DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 12 August 2024. Claim 1 is presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-020087, filed on 12 February 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 August 2024 and 23 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
Fig. 4 reference character “268” “DYSPLAY” should be “DISPLAY”.
Fig. 5 reference character “200(250)” should be just “250”, where “200” applies to the combination of “250, 600 and 290” therefore “200” should be shown in a manner that reflects it applies to all of fig. 5.
Fig. 5 reference character “264” “STO” should be “STOP”.
Fig. 5 reference character “284” “CORRECTIONG” should be “CORRECTING”.
Fig. 5 reference character “600” pointer should have an arrow head to match the “200(250)” pointer.
Fig. 5 reference character “630” “SENSER” should be “SENSOR”.
Fig. 5 reference character “290” pointer should have an arrow head to match the “200(250)” pointer.
Fig. 5 reference character “291” “CALCULATIONG” should be “CALCULATING”.
Fig. 5 reference character “292” “CALCULATIONG” should be “CALCULATING”.
Fig. 5 reference character “294” “CALCULATIONG” should be “CALCULATING”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0033] introduces ship 501 and target quay 700 which are both found in fig. 8. Since para. [0033] relates to the discussion of para. [0027] “FIGS. 1 to 5”, then at least para [0033] should state “(Illustrated in FIG. 8)” to clarify where to look for ship 501 and target quay 700.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 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.
Examiner note: All citations below are to the amendment to the claims where the claims start on page 4 of 8.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sensor unit inputs outputs” in page 5 second to last line. Where “inputs outputs” is unclear if “the sensor unit” does one, or both as written. Spec para. [0060] recites “The sensor unit 630 inputs the outputs of the measuring devices” and is written more clearly. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets Claim 1 to recite either “the sensor unit inputs an output” or “the sensor unit inputs a plurality of outputs”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the measuring devices” in page 5 second to last line. Claim 1 does not recite “a plurality of measuring devices”. Claim 1 page 5 lines 7-11 recite four different “device(s)”. Therefore, it is not clear as to which “device(s)” are included with “the measuring devices”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 to recite either “a plurality of measuring devices” or to list the specific device(s) “the ship speed measuring device, the position measuring device, the direction finding device and the quay separation distance measuring device”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a motion command direction, a fore-and-aft direction command speed, and a hull-lateral-direction command speed” in page 6 lines 18-20. Claim 1 page 6 lines 5-8 recite “a motion command direction... a fore-and-aft direction command speed and a hull-lateral-direction command speed”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a motion command direction, a fore-and-aft direction command speed, and a hull-lateral-direction command speed” of page 6 lines 18-20 is the same or different than recited on page 6 lines 5-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 6 lines 18-20 to recite “the motion command direction, the fore-and-aft direction command speed and the hull-lateral-direction command speed”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a bow distance... a stern distance” in page 6 line 24. Claim 1 page 5 lines 11-12 recite “a bow distance... a stern distance”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a bow distance... a stern distance” of page 6 line 24 is the same or different than recited on page 5 lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 6 line 24 to recite “the bow distance... the stern distance”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a ship speed... a ship position... ship heading...” in page 7 lines 1-3. Claim 1 page 5 lines 7-10 recite “a speed of the ship... a position the ship... a heading of the ship...”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a ship speed... a ship position... ship heading...” of page 7 lines 1-3 is the same or different than a speed of the ship... a position the ship... a heading of the ship...” of page 5 lines 7-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 5 lines 7-10 to recite “a ship speed... a ship position... a ship heading...” and page 7 lines 1-3 to recite “the ship speed... the ship position... the ship heading...”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a bow distance... a stern distance” in page 7 line 4. Claim 1 page 5 lines 11-12 recite “a bow distance... a stern distance”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a bow distance... a stern distance” of page 7 line 4 is the same or different than recited on page 5 lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 7 line 4 to recite “the bow distance... the stern distance”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an electronic marine chart” in page 7 line 6. Claim 1 page 6 line 6 recite “an electronic marine chart”. Therefore, it is not clear if “an electronic marine chart” of page 7 is the same or different than recited on page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 7 line 4 to recite “the electronic marine chart”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a hull motion” in page 7 line 10. Claim 1 page 6 line 5 recite “a hull motion”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a hull motion” of page 7 is the same or different than recited on page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 7 line 10 to recite “the hull motion”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “external forces” in page 7 line 13. Claim 1 page 5 line 3 recite “external forces”. Therefore, it is not clear if “external forces” of page 7 is the same or different than recited on page 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 7 line 13 to recite “the external forces”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a current steering angle” in page 7 line 14. Claim 1 page 7 lines 5-6 recite “a current steering angle”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a current steering angle” of page 7 line 14 is the same or different than recited on page 7 lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 7 line 14 to recite “the current steering angle”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an external force” in page 7 line 20. Claim 1 page 7 line 18 recite “an external force”. Therefore, it is not clear if “an external force” of page 7 line 20 is the same or different than recited on page 7 line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 7 line 20 to recite “the external force”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the calculated proper steering angle” in page 7 line 22. Claim 1 page 7 lines 17-18 recite “calculates a proper steering angle”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the calculated proper steering angle” of page 7 line 22 is the same or different than “a proper steering angle” recited on page 7 lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 page 7 line 22 to recite “the proper steering angle”.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Tomita et al. (JP H06286694 A) teaches a method for automatically docking and unberthing a ship (See at least: figs. 1-5).
Murakami et al. (JP 2005255058 A) teaches an automated pier-docking/mooring device and method of a ship that can automate the ship handling from the pier-docking to the mooring and can rapidly perform the ship handling (See at least: figs. 1 and 3-6).
Zhang et al. (CN 110239676 A) teaches a scientific expedition ship with a control system for controlling automatic in-and-out port (See at least: figs. 1-3).
Grunewald et al. (US 20210221485 A1) teaches an apparatus and computer-implemented method for autonomous marine vessel docking (See at least: figs. 1-8).
Johnson (US 20210261226 A1) teaches systems and methods to provide docking assist and/or general navigation for mobile structures (See at least: figs. 1A-2A, 3A-21).
Tomita et al. (JP 2021187374 A) teaches a control method for a vessel with an automatic landing system (See at least: figs. 1-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights