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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-8, 10-12), an article of manufacture (claim 9), and a machine (claims 13-14). Accordingly, claims 1-14 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method for determining an effect of varying a propulsor characteristic on vessel propulsor performance, the method comprising:
-obtaining information indicative of a performance property of a first propulsor of a vessel based on operation of the first propulsor for a first time period with a first variation of the propulsor characteristic;
-obtaining information indicative of the performance property of a second propulsor of the vessel based on operation of the second propulsor, simultaneous with the first propulsor, for the first time period with a second variation of the propulsor characteristic, wherein the second variation is different from the first variation; and
-determining a difference between the performance property of the first propulsor and the performance property of the second propulsor.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” because determination of a difference between first propulsor and second propulsor can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim. Thus, taken alone, since there are no additional elements, the claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 9 and 13 and analogous independent claim 1 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claims 9 and 13 and analogous independent claim 1 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2-3: The claims are directed to determining a difference between performance property for the first and second propulsors during a second and third time period, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 7: The claim specifies determining a difference between a second performance property of the first and second propulsors, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 10: The claim specifies obtaining information by operating the first propulsor and the second propulsor, which is an extra-solution activity to (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 11: The claim specifies using a sensor to obtain performance properties, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 12: The claim specifies determining fuel efficiency of the propulsors by obtaining information, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 14: The claim specifies the apparatus configured to obtain information using sensors and using a processor for determining the properties, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 9, and 13 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as obtain information, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); determining a difference, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-3, 7, 10-12, and 14, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 2-3, 7 (obtain information), 10, 11, 12, 14 (obtaining information), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 2-3, 7 (determining a difference), e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-14
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110077525A.
As per claim 1, CN ‘525 teaches a method for determining an effect of varying a propulsor characteristic on vessel propulsor performance, the method comprising:
-obtaining information indicative of a performance property of a first propulsor of a vessel based on operation of the first propulsor for a first time period with a first variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4; step 1; Obtain ship steering speed with just the right propeller being stationary.);
-obtaining information indicative of the performance property of a second propulsor of the vessel based on operation of the second propulsor, simultaneous with the first propulsor, for the first time period with a second variation of the propulsor characteristic, wherein the second variation is different from the first variation (CN ‘525: pg. 4; step 2; Obtain ship steering speed with just the left propeller being stationary.); and
-determining a difference between the performance property of the first propulsor and the performance property of the second propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4, step 8; Compare the test results.).
As per claim 2, the method of claim 1 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches further comprising:
-obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the first propulsor of the vessel based on operation of the first propulsor for a second time period with the second variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4; step 1; Obtain ship steering speed with just the right propeller being stationary.);
-obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the second propulsor of the vessel based on operation of the second propulsor, simultaneous with the first propulsor, for the second time period with the first variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4; step 2; Obtain ship steering speed with just the left propeller being stationary.); and
-determining a difference between the performance property of the first propulsor during the second time period and the performance property of the second propulsor during the second time period (CN ‘525: pg. 4, step 8; Compare the test results.). Examiner states that the multiple measurements do not alter the invention as a whole and therefore, the prior art teaches the limitation.
As per claim 3, the method of claim 2 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches further comprising:
-obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the first propulsor of the vessel based on operation of the first propulsor for a third time period with the first variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4; step 1; Obtain ship steering speed with just the right propeller being stationary.);
-obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the second propulsor of the vessel based on operation of the second propulsor, simultaneous with the first propulsor, for the third time period with the second variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4; step 2; Obtain ship steering speed with just the left propeller being stationary.); and
-determining a difference between the performance property of the first propulsor during the third time period and the performance property of the second propulsor during the third time period (CN ‘525: pg. 4, step 8; Compare the test results.).
As per claim 4, the method of claim 1 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches wherein the performance property is efficiency of the propulsor (CN ‘525: abstract; performance of propeller output.).
As per claim 5, the method of claim 1 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches wherein the propulsor characteristic is a fluid in the propulsor, a component of the propulsor, an operating parameter of the propulsor, a component of propulsor ancillary equipment, or an operation parameter of propulsor ancillary equipment (CN ‘525: pg. 4; Operating parameter).
As per claim 6, the method of claim 1 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches wherein the first time period comprises one or more portions of time during which the first and second propulsors are operated under steady state (CN ‘525: pg. 4, step 3; Adjust propellers to the same speed at the same time.).
As per claim 7, the method of claim 1 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches wherein the performance property is a first performance property, and the method further comprises:
-obtaining information indicative of a second performance property of the first propulsor based on operation of the first propulsor for the first time period with the first variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4, step 5; Linear relationship fitting between each propeller speed in different states and corresponding ship steering speed.);
-obtaining information indicative of the second performance property of the second propulsor based on operation of the second propulsor, simultaneous with the first propulsor, for the first time period with the second variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4, step 5; Linear relationship fitting between each propeller speed in different states and corresponding ship steering speed.); and
-determining a difference between the second performance property of the first propulsor and the second performance property of the second propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4, step 8).
Claim 9 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 10, the method of claim 1 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches wherein
-the obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the first propulsor comprises:
-operating the first propulsor of the vessel for the first time period with the first variation of a propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4, steps 1 and 3); and
-determining the performance property of the first propulsor based on the operation of the first propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4, steps 1 and 3); and
-the obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the second propulsor comprises:
-operating the second propulsor of the vessel, simultaneous with the first propulsor, for the first time period with the second variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4, steps 2 and 3); and
-determining the performance property of the second propulsor based on the operation of the second propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4, steps 2 and 3).
As per claim 11, the method of claim 10 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches wherein the determining the performance property of the first propulsor and the determining the performance property of the second propulsor comprises obtaining information from one or more sensors for sensing the performance properties or for sensing properties corresponding to the performance properties (CN ‘525: pg. 4; GPS sensor to gather the steering speed.).
Claim 13 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 14, the method of claim 13 is as described. CN ‘525 teaches the apparatus further configured to:
-operate the first propulsor of the vessel for the first time period with the first variation of a propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4); and
-operate the second propulsor of the vessel, simultaneous with the first propulsor, for the first time period with the second variation of the propulsor characteristic (CN ‘525: pg. 4); and
the apparatus comprising:
-the first propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4);
-the second propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4);
-one or more first performance property sensors for obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the first propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4);
-one or more second performance property sensors for obtaining information indicative of the performance property of the second propulsor (CN ‘525: pg. 4); and
-a processor for the determining the performance properties of the first and second propulsors respectively (CN ‘525: pg. 4).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110077525A in view of ES 2916499T3.
As per claim 8, the method of claim 1 is as described. CN ‘525 does not explicitly teach the following, however, Andersen teaches wherein each of the first propulsor and the second propulsor is an internal combustion engine (ES ‘499: abstract).
The sole difference between CN ‘525 and the claimed subject matter is that CN ‘525 does not disclose the specific type of propulsor (internal combustion engine).
ES ‘499 discloses internal combustion engine. ES ‘499 shows that internal combustion engine. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the type of propulsor of ES ‘499 to the propulsor of the CN ‘425. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another produces a predictable result rendering the claim obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110077525A in view of Janelle (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0059996).
As per claim 12, the method of claim 10 is as described. CN ‘525 does not explicitly teach the following, however, Janelle teaches wherein:
-the performance property is fuel efficiency (Janelle: para. 9; para. 20; Monitor fuel consumption of each of the drive systems.);
-the determining the fuel efficiency of the first propulsor based on the operation of the first propulsor comprises:
-obtaining information from a first indicator for determining the power output of the first propulsor (Janelle: para. 20-21; Using sensors to measure thrust induced.),
-obtaining information from a first inlet flowmeter for determining an amount of fuel supplied to the first propulsor (Janelle: para. 23; Use flow meters to measure fuel consumption), and
-optionally obtaining information from a first return flowmeter for determining an amount of fuel discharged from the first propulsor (Janelle: para. 23; Use flow meters to measure fuel consumption), and
-the determining the fuel efficiency of the second propulsor based on operation of the second propulsor comprises:
-obtaining information from a second indicator for determining the power output of the second propulsor (Janelle: para. 20-21; Using sensors to measure thrust induced.),
-obtaining information from a second inlet flowmeter for determining an amount of fuel supplied to the second propulsor (Janelle: para. 23; Use flow meters to measure fuel consumption), and
-optionally obtaining information from a second return flowmeter for determining an amount of fuel discharged from the second propulsor (Janelle: para. 23; Use flow meters to measure fuel consumption).
The sole difference between CN ‘525 and the claimed subject matter is that CN ‘525 does not disclose the specific type of property (fuel efficiency).
Janelle shows that internal combustion engine. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of the type of property from Janelle to the properties measured in CN ‘425. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another produces a predictable result rendering the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gallar et al. – WO 2021/246970 – Teaches a system to monitor performance of vessel parts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights