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
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/771,211, filed on 12 July 2024, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 17, and 20.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in consideration of amended claim 17.
The previous rejections of claims 1-14 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn in consideration of amended independent claims 1 and 20. However, new rejections of claims 1-14 and 18-20 under § 103 are set forth below.
The previous rejections of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn because they depend from claim 1. However, new rejections of claims 15-17 under § 103 are set forth below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (US 2022/0001970 A1, “Hara”) in view of Dannenberg et al. (US 2020/0247518 A1, “Dannenberg”).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Hara discloses a control target generation device and ship-steering control device and teaches:
a user interface including a display monitor (interface unit 81 having a display and input device – see at least Fig 1 and ¶ [0081]); and
a digital controller including a processor, a computer memory and an I/O interface, the user interface being connected to the I/O interface (route controller 2 configured as a computer including a CPU, ROM, RAM – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0061]),
the digital controller being configured to select a target dock for docking a watercraft in an auto-docking mode (dock point setting unit 41 detects a candidate location for automatic docking – see at least ¶ [0073]; user may select docking point B1 using the candidate location – see at least ¶ [0074]),
the digital controller being configured to generate a docking path including a single waypoint from a current location of the watercraft to a target location of the target dock (route generating unit 51 calculates a route from the current location to the docking point B1 – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0077]; e.g., route having a waypoint A1 corresponding to the current location, a waypoint A2, and the docking point B1 only has a single waypoint between the current location and the target location),
the digital controller being configured to autonomously navigate the watercraft using an autopilot system along the docking path until the watercraft reaches the target location of the target dock (route controller 2 may generate a route for automatically navigating the ship 95 – see at least ¶ [0090]) such that the watercraft turns at the single waypoint to align with a target orientation of the watercraft at the target location of the target dock (transit target point generating unit 61 generates transit target points 65 on the route, where the transit target points 65 have information on the target location and target orientation – see at least ¶ [0090]; transit target points 65 may be located at the start point or end point, i.e., control points, of a partial routes 56s – see at least ¶ [0092]; at control points, ship is controlled to obtain the target location and target orientation – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0078]-[0079]), and
[ ].
Hara fails to teach the digital controller being configured to generate the docking path in response to receiving a user selection of the target dock via the user interface subsequent to the auto- docking mode being activated by a user operation of the user interface.
However, Dannenberg discloses a user interface for marine vessel docking and launch and teaches:
the digital controller being configured to generate the docking path in response to receiving a user selection of the target dock via the user interface subsequent to the auto-docking mode being activated by a user operation of the user interface (at 162, user input may be received to engage docking assistance functionality – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0098]; at 168, potential docking surfaces are identified – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0099]; at 172, the user may select ta docking surface – see at least Fig. 9 and ¶ [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control target generation device and ship-steering control device of Hara to provide for generating a docking path in response to receiving a user selection of the target dock subsequent to the auto-docking mode being activated, as taught by Dannenberg, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the user to select a docking surface from a plurality of potential docking surfaces (Dannenberg at ¶ [0099]).
Regarding claim 2, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the docking path includes a first course and a second course that are connected to each other at the single waypoint (route 56 having route sections 56s connected via a waypoint A – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Hara further teaches:
wherein the first course extends from the current location of the watercraft to the single waypoint, and the second course extends from the single waypoint to the target location of the target dock (route having a first partial route 56s between a first waypoint A corresponding to the current location and a second waypoint A and a second partial route 56s between the second waypoint A and the docking point B1 – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Hara further teaches:
wherein the first course is a straight course (first partial route 56s between a first waypoint A corresponding to the current location and a second waypoint A – see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hara further teaches:
wherein the second course is a straight course (second partial route 56s between the second waypoint A and the docking point B1 – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Hara further teaches:
wherein the second course is a straight course (second partial route 56s between the second waypoint A and the docking point B1 – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft only turns at the single waypoint while traveling from the current location of the watercraft to the target location of the target dock (transit target point generating unit 61 generates transit target points 65 on the route, where the transit target points 65 have information on the target location and target orientation – see at least ¶ [0090]; transit target points 65 may be located at the start point or end point, i.e., control points, of a partial routes 56s – see at least ¶ [0092]; at control points, ship is controlled to obtain the target location and target orientation – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0078]-[0079]; e.g., similar to waypoint A3 where the orientation of the ship changes before traversing partial route 56s between A3 and A4 – see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft maintains a current orientation of the watercraft at the current location of the watercraft while traveling from the current location of the watercraft to the single waypoint (transit target point generating unit 61 generates transit target points 65 on the route, where the transit target points 65 have information on the target location and target orientation – see at least ¶ [0090]; transit target points 65 may be located at the start point or end point, i.e., control points, of a partial routes 56s – see at least ¶ [0092]; at control points, ship is controlled to obtain the target location and target orientation – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0078]-[0079]; e.g., similar to partial route 56s between A2 and A3 – see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft maintains the target orientation of the watercraft at the target location of the target dock while traveling from the single waypoint to the target location of the watercraft (e.g., orientation of ship at waypoint A5 may be maintained along partial route 56s between A5 and B1 – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft maintains the target orientation of the watercraft at the target location of the target dock while traveling from the single waypoint to the target location of the watercraft (e.g., orientation of ship at waypoint A5 may be maintained along partial route 56s between A5 and B1 – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft further turns at the current location of the watercraft to align with an orientation directing toward the single waypoint (orientation of the ship may be changed at a waypoint A that is at the start of a partial route 56s – see Fig. 3; e.g., similar to rotating the ship at waypoint A2 to be directed at waypoint A3 – see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft maintains the orientation directing toward the single waypoint while traveling from the current location of the watercraft to the single waypoint (orientation of the ship may be changed at a waypoint A that is at the start of a partial route 56s and maintain the orientation until the end of the partial route 45s at a subsequent waypoint A – see Fig. 3; e.g., similar to rotating the ship at waypoint A2 to be directed at waypoint A3 – see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft maintains the target orientation of the watercraft at the target location of the target dock while traveling from the single waypoint to the target location of the watercraft (e.g., orientation of ship at waypoint A5 may be maintained along partial route 56s between A5 and B1 – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the watercraft maintains the target orientation of the watercraft at the target location of the target dock while traveling from the single waypoint to the target location of the watercraft (e.g., orientation of ship at waypoint A5 may be maintained along partial route 56s between A5 and B1 – see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to graphically display the docking path with the single waypoint on the display monitor (screen display may include the route 56 in bent line segments – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0131]).
Regarding claim 19, Hara further teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to graphically display first and second straight courses of the docking path that are connected to each other at the single waypoint on the display monitor (screen display may include the route 56 in bent line segments – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0131]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Dannenberg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akuzawa (US 2015/0089427 A1, “Akuzawa”).
Regarding claim 15, Hara and Dannenberg fail to teach but Akuzawa discloses a vessel having an autopilot mode and an automatic berthing mode and teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to determine whether a distance from the current location of the watercraft to the target location of the target dock is greater than a predetermined threshold (at S22, central controller 8 monitors whether or not the berthing target position approach condition is satisfied – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0142]), and the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path in response to determining that the distance is greater than the predetermined threshold (if not satisfied at S22, autopilot device 781 determines a route based on the current location and the berthing target position – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0142]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined control target generation device and ship-steering control device of Hara and Dannenberg to provide for determining a distance to the target location and generate a path based on the distance determination, as taught by Akuzawa, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would automatically switch the vessel from an autopilot mode to an automatic berthing mode (Akuzawa at ¶ [0039]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Dannenberg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akuzawa et al. (US 2019/0317504 A1, “Akuzawa II”).
Regarding claim 16, Hara and Dannenberg fail to teach but Akuzawa II discloses boat control method and teaches:
wherein the digital controller is further configured to generate the docking path such that the single waypoint is located at a predetermined distance from the target location of the target dock (a second target position TP2 is spaced away from a first target position TP1 by a predetermined offset amount – see at least Figs. 13, 14 and ¶ [0082]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined control target generation device and ship-steering control device of Hara and Dannenberg to provide for generating a docking path such that the waypoint is located a predetermined distance from the target location, as taught by Akuzawa II, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the boat to arrive at the target position even when influenced by outside disturbances (Akuzawa II at ¶ [0010]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara in view of Dannenberg and Akuzawa II, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tyers et al. (US 2013/0080044 A1, “Tyers”).
Regarding claim 17, Hara, Dannenberg, and Akuzawa II fail to teach but Tyers discloses an automatic docking system and teaches:
wherein the predetermined distance being settable using the user interface (user may activate plus/minus on the digital control panel for inputting distance settings for the desired distance between the vessel hull and dock – see at least Fig. 1 and ¶ [0073]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control target generation device and ship-steering control device of Hara to provide for user settable distance, as taught by Tyers, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the user to set the desired distance between the vessel and a dock (Tyers at ¶ [0073]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666