DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/23/2025 and 1/09/2026. In the first response, Applicant amended claims 1-7, 9 and 13-20; and canceled claims 8 and 10-12. In the second response, Applicant amended claims 1, 6-7, 19 and 20; and added claims 21-23. Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-23 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/23/2025 and 1/09/2026 obviate said rejection — accordingly, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
In regards to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/23/2025 and 1/09/2026 obviate said objections — accordingly, the claim objections are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 112(b), Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/23/2025 and 1/09/2026 obviate said rejections — accordingly, the claim rejections under § 112(b) are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/23/2025 and 1/09/2026 obviate said rejections — accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under §§ 102 and 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 12/23/2025 and 1/09/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim 13 is 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 claims contain 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 joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 13, the claim recites new matter. There is no disclosure in the originally-filed specification of updating data, a semicircular selection area, selection of one or more evasion targets, an evasion route, or the like. The specification does not appear to lay out any synonymous phrases such as performing iterations, repeating steps or the like. As the written description does not provide adequate support for the claim, the claim recites new matter.
Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 18-23 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US20250065996A1; “Ko”) in view of Lord et al. (US20200172096A1; “Lord”).
As to claim 1, Ko discloses a navigation assist device configured to be installed on a movable body, comprising:
processing circuitry (“processor 14” – see ¶ 44 and FIG. 16.) configured to:
electronically acquire movable body data including a current position and a current speed of the movable body while moving on water (“The processor 14 may calculate the acceleration a of the host ship by considering the force F with respect to the dynamics, and may calculate the available velocity area of the host ship including the velocity v and position vector p of the host ship by calculating the velocity v and position vector p of the host ship by using the calculated acceleration a of the host ship.” ¶ 50.);
electronically acquire information regarding a search of a search area for waterborne targets that are located in the search area, the search area having a central axis aligned with a movement direction of the movable body, wherein the information includes target data that includes a current position and a current speed of each of a plurality of waterborne targets detected in the search area (“When the obstacle 52 moves at a velocity VB, the position of the obstacle 52 after moving for a set time may be calculated. An obstacle area 53 of the obstacle 52 may be set based on the calculated position of the obstacle 52.” ¶ 70 and FIG. 3. As to a plurality of targets, “a velocity obstacle area with respect to each of the plurality of other ships 712, 713, 714 and 715” may be obtained – see ¶ 97 and FIGS. 8A-8B. Note: FIGS. 8A-8B illustrate that the search area (i.e., the grid surrounding the ship) has a central axis aligned with a movement direction of the movable body.);
set a semicircular selection area within the semicircular search area (“The processor 14 calculates an available velocity area [i.e., semicircular selection area] of a host ship related to the maneuvering performance of the host ship. The available velocity area may be indicated as an area that the host ship may be potentially located after moving from a current position of the host ship for a predetermined time using available various velocities of the host ship.” Emphasis added; ¶ 46. See also FIGS. 1-2, 4-5 and 8a-8b. Note: The cited figures illustrate that the available velocity area is indeed semicircular.);
generate an evasion route of the movable body, the evasion route being a route to be followed by the movable body through the search area that evades the collision risks, the evasion route being a route from the current position of the movable body to an evasion point (“In operation S810, the processor 14 may determine an avoidance route based on a collision risk.” ¶ 101 and FIG. 9. See also FIGS. 10-12); and
control the movable body to follow the evasion route (“The collision avoidance route setting unit 130 may generate an engine control command according to a determined avoidance route. As illustrated in FIG. 15, the engine control unit 140 configured to receive an engine control command from the collision avoidance route setting unit 130 may convert an engine control command of the collision avoidance route setting unit 130 according to an engine state of the host ship.” ¶ 176 and FIG. 15.).
Ko fails to explicitly disclose:
a semicircular search area for waterborne targets that are located in the semicircular search area;
set a semicircular selection area within the semicircular search area, the semicircular selection area having a radius that is shorter than a radius of the semicircular search area; and
performing the above limitations in regards to the semicircular search area.
Nevertheless, Lord teaches:
a semicircular search area for targets that are located in the semicircular search area (“The safety fields generally describe a region of the environment in which the vehicle 300 is operating. In particular, when an obstacle is detected by the sensor 310 within a safety field, a safety routine may be evoked for the vehicle 300 in order to avoid or minimize the impact of a collision between the vehicle 300 and the obstacle.” ¶ 78. “FIG. 3A could be used to illustrate that, below a first speed threshold, the vehicle 300 will use the first safety field 312. If the speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed threshold but below a second speed threshold, then the vehicle 300 will use the second safety field 314. Similarly, if the speed of the vehicle is greater than the second speed threshold but below a third speed threshold, then the vehicle will use the third safety field 316. According to some embodiments, the highest speed threshold (e.g. the third speed threshold, corresponding to the safety field 316) may be the maximum operating speed of the vehicle 300.” ¶ 83. See also FIG. 3A. Note: The total search area up to field 316 is semicircular.); and
setting a semicircular selection area within the semicircular search area, the semicircular selection area having a radius that is shorter than a radius of the semicircular search area (“FIG. 3A could be used to illustrate that, below a first speed threshold, the vehicle 300 will use the first safety field 312. If the speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed threshold but below a second speed threshold, then the vehicle 300 will use the second safety field 314. Similarly, if the speed of the vehicle is greater than the second speed threshold but below a third speed threshold, then the vehicle will use the third safety field 316. According to some embodiments, the highest speed threshold (e.g. the third speed threshold, corresponding to the safety field 316) may be the maximum operating speed of the vehicle 300.” ¶ 83. See also FIG. 3A. Note: The total search area up to field 316 is semicircular. When the selection area is limited to field 314 or 312 (also semicircular), the selection area has a radius shorter than a radius of the total semicircular selection area.).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ko to include the features of: a semicircular search area for targets that are located in the semicircular search area; and setting a semicircular selection area within the semicircular search area, the semicircular selection area having a radius that is shorter than a radius of the semicircular search area, as taught by Lord, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for narrowing a number of obstacles that are detected, thereby providing “an improved ability to navigate without substantially increasing the risk of collision.” (See Lord, ¶¶ 4-5.). Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Lord’s safety fields analogize to Ko’s available velocity area as the radii of the two are based on the movable body’s velocity, thereby giving further motivation to arrive at the claimed invention through Lord.
The combination of Ko and Lord fail to explicitly disclose: the evasion route being a route from the current position of the movable body to an evasion point on a periphery of the semicircular search area.
Nevertheless, the claim limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Ko and Lord. With a reasonable expectation of success, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure Ko’s evasion route to at least terminate at the end of Lord’s semicircular search area as such would ensure that the moveable body has completely evaded the obstacle since the obstacle is present in the selection area. Such follows the desired end goal of Ko to generate and subsequently follow a route which evades collision with an obstacle present in the selection area.
Independent claims 19 and 20 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claim 3, Ko discloses: select the one or more avoidance targets in the semicircular selection area by determining risk areas surrounding respective ones of the plurality of waterborne targets, and determining that the risk areas of the one or more avoidance targets meet a predetermined collision prediction criteria (“The processor 14 calculates a collision risk based on the available velocity area, the velocity obstacle area, and a preset weight. The collision risk includes a value calculated by applying a preset weight for each area to an area where the available velocity area and the velocity obstacle area overlap each other.” ¶ 59. “The processor 14 may generate warning information about a collision between one or more objects and the host ship, based on a comparison of a collision risk with a preset value.” ¶ 89.)
As to claim 4, Ko discloses: determine a collision risk value between the movable body and each of the one or more waterborne targets based on the movable body data and the target data; and select the one or more avoidance targets based on the corresponding collision risk values meeting a predetermined collision prediction criteria(“The processor 14 calculates a collision risk based on the available velocity area, the velocity obstacle area, and a preset weight. The collision risk includes a value calculated by applying a preset weight for each area to an area where the available velocity area and the velocity obstacle area overlap each other.” ¶ 59. “The processor 14 may generate warning information about a collision between one or more objects and the host ship, based on a comparison of a collision risk with a preset value.” ¶ 89.).
As to claims 21, 22 and 23, Ko discloses: output the evasion route to a display located on the moveable body (“When the user interface 200 is the display unit 150, an avoidance route may be displayed through the user interface 200.” ¶ 181.).
As to claim 6, Ko discloses: wherein the display is integrated with the navigation assist device (“When the user interface 200 is the display unit 150, an avoidance route may be displayed through the user interface 200.” ¶ 181.).
As to claim 7, Ko discloses:
wherein the evasion route is one of a plurality of different evasion routes generated by the processing circuitry (“The processor 14 may consider a plurality of avoidance route candidates and determine the optimal avoidance route candidate from among them as the avoidance route.” ¶ 118 and FIG. 11.), and
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
generate an evasion route collision risk value for each of the plurality of different evasion routes (“The processor 14 may calculate collision risks according to the presence or absence and type of an object by using fused sensing information, and finally determine the avoidance route by considering the calculated collision risks and the maneuverability of the host ship.” ¶ 119 and FIG. 11.); and
select, as the evasion route, a single evasion route from the plurality of different evasion routes that has a lowest evasion route collision risk value (“The avoidance route candidate with the lowest collision risk may be selected as the avoidance route.” ¶ 104.).
As to claim 18, Ko discloses: wherein the risk areas of the one or more targets that meet the predetermined collision prediction criteria are risk areas that are based on an assumption that the movable body travels in an arbitrary direction from the current position of the movable body and crosses a predicted route of the corresponding target (As to a plurality of targets, “a velocity obstacle area with respect to each of the plurality of other ships 712, 713, 714 and 715” may be obtained – see ¶ 97 and FIGS. 8A-8B. Now: “Referring to FIG. 4 , a velocity obstacle area 57 of the host ship 55 with respect to an obstacle 56 is depicted. A combination of the Sl, Sc, Sr is an available velocity area 58 [i.e., selection area] of the host ship 55. The area Sc overlaps the velocity obstacle area 57.” ¶ 74 and FIG. 4. Note: That is, an object’s predicted behavior (which may be one out of a plurality of objects) may be determined to be within (overlap) a selection area pertaining to the movable body.).
Claims 2, 5 and 14 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Jang et al. (US20250046194A1; “Jang”)
As to claim 2, Ko fails to explicitly disclose: reduce an arc length of the semicircular selection area.
Nevertheless, Lord teaches: reduce an arc length of the semicircular selection area (Provided are three safety fields 516, 514 and 512, wherein safety fields 514 and 512 have reduced arc lengths compared to field 516 – see at least FIG. 5 and associated discussion at ¶¶ 101-105. See also ¶¶ 78 and 83 discussing the function of the safety fields.).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ko to include the feature of: reduce an arc length of the semicircular selection area, as taught by Lord, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for narrowing a number of obstacles that are detected, thereby providing “an improved ability to navigate without substantially increasing the risk of collision.” (See Lord, ¶¶ 4-5.).
The combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: reduce an arc length of the semicircular selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Jang teaches: narrowing a selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold (“Assuming that a minimum number of objects is set to 1 and division is performed until a node contains one object, even when an area with few objects is divided until only one object is contained, the area is divided only until a grid is relatively large in size, and when an area with many objects may be divided until only one object is contained, the area may be divided until a significantly small grid is obtained.” ¶ 144. Note: That is, the size of a selection area is determined to a size where a number of targets is at least equal to one (i.e., a predetermined number).).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Jang teaches: narrowing a selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: narrowing a selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold, as taught by Jang, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “enabling efficient use of computing resources” in the context of generating an evasion route. (See Jang, ¶ 145.) Indeed, both Lord and Jang follow the same motivation of narrowing a selection area based on a number of targets. In this regard, Jang provides the explicit teaching that a trigger for narrowing a selection area would be the number of targets in the selection area – from the above context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such would be a useful trigger to perform Lord’s reduction of arc length to arrive at a narrower semicircular search area.
As to claim 5, Ko fails to explicitly disclose: reduce a length of radius of the semicircular selection area.
Nevertheless, Lord teaches: reduce a length of radius of the semicircular selection area (“FIG. 3A could be used to illustrate that, below a first speed threshold, the vehicle 300 will use the first safety field 312. If the speed of the vehicle is greater than the first speed threshold but below a second speed threshold, then the vehicle 300 will use the second safety field 314. Similarly, if the speed of the vehicle is greater than the second speed threshold but below a third speed threshold, then the vehicle will use the third safety field 316. According to some embodiments, the highest speed threshold (e.g. the third speed threshold, corresponding to the safety field 316) may be the maximum operating speed of the vehicle 300.” ¶ 83. See also FIG. 3A. Note: The total search area up to field 316 is semicircular. When the selection area is limited to field 314 or 312 (also semicircular), the selection area has a radius shorter than a radius of the total semicircular selection area.).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing a length of radius of the semicircular selection area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ko to include the feature of: reduce a length of radius of the semicircular selection area, as taught by Lord, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for narrowing a number of obstacles that are detected, thereby providing “an improved ability to navigate without substantially increasing the risk of collision.” (See Lord, ¶¶ 4-5.).
The combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: reduce a length of radius of the semicircular selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Jang teaches: narrowing a selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold (“Assuming that a minimum number of objects is set to 1 and division is performed until a node contains one object, even when an area with few objects is divided until only one object is contained, the area is divided only until a grid is relatively large in size, and when an area with many objects may be divided until only one object is contained, the area may be divided until a significantly small grid is obtained.” ¶ 144. Note: That is, the size of a selection area is determined to a size where a number of targets is at least equal to one (i.e., a predetermined number).).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Jang teaches: narrowing a selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: narrowing a selection area based on a number of the one or more avoidance targets exceeding a predetermined threshold, as taught by Jang, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “enabling efficient use of computing resources” in the context of generating an evasion route. (See Jang, ¶ 145.) Indeed, both Lord and Jang follow the same motivation of narrowing a selection area based on a number of targets. In this regard, Jang provides the explicit teaching that a trigger for narrowing a selection area would be the number of targets in the selection area – from the above context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such would be a useful trigger to perform Lord’s reduction of radius to arrive at a narrower semicircular search area.
As to claim 14, the combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: set a size of the semicircular selection area to a size where a number of the one or more avoidance targets is less than or equal to a predetermined number.
Nevertheless, Jang teaches: narrowing a selection area to a size where a number of the one or more avoidance targets is less than or equal to a predetermined number (“Assuming that a minimum number of objects is set to 1 and division is performed until a node contains one object, even when an area with few objects is divided until only one object is contained, the area is divided only until a grid is relatively large in size, and when an area with many objects may be divided until only one object is contained, the area may be divided until a significantly small grid is obtained.” ¶ 144. Note: That is, the size of a selection area is determined to a size where a number of targets is at least equal to one (i.e., a predetermined number).).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Jang teaches: narrowing a selection area to a size where a number of the one or more avoidance targets is less than or equal to a predetermined number.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: narrowing a selection area to a size where a number of the one or more avoidance targets is less than or equal to a predetermined number, as taught by Jang, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “enabling efficient use of computing resources” in the context of generating an evasion route. (See Jang, ¶ 145.) Indeed, both Lord and Jang follow the same motivation of narrowing a selection area based on a number of targets. In this regard, Jang provides the explicit teaching that a trigger for narrowing a selection area would be the number of targets in the selection area – from the above context, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such would be a useful trigger to perform Lord’s reduction of radius to arrive at a narrower semicircular search area.
Claim 9 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Tong, Mei-jing et al. (CN116481545A “Tong”).
As to claim 9, Ko discloses wherein each of the plurality of different route patterns depart from a pre-existing planned route of the movable body (“The processor 14 may consider a plurality of avoidance route candidates and determine the optimal avoidance route candidate from among them as the avoidance route.” ¶ 118 and FIG. 11.).
The combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: wherein each of the plurality of different route patterns depart from a pre-existing planned route of the movable body and return to the pre-existing planned route.
Nevertheless, Tong teaches: a plurality of different route patterns departing from a pre-existing planned route of the movable body and returning to the pre-existing planned route (“When the ship sails to location V, … it is necessary to plan a bypass route that can avoid the location T. To this end, the ship's terminal obtains three intermediate points H1, H2, and H3 located after the location T in the initial route OP.” Para. [n0030] and FIG. 4. “The detour route corresponding to the intermediate point with the highest route score is combined with the remaining routes to obtain a new route.” Para. [n0037].).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Tong teaches: a plurality of different route patterns departing from a pre-existing planned route of the movable body and returning to the pre-existing planned route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: a plurality of different route patterns departing from a pre-existing planned route of the movable body and returning to the pre-existing planned route, as taught by Tong, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for generating a detour route, thereby “minimizing safety risks and navigation costs.” (See Tong, ¶ n0003.)
Claim 13 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Nakagawa (US20220348297A1; “Nakagawa”).
As to claim 13, the combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: wherein based on updates to the movable body data and the target data, the processing circuitry is configured to update the semicircular selection area, the selection of the one or more avoidance targets and the evasion route.
Nevertheless, Nakagawa teaches: based on updates to the movable body data and the target data, update at least a selection area and selection of the one or more avoidance targets (“Since all of the ship position P0, the ship velocity vector V, the other ship position Pr0, and the other ship velocity vector Vt which are inputted into the ship maneuver supporting device 1 vary every moment, the indication of the collision risk zone 91 and the watch zone 92 may need to be updated on real time according to the variation.” ¶ 84.).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Nakagawa teaches: based on updates to the movable body data and the target data, update at least a selection area
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: based on updates to the movable body data and the target data, update at least a selection area and selection of the one or more avoidance targets, as taught by Nakagawa, to yield the claim limitations at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that navigational systems typically update with new data, as such is useful for providing guidance and control in a dynamic environment. In this regard, Nakagawa merely provides the explicit teaching that it is known in the art to perform such updates in the context of the claimed invention (i.e., obstacle avoidance of waterborne targets). Hence, through Nakagawa one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that with a reasonable expectation of success that the process disclosed by the combination of Ko-Lord may be updated and performed again in view of updated data.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Hamada et al. (US20240144831A1; “Hamada”).
As to claim 15, the combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: select, as the one or more avoidance targets, one or more targets from the plurality of waterborne targets that have risk areas located within a predetermined distance of the movable body.
Nevertheless, Hamada teaches: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of the movable body (“The controller 5 starts a control to determine the obstacle S avoidance route A when the hull 101 approaches the obstacle S to the position at which the distance from the hull 101 to the obstacle S is the proximity distance (200 m, for example).” ¶ 77 and FIG. 6.).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Hamada teaches: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of the movable body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of the movable body, as taught by Hamada, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for avoiding an obstacle. (See at least Hamada ¶ 77.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ko’s available velocity area would represent some sort of predetermined distance from the movable body in which a movable body may determine that a target with a risk area is present. Hamada merely provides the explicit teaching that it is known that a target having a risk area that lies within a predetermined distance may be selected as a target for obstacle avoidance.
As to claim 17, the combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: select, as the one or more avoidance targets, one or more targets from the plurality of waterborne targets that have risk areas located within a predetermined distance of a bow direction of the movable body.
Nevertheless, Hamada teaches: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of a bow direction of the movable body (“The controller 5 starts a control to determine the obstacle S avoidance route A when the hull 101 approaches the obstacle S to the position at which the distance from the hull 101 to the obstacle S is the proximity distance (200 m, for example).” ¶ 77 and FIG. 6.).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Hamada teaches: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of a bow direction of the movable body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of a bow direction of the movable body, as taught by Hamada, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for avoiding an obstacle. (See at least Hamada ¶ 77.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ko’s available velocity area would represent some sort of predetermined distance from the movable body in which a movable body may determine that a target with a risk area is present. Hamada merely provides the explicit teaching that it is known that a target having a risk area that lies within a predetermined distance may be selected as a target for obstacle avoidance.
Claim 16 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Lord as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Xia et al. (US20220357747A1; “Xia”)
As to claim 16, the combination of Ko and Lord fails to explicitly disclose: select, as the one or more avoidance targets, one or more targets from the plurality of waterborne targets that have risk areas located within a predetermined distance of a pre-existing planned route of the movable body.
Nevertheless, Xia teaches: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of a pre-existing planned route of the movable body (“In an embodiment of this disclosure, obstacles that meet a first distance condition are selected from the obstacles perceived by the unmanned vehicle based on a preliminary reference trajectory point of the unmanned vehicle. The obstacles that meet the first distance condition are obstacles of which distances between predicted trajectory points and the preliminary reference trajectory point of the target device are less than a predetermined first distance.” ¶ 45.).
Ko discloses a navigation assist device of a movable body configured to: search in a search area for waterborne targets; set a semicircular selection area within the search area to select avoidance targets; generate an evasion route for the movable body to evade collision risks through the search area; and control the movable body to follow the evasion route. Lord teaches: setting semicircular search and selection areas, wherein the selection area has a radius that is shorter than a radius of the search area; and reducing an arc length of the semicircular selection area. Xia teaches: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of a pre-existing planned route of the movable body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ko and Lord to include the feature of: selecting a target having a risk area located within a predetermined distance of a pre-existing planned route of the movable body, as taught by Xia, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for avoiding an obstacle. (See at least Xia ¶ 45.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ko’s available velocity area would represent some sort of predetermined distance from the movable body’s planned route in which a movable body may determine that a target with a risk area is present. Xia merely provides the explicit teaching that it is known that a target having a risk area that lies within a predetermined distance of a planned route may be selected as a target for obstacle avoidance.
CONCLUSION
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668