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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor system” in claim 1 and “vessel control system” in claim 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See at least Page 1, Page 2, lines 25-33, and Page 15, lines 8-12 of the as-filed specification (e.g. sensors and processor(s), respectively) .
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject
to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “a change in the position and/or motion …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitations in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “the thrust delivered …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the engine …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites “the thrust delivered …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “the contact force …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites “the minimum thrust delivered by …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is indefinite because of the recited limitations “a change”, “position and/or motion” and “sensor data”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the same change, same position and/or motion, and same sensor data previously recited or not.
Claims 2-10, 12, 16-19 and 22 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 , 8-12, 14-15, 17, 19, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longman (US 20160355241 A1) in view of Arbuckle (US 20110153126 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Longman discloses a system for stabilizing a waterborne vessel against a stationary structure (See at least abstract, [0003-0006] "When the vessel reaches a pylon, the vessel is docked with the pylon by pushing the bow of the vessel into the side of the pylon to help generate sufficient friction between the vessel and the pylon to reduce relative motion"), a sensor system for providing sensor data (See at least [0040-0041] "the control system 40 includes an electronic control unit 48 able to receive inputs from a number of sensors such as fender friction sensors 49, suspension system displacement and/or pressure sensors 50, an accelerometer 51 able to detect the attitude of the chassis and a bow height sensor 52"), a processor configured to receive data from the sensor system (See at least [0040-0041] "electronic control unit 48 able to receive inputs from a number of sensors"), determine from the sensor data a change in the position and/or motion of the waterborne vessel relative to the stationary structure (See at least [0045] "Measuring the bow height relative to the object (i.e. pylon) and averaging this over time, enables a set point to be chosen"; [0046] "steady state friction force swing ... indicates the chassis slips from an initial pole contact position"), and a vessel control system operable to deliver a minimum corrective force and to thereby oppose the change in the position and/or motion of the waterborne vessel relative to the stationary structure. (See at least [0010-0012] "the control system may increase or decrease a propulsion thrust in dependence on the signals received by the at least one fender friction force input and the at least one fender reaction force input"; [0046-0050] "the pump 46 can be operated by the electronic control unit 48 and motor 47 to adjust the adjustable supports 13 and 14 to provide a pitch force or displacement between the hulls and the chassis portion and reduce the fender friction force").
Longman does not explicitly disclose calculating a minimum corrective force required to oppose the change. However, Arbuckle teaches calculating a minimum corrective force required to oppose the change (See at least [0075-0080] "The microprocessor 116 is programmed to rotate the propulsion devices 27, 28 about the steering axes 21, 22 to achieve a target linear thrust 130 and moment 132 (see FIGS. 12 and 13 and related description herein) that are necessary to counteract the external forces and thereby maintain both the vessel's initial global position and the vessel's initial heading"; [0077] "the microprocessor 116 is configured to compare the initial position 220 ... to the second position 221 to compute an error or difference therebetween and to control operations of the propulsion units 27, 28 to generate a target thrust vector 230 and target moment 232 suitable to move the marine vessel 10 back into the initial position 220"; [0080] "At step 508, the microprocessor 116 calculates the difference between the actual heading of the vessel and the target linear thrust necessary to achieve or maintain the selected global position". [0074] "the actual heading of the vessel 10, such as along lines 31 and 32 in FIGS. 2-6. That is, vectoring of the propeller drives to achieve, for example, side directed forces (e.g. F1X, F2X shown in FIGS. 3 and 4) reduces the total available thrust in the actual direction of vessel movement. The vessel 10 and related propulsion units are most efficiently operated when the propulsion units are oriented in the direction of vessel travel, such as is shown in FIG. 6 with reference to lines 31′ and 32′"; [0079] "the microprocessor 116 can be programmed to repeatedly perform the above steps to continue to maintain the vessel 10 at the initial position 220 with the actual heading 210 c being continually realigned with the thrust vector 230, even when the thrust vector 230 changes in orientation due to changes in external forces on the vessel 10 such as wind, waves, current, tide, etc."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches calculating a minimum corrective force required to oppose the change in position since they are both directed to vessel stabilization and station-keeping, and incorporation of Arbuckle would improve energy efficiency and reduce fuel consumption during docking operations.
Regarding claim 2, Longman does not explicitly disclose wherein the vessel control system comprises a propulsion system and a steering system. However, Arbuckle teaches a vessel control system that includes a propulsion system and a steering system. (See at least [0046-0050] "first and second marine propulsion devices, 27 and 28, are rotatable about generally vertical steering axes, 21 and 22"; [0052] "each of the marine propulsion devices, 27 and 28, are independently steerable about their respective steering axes, 21 or 22"; [0074] The available thrust to move the vessel 10 sideways is necessarily less than the available thrust to move the vessel 10 forward ... That is, vectoring of the propeller drives to achieve, for example, side directed forces (e.g. F1X, F2X shown in FIGS. 3 and 4) reduces the total available thrust in the actual direction of vessel movement. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches a vessel control system comprising a propulsion system and a steering system since they are both directed to vessel maneuvering and stabilization, and incorporation of Arbuckle would provide enhanced maneuverability and control when docking against a stationary structure.
Regarding claim 3, Longman does not explicitly disclose that the propulsion system includes an engine, a gearbox and a propeller. However, Arbuckle teaches a propulsion system including an engine, a gearbox and a propeller. (See at least [0046-0050] "The motive force to drive the propellers, 81 and 82, is provided by an internal combustion engine 86 that is located within the bilge of the marine vessel 10"; [0047] "the driveshaft of the marine propulsion device extends vertically and parallel to the steering axis and is connected in torque transmitting relation with a generally horizontal propeller shaft that is rotatable about a propeller axis 80"; [0048-0050] "the submerged portion of the marine propulsion device, 27 or 28, contains rotatable shafts, gears, and bearings which support the shafts and connect the driveshaft to the propeller shaft for rotation of the propellers"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches a propulsion system including an engine, a gearbox and a propeller since they are both directed to marine vessel propulsion, and incorporation of Arbuckle would provide a reliable and efficient means for delivering thrust in docking control system.
Regarding claim 8, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses a sensor system including one or more vessel position sensors and one or more vessel motion sensors. (See at Longman least [0040-0045] "fender friction sensors 49, suspension system displacement and/or pressure sensors 50, an accelerometer 51 able to detect the attitude of the chassis and a bow height sensor 52").
Regarding claim 9, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses wherein the vessel position sensors include one or more of a LIDAR, Ultrasonic, GPS module, bow pressure sensor, or wind sensors (See at least Longman abstract, [0038-0040] the fender portion 16 of the chassis 10 ... can readily incorporate a friction force sensor and a reaction force sensor. These sensors may well comprise multiple strain gauges or displacement sensors... The reaction force sensor can alternatively be a simple measure of the longitudinal compression of the fender 16. An electronic control unit 48 able to receive inputs from a number of sensors such as fender friction sensors 49, suspension system displacement and/or pressure sensors 50, an accelerometer 51 able to detect the attitude of the chassis and a bow height sensor 52. [0050-0052] Alternatively, the docked mode can be detected using reaction force either alone or in combination with other inputs such as propulsion thrust, speed or GPS position.).
Regarding claim 10, Longman as modified Arbuckle discloses wherein the vessel motion sensors include an accelerometer as a vessel motion sensor (See at least Longman abstract, [0040-0042] "an accelerometer 51 able to detect the attitude of the chassis").
Regarding claim 11, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses that the vessel control system is configured to deliver the minimum corrective force by adjusting the thrust delivered by a propulsion system to thereby urge a contact portion of the waterborne vessel against the stationary structure (See at least Longman [0008-0010] "The control system may increase or decrease a propulsion thrust in dependence on the signals received by the at least one fender friction force input and the at least one fender reaction force input"; [0002-0008] The vessel is docked with the pylon by pushing the bow of the vessel into the side of the pylon to help generate sufficient friction).
Regarding claim 12, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses that the contact portion of the vessel is a bow fender that includes a bow pressure sensor (See at Longman least [0036-0400] "the fender portion 16 of the chassis 10 ... can readily incorporate a friction force sensor and a reaction force sensor. These sensors may well comprise multiple strain gauges or displacement sensors... The reaction force sensor can alternatively be a simple measure of the longitudinal compression of the fender 16").
Regarding claim 14, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses a method for stabilizing a waterborne vessel against a stationary structure (See at least Longman abstract, [0003-0008] "When the vessel reaches a pylon, the vessel is docked with the pylon by pushing the bow of the vessel into the side of the pylon to help generate sufficient friction between the vessel and the pylon to reduce relative motion"), a) receiving data from a sensor system (See at least Longman [0040-0045] "the control system 40 includes an electronic control unit 48 able to receive inputs from a number of sensors such as fender friction sensors 49, suspension system displacement and/or pressure sensors 50, an accelerometer 51 able to detect the attitude of the chassis and a bow height sensor 52"), b) determining from the sensor data a change in the position and/or motion of the waterborne vessel relative to the stationary structure (See at least Longman [0045] "Measuring the bow height relative to the object (i.e. pylon) and averaging this over time, enables a set point to be chosen"; [0046] "steady state friction force swing ... indicates the chassis slips from an initial pole contact position"), d) adjusting the configuration of a vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force and thereby oppose the change in the position and/or motion of the waterborne vessel relative to the stationary structure. (See at least Longman [0010] "the control system may increase or decrease a propulsion thrust in dependence on the signals received by the at least one fender friction force input and the at least one fender reaction force input"; [0048] "the pump 46 can be operated by the electronic control unit 48 and motor 47 to adjust the adjustable supports 13 and 14 to provide a pitch force or displacement between the hulls and the chassis portion and reduce the fender friction force"), and repeating steps a) to d) (See at least Longman [0048-0049] Once the vessel contacts the pole ... the control system switches ... to a friction force control ... and again the pump 46 can be operated ... to adjust the adjustable supports").
Longman does not explicitly disclose c) calculate a minimum corrective force required to oppose the change. However, Arbuckle teaches c) calculate a minimum corrective force required to oppose the change (See at least [0075] "The microprocessor 116 is programmed to rotate the propulsion devices 27, 28 about the steering axes 21, 22 to achieve a target linear thrust 130 and moment 132 (see FIGS. 12 and 13 and related description herein) that are necessary to counteract the external forces and thereby maintain both the vessel's initial global position and the vessel's initial heading"; [0077] "the microprocessor 116 is configured to compare the initial position 220 ... to the second position 221 to compute an error or difference therebetween and to control operations of the propulsion units 27, 28 to generate a target thrust vector 230 and target moment 232 suitable to move the marine vessel 10 back into the initial position 220"; [0080] "At step 508, the microprocessor 116 calculates the difference between the actual heading of the vessel and the target linear thrust necessary to achieve or maintain the selected global position". [0074] "the amount of available thrust for positioning the vessel 10 varies ... vectoring ... reduces the total available thrust in the actual direction of vessel movement"; [0079] "the microprocessor 116 can be programmed to repeatedly perform the above steps to continue to maintain the vessel 10 at the initial position 220 with the actual heading 210 c being continually realigned with the thrust vector 230, even when the thrust vector 230 changes in orientation due to changes in external forces on the vessel 10 such as wind, waves, current, tide, etc."). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches calculating a minimum corrective force required to oppose the change in position since they are both directed to vessel stabilization and station-keeping, and incorporation of Arbuckle would improve energy efficiency and reduce fuel consumption during docking operations.
Regarding claim 15, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses that adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting the thrust delivered by a propulsion system to thereby urge a contact portion of the waterborne vessel against the stationary structure (See at least Longman [0008-0012] "The control system may increase or decrease a propulsion thrust in dependence on the signals received by the at least one fender friction force input and the at least one fender reaction force input."; [0003-0008] "pushing the bow of the vessel into the side of the pylon to help generate sufficient friction").
Regarding claim 17, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses that adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting a propulsion system to deliver the minimum corrective force (See at least Longman [0006-0010] For example the reaction force may be perpendicular to the friction force and/or may be generated from a measured compression of the fender. The control system may increase or decrease a propulsion thrust in dependence on the signals received by the at least one fender friction force input and the at least one fender reaction force input. [0050-0052] The thrust of the propulsion system of the vessel can be adjusted by the control system to increase the reaction force and therefore increase the safety margin of the vessel operation. Similarly, if the maximum friction force is less than a predetermined proportion (i.e. threshold) say 20 or 30% of the reaction force, the thrust of the propulsion system of the vessel can be adjusted by the control system to decrease the reaction force and therefore increase the efficiency of the vessel operation).
Regarding claim 19, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses that the contact portion of the vessel is a bow fender that includes a bow pressure sensor (See at least Longman [0036-0040] In this example the fender 25 portion 16 is part of the vessel so can readily incorporate a friction force sensor and a reaction force sensor. These sensors may well comprise multiple strain gauges or displacement sensors, the out of which is processed to provide a friction force signal or a reaction force signal. The reaction force sensor can alternatively be a simple measure of the longitudinal compression of the fender 16)
Regarding claim 21, Longman does not explicitly disclose determining, based on the sensor data, the minimum thrust delivered by a propulsion system required to maintain the vessel in a stable position relative to the stationary structure, and adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum thrust. However, Arbuckle teaches determining, based on the sensor data, the minimum thrust delivered by a propulsion system required to maintain the vessel in a stable position relative to the stationary structure, and adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum thrust. (See at least [0077] "the microprocessor 116 is configured to compare the initial position 220 ... to the second position 221 to compute an error or difference therebetween and to control operations of the propulsion units 27, 28 to generate a target thrust vector 230 and target moment 232 suitable to move the marine vessel 10 back into the initial position 220"; [0075] "The microprocessor 116 is programmed to rotate the propulsion devices 27, 28 about the steering axes 21, 22 to achieve a target linear thrust 130 and moment 132 ... that are necessary to counteract the external forces and thereby maintain both the vessel's initial global position and the vessel's initial heading"; [0079] "the microprocessor 116 can be programmed to repeatedly perform the above steps to continue to maintain the vessel 10 at the initial position 220 with the actual heading 210 c being continually realigned with the thrust vector 230. [0060] The target linear thrust 130 and the target moment 132, in a preferred embodiment, are achieved by a manipulation of the first and second marine propulsion devices as described above in conjunction with FIGS. 2-6. [0082-0084] These values are graphically represented as the target linear thrust 130 and the target moment 132. The target linear thrust 130 is the net difference in the longitude and latitude positions represented by the target position and current position). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman to incorporate the teachings of Arbuckle which teaches determining, based on the sensor data, the minimum thrust delivered by a propulsion system required to maintain the vessel in a stable position relative to the stationary structure, and adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum thrust since both references are directed to station-keeping, and incorporation would improve energy efficiency of a vessel control system.
Regarding claim 23, Longman as modified by Arbuckle discloses that determining a change in position and/or motion of the waterborne vessel relative to the stationary structure is achieved by comparing sensor data to one or more predetermined thresholds (See at least Longman [0052] "As friction force is a function of amongst other things, the reaction force, if the friction force is high or swing through a range that exceeds a predetermined proportion of the reaction force, i.e. more than 45, 50, 60 or say 75% of the reaction force ... it is preferable to increase the reaction force"; "if the maximum friction force is less than a predetermined proportion (i.e. threshold) say 20 or 30% of the reaction force, the thrust of the propulsion system of the vessel can be adjusted by the control system to decrease the reaction force and therefore increase the efficiency of the vessel operation).
Claim(s) 4, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longman (US 20160355241 A1) in view of Arbuckle (US 20110153126 A1), and further in view of Derginer (US 12,429,870 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Longman and Arbuckle do not explicitly disclose wherein the steering system comprises one or more control surfaces. However, Derginer teaches wherein the steering system comprises one or more control surfaces (See at least abstract, [Page 9, col 2, lines 15-35] A steering system on a marine vessel, the steering system comprising: at least one propulsion device configured to propel the marine vessel; a steering actuator that rotates the at least one propulsion device to effectuate steering; at least one trim device coupled to the marine vessel and moveable to adjust a running angle thereof; and at least one trim actuator configured to move the trim device so as to effectuate adjustment of the running angle. A control system is configured to determine a desired roll angle and at least one of a desired turn rate and a desired turn angle for the marine vessel based on a steering instructions. [Page 10, col 4, lines 5-15] This reduces the capacity and speed requirements of engine steering actuators for providing responsive steering because the trim devices, such as trim tabs, can be utilized to initiate turn of the marine vessel in response to steering inputs. [Page 10, col 3, lines 10-35] A steering angle of at least one propulsion device is then controlled based on the desired turn rate and a trim deployment of each of a pair of trim tabs is also controlled based on the desired roll angle so as to steer the marine vessel according to the steering input). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Derginer which teaches wherein the steering system comprises one or more control surfaces since they are all directed to marine vessel steering and control, and incorporation of Derginer would improve maneuverability and control during operations.
Regarding claim 16, Longman and Arbuckle do not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting one or more control surfaces of a steering system. However, Derginer teaches wherein adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting one or more control surfaces of a steering system (See at least abstract, [Page 9, col 2, lines 55-62] "control the trim actuator to move the at least one trim device based on the desired roll angle so as to effectuate the steering instruction"; [Page 10, col 3, lines 15-35] "a trim deployment of each of a pair of trim tabs is also controlled based on the desired roll angle so as to steer the marine vessel according to the steering input"; [Page 14, col 12, lines 40-55] The roll controller 32 communicates to the corresponding tab controller to deploy the trim tabs as appropriate to effectuate the desired roll angle. Position sensors 26, 28 sense the position of the trim device, such as the trim tab, and provide such measurement as feedback to the roll controller 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Derginer which teaches wherein adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting one or more control surfaces of a steering system since they are all directed to marine vessel steering and control, and incorporation of Derginer would provide a more efficient and responsive steering system.
Regarding claim 18, Longman and Arbuckle do not explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting both a propulsion system and a steering system in order to deliver the minimum corrective force. However, Derginer teaches wherein adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting both a propulsion system and a steering system in order to deliver the minimum corrective force (See at least [Page 10, col 3, lines 5-20] "A steering angle of at least one propulsion device is then controlled based on the desired turn rate. One or more trim actuators are controlled to move the at least one trim device to the desired trim deployment in order to effectuate the desired turn rate"; [Page 15, col 13, lines 38-45] The desired turn rate is provided to the turn rate controller 34, which then controls the steering actuators 29a and 29b for the propulsion devices 22a and 22b. For example, engine speed (or rotational speed of the powerhead of the propulsion device 22 a, 22 b) may be increased or decreased in order to provide another axis of control of the roll angle and yaw rate of the marine vessel 10. [Page 14, col 12, lines 40-55] The roll controller 32 communicates to the corresponding tab controller to deploy the trim tabs as appropriate to effectuate the desired roll angle"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Derginer which teaches wherein adjusting the configuration of the vessel control system to deliver the minimum corrective force comprises adjusting both a propulsion system and a steering system in order to deliver the minimum corrective force in order to deliver the minimum corrective force since they are all directed to marine vessel steering and control, and coordinated control of both systems would provide more efficient and responsive maneuvering.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longman (US 20160355241 A1) in view of Arbuckle (US 20110153126 A1), and further in view of Claughton (US 20200047849 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Longman as modified by Arbuckle does not explicitly disclose further comprising a battery system in electrical communication with the vessel control system and operable to provide power to the propulsion system and/or steering system. However, Claughton teaches further comprising a battery system in electrical communication with the vessel control system and operable to provide power to the propulsion system and/or steering system (See at least abstract, Fig. 13, Fig. 18, and [0013-0022], [0066-0069], [0076] This invention is particularly useful for power craft which are battery/thermal engine hybrids. Such a hybrid propulsion system uses batteries and electric motor for low speed operation and a thermal engine for high speed operation. To ensure maximum battery duration and minimize battery weight the hull resistance at lower speeds must be as low as possible. The control system is configured to adjust the hydrofoils in operation of the powerboat to control the running trim of the powerboat. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Claughton which teaches further comprising a battery system in electrical communication with the vessel control system and operable to provide power to the propulsion system and/or steering system since they are all are directed to marine vessel propulsion and energy management, and incorporation of an Claughton would improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
Regarding claim 6, Longman as modified by Arbuckle does not explicitly disclose wherein the waterborne vessel includes a hydrofoil having a plurality of adjustment members. However, Claughton teaches wherein the waterborne vessel includes a hydrofoil having a plurality of adjustment members (See at least abstract, [0013-0022], [0054-0066] A powerboat comprising: a hull; a plurality of dynamically adjustable hydrofoils positioned below the waterline towards the rear of the hull; and a control system; wherein the cross sectional area of the hull below the waterline decreases towards the rear of the hull; and the control system is configured to adjust the hydrofoils in operation of the powerboat to control the running trim of the powerboat). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Claughton which teaches wherein the waterborne vessel includes a hydrofoil having a plurality of adjustment members since they are all are directed to marine vessel propulsion and energy management, and incorporation of an Claughton would improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
Claim(s) 7, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longman (US 20160355241 A1) in view of Arbuckle (US 20110153126 A1), and further in view of Mentjes (US 2024/0288866 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Longman and Arbuckle do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to determine the current vessel operating conditions, including one or more of a sea state, a wind state, and a tide state, based on the sensor data. However, Mentjes teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the current vessel operating conditions, including one or more of a sea state, a wind state, and a tide state, based on the sensor data (See at least [0015-0020] "environmental measurement sensors connected to the sensor data processing unit and adapted to measure environmental conditions selected from the group of at least wind, tide and water current. [0056] "Environmental information can be collected by Environmental Measurement Sensors 4 through the integration of wind, wave, tide, and current information. In particular, wind and current sensors can be used to provide context information for pilots"; [0088-0090] "The set Penvironmental contains all parameters that are defined by the environment. These parameters are for example the current visibility, tide, winds, or currents"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Mentjes which teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine the current vessel operating conditions, including one or more of a sea state, a wind state, and a tide state, based on the sensor data since they are all directed to marine vessel operation and assistance, and incorporation of Mentjes would improve the accuracy and responsiveness of the vessel stabilization system by accounting for external conditions.
Regarding claim 22, Longman and Arbuckle do not explicitly disclose determining, from the sensor data, the current vessel operating conditions, including one or more of a sea state, a wind state, and a tide state. However, Mentjes teaches determining, from the sensor data, the current vessel operating conditions, including one or more of a sea state, a wind state, and a tide state (See at least [0016-0020] "environmental measurement sensors connected to the sensor data processing unit and adapted to measure environmental conditions selected from the group of at least wind, tide and water current. [0055-0060] "Environmental information can be collected by Environmental Measurement Sensors 4 through the integration of wind, wave, tide, and current information. In particular, wind and current sensors can be used to provide context information for pilots"; [0086-0090] "The set Penvironmental contains all parameters that are defined by the environment. These parameters are for example the current visibility, tide, winds, or currents"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Mentjes which teaches determining, from the sensor data, the current vessel operating conditions, including one or more of a sea state, a wind state, and a tide state since they are all directed to marine vessel operation and assistance, and incorporation of Mentjes would improve the accuracy and responsiveness of the vessel stabilization system by accounting for external conditions.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longman (US 20160355241 A1) in view of Arbuckle (US 20110153126 A1), and further in view of Barrett (US 20090156068 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Longman as modified by Arbuckle does not explicitly disclose wherein that the engine comprises a Motor Generator Unit (MGU). However, Barrett teaches wherein that the engine comprises a Motor Generator Unit (MGU) (See at least abstract, [0008-0010] The hybrid propulsion system is described with reference to main engines (e.g., diesel engines) operating in concert with motor-generator units in a dual driveline, dual propeller arrangement and was specifically designed for use with marine vessels. [0060-0062] The main engines, motor generator units and auxiliary generators generally have sufficient rated power to supply all anticipated propulsive power requirements. Both motor- generator units 114, 114′ are operated in a motor drive mode in line with the main engines and draw energy from bus 120 to contribute propulsive power to the respective output shafts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Barrett which teaches wherein that the engine comprises a Motor Generator Unit (MGU) since they are all are directed to marine vessel propulsion and energy management, and incorporation of Barrett would improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longman (US 20160355241 A1) in view of Arbuckle (US 20110153126 A1), and further in view of Karl (US 3956742 A1)
Regarding claim 20, Longman as modified by Arbuckle does not explicitly disclose further comprising issuing an alert if the contact force measured by the bow pressure sensor falls below a threshold value. However, Karl teaches further comprising issuing an alert if the contact force measured by the bow pressure sensor falls below a threshold value (See at least abstract, [Page 4, col 2, lines 10-25], [Page 5, col 3, lines 59-67] The result of the comparison with these calibrated signals is to provide warning signals which may be applied to a transmitter for transmission to the ship on a specially allocated frequency. The warning signal may also be applied to trigger a flashing light on the buoy and, if desired to trigger an audio warning device. The warning devices may also be on the ship. The ship in response to any of these is alerted to be ready to cast off, and if the signals so indicate, to promptly cast off from the buoy. If desired, the signal generated by the strain gauge located on the mooring arm of the buoy may be directly transmitted to the ship for comparison on the ship with a reference signal which is established at a level at which its mooring equipment would be damaged if that level is exceeded. The output of the comparator 44, when the strain gauge signal exceeds the reference potential signal from source 48, may be used to activate a warning, a flashing or amber light 54, and/or a audio warning signal device 56. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Longman as modified by Arbuckle to incorporate the teachings of Karl which teaches further comprising issuing an alert if the contact force measured by the bow pressure sensor falls below a threshold value since they are all are directed to marine vessel propulsion and energy management, and incorporation of an Karl would improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LABIBAH I. ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6738. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/LABIBAH ILMA ALI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights