DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application 18/763,968 filed on 03/16/2026. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending and examined in the instant office action. The rejections are as stated below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. JP2023-113710, filed on 07/11/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 03/16/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1 and 14-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Simo Salminen, WO2021152205A1, in view of Zhi-chao, CHEN, CN111324132B, and in view of Arbuckle et al., US 20170255200A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simo Salminen, WO2021152205A1, in view of Zhi-chao, CHEN, CN111324132B, and in view of Arbuckle et al., US 20170255200A1, hereinafter referred to as Salminen Chen and Arbuckle, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Salminen discloses an automatic route generation apparatus comprising (a server arrangement communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the one or more sensors, the server arrangement configured to: receive the proposed route plan from the transceiver – See at least “Summary Paragraph”, page 1, lines 14-16):
one or more processors (Processor – See at least “Detailed Description” page 6, line 24); and
a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing processor- executable code, which when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations including (In an example, the server arrangement may include components such as memory, a processor, a network adapter and the like, to store, process and/or share information with other computing components, such as user device/user equipment. Optionally, the server arrangement is implemented as a computer program that provides various services (such as database service) to other devices, modules or apparatus – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 7, lines 28-33):
receiving route generation information including at least four spatially separated location data points, the at least four spatially separated location data points including: a berthing location, an unberthing location, a first point away from the unberthing location, and a second point away from the berthing location of a watercraft (One or more sensors (i.e. acquisition unit) configured to acquire data pertaining at least to state of the path and the second geo-location – See at least “Summary Paragraph”, Page 1, lines 10-13. Acquiring data pertaining to a configuration of the vessel and port conditions simulating a physical behaviour of the vessel for the path, (i.e. route) to be followed from the first geo-location, (i.e., unberthing location) to the second geo-location, (berthing location), as per the proposed route plan based on the acquired data pertaining to the configuration of the vessel and the port conditions – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 4, lines 18-21. The computing device refers to a programmable and/or non-programmable electronic device that utilizes satellites, receivers and so forth to determine a current location, i.e. the first geo-location of the vessel, (i.e. a first point away from the unberthing location), determine location of the port and a berthing area or location of a destination berth i.e. the second geo-location, (a second point away from the berthing location – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 6, lines 24-28); and
generating a route of the watercraft on the basis of the route generation information such that the route includes the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point (The computing device refers to a programmable and/or non-programmable electronic device that utilizes satellites, receivers and so forth to determine a current location, i.e. the first geo-location of the vessel, (i.e. a first point away from the unberthing location), determine location of the port and a berthing area or location of a destination berth i.e. the second geo-location, (a second point away from the berthing location – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 6, lines 24-28. The server arrangement, (i.e. generation unit), is configured to receive the proposed route plan from the transceiver. Further, the server arrangement is further configured to send a signal to the vessel for confirming the proposed route plan, if the proposed route plan is validated. It will be appreciated that the server arrangement is configured to validate the proposed route plan by assessing all the parameters obtained from the data acquired by the one or more sensors – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 9, lines 15-34).
Salminen fails to disclose wherein the first point away from the unberthing location is a starting positions of offshore navigation, and the second point is an ending position of offshore navigation.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first point away from the unberthing location is a starting positions of offshore navigation, and the second point is an ending position of offshore navigation (One is the maneuvering behavior from the starting point to outside the berth, and the other is the approaching target behavior from outside the berth to the berth. The water area is divided into three parts, namely nearshore waters, intermediate waters, and remote waters. The starting point of the ship's automatic berthing is P1, and the end point is P4 – See at detailed description step s101 and s103, pg. 4).
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 Salminen and include the feature of wherein the first point away from the unberthing location is a starting positions of offshore navigation, and the second point is an ending position of offshore navigation, as taught by Chen, to provide a berthing control scheme based on coordinate compensation.
The combination of Salminen and Chen fail to disclose controlling steering of the watercraft along the route.
However, Arbuckle teaches controlling steering of the watercraft along the route (f the marine vessel veers off this course, such as due to the effect of wind, waves, or the like, the control module determines the corrective action needed to resume the commanded course so as to guide the marine vessel back on track. The control module provides steering and/or thrust commands to the propulsion devices to achieve such corrective action – See at least ¶20).
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 Salminen and Chen and include the feature of controlling steering of the watercraft along the route, to improve directional stability, maintain accurate course tracking, and enhance overall navigational performance of a watercraft along a route.
Regarding claim 14, Salminen discloses an automatic route generation method comprising (a server arrangement communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the one or more sensors, the server arrangement configured to: receive the proposed route plan from the transceiver – See at least “Summary Paragraph”, page 1, lines 14-16):
acquiring route generation information, the route generation information including at least four spatially separated location data points, the at least four spatially separated location data points including: a berthing location, an unberthing location, a first point away from the unberthing location, and a second point away from the berthing location of a watercraft (One or more sensors (i.e. acquisition unit) configured to acquire data pertaining at least to state of the path and the second geo-location – See at least “Summary Paragraph”, lines 10-13. Acquiring data pertaining to a configuration of the vessel and port conditions simulating a physical behaviour of the vessel for the path, (i.e. route) to be followed from the first geo-location, (i.e., unberthing location) to the second geo-location, (berthing location), as per the proposed route plan based on the acquired data pertaining to the configuration of the vessel and the port conditions – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 4, lines 18-21. The computing device refers to a programmable and/or non-programmable electronic device that utilizes satellites, receivers and so forth to determine a current location, i.e. the first geo-location of the vessel, (i.e. a first point away from the unberthing location), determine location of the port and a berthing area or location of a destination berth i.e. the second geo-location, (a second point away from the berthing location – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 6, lines 24-28);
generating a route of the watercraft on the basis of the route generation information such that the route includes the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point (The server arrangement, (i.e. generation unit), is configured to receive the proposed route plan from the transceiver. Further, the server arrangement is further configured to send a signal to the vessel for confirming the proposed route plan, if the proposed route plan is validated. It will be appreciated that the server arrangement is configured to validate the proposed route plan by assessing all the parameters obtained from the data acquired by the one or more sensors – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 9, lines 15-34).
Salminen fails to disclose wherein the first point away from the unberthing location is a starting positions of offshore navigation, and the second point is an ending position of offshore navigation.
However, Chen teaches wherein the first point away from the unberthing location is a starting positions of offshore navigation, and the second point is an ending position of offshore navigation (One is the maneuvering behavior from the starting point to outside the berth, and the other is the approaching target behavior from outside the berth to the berth. The water area is divided into three parts, namely nearshore waters, intermediate waters, and remote waters. The starting point of the ship's automatic berthing is P1, and the end point is P4 – See at detailed description step s101 and s103, pg. 4).
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 Salminen and include the feature of wherein the first point away from the unberthing location is a starting positions of offshore navigation, and the second point is an ending position of offshore navigation, as taught by Chen, to provide a berthing control scheme based on coordinate compensation.
The combination of Salminen and Chen fail to disclose controlling steering of the watercraft along the route.
However, Arbuckle teaches controlling steering of the watercraft along the route (f the marine vessel veers off this course, such as due to the effect of wind, waves, or the like, the control module determines the corrective action needed to resume the commanded course so as to guide the marine vessel back on track. The control module provides steering and/or thrust commands to the propulsion devices to achieve such corrective action – See at least ¶20).
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 Salminen and Chen and include the feature of controlling steering of the watercraft along the route, to improve directional stability, maintain accurate course tracking, and enhance overall navigational performance of a watercraft along a route.
Regarding claim 15, Salminen discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the automatic route generation method according to claim 14 (In an example, the server arrangement may include components such as memory, a processor, a network adapter and the like, to store, process and/or share information with other computing components, such as user device/user equipment. Optionally, the server arrangement is implemented as a computer program that provides various services (such as database service) to other devices, modules or apparatus – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 7, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 16, Salminen discloses a watercraft comprising: the automatic route generation apparatus according claim 1 (Notably, in order to simulate the environment, all the physical elements are to be mapped to two-dimensional and/or three-dimensional co-ordinate system to design a realistic view of the environment including the port, the vessel, and the proposed route plan – See at least “Detailed Description” paragraph, page 10, lines 6-10).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simo Salminen, WO2021152205A1, in view of Zhi-chao, CHEN, CN111324132B, and in view of Arbuckle et al., US 20170255200A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nanri et al., US 20160195399 A1, hereinafter referred to as Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle fail to disclose wherein the operations include accepting an input by a user, the inputs including at least of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, or the second point.
However, Nanri teaches wherein the operations include accepting an input by a user, the inputs including at least of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, or the second point (Shipboard terminal device comprises, as a functional component, an acquisition unit that acquires data sets indicating an arrival time at each port and a departure time from each port on a sailing route of the voyage input by the user – See at least ¶45. Moreover, a user can change an order of ports on a sailing route by dragging in a horizontal direction any display field of a name of a port other than the departure port, i.e. unberthing location and the destination port, i.e. berthing location, in the first line of area. When an order of ports on a sailing route is changed, data related to sectional sailing routes, (i.e. first point and second point) affected by the change of the order of ports are updated in a similar way to the case where a port is added to a sailing route – See at least ¶80).
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 Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle and include the feature of wherein the operations include accepting an input by a user, the inputs including at least of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, or the second point, as taught by Nanri, to reduce fuel consumption required for a ship to carry out a voyage from a specified departure port to a specified destination port as much as possible under a condition that the ship can arrive at the destination port by a certain timing (See at least ¶2 of Nanri).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle fail to disclose wherein the operations including accepting an input by a user, the input including of each of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point.
However, Nanri teaches wherein the operations including accepting an input by a user, the input including of each of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point (“Add port” button is used for adding a port on a sailing route in a modified voyage schedule. A user can add a port before any port on a sailing route other than the departure port, i.e. unberthing location, by selecting a name of a port in the first line by clicking a display field of the name and clicking “add port” button – See at least ¶77. For example, it is assumed that a user selects the fourth port, i.e. port “D,” and clicks “add port” button. In this case, objects related to ports “D,” “E” and “A” (as the destination port), i.e. berthing location, in area move to the right, and objects related to the added port appear at the positions of objects related to the fourth port. Among the newly added objects, a display field in the first line is editable by a user just after the new port is added to the sailing route. It is assumed that a user inputs “X” to the display field as a name of the added port. In response to the input of the name of the added port, a distance from the third port (port “C”), i.e. first point, to the fourth port (port “X”), i.e. second point, and a distance from the fourth port (port “X”) to the fifth port (port “D”) are updated based on the distance data set – See at least ¶78).
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 Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle and include the feature of wherein the operations including accepting an input by a user, the input including of each of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point, as taught by Nanri, to enable a user such as a ship operation manager and a ship's navigator to specify a preferable time period for a ship to be docked at a berth at each of ports visited by the ship during a voyage from the viewpoint of reduction in fuel consumption required for the voyage (See at least ¶8 of Nanri).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle fail to disclose wherein the route is generated on the basis of the inputs in the order of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point to the input unit.
However, Nanri teaches wherein the route is generated on the basis of the inputs in the order of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point to the input unit (Accordingly, after a user adds a port on a sailing route, he/she is required to input data in these input fields to complete a modified voyage schedule – See at least ¶79. Moreover, a user can change an order of ports on a sailing route by dragging in a horizontal direction any display field of a name of a port other than the departure port and the destination port in the first line of area. When an order of ports on a sailing route is changed, i.e. generates the route, data related to sectional sailing routes, i.e. first point and second point, affected by the change of the order of ports are updated in a similar way to the case where a port is added to a sailing route – See at least ¶80).
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 Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle and include the feature of wherein the route is generated on the basis of the inputs in the order of the berthing location, the unberthing location, the first point, and the second point to the input unit, as taught by Nanri, to enable a user such as a ship operation manager and a ship's navigator to specify a preferable time period for a ship to be docked at a berth at each of ports visited by the ship during a voyage from the viewpoint of reduction in fuel consumption required for the voyage (See at least ¶8 of Nanri).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle fail to disclose wherein operations include modifying a via-point on the route on the basis of the input.
However, Nanri teaches wherein operations include modifying a via-point on the route on the basis of the input (Accordingly, after a user adds, i.e. modify a via-point, a port on a sailing route, he/she is required to input data in these input fields to complete a modified voyage schedule – See at least ¶79).
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 Salminen Chen and Arbuckle and include the feature of wherein operations include modifying a via-point on the route on the basis of the input, as taught by Nanri, to reduce fuel consumption required for a ship to carry out a voyage from a specified departure port to a specified destination port as much as possible under a condition that the ship can arrive at the destination port by a certain timing (See at least ¶2 of Nanri).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle fail to disclose wherein the operations include adding a new via-point between adjacent via-points on the route on the basis of the input.
However, Nanri teaches wherein the operations include adding a new via-point between adjacent via-points on the route on the basis of the input (Moreover, a user can change an order of ports on a sailing route by dragging in a horizontal direction any display field of a name of a port other than the departure port and the destination port in the first line of area. When an order of ports on a sailing route is changed, data related to sectional sailing routes affected by the change of the order of ports are updated in a similar way to the case where a port is added to a sailing route – See at least ¶80).
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 Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle and include the feature of wherein the operations include adding a new via-point between adjacent via-points on the route on the basis of the input, as taught by Nanri, to reduce fuel consumption required for a ship to carry out a voyage from a specified departure port to a specified destination port as much as possible under a condition that the ship can arrive at the destination port by a certain timing (See at least ¶2 of Nanri).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle fail to disclose a display, wherein the operations include controlling the display to display the route.
However, Nanri teaches:
a display (Display device – See at least ¶44); and
wherein the operations include controlling the display to display the route (Computer comprises CPU that executes various kinds of data processing in accordance with programs such as an OS and an application program and controls the other components of computer and various data sets and input-output that inputs various data sets to external devices connected to input-output and receives data sets from the external devices. External devices connected to input-output may include an operation device such as a display device – See at least ¶44. The second line of area contains display fields corresponding to sectional sailing routes, and a sailing distance of a corresponding sectional sailing route is displayed in each of the display fields – See at least ¶67).
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 Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle and include the feature of a display, wherein the operations include controlling the display to display the route, as taught by Nanri, to reduce fuel consumption required for a ship to carry out a voyage from a specified departure port to a specified destination port as much as possible under a condition that the ship can arrive at the destination port by a certain timing (See at least ¶2 of Nanri).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle fail to disclose wherein the display is controlled to not display, a selection screen on which a change in an orientation of the watercraft at a via-point on an offshore navigation route included in the route is the input.
However, Nanri teaches wherein the display is controlled to not display, a selection screen on which a change in an orientation of the watercraft at a via-point on an offshore navigation route included in the route is the input (FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary image of area of the voyage management screen image. The first line of area contains input fields of a voyage ID identifying a voyage to be managed, a name of a ship making the voyage and a name of a sailing route of the voyage. The first line of area further contains five operation buttons, i.e. “original to current” button, “current to modified” button, “modified to current” button, “graph” button and “automatic modification” button – See at least ¶56. Examiner notes the display screen does NOT display a selection screen on which a change in an orientation of the watercraft at a via-point on an offshore navigation route included in the route is input through the input unit as claimed in the limitation above).
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 Salminen, Chen and Arbuckle and include the feature of wherein the display is controlled to not display, a selection screen on which a change in an orientation of the watercraft at a via-point on an offshore navigation route included in the route is the input, as taught by Nanri, to reduce fuel consumption required for a ship to carry out a voyage from a specified departure port to a specified destination port as much as possible under a condition that the ship can arrive at the destination port by a certain timing (See at least ¶2 of Nanri).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simo Salminen, WO2021152205A1, in view of Zhi-chao, CHEN, CN111324132B, in view of Arbuckle et al., US 20170255200A1, in view of Nanri et al., US 20160195399 A1, applied to claims 2 and 8 above, and further in view of Poreda et al., US 20080133131 A1, hereinafter referred to as Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri and Poreda, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri fail to disclose wherein when an input of a navigation prohibition area is accepted, the route generated includes an avoidance route for avoiding the navigation prohibition area.
However, Poreda teaches wherein when an input of a navigation prohibition area is accepted, the route generated includes an avoidance route for avoiding the navigation prohibition area (To avoid the proximate convergence as predicted, an alternate route is generated. In at least one embodiment, route is generated by the operator manually, i.e. input, indicating a new waypoint – See at least ¶63).
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 Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri and include the feature of wherein when an input of a navigation prohibition area is accepted, the route generated includes an avoidance route for avoiding the navigation prohibition area, as taught by Poreda, to ensure an operator of a watercraft is able to quickly adapt to changes in information (See at least ¶5 of Poreda).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri fail to disclose wherein the operations include: receiving obstacle information; predicting risk of a collision of the watercraft with an obstacle based on the obstacle information, wherein, generating the route includes generating an avoidance route to avoid a collision with the obstacle when the risk precited is equal to or higher than a reference, and the display is controlled to display the avoidance route.
However, Poreda teaches:
receiving obstacle information; predicting risk of a collision of the watercraft with an obstacle based on the obstacle information (The planned route of the host ship and the predicted route of the sensed object(s) are conveyed to an operator as visual information upon the display. Further, as the computer, (i.e. risk prediction unit) is operable to analyze the planned and predicted routes, in response to a predicted proximate convergence, a collision warning is provided to the operator – See at least ¶33), wherein
wherein, generating the route includes generating an avoidance route to avoid a collision with the obstacle when the risk precited is equal to or higher than a reference, (The computer includes a route generator, (i.e. generation unit). The route generator is operable to generate a predicted route of at least one sensed object in the environment. The route generator is also operable to generate a planned route of the host ship – See at least ¶29. Further, as the computer is operable to analyze the planned and predicted routes, in response to a predicted proximate convergence, a collision warning is provided to the operator. Examiner notes the claimed “equal to” is construed as proximate convergence of a collision), and
and the display is controlled to display the avoidance route (RPINS (a route-planning interactive navigational system) also typically includes at least one operator data entry device, such as for example a keyboard. As indicated, in at least one embodiment RPINS is disposed upon the host ship. A warning system or device is also provided in at least one embodiment, and/or may be incorporated as part of the display – See at least ¶27. In response to the indicated proximate convergence, and/or the warning signal, the operator may choose to modify the host ship planned route, decision. If the decision is to modify the planned route, the operator and/or the RPINS will modify one or more of the collective route elements. As a result of the operator initiating a modification, the method re-generates the planned route – See at least ¶57).
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 Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri and include the feature of wherein the operations include: receiving obstacle information; predicting risk of a collision of the watercraft with an obstacle based on the obstacle information, wherein, generating the route includes generating an avoidance route to avoid a collision with the obstacle when the risk precited is equal to or higher than a reference, and the display is controlled to display the avoidance route, as taught by Poreda, to ensure an operator of a watercraft is able to quickly adapt to changes in information (See at least ¶5 of Poreda).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simo Salminen, WO2021152205A1, in view of Zhi-chao, CHEN, CN111324132B, in view of Arbuckle et al., US 20170255200A1, in view of Nanri et al., US 20160195399 A1, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dohi et al., US 20140253597 A1, hereinafter referred to as Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri and Dohi, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri fail to disclose wherein the display is controlled to display an attitude of the watercraft on the route by icons on the display.
However, Dohi teaches wherein the display is controlled to display an attitude of the watercraft on the route by icons on the display (“FIG. 2 illustrates one example of contents displayed on the display unit in the plotter screen mode. In this mode, destination marks indicating the set waypoints and a route line indicating the course to the intermediate and final destinations are displayed on the map or the nautical chart. Moreover, the current location of the ship and a heading of the ship are respectively displayed as a boat icon and a heading line by being superimposed on the map or the nautical chart” – See at least ¶50).
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 Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri and include the feature of wherein the display is controlled to display an attitude of the watercraft on the route by icons on the display, as taught by Dohi, to obtain a position of the movable body with higher accuracy (See at least ¶3 of Dohi).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simo Salminen, WO2021152205A1, in view of Zhi-chao, CHEN, CN111324132B, in view of Arbuckle et al., US 20170255200A1, in view of Nanri et al., US 20160195399 A1, in view of Dohi et al., US 20140253597 A1, as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Tenpei Hosokawa, US 20150120102 A1, hereinafter referred to as Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri, Dohi and Hosokawa, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri, Dohi fail to disclose wherein when the input is an input to modify the attitude, the display is controlled to display, a new icon indicating the attitude after modification and the old icon indicating the attitude before the modification in a superimposed manner.
However, Hosokawa teaches wherein when the input is an input to modify the attitude, the display is controlled to display, a new icon indicating the attitude after modification and the old icon indicating the attitude before the modification in a superimposed manner (“FIG. 3A is a display screen on the display unit displayed before the turn. The target course display section, the heading display section, and the turning progress display section are displayed in FIG. 3A. Here, in the target course display section, the course specified through the user interface, i.e. input unit, or the like is displayed as a numeric value. In the heading display section, the current heading acquired by the heading sensor is displayed as a numeric value” – See at least ¶57. “FIG. 3B is a display screen displayed on the display unit immediately after the turn is started. When starting the turn, since a target course is newly set, the value in the target course display section described above is changed to the new target course. Moreover, as the turn proceeds, the value displayed in the heading display section changes” – See at least ¶60. Examiner notes Fig 3A shows old icon indicating the attitude before modification and Fig. 3B display new icon indicting the attitude after modification. Both images are superimposed).
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 Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri and Dohi and include the feature of wherein when the input is an input to modify the attitude, the display is controlled to display, a new icon indicating the attitude after modification and the old icon indicating the attitude before the modification in a superimposed manner, as taught by Hosokawa, to provide a turning progress display apparatus, with which the progress of turning of a ship is able to easily and instinctively be grasped (See at least ¶10 of Hosokawa).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simo Salminen, WO2021152205A1, in view of Zhi-chao, CHEN, CN111324132B, in view of Arbuckle et al., US 20170255200A1, in view of Nanri et al., US 20160195399 A1, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Poreda et al., US 20080133131 A1, and further in view of Kim Dong Hoon, KR102466804 B1, hereinafter referred to as Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri, Poreda and Hoon, respectively.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri fail to disclose wherein the operations include: receiving obstacle information; predicting risk of a collision of the watercraft with an obstacle based on the obstacle information, the display is controlled to display a bird's-eye view of the obstacle and risk information on a degree of the risk, included in the bird's-eye view, and in the case where the risk that is predicted differs by location on the basis of the obstacle information, the display is controlled to display the bird's-eye view including the risk information representing the highest risk.
However, Poreda teaches:
receiving obstacle information; predicting risk of a collision of the watercraft with an obstacle based on the obstacle information (The planned route of the host ship and the predicted route of the sensed object(s) are conveyed to an operator as visual information upon the display. Further, as the computer, (i.e. risk prediction unit) is operable to analyze the planned and predicted routes, in response to a predicted proximate convergence, a collision warning is provided to the operator – See at least ¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle and Nanri and include the feature of receiving obstacle information; predicting risk of a collision of the watercraft with an obstacle based on the obstacle information, as taught by Poreda, to ensure an operator of a watercraft is able to quickly adapt to changes in information (See at least ¶5 of Poreda).
The combination of Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri and Poreda fail to disclose the display is controlled to display a bird's-eye view of the obstacle and risk information on a degree of the risk, included in the bird's-eye view, and in the case where the risk that is predicted differs by location on the basis of the obstacle information, the display is controlled to display the bird's-eye view including the risk information representing the highest risk.
However, Hoon teaches:
the display is controlled to display a bird's-eye view of the obstacle and risk information on a degree of the risk, included in the bird's-eye view (Around view monitoring may be possible by matching a plurality of images representing an area around a ship. Here, the around view monitoring may mean providing a bird's eye view of the environment around the ship – See at least ¶244. The display panel may output relative positions and characteristics of obstacles based on the current position of the ship. For example, a black area may indicate a first obstacle closer than a predetermined distance, and a gray area may indicate a second obstacle farther than the predetermined distance. Alternatively, the black area may indicate a high-risk area, the gray area may indicate an average risk area, and the white area may indicate a low-risk area – See at least ¶249), and
in the case where the risk that is predicted differs by location on the basis of the obstacle information, the display is controlled to display the bird's-eye view including the risk information representing the highest risk (For example, a black area may indicate a first obstacle closer than a predetermined distance, and a gray area may indicate a second obstacle farther than the predetermined distance. Alternatively, the black area may indicate a high-risk area – See at least ¶249).
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 Salminen, Chen, Arbuckle, Nanri and Poreda and include the feature of the display is controlled to display a bird's-eye view of the obstacle and risk information on a degree of the risk, included in the bird's-eye view, and in the case where the risk that is predicted differs by location on the basis of the obstacle information, the display is controlled to display the bird's-eye view including the risk information representing the highest risk, as taught by Hoon, to provide an autonomous navigation method capable of detecting the surrounding environment of a watercraft (See at least ¶4 of Hoon).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights