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 18/788,453 filed on 09/08/2026. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claims 21-22 are new claims. Claims 1-22 are pending and examined in the instant office action. The rejections are as stated below.
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. EP23189784.4, filed on 08/04/2023.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Request for Continued Examination have been fully considered. In view of the amendments and arguments presented, the previous rejection has been reconsidered and is superseded by the rejection set for herein. Regarding independent claims 1 and 17, Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach or suggest continuously comparing the position and/or heading of the marine vessel with the position of the scanned object, determining whether the scanned object position is maintained independently of vessel position and/or heading over time, and, in response, setting the same scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to the present rejection. As discussed below, Vacanti teaches obtaining multiple successive radar scans, compensating the detected object information for movement of the observing vessel using vessel position and heading information, and performing scan-to-scan correlation to determine the location and persistence of detected objects over successive scans (See Vacanti ¶¶17-18). Vacanti further teaches determining the change in location of a detected target between successive scan-to-scan correlation periods while accounting for motion of the observing vessel (See Vacanti ¶24). Thus, Vacanti teaches determining whether the scanned object position is maintained independently of vessel position and/or heading over time and repeatedly performing the comparison over successive scans. Vacanti further teaches correlating the scan data with fixed objects represented on a marine navigation chart and removing correlations associated with known navigation aids and geographical landmarks (See Vacanti ¶¶19-22). Vacanti thereafter evaluates the remaining detections that persist among successive radar scans to determine eligibility as targets to be tracked (See Vacanti ¶22). Vacanti further teaches displaying the detected targets and associated location, motion, and direction information. (See Vacanti ¶25). Accordingly, Vacanti teaches the claimed responsive validation and indication of the scanned object.
To the extent Applicant’s arguments are directed specifically to the previously relied upon teachings of Tyers, such arguments are moot with respect to the present rejection because Tyers is no longer relied upon for the amended responsive validation limitation.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but do not overcome the present rejections.
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) 1-2 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., WO2021178603 A1, in view of David C. Vacanti, US20100188290A1, hereinafter referred to as Johnson and Vacanti, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a marine navigation system for a marine vessel (In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, sensor fusion navigation systems may be provided by various portable and/or fixed navigational sensors associated with a mobile structure, i.e. marine vessel – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 6, lines 12-14), comprising:
a positioning unit configured to detect a position of the marine vessel (Sensors may be mounted to or within the mobile structure (e.g., a watercraft), may be integrated with other sensor assemblies, or may be integrated within a portable device. Examples of portable devices include portable (global navigation satellite system (GNSS), i.e. positioning unit, devices – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 6, lines 21-25),
a nautical chart database (Generate further images and/or charts, i.e. nautical chart database, augmented with navigation data from navigation sensors and/or derived from the processed images – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 52, lines 26-29),
a display being configured to present a view of a nautical chart information and the position of the marine vessel on the nautical chart (In one embodiment, user interface may be adapted to display a time series of various sensor information and/or other parameters as part of or overlaid on a graph or map, i.e. nautical chart, which may be referenced to a position and/or orientation of mobile structure, i.e. marine vessel – See at least See at least “Detailed Description”, page 13, lines 18-20),
a short range distance sensor module arranged on the marine vessel (Sensors may be mounted to or within the mobile structure (e.g., a watercraft) – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 6, lines 21-23),
the short range distance sensor module being configured to provide scanned data of a surrounding environment of the marine vessel (Other modules may include other and/or additional sensors used to provide additional environmental information of mobile structure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 17, lines 3-5),
a control unit being operatively connected with the short range distance sensor module, the positioning unit, the nautical chart database and the display, the control unit is configured to process the scanned data to provide a scanned view of the surrounding environment (In one embodiment, user interface may be adapted to receive a sensor or control signal over communication links formed by one or more associated logic devices. User interface may be adapted to process sensor and/or control signals to determine sensor and/or other information. For example, a sensor signal may include a position of mobile structure. User interface may be adapted to display a time series of various sensor information and/or other parameters as part of or overlaid on a graph or map, i.e. nautical chart, which may be referenced to a position and/or orientation of mobile structure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 13, lines 7-20. Controller may be adapted to execute one or more control loops for actuated device control and/or performing other various operations of mobile structure and/or system. In some embodiments, a control loop may include processing sensor signals and/or sensor information in order to control one or more operations of mobile structure and/or various elements of system - See at least “Detailed Description”, page 14, lines 31-33 and page 15, lines 1-3),
wherein the control unit is configured to present an augmented view of the nautical chart and scanned data on the display (Embodiments of the present disclosure can implement processing steps to integrate visible or thermal images into a marine navigation system, for use with augmented reality or watercraft automation, as described herein. For example, Fig. 17 illustrates image processing steps to generate images and/or charts augmented with navigational data using sensor fusion for navigation systems in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 57, lines 13-17), and
wherein the control unit is configured to indicate portions of the scanned data which do not match the nautical chart information in the augmented view (For example, a sensor signal may include a position of mobile structure. User interface may be adapted to display a time series of various sensor information and/or other parameters as part of or overlaid on a graph or map, i.e. nautical chart, which may be referenced to a position and/or orientation of mobile structure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 13, lines 7-20. In other embodiments, controller may compare data of other sensors related to other aspects of the database and/or the integrated model and determine any mismatches within the data of navigational database. The mismatches may be directed to any aspect of navigational database or integrated model. For example, mismatches between terrain features, wildlife, mobile structure position, environmental conditions, and/or other aspects of data within navigational database may be highlighted. The mismatches may then be highlighted within display, such as through renderings within the integrated model – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 27, lines 20-28).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein indicating the portions of the scanned data comprises determining if a position of a scanned object is maintained independently of a position and/or heading of the marine vessel over time by continuously comparing the position and/or heading of the marine vessel with the position of the scanned object, and in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated.
However, Vacanti teaches:
wherein indicating the portions of the scanned data comprises determining if a position of a scanned object is maintained independently of a position and/or heading of the marine vessel over time by continuously comparing the position and/or heading of the marine vessel with the position of the scanned object (Vacanti teaches collecting radar detections for multiple consecutive scans and storing the detections after space stabilizing the detections for motion of the vessel using latitude and longitude information from GPS together with vessel heading, roll, pitch and yaw information – See at least ¶17; Vacanti further teaches performing scan-to-scan correlation among the multiple consecutive scans – See at least ¶18; Vacanti additionally teaches determining the change in location of a detected target between one scan-to-scan correlation period and the next while accounting for the motion of the observing vessel – See at least ¶24. Examiner notes Vacanti teaches the claimed “independently” because the detected object position and motion are determined while compensating for changes in the position and heading of the observing vessel, such that vessel movement is accounted for in determining the object position. Vacanti teaches the claimed “continuously comparing” because vessel motion compensated object information is repeatedly obtained and correlated over the multiple consecutive radar scans), and
in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated (Vacanti teaches correlating the scan-to-scan information with fixed objects on a marine navigation chart – See at least ¶19; determining correlations associated with known navigation aids and geographical landmark – See at least ¶¶20-21; and removing those known fixed object correlations such that the remaining detections are evaluated for persistence among successive radar scans to determine eligibility as a target to be tracked – See at least ¶22; displaying detected targets and information regarding their location, motion and direction – See at least ¶25. Examiner notes Vacanti teaches the claimed responsive validation because a remaining scanned detection is treated as an eligible target for tracking in response to determining that the detection persists over successive scans, after accounting for vessel motion, and the resulting detected target is thereafter indicated on the display).
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 Johnson and include the feature of wherein indicating the portions of the scanned data comprises determining if a position of a scanned object is maintained independently of a position and/or heading of the marine vessel over time by continuously comparing the position and/or heading of the marine vessel with the position of the scanned object, and in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated, as taught by Vacanti, to provide a direct way of allowing a radar to provide identification information for detected navigation items (See at least ¶7 of Vacanti).
Regarding claim 2, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the scanned view is presented as a graphical overlay to the nautical chart information on the display (For example, controller may be configured to combine at least a portion of the navigational data received in block with a horizon- stabilized image or a synthetic viewpoint elevated image to produce a combined image, for example, and render the combined image on a display of a user interface of the mobile structure. The combined image may include the horizon-stabilized image or the synthetic viewpoint elevated image overlaid, i.e. graphical overlay, with object identification information and/or other navigational information corresponding to the mobile structure or a detected object, for example, or a navigational chart comprising navigational data derived, at least in part, from the horizon-stabilized image or the synthetic viewpoint elevated image – See at least “Detailed Description” page 63, lines 28-33 and page 64, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the scanned data is stored in the storage unit (Controller may be implemented as any appropriate logic device (e.g., memory storage device,) that may be adapted to execute, store, and/or receive appropriate instructions, such as software instructions implementing a control loop for controlling various operations of mobile structure, and/or system. Such software instructions may also implement methods for processing sensor signals, determining sensor information – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 14, lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the control unit is configured to determine an object provided by the scanned data (In some embodiments, other modules may include a radar system, a LIDAR systems, and/or other environmental sensors providing measurements and/or other sensor signals that can be displayed to a user and/or used by other devices of system (e.g., controller) to provide operational control of mobile structure that compensates for environmental conditions, such as an object in a path of mobile structure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 17, lines 5-13).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson, as modified, discloses an object database with known objects and/or classifications of scanned data points, the control unit is configured to compare the scanned data with the object database for determining an object substantially similar to the scanned data (Controller may compare data of other sensors related to other aspects of the database, i.e. object database and/or the integrated model and determine any matches or mismatches within the data, i.e. scanned data, of navigational database. The matches and/or mismatches may be directed to any aspect of navigational database or integrated model – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 27, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the control unit is configured to divide the scanned data into segmented objects, the control unit is configured to present the segmented objects graphically different on the display (For example, matches and/or mismatches between terrain features, wildlife (e.g., flora and/or fauna), mobile structure position, environmental conditions, and/or other aspects of data within navigational database may be highlighted. The matches and/or mismatches may then be highlighted within display, such as through renderings within the integrated model See at least “Detailed Description”, page 27, lines 24-28).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the augmented view is corrected by redrawing the overlay or by adding other geometrically indications and/or color (For example, in augmented image (An augmented version of synthetic viewpoint elevated image of Fig. 14B), distance indicators have been added so as to have a perspective roughly following the surface of the water in their respective areas. Moreover, shaded/hatched area has been added to indicate an area too shallow to traverse. In Fig. 5, AIS data and a distance indicator has been added to the image – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 54, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the system collects scanned data over time as function of the marine vessel’s position and orientation, and presents an averaged scanned view as overlay to the nautical chart (In one embodiment, user interface may be adapted to display a time series of various sensor information and/or other parameters as part of or overlaid on a graph or map, which may be referenced to a position and/or orientation of mobile structure. For example, user interface may be adapted to display a time series of positions, headings, and/or orientations of mobile structure and/or other elements of system overlaid on a geographical map, which may include one or more graphs indicating a corresponding time series of actuator control signals, sensor information, and/or other sensor and/or control signals – See at least “Detailed Description” page 13, lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the system compare the scanned data collected over time with the nautical chart information to identify the portions of the scanned data that are continuously different to the nautical chart information (In various embodiments, controller may be configured to apply various types of image processing to the sonar data when rendering an integrated model, such as processing to visually differentiate real time and prior-acquired image data and other data, to visually indicate a relative age of different portions of such data, to visually indicate surface orientations of above water and underwater features, and/or to provide additional methods to visually differentiate different above water and underwater features and/or different above water and underwater feature characteristics from one another – See at least “Detailed Description” page 43, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the scanned stationary objects are updated in the augmented view based on real-time scanned data gradually by redrawing the augmented view (A general algorithm structure corresponding to Fig. 17 may be as follows: provide relative coordinates of detected objects in images and/or other navigational data to a coordinate frame transformer to derive absolute positions for the detected objects; provide the derived absolute object positions and corresponding AIS, chart, and/or otherwise provided cataloged absolute object positions to an object matching and sensor fusion process (e.g., which matches detected objects to cataloged objects based on the derived and cataloged positions, and which adjusts, refines, and/or aligns the derived and/or cataloged positions to each other through sensor fusion and aggregation of multiple types of object detection for each object) to generate an object database, and then use the object database to generate augmented reality image renderings and/or to help provide for autopiloting of mobile structure (e.g., by updating object positions – See at least “Detailed Description” page 57, lines 32-33 and page 58, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the control unit is configured to differentiate the scanned data, the nautical chart, and the augmented view, or blend them together on the display (Once the images are received and/or processed, controller may be configured to combine navigational data with the images to produce augmented reality views and/or other sensor fusion views, as described herein. For example, controller may be configured to combine at least a portion of the navigational data received in block with a horizon- stabilized image or a synthetic viewpoint elevated image to produce a combined image, i.e. blend, for example, and render the combined image on a display of a user interface of the mobile structure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 63, lines 26-33).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the short range distance sensor module comprises one or more LiDAR sensor(s) and/or one or more short-range radar(s) (Other modules may include other and/or additional sensors used to provide additional environmental information of mobile structure. Other modules may include a radar system, LIDAR systems – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 17, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the short range distance sensor module comprises one or more LiDAR sensor(s), the LiDAR sensors are providing LiDAR scanned data (Other modules may include other and/or additional sensors used to provide additional environmental information, i.e. scanned data, of mobile structure. Other modules may include a LIDAR systems – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 17, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson, as modified, discloses wherein the LiDAR scanned data is raw LiDAR data, the control unit is configured to translate the raw LiDAR data into a 2D grid map with probability and/or class values, the 2D grid map being the scanned view (Embodiments of the present disclosure provide sensor fusion that may combine sensor data from a plurality of sensors and present the sensor data according to a single reference frame, thereby providing enhanced data to a user that may also be more intuitive and easier to interpret than individually referenced data from each of the sensors. In certain embodiments, a 2D integrated model may also be rendered from the sensor data – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 6, lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson, as modified, discloses a marine vessel comprising a marine navigation system of claim 1 (In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, sensor fusion navigation systems may be provided by various portable and/or fixed navigational sensors associated with a mobile structure, marine vessel – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 6, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson discloses a marine navigation method comprising (In accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure, sensor fusion navigation systems may be provided by various portable and/or fixed navigational sensors associated with a mobile structure, marine vessel – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 6, lines 12-14)
determining a position of a marine vessel (Sensors may be mounted to or within the mobile structure (e.g., a watercraft), may be integrated with other sensor assemblies, or may be integrated within a portable device. Examples of portable devices include portable (global navigation satellite system (GNSS) devices – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 6, lines 21-25),
displaying a nautical chart information and the position of the marine vessel on the nautical chart (In one embodiment, user interface may be adapted to display a time series of various sensor information and/or other parameters as part of or overlaid on a graph or map, i.e. nautical chart, which may be referenced to a position and/or orientation of mobile structure, i.e. marine vessel – See at least See at least “Detailed Description”, page 13, lines 18-20),
providing scanned data of a surrounding environment of the marine vessel by a short range distance sensor module arranged on the marine vessel (Other modules may include other and/or additional sensors used to provide additional environmental information of mobile structure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 17, lines 3-5),
processing the scanned data to provide a scanned view of the surrounding environment (In one embodiment, user interface may be adapted to receive a sensor or control signal over communication links formed by one or more associated logic devices. User interface may be adapted to process sensor and/or control signals to determine sensor and/or other information. For example, a sensor signal may include a position of mobile structure. User interface may be adapted to display a time series of various sensor information and/or other parameters as part of or overlaid on a graph or map, i.e. nautical chart, which may be referenced to a position and/or orientation of mobile structure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 13, lines 7-20. Controller may be adapted to execute one or more control loops for actuated device control and/or performing other various operations of mobile structure and/or system. In some embodiments, a control loop may include processing sensor signals and/or sensor information in order to control one or more operations of mobile structure and/or various elements of system - See at least “Detailed Description”, page 14, lines 31-33 and page 15, lines 1-3),
presenting an augmented view of the nautical chart and scanned data on a display, and indicating portions of the scanned data which do not match the nautical chart information in the augmented view (Embodiments of the present disclosure can implement processing steps to integrate visible or thermal images into a marine navigation system, for use with augmented reality or watercraft automation, as described herein. For example, Fig. 17 illustrates image processing steps to generate images and/or charts augmented with navigational data using sensor fusion for navigation systems in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 57, lines 13-17. In other embodiments, controller may compare data of other sensors related to other aspects of the database and/or the integrated model and determine any mismatches within the data of navigational database. The mismatches may be directed to any aspect of navigational database or integrated model. For example, mismatches between terrain features, wildlife, mobile structure position, environmental conditions, and/or other aspects of data within navigational database may be highlighted. The mismatches may then be highlighted within display, such as through renderings within the integrated model – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 27, lines 20-28).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein indicating the portions of the scanned data comprises determining if a position of a scanned object is maintained independently of a position and/or heading of the marine vessel over time by continuously comparing the position and/or heading of the marine vessel with the position of the scanned object, and in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated.
However, Vacanti teaches:
wherein indicating the portions of the scanned data comprises determining if a position of a scanned object is maintained independently of a position and/or heading of the marine vessel over time by continuously comparing the position and/or heading of the marine vessel with the position of the scanned object (Vacanti teaches collecting radar detections for multiple consecutive scans and storing the detections after space stabilizing the detections for motion of the vessel using latitude and longitude information from GPS together with vessel heading, roll, pitch and yaw information – See at least ¶17; Vacanti further teaches performing scan-to-scan correlation among the multiple consecutive scans – See at least ¶18; Vacanti additionally teaches determining the change in location of a detected target between one scan-to-scan correlation period and the next while accounting for the motion of the observing vessel – See at least ¶24. Examiner notes Vacanti teaches the claimed “independently” because the detected object position and motion are determined while compensating for changes in the position and heading of the observing vessel, such that vessel movement is accounted for in determining the object position. Vacanti teaches the claimed “continuously comparing” because vessel motion compensated object information is repeatedly obtained and correlated over the multiple consecutive radar scans), and
in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated (Vacanti teaches correlating the scan-to-scan information with fixed objects on a marine navigation chart – See at least ¶19; determining correlations associated with known navigation aids and geographical landmark – See at least ¶¶20-21; and removing those known fixed object correlations such that the remaining detections are evaluated for persistence among successive radar scans to determine eligibility as a target to be tracked – See at least ¶22; displaying detected targets and information regarding their location, motion and direction – See at least ¶25. Examiner notes Vacanti teaches the claimed responsive validation because a remaining scanned detection is treated as an eligible target for tracking in response to determining that the detection persists over successive scans, after accounting for vessel motion, and the resulting detected target is thereafter indicated on the display).
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 Johnson and include the feature of wherein indicating the portions of the scanned data comprises determining if a position of a scanned object is maintained independently of a position and/or heading of the marine vessel over time by continuously comparing the position and/or heading of the marine vessel with the position of the scanned object, and in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated, as taught by Vacanti, to provide a direct way of allowing a radar to provide identification information for detected navigation items (See at least ¶7 of Vacanti).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson, as modified, discloses:
comparing the scanned view of scanned data with the nautical chart information, (Controller may compare data of other sensors related to other aspects of the database, and/or the integrated model and determine any matches or mismatches within the data, i.e. scanned data, of navigational database. The matches and/or mismatches may be directed to any aspect of navigational database or integrated model – See at least “Detailed Description”, page 27, lines 20-24) and
identifying the portions of the scanned data being continuously different to the nautical chart information so as to provide an augmented view of the nautical chart information including the scanned view (Provide relative coordinates of detected objects in images and/or other navigational data to a coordinate frame transformer to derive absolute positions for the detected objects; provide the derived absolute object positions and corresponding AIS, chart, and/or otherwise provided cataloged absolute object positions to an object matching and sensor fusion process (e.g., which matches detected objects to cataloged objects based on the derived and cataloged positions, and which adjusts, refines, and/or aligns the derived and/or cataloged positions to each other through sensor fusion and aggregation of multiple types of object detection for each object) to generate an object database, and then use the object database to generate augmented reality image renderings and/or to help provide for autopiloting of mobile structure (e.g., by updating object positions – See at least “Detailed Description” page 57, lines 32-33 and page 58, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson, as modified, discloses presenting the scanned view as a graphically overlay to the nautical chart information on the display (For example, controller may be configured to combine at least a portion of the navigational data received in block with a horizon- stabilized image or a synthetic viewpoint elevated image to produce a combined image, for example, and render the combined image on a display of a user interface of the mobile structure. The combined image may include the horizon-stabilized image or the synthetic viewpoint elevated image overlaid with object identification information and/or other navigational information corresponding to the mobile structure or a detected object, for example, or a navigational chart comprising navigational data derived, at least in part, from the horizon-stabilized image or the synthetic viewpoint elevated image – See at least “Detailed Description” page 63, lines 28-33 and page 64, lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., WO2021178603A1, in view of David C. Vacanti, US20100188290A1, as applied to claims 2 and 19 above and further in view of Kubota et al., US 20130286022 A1, hereinafter referred to as Johnson, Vacanti, and Kubota, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Johnson and Vacanti fail to disclose wherein the graphical overlay provide information to an operator or captain regarding differences between the scanned view and the nautical chart information.
However, Kubota teaches wherein the graphical overlay provide information to an operator or captain regarding differences between the scanned view and the nautical chart information (As described above, the controller acquires perimeter information of the ship from the sweep memory, the other-ship information memory, and the nautical chart information memory, and displays the acquired perimeter information on the display unit while changing the scales of the first and second ranges – See at least ¶70. In the setting of the display mode, the user can set which perimeter information to display within the first range and the second range individually. Additionally, the user can set to display ships as the echoes, the TT symbols, or the AIS symbols, or both the TT and AIS symbols by superimposing onto each other – See at least ¶73).
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 Johnson and Vacanti and include the feature of wherein the graphical overlay provide information to an operator or captain regarding differences between the scanned view and the nautical chart information, as taught by Kubota, to provide a display device for simultaneously displaying detailed information of a range near a predetermined location (e.g., a position of a movable body) (See at least ¶7 of Kubota).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Johnson and Vacanti fail to disclose providing information on the graphically overlay to an operator regarding differences between the scanned view and the nautical chart information.
However, Kubota teaches providing information on the graphically overlay to an operator regarding differences between the scanned view and the nautical chart information (As described above, the controller acquires perimeter information of the ship from the sweep memory, the other-ship information memory, and the nautical chart information memory, and displays the acquired perimeter information on the display unit while changing the scales of the first and second ranges – See at least ¶70. In the setting of the display mode, the user can set which perimeter information to display within the first range and the second range individually. Additionally, the user can set to display ships as the echoes, the TT symbols, or the AIS symbols, or both the TT and AIS symbols by superimposing onto each other – See at least ¶73).
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 Johnson and Vacanti and include the feature of providing information on the graphically overlay to an operator regarding differences between the scanned view and the nautical chart information, as taught by Kubota, to provide a display device for simultaneously displaying detailed information of a range near a predetermined location (e.g., a position of a movable body) (See at least ¶7 of Kubota).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., WO2021178603 A1, in view of David C. Vacanti, US20100188290A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Russ Miles, US 20150102956A1, hereinafter referred to as Johnson, Vacanti, and Miles, respectively.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Johnson and Vacanti fail to disclose wherein the position and/or heading of the marine vessel is continuously determined in view of the position of the scanned object.
However, Miles teaches wherein the position and/or heading of the marine vessel is continuously determined in view of the position of the scanned object (The method further comprises using a processor to create first and second images at first and second points in time, respectively, and then to compare the first and second images in order to calculate the positional relationship. The fact that the method further comprises creating first and second images at first and second points in time, respectively, and then comparing the first and second images in order to calculate the positional relationship means that the positional relationship between a vessel, or vehicle, and an object can be determined without the need for a responder or target to be placed on the object – See at least ¶28. The scan-match process measures the unexpected portion of the motion of the vessel with respect to the object 130, i.e. the innovation. This is represented as a translation in Cartesian co-ordinates, Δx, Δy, and rotation in the image frame, Δθ – See at least ¶168. Repeatedly scanning the scene and comparing further images with a reference image – See at least ¶171. The coordinates of the vessel 120 in a coordinate system of the rig 130 can be calculated according to:x=−R cos(θ−φ), y=R sin(θ−φ), ψ=−θ where x and y are the Cartesian coordinates of the vessel in the object frame, and ψ is the orientation of the vessel in the object frame. The object frame is centred on the middle of the object, i.e. the centre of the first image of the object – See at least ¶¶185-187).
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 Johnson and Vacanti and include the feature of wherein the position and/or heading of the marine vessel is continuously determined in view of the position of the scanned object, as taught by Miles, for improving the resolution of radar tracking (See at least ¶3 of Miles).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al., WO2021178603 A1, in view of David C. Vacanti, US20100188290A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dowdall et al., US 9080866B1, hereinafter referred to as Johnson, Vacanti, and Dowdall, respectively.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Johnson and Vacanti fail to disclose wherein a number of scanned data is necessary for validating the position and size of the scanned object.
However, Dowdall teaches wherein a number of scanned data is necessary for validating the position and size of the scanned object (At block 304, the method 300 includes determining a respective size of the one or more objects based on the laser data collected from respective successive scans. As an example, a tracking system may be used to track objects, and laser data points that are associated with tracked objects can be determined. Within the laser data points, a computing device may be configured to determine a respective size of the tracked objects. During respective successive scans, the computing device may capable of determine a respective size of each individual object. The computing device may determine the respective height or width related to an object. The tracking system may record the various sizes as a function of distance of the objects away from the vehicle. The tracking system may allow the computing device to determine objects which have sizes that vary as the vehicle travels closer towards the objects. Other information may be determined by the computing device through utilizing the successive scans received from the LIDAR unit – See at least col.12, lines 37-54).
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 Johnson and Vacanti and include the feature of wherein a number of scanned data is necessary for validating the position and size of the scanned object, as taught by Dowdall, in order to use multiple sensor observations to determine both the positional persistence and physical size of a detected object, thereby improving the reliability of object validation and characterization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matthew Laster, US20240310501A1 discloses
presentation of marine data, and more particularly, to providing for improved dynamic adjustments for correlating chart data with other marine data, such as sonar data and radar data.
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.
Respectfully Submitted
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
