DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-8 remain pending.
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
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 09/04/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
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.
Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 1, the term “the same map” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 5, the term “the same map” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 5:
Step 1: Determining if claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Independent claims 1 and 5 are directed to statutory categories. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental processes (MPEP 2106.04).
Claims 1 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea. The claims recite a sequence of collecting information, analyzing information, classifying information, and presenting results. Specifically, the claims recite collecting data relating to a marine environment, analyzing that data using an artificial intelligence program, determining whether detected objects are obstacles, classifying the obstacles as fixed or floating, predicting a movement path or underwater pattern, deriving a difference value from a planned route, and sending analysis results and maps for display on a screen. Each of these functions operates exclusively on information rather than on a physical process or controlled system and therefore constitutes abstract data processing.
This subject matter is materially similar to the claims in Electric Power Group. Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350. In Electric Power Group, the court held ineligible claims that performed gathering of information, analysis of that information, and display of results, explaining that such operations are abstract when they focus on the content of information rather than a technological process. Id. As in Electric Power Group, the claims here define a system whose entire function is collecting navigation-related data, analyzing that data, and presenting conclusions to a user. The claims do not recite any operational transformation of a ship, drone, or navigation mechanism. On the contrary, the system provides informational outputs for human consumption.
Moreover, although the claims recite the use of an artificial intelligence program, the AI is not claimed as a technological improvement and no specific architecture, training process, or innovation in computation is recited. The AI is used solely as a generic analytical tool to perform classification and prediction on data. This does not alter the abstract character of the claims because using a computer or algorithm to perform data analysis does not make the analysis itself patent eligible. Electric Power Group expressly rejected claims that merely accelerated or automated human analytical activity using computing technology. Id.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Examiner finds the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. While the claims reference a drone device and a controller, these elements merely function as tools that carry out the data collection and analysis steps. The claims do not require the drone to change behavior, take evasive action, control navigation, or physically interact with obstacles. Similarly, the ship is not required to alter speed, steering, or route based on the output. The generation of expected movement paths, underwater patterns, and difference values remains purely informational and does not result in any technical control of a system.
The display of map data and analysis data on a screen further demonstrates that the claims are directed to presentation of information rather than implementation of an engineering solution. In Electric Power Group, the court emphasized that displaying the results of an analysis does not constitute a practical application when the display merely informs a human user rather than controlling a physical system. Id. The Examiner finds the same principle applies here.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner finds the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The drone device, controller, data collector, artificial intelligence program, and display are all described generically and without technical detail. The claims do not recite any particular sensor configuration, communication protocol, data processing architecture, learning mechanism, or improvement to computer technology. On the contrary, the claims rely on conventional components to perform routine data processing functions such as classification, prediction, calculation, and display.
As in Electric Power Group, where conventional computers were used merely to perform information selection and analysis, the recited components here operate only as tools for processing and communicating data. Id. There is no unconventional arrangement of elements and no improvement to the functioning of the computer, drone, or navigation system itself. The claims simply recite application of known analytical techniques in a maritime context.
For these reasons, the claims do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion:
The independent claim(s) are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1 and 5 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-8:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The dependent claims are properly directed to claims 1 and 5. As a result, the dependent claims are properly directed to statutory classes. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”).
The dependent claims continue to encompass the mental process established in the independent claim(s). The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for the independent claim(s) applies. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations, these limitations, when viewed both individually and in combination for the claim, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As a result, the dependent claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in the dependent claims fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually (i.e., within a claim) and as a whole (i.e., claim set), that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent claim analysis). As a result, the dependent claims fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception and fail to integrate said claims into a practical application.
Conclusion:
The dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2021/0114698A1 (hereinafter, Moon), in view of Yang et al. KR102007849B1 (hereinafter, Yang), in further view of Seiichi CN119296381A (hereinafter, Seiichi).
Regarding Claim 1, Moon describes … for ship navigation guidance, the … device comprising:
-a data collector configured to collect data relating to a marine environment on a planned sea route along which a designated ship navigates (store data regarding marine environment on a planned sea route for ship navigation, Moon, Paragraph 0034); and
-a controller configured to perform learning of objects constituting the marine environment by applying an artificial intelligence (AI) program (perform learning of the marine environment via deep learning, Moon, Paragraph 0045),
-analyze the collected data based on a result of the learning to determine whether the objects are obstacles, and when the objects are determined as obstacles, further determine whether the obstacles are fixed obstacles or floating obstacles (analyze collected data to determine whether objects are obstacles such as floating matter or fixed matter, Moon, Paragraph 0059) and
-send analysis data of a determined result to the ship to display the analysis data on a screen (display analyzed data on a ship screen, Moon, Paragraphs 0057-0061 and Figures 3 and 6),
-wherein the controller compares changes in coordinates of the obstacles and movement due to tidal current with the result of the learning in order to determine whether the obstacles are fixed obstacles or floating obstacles (analyze data (e.g., marine chart information) to determine changes in obstacles due to factors such as tidal currents for determining objects, such as floating or fixed matter, Moon, Paragraphs 0026 and 0041),
-when an obstacle is a floating obstacle, the controller generates a first piece of information relating to an expected movement path of the floating obstacle and provides the first piece of information to the ship (generate / analyze information so that information relating to obstacles and path of the obstacles is passed along to the ship, Moon, Paragraphs 0041, 0052, 0058-0061), and
-when the floating obstacle is fixed, the controller generates a second piece of information relating to an expected pattern under the sea and provides the second piece of information to the ship (generate / analyze information so that information relating to obstacles and path of the obstacles is passed along to the ship, Moon, Paragraphs 0041, 0052, 0058-0061),
…
-the controller uses the same map as the ship and displays a sea route on map data so that the map data is displayed in the ship (display map data on a ship screen, Moon, Paragraphs 0057-0061 and Figures 3 and 6).
Moon does not specifically disclose the device to include a drone device.
Yang discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Yang describes the use of a drone for helping navigate a ship (Yang, Paragraph 0001).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Moon to include a drone device, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Yang.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a drone forward data information to a ship allows for safer navigation for the ship (Yang, Paragraphs 0001-0002).
Moreover, Moon does not specifically disclose the device to include that the controller derives a difference value from a pre-generated planned sea route of the ship based on a determined result after determining a type of the obstacle and provides the difference value to the ship.
Seiichi discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Seiichi describes determining a difference value between a pre-generated planned route and a route to avoid an obstacle, wherein the difference value can be provided to the ship (Seiichi, Paragraphs 0015-0017).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Moon to include that the controller derives a difference value from a pre-generated planned sea route of the ship based on a determined result after determining a type of the obstacle and provides the difference value to the ship, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Seiichi.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because determining a difference value between a planned path and a new path to avoid an obstacle, allows for data analysis to determine change is over a threshold, wherein an output signal should be generated (Seiichi, Paragraphs 0015-0017).
Regarding Claim 2, Moon, as modified, describes the drone device of claim 1.
Moon does not specifically disclose the device to include that the data collector collects data using a laser pulse characteristic of a LIDAR device.
Yang discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Yang describes the use of a lidar system (Yang, Paragraph 0001).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Moon to include that the data collector collects data using a laser pulse characteristic of a LiDAR device, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Yang.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a drone forward data information to a ship allows for safer navigation for the ship (Yang, Paragraphs 0001-0002).
Regarding Claim 3, Moon, as modified, describes the drone device of claim 1, wherein the controller performs learning of images relating to at least fishing buoys, marine litter, dangerous objects, and tidal current in advance in order to determine whether the objects are obstacles (analyzing data such as images of the surrounding environment (e.g., fishing buoys, litter, objects) and currents, Moon, Paragraphs 0007 and 0026).
Regarding Claim 4, Moon, as modified, describes the drone device of claim 3, wherein the controller further analyzes statistical data or real-time data of tidal current of an arbitrary region provided by a related agency and uses an analysis result in order to determine whether the objects are obstacles (analyzes data such as tides for an area, wherein said information can come from agencies, Moon, Paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 5, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 6, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 7, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 8, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667