DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 02/01/2026. Claims 12-18 were previously pending, of which claims 12-13 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 19-27 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 12-27 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 7-13, filed 02/01/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the amendment has not provided the structure to overcome the interpretation. Therefore, the amended claims are still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the amendment renders this rejection moot. Therefore, the amended claims are no longer rejected by the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. The added limitation integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Further consideration of the prior art of record determined that the combination of Tyers in view of Yamazaki does appear to disclose the displayed plurality of candidate docking positions recited in claim 1. In the summary [0004] describes the overlay of the situation over an optical feed from a vision system, to provide the user a method to select the target docking location. In consideration of the prior art, it is understood that the geometries would be in relation to the objects which would constrain the ship, such as the docks or external objects. The areas not blocked by the objects would then be open positions for selection by the user. The addition of Yamazaki provides further constraints on the selectable positions by actively presenting the options of the end points rather than simple information of impeding objects to select around. While these options are not graphically presented it, the combination of the overlay over the optical feed provided by Tyers would simply have the candidate docking points of Yamazaki as an additional data point on the overlay to properly indicate the available candidate positions on the optical feed.
Updated application of prior art addresses the limitations of the independent claims and those similar limitations presented in new claims 26-27, as mapped below. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been further updated to include the newly added claims 19-25, which recite similar limitations to those in previously presented claims 12-18. Therefore, the amended claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and have been updated in the final office action below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 12, the “interface unit” in the limitation “the interface unit displays one or more of the candidate docking positions” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the docking positions to be displayed.
In claim 12, the “control unit” in the limitation “a control unit for controlling the ship to automatically navigate” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the automatic navigation of a ship.
In claim 14, the “storage unit” in the limitation “a storage unit storing data on a nautical chart” invokes 112(f) as unit is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the data to be stored.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0049-0050] The interface unit 41 is configured as a publicly known computer and includes a CPU, ROM, RAM, and the like… The terminal device 42 includes a display (display unit) that can display various information and a touch panel (operation unit)”
“[0051] The control unit 43 is configured as a publicly known computer and includes a CPU, ROM, RAM, and the like… The functions of the storage unit 44 are mainly implemented by a large-scale storage device (e. g., a flash memory drive) or the like included in the control unit 43.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. The claims incorrectly refer to their independent claim 19, which claims “a method performed on an automatic-docking device…” The dependent claims refer to “the automatic docking device according to claim 19…” The claims should be updated to refer to the method upon which they are dependent.
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.
Claims 12-13, 15-16, 19-20, 22-23, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 2017/0205829 A1), hereinafter Tyers, in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2020/0080846 A1), hereinafter Yamazaki.
With respect to claims 12 and 19, Tyers discloses an automatic docking device for a ship, comprising:
a camera; (see at least [0081] “The vision ranging photograph system may include one or more cameras”)
an interface unit; (see at least [0086] “The touch screen control monitor 1007 may be in communication with the central processing unit 1003, receiving, for example, data from the optical feed for display to a user.”)
a control unit for controlling the ship to automatically navigate to and dock at a docking position, (see at least [0023] “a programmable processor control unit (“PCU”) primarily for automatically docking and navigating a marine vessel to a final position in relation to an external object, including, but not limited to a dock.”)
the interface unit displays one or more of the candidate docking positions together with an image captured by the camera; data on a docking position selected by a user from the displayed candidate docking positions is outputted to the control unit; (see at least [0086] “The touch screen control monitor… receiving, for example, data from the optical feed for display to a user… may display an overlay of the geometries of an environment surrounding the marine vessel” [0089] “The central processing unit 1003 may include functionality for receiving, from the touch screen monitor… a target location at which a user wishes an automatic location placement system to dock the marine vessel.” [0100-0101] “The central processing unit 1003 may generate an overlay of the geometries of environment surrounding the marine vessel 1001 for display… The position may be a position relative to a single external object (e.g., a dock) or relative to a plurality of external objects (e.g., at a slip between two portions of a dock or between two other marine vessels).”)
and the control unit initiates automatic docking operations based on the selected docking position and the received data for the selected docking operation. (see at least [0105] “The central processing unit 1003 may automatically provide the at least one element of the propulsion system of the marine vessel, a path of travel to the selected targeted location, upon receiving the targeted location data from the touch screen monitor 1007… automatically control at least one drive system of the marine vessel 1001 to steer the marine vessel 1001 into the targeted location”)
Tyers discloses the automatic docking with consideration of a user selected target docking position, but does not explicitly disclose the use of a plurality of docking candidate positions.
However, Yamazaki teaches the control unit acquires candidate docking positions for the ship; (see at least [0039-0042] “The extraction unit 71 extracts one or a plurality of docking point candidates… a screen display example of the docking point candidates on the display unit 5… display a message prompting an operation input for docking point determination.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the target docking position selection of Tyers to include the plurality of docking candidates disclosed in Yamazaki, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user options to select a docking point on the basis of the availability, see Yamazaki [0086].
With respect to claims 13 and 20, Tyers discloses to initiate the docking operations: the control unit generates map data showing surrounding conditions of the docking position; (see at least [0103] “When the location is targeted on the touch screen monitor… transmit data to the central processing unit 1003 for rendering, on the touch screen monitor 1007, a mapping showing the marine vessel's stern surrounding environment and the targeted location between one or more external objects.”)
and the control unit generates a route for automatically navigating and docking the ship using the map data. (see at least [0105] “The central processing unit 1003 may automatically provide the at least one element of the propulsion system of the marine vessel, a path of travel to the selected targeted location, upon receiving the targeted location data from the touch screen monitor 1007.”)
With respect to claims 15 and 22, Tyers discloses the control unit generates the map data based on data relating to distances to surrounding objects acquired by an optical sensor. (see at least [0088] “The central processing unit 103 may receive a plurality of inputs from one or more sensors (e.g., from sensors forming part of the vision ranging system), the inputs including video data and LIDAR data; the central processing unit 103 may then use the inputs to derive a map of an area surrounding the marine vessel.” [0097] “the optical laser scanners may determine a distance between the marine vessel 1001 to the external object 1004”)
With respect to claims 16 and 23, Tyers discloses the control unit generates the map data based on imaging data. (see at least [0094] “The central processing unit 1003 may receive a plurality of images from the ranging photography system… uses the received data to generate the mapping.”)
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Tyers discloses to display the (see at least [0004] “displaying an overlay of the geometries of the situation at hand over an optical feed from a vision system enabling the operator to select a targeted location on the interactive monitor.” [0100-0101] “The central processing unit 1003 may generate an overlay of the geometries of environment surrounding the marine vessel 1001 for display… The position may be a position relative to a single external object (e.g., a dock) or relative to a plurality of external objects (e.g., at a slip between two portions of a dock or between two other marine vessels).”)
Tyers discloses the automatic docking with consideration of a user selected target docking position, but does not explicitly disclose the use of a plurality of docking candidate positions.
However, Yamazaki teaches display the one or more of the candidate docking positions (see at least [0039-0042] “The extraction unit 71 extracts one or a plurality of docking point candidates… a screen display example of the docking point candidates on the display unit 5… display a message prompting an operation input for docking point determination.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the target docking position selection of Tyers to include the plurality of docking candidates disclosed in Yamazaki, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user options to select a docking point on the basis of the availability, see Yamazaki [0086].
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers in view of Yamazaki as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kanehiro et al. (JP 2003-276677 A), hereinafter Kanehiro.
With respect to claims 14 and 21, Tyers discloses the use of GPS in map generation, but does not explicitly disclose the use of a stored nautical chart to determine the position of the vessel.
However, Kanehiro teaches a storage unit storing data on a nautical chart, wherein the control unit generates the map data based on the data on the nautical chart stored in the storage unit. (see at least [0023] “the position signal based on latitude and longitude output from the GPS 6 is also input to the signal processing device 4, and this position signal is input to the nautical chart data previously input to the signal processing device 4” Note: It is understood that if the nautical chart was previously input it had to be stored on some sort of storage unit.)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the map generation of Tyers to include the nautical position disclosed in Kanehiro, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately calculate the positional relationship between the ship and the dock, see Kanehiro [0023].
Claims 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers in view of Yamazaki as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Rivers et al. (US 2021/0269128 A1), hereinafter Rivers.
With respect to claims 17 and 24, Tyers discloses the map data defines an area including the docking position as a navigable area (see at least [0107] “The method 1150 includes computation of a safe area in which to navigate, incorporate data associated with a model of a hull of the marine vessel (1160). This may include generation of a 3D pose costmap.”)
Tyers discloses the mapped safe area in which to navigate, but does not explicitly disclose that there may be an area which is unnavigable.
However, Rivers teaches an unnavigable area. (see at least [0131] “A particular selected target docking operation… may not be achievable given the available maneuvering capability of mobile structure 101 and/or a distribution of navigation hazards and/or corresponding docking safety parameters. Docking assist system 100 may be configured to evaluate a selected target docking operation and allow or confirm or engage such selection only if the operation is achievable.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the safe area computation of Tyers to include the achievability evaluation disclosed in Rivers, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to consider the maneuverability of the ship in selecting a docking operation, see Rivers [0131].
Claims 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers in view of Yamazaki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ostrow et al. (US 2017/0320555 A1), hereinafter Ostrow.
With respect to claims 18 and 25, Tyers discloses a user selection executing functions on a portable wireless device for wireless communication (see at least [0086] “The touch screen monitor 1007 may display an overlay… to initiate a variety of automatic functions over various distances through a central processing unit (CPU) 1003 designed to execute selected automatic functions in response to acquired data.” [0121] “The computing device… portable telecommunication device”)
Tyers does not explicitly disclose the output of an emergency stop signal. However, Ostrow teaches the interface unit outputs an emergency stop signal to the control unit when an operation for emergency stopping the ship is performed, (see at least [0025] “In 100, the user provides an input to initiate the crash stop procedure. The input can be given on the control bridge by a push button, for instance.”)
and the control unit performs control for emergency stopping the ship when the emergency stop signal is input. (see at least [0026] “In 102, the azimuthing propulsion units may be controlled to perform the crash stop procedure”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the variety of automatic functions of Tyers to include the crash stop procedure disclosed in Ostrow, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to automate the extremely complex emergency stop procedure an reduce risk, see Ostrow [0007, 0017].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights