offer a higher efficiency than other known algorithms by reusing previous paths rather than discarding them, which thus allows for a faster path computation for unknown underwater conditions (Page 4, Paras. 1 and 2).
These combination of references do not explicitly disclose a discretization unit, a first computation unit, or a classification unit. However, it would have been obvious to include such units as the system would be nonfunctional if it did not have the processing capabilities necessary to perform these processes.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Tsutsui teaches that the underwater device has a current depth ([0015]), and a method that comprises:
determining if the marginal minimum depth of a nearby zone is greater than or equal to the sum between a vertical protective margin of the underwater device and the current depth of the underwater device ([0013-0014], where it is determined if an oncoming zone has a minimal depth that is deeper than the altitude lower limit function, which is determined based on the current altitude of the towed object, i.e. device depth, and some allowable lower range value input from the user, i.e. vertical protective margin; additionally see Figs. 1 and 4, where the white area between the two shaded areas represents the vertical protective margin, and the shaded areas represent the current depth of the underwater device and marginal minimum depth of the seafloor), with said current depth of the underwater device being computed as a function of the reeled-out length of the tow cable and of the speed of the surface vessel ([0015])
determining if the marginal minimum depth of a nearby zone is strictly less than the sum between a vertical protective margin of the underwater device and the current depth of the underwater device vessel, and if the marginal minimum depth of the zone is greater than or equal to the protective margin of the underwater device; ([0013-0014], where it is determined if an oncoming zone has a minimal depth that is shallower than the altitude lower limit function, which is determined based on the current altitude of the towed object, i.e. device depth, and some allowable lower range value input from the user, i.e. vertical protective margin; additionally see Figs. 1 and 4, where the white area between the two shaded areas represents the vertical protective margin, and the shaded areas represent the current depth of the underwater device and marginal minimum depth of the seafloor. As illustrated, the depth of the seafloor decreases until the point where the device depth is not a vertical protective margin’s distance away, but the seafloor depth clearly remains larger than the vertical protective margin).
These determinations are for a seafloor where the vehicle currently is, or immediately where the vehicle is traveling. The prior combination already teaches that nearby zones of the vessel are discretized based on accessibility. Therefore, when applying this discretizing to nearby zones, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that these two determinations result in a classification of a first and second degree of accessibility so that an operator is shown the nearby terrain for sectors not immediate to the vessel.
The marginal minimum depth of the seafloor is taught by Tsutsui to be immediately proximate the vehicle, and does not explicitly teach that the marginal minimum depth of each zone being computed based on the minimum depth of all the zones located within a predefined radius around said zone.
Bitar does teach that the zones are discretized based on the minimum depth of all the zones located within a predefined radius around said zone ([0165] and see Fig. 10, where a zone is determined to have a lateral constraint if a zone nearby is deemed impracticable “on account of a risk of collision with the ground”.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the effective date of filing to modify the determination of the marginal minimum depth of a zone with the determination as taught by Bitar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to simplify the display for the operator as separately displaying the depth of each zone could result in an operator choosing a zone that is of reasonable depth, but is otherwise surrounded by unsafe terrain. The marginal minimum depth being the minimum depth around a certain radius ensures that the operator is presented with the information that is most likely to cause collisions if traveled.
Tsutsui does not explicitly disclose how the vessel reacts if traveled over terrain where a vertical protective margin could not be maintained, and does not teach a third degree of accessibility if the marginal minimum depth of the zone is strictly less than the vertical protective margin of the underwater device.
Bitar teaches that trajectories that would risk collision with the ground are classified with a degree of accessibility ([0110] and [0165-0166], where the joining routes that overlap dangerous or impracticable zones are classified).
A skilled artisan would have been able to have zones that risk collision with the ground be classified with a third degree of accessibility. As the vertical protective margin relative to the minimum depth is already being tested per the second degree of accessibility, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have this third degree of accessibility be given to a zone if the marginal minimum depth of the zone is strictly less than the vertical protective margin of the underwater device as this determination is already being performed, and is indicative of a likely collision with the underwater device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to classify zones that risk damage with the device based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the operator is made apparent of any zone where risk of damage to the underwater device may not be avoidable.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Tsutsui teaches a step of correcting the vertical protective margin of the underwater device, and/or a step of correcting the predefined radius used when computing the marginal minimum depth (see Figs. 1 and 4, where the vertical protective margin changes values as the seafloor depth is reduced).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Tsutsui teaches wherein said predefined actions include an action of raising the underwater device and/or an action of accelerating the surface vessel ([0013-0014], where the raising of the underwater device is calculated).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Tsutsui teaches wherein the feasibility of one or more predefined actions on said candidate trajectory is computed taking into account the time for carrying out the action ([0016], where the time to raise the underwater device is taken into account).
Tsutsui further teaches calculating the time until collision is risked with the seafloor ([0013]), and calculating a time in which to start raising the underwater device ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that when the vessel of the prior combination is traveling through the zones, it performs these calculations prior to the arrival of the surface vessel in a zone classified according to a degree of accessibility different from the zone corresponding to the current position of the surface vessel so that the device has enough time to be raised before it risks collision with the seafloor. This results in the scenario illustrated in Figs. 1 and 4, where the device is raised before a seafloor of insufficient depth would otherwise risk collision.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Bitar teaches generating a display of the trajectory in the form of an arc of a circle passing through a point representing the surface vessel, or in the form of a segment aligned with the point representing the heading of the surface vessel ([0110], [0165-0166], and see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Tsutsui teaches wherein the method steps are repeated periodically ([0013], where the vessel “always navigates while measuring the water depth directly below, and records the water depth at each point as submarine topographic data”).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Tsutsui teaches a computer program product for executing the method when the program is executed by a processor ([0012], where the control apparatus performs the method).
Tsutsui does not explicitly teach that this control apparatus is comprising instructions. However, it is implicit that the control apparatus is comprising instructions as there is no way for computer control systems to operate if there is no form of instruction present.
Regarding claim 14, Tsutsui teaches a system intended to tow an underwater device by means of a tow cable, the system comprising:
a computation device ([0012]) comprising:
a human-machine interface ([0012], input device 110 and display 150).
Tsutsui further teaches wherein said underwater device is controlled by processing units as a function of the bathymetry of the geographical sector ([0013]) and of current navigation parameters of the surface vessel comprising a length of the tow cable ([0007] and [0015], wherein a point of interference is determined by the oncoming seafloor and the length of the tow cable).
The invention of Tsutsui is directed towards controlling a towed underwater device to avoid collisions with a seafloor. It examines the trajectory of the vessel to determine if a future position of the underwater device risks damage ([0013]), and displays this and other metrics to an operator for their assistance ([0019]). However, it does not teach the system for assisting the guidance of the vessel as claimed.
In the same field of guidance assistance methods for aiding operators in navigation through different terrain depths, Bitar discloses a system for assisting the guidance of a vehicle, the system operations comprising:
discretizing a geographical sector around the vehicle into a plurality of zones, with each zone being classified according to a degree of accessibility from among a set of degrees of accessibility ([0113] and see Fig. 10);
computing a set of candidate trajectories of the vehicle in said geographical sector, with each candidate trajectory corresponding to a different gyration rate from the current position of the vehicle ([0088-0091], wherein the trajectories are the curvilinear distances and shortest distances calculated between various points),
wherein each of the candidate trajectories has a starting point which corresponds to a current location of the vehicle and substantially continues over a predefined length ([0088-0091], [0174], and Figs. 10 and 13, where the trajectories are over a certain length necessary to have the vehicle travel from a current position to a zone of free lateral movement);
classifying each candidate trajectory as a function of the degree of accessibility of the zone of the geographical sector traversed by the possible trajectory, and as a function of the feasibility of one or more predefined actions on said candidate trajectory ([0091-0092], wherein the trajectories are classified based on certain criterion, including whether the trajectories circumvent impracticable zones and whether they change course);
and generating a display of the zones and of the candidate trajectories on a human-machine interface, as a function of their classification and/or a transmission of instructions relating to said actions ([0093] and [0110] and see Fig. 10, where a location grid including dangerous zones is signaled by a navigation map display device; [0165-0166], where the map displayed informs the crew of possible joining routes, i.e. trajectories, which circumvent impracticable zones while mentioning lateral deployment constraints).
A skilled artisan would have been able to combine the surface vessel of Tsutsui with the guidance method of Bitar, thereby adding navigational functionality to the vessel. Tsutsui already teaches obtaining the bathymetry of the sector around the surface vessel and is directed towards controlling the depth of the towing device so as to avoid collisions with the seafloor. As a result of this, and as grid-maps indicative of the depth of a seafloor are well known to nautical navigation devices, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the discretizing of the geographical sector performed by the guidance method is based on the depth determined by bathymetry and navigation parameters of the surface vessel as that is indicative of the current traveling conditions of the vessel, thereby providing the guidance method with the data necessary for its operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the vessel of Tsutsui to include the guidance method taught by Bitar based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that the vessel is operating in safe conditions, and that an operator of said vessel is alerted and given recommendations when the nearby seafloor creates conditions that jeopardize this safe operation.
Bitar teaches that the process for generating and analyzing the trajectories is repeated over each mesh cell, and that the process repeats for each mesh cell, with invalid cells resulting in the restarting of the process for a new cell ([0182-0183] and Figs. 15A-15B, where a failed points are discarded). Bitar does not teach that the trajectories generated and analyzed substantially continue in a form of an arc of a circle.
In the same field of path analyzing for water vessels, Willners teaches an enhanced path planning algorithm that plans candidate trajectories that substantially continue in a form of an arc of a circle (see Figs 1(c) and Fig. 2, where the generated trajectories are of variable turning radius and continue in the form of an arc of a circle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the previous combination with the enhanced algorithm of Willners based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of enhanced path finding for water vessels. Willners teaches that aquatic vehicles need to be able to adapt to the uncertainty of the underwater domain (Page 3, Para. 2), and teaches that their method advantageously allow for smooth paths that account for the feasible constraints of the vehicle, and offer a higher efficiency than other known algorithms by reusing previous paths rather than discarding them, which thus allows for a faster path computation for unknown underwater conditions (Page 4, Paras. 1 and 2).
These combination of references do not explicitly disclose a discretization unit, a first computation unit, or a classification unit. However, it would have been obvious to include such units as the system would be nonfunctional if it did not have the processing capabilities necessary to perform these processes.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art remains as applied in claim 14. Tsutsui teaches that the underwater device comprises a sonar ([0001], “a towed object for soundwave exploration that visualizes the seafloor topography”).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsutsui in view of Bitar and Willners as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pryszo et al. (US 20170227362 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. The prior combination does not teach wherein a first zone appearance parameter, a second zone appearance parameter, and a third zone appearance parameter are respectively assigned to the first degree of accessibility, to the second degree of accessibility, and to the third degree of accessibility.
In the same field of endeavor, Pryszo teaches a navigational system for a vessel, wherein a first zone appearance parameter, a second zone appearance parameter, and a third zone appearance parameter are respectively assigned to the first degree of accessibility, to the second degree of accessibility, and to the third degree of accessibility ([0019] and see Figs. 3A and 3B, where the water is classified into three distinct appearances based on if it is shallow or deep).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that appearance parameters are uniquely display for each degree of accessibility based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that all three zones have clear and distinct visualizations when presented to a vehicle operator.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 3. Pryszo teaches wherein the first zone appearance parameter, the second zone appearance parameter, and the third zone appearance parameter correspond to different colors ([0016]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsutsui in view of Bitar and Willners as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Senzaki (US 20220317238 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. The examiner notes the structure of this claim and the manner in which this process is illustrated in Fig. 4, which suggests that only one of these appearance parameters is assigned to a point, and this only occurs if that determination is true for that appearance parameter. Therefore, the examiner recognizes these limitations as contingent limitations. A prior art reference need only determine one of these appearance parameters in order to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Bitar teaches that each candidate trajectory is sampled at a plurality of equidistant points ([0092], [0182], and see Figs. 15A and 15B, where the trajectories are sampled across equidistant mesh cells), and that a trajectory is classified if the gyration of the candidate trajectory is impossible taking into account the speed of the surface vessel ([0105], [0165-0166], and see Fig. 1, where an impassable zone is determined based if the gyration of the vehicle is possible, and where candidates trajectories are classified as impossible if they cross these zones).
The prior combination does not explicitly teach that the classification is assigned to each point from the first point of the candidate trajectory, nor that the classification is also assigned to the following points upon the determination of impossible gyration. However, Bitar teaches that only trajectories that do not cross over impassable terrain are considered viable ([0165-0166]). Points that are considered inaccessible are determined by the system so that trajectories that pass over them are considered unviable. Therefore, as the invention according to the prior combination is now displaying these candidate trajectories, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that all points along a trajectory are classified as impassable when one of the points is classified as such as it would be nonfunctional if a candidate trajectory crossed over an impracticable terrain and was not classified as an invalid candidate trajectory. Having a future point on a trajectory be classified as accessible, even if it has previously passed over impassable terrain could lead to a user mistakenly selecting this candidate trajectory, which would lead to unsafe operating conditions of the vessel and towed device.
Neither Bitar nor Tsutsui of the prior combination teaches that this classification is of a trajectory appearance parameter that is assigned to all points.
In the same field of endeavor, Senzaki teaches a vessel navigation analysis system that comprises a step of assigning a trajectory appearance parameter to all points on a trajectory ([0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the classification of the prior combination based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that impracticable trajectories are clearly marked when displayed to the user to ensure the user recognizes them as non-viable options.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 5. Sensaki teaches wherein the trajectory appearance parameter corresponds to a different color ([0077]].
Claim 12 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tsutsui in view of Bitar and Willners as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brosius (US 20080180282 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. The prior combination does not teach the limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Brosius teaches that, in response to the user selecting one of the points located on the representation of one of the candidate trajectories generated on the human- machine interface, a step of simulating steps a) to d), while considering that the surface vessel is fictitiously positioned at said point ([0052] and [0054], where the user can select a point on the display and corresponding data is simulated for that point as though the user were there).
A skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate this functionality into the display of the prior combination, thus allowing the user to simulate travel to a certain point. When such a teaching is incorporated, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that the method simulated is the method of the previous combination in order to properly forecast the depth around said selected point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination with this simulation method of Brosius based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow users to see depth and path data for future points, as there may be a path that appears to be the best, but leads to a dead end or otherwise unnavigable terrain.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, applicant argued that the rejection should be removed, contending that “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception”. This argument is unpersuasive. As noted in the Examiner’s interview summary from the previous interview that occurred on 2/24/2026, in order for a judicial exception to be integrated into a practical application, it must amount to more than “necessary data gathering and outputting”. As stated in the rejection above, the process in step a) of the claim is recognized as necessary data gathering as the mental processes recited rely on the use of the geographic sectors resulting from the process in step a). Step d) is recognized as the necessary outputting of the classified trajectories resulting from the mental process of step c). The details in which this displaying of the zones and candidate trajectories is described fails to go beyond a necessary outputting of these candidate trajectories and their classification. Because the extra-solution activity of steps a) and d) fail to amount to more than necessary data gathering and outputting of the results of the judicial exceptions of steps b) and c), the claim as a whole fails to integrate them into a practical application.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant argues that Bitar fails to teach the amended limitations added to the independent claims. It is recognized that Bitar does not teach that the trajectories substantially continue in the form of an arc of a circle, and newly added reference Willners is now relied upon to teach this limitation. However, it is recognized that the trajectories of Bitar corresponded to the current location of a vehicle, and continue over a predefined length as necessary to guide the vehicle from its current location to at least a zone of free lateral movement.
Applicant argues that the combination of Tsutsui and Bitar is invalid as “TSUTSUI and BITAR are not compatible”. This argument is unpersuasive. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Tsutsui is analogous to the art of controlling a water vessel based on a towing height and nearby depth near a towing body, and Bitar is analogous to the art of guidance assistance and recommendation methods for vehicles to avoid colliding with the terrain of insufficient depth beneath them.
Applicant argues “there is no proper reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as set forth in the Office Action”. This argument is unpersuasive. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as admitted by applicant, Tsutsui merely teaches solutions “in the vertical plane of the vessel”. However, watercraft navigation deals with more than just a vertical direction, and water depth around a surface vessel in the fore-aft and lateral directions known to be of various depths that would cause damage to the towed element of Tsutsui. Therefore, modifying Tsutsui with the navigational system of Bitar allows the water vessel to be guided in a way that accounts for this changing water depth in a manner advantageous to avoid guiding the towed body into waters that risk collision with the surface and damage to the towed body.
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 JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights