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 05/27/2026. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7 and 8, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Johnson et al., WO2021178603 A1, in view of David C. Vacanti, US20100188290A1 and in view of Bradley Tyers et al., JP6925363B2.
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, and in view of Bradley Tyers et al., JP6925363B2, hereinafter referred to as Johnson, Vacanti and Tyers, 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.
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 (Radar detection processor determines the direction of motion and speed of motion of a target by noting the change in location of the target between one scan-to-scan correlation period and the very next scan-to-scan correlation period. By noting the change in location of a detected target over the precise time period between two scan-to-scan correlation periods, and by accounting for the motion of the observing vessel, a very accurate measure of target speed and direction can be obtained by the radar detection processor – See at least ¶24. Examiner notes accounting for the motion of the observing vessel compensates for changes in the vessels position and heading so that the target position is determined independently of the vessels movement over successive scans).
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, 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).
The combination of Johnson and Vacanti fail to disclose in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated.
However, Tyers teaches in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated (In this embodiment, the central processing unit confirms the validity of the target position identified in the target position data in order to confirm that the target position is large enough to accommodate the vessel – See at least ¶90. As shown in FIG. 11B, method includes the step of merging scans (e.g., data from one or more scanning systems, GPS, and / or IMU). This merge results in the generation or update of a 3D point cloud by the central processing unit. Method includes the step of improving the 3D point cloud, including the rejection of outliers and the extraction of regions of interest, which step includes another 3D point cloud coordinate transformation – See at least ¶93. Examiner notes the CPUs automated processing of merged scan data, rejection of outliers, and confirmation of the validity of the target position collectively teach the claimed “in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated”).
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 in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated, as taught by Tyers, in order to provide automatic position placement of a ship, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of vessel navigation (See at least ¶4 of Tyers).
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.
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 (Radar detection processor determines the direction of motion and speed of motion of a target by noting the change in location of the target between one scan-to-scan correlation period and the very next scan-to-scan correlation period. By noting the change in location of a detected target over the precise time period between two scan-to-scan correlation periods, and by accounting for the motion of the observing vessel, a very accurate measure of target speed and direction can be obtained by the radar detection processor – See at least ¶24. Examiner notes accounting for the motion of the observing vessel compensates for changes in the vessels position and heading so that the target position is determined independently of the vessels movement over successive scans).
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, 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).
The combination of Johnson and Vacanti fail to disclose in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated.
However, Tyers teaches in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated (In this embodiment, the central processing unit confirms the validity of the target position identified in the target position data in order to confirm that the target position is large enough to accommodate the vessel – See at least ¶90. As shown in FIG. 11B, method includes the step of merging scans (e.g., data from one or more scanning systems, GPS, and / or IMU). This merge results in the generation or update of a 3D point cloud by the central processing unit. Method includes the step of improving the 3D point cloud, including the rejection of outliers and the extraction of regions of interest, which step includes another 3D point cloud coordinate transformation – See at least ¶93. Examiner notes the CPUs automated processing of merged scan data, rejection of outliers, and confirmation of the validity of the target position collectively teach the claimed “in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated”).
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 in response, setting the scanned object as a validated scanned object to be indicated, as taught by Tyers, in order to provide automatic position placement of a ship, thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency of vessel navigation (See at least ¶4 of Tyers).
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, in view of Bradley Tyers et al., JP6925363B2, 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, Tyers and Kubota, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Johnson, Vacanti and Tyers 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, Vacanti and Tyers 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, Vacanti and Tyers 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, Vacanti and Tyers 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).
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights