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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/837,803, with an effective filing date of 8/12/2024. Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 21, and 23-26 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 8/12/2024, claiming priority to AU2022900286 and PCT/AU2023/050088, filed 2/11/2022 and 2/10/2023, respectively. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application contains claims 1-27.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/12/2024 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 12, item 1215. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Applicant merely submitted a copy of the WIPO application’s first page and did not provide a proper abstract on a separate sheet as required. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
_____________________________________
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see [0059] s.2, [0095] s.1, [0099] s.1, [0108] s.3, [0152] s.2, [0160] s. 4-5). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
_____________________________________
The use of the term “Python” ([0082] and [0099]), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
_____________________________________
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0059]sentence (s.) 2, “terrabytes” should be corrected to “terabytes”; and
[0063] s.5, “affects” should be corrected to “affect”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (lines 14-15) and claim 26 (lines 15-16) the limitation the geographical location should be corrected to the current geographical location in order to maintain proper antecedent basis;
Claim 7 (line 7) the limitation the sequences of historical locations should be corrected to the multiple sequences of historical locations in order to maintain proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 21, and 23-26 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 26 recite the limitation “the respective vessel” in lines 9 and 10, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if the respective vessel is one of the multiple vessels that is previously recited in claim 1 lines 3-4, or a different vessel altogether.
Claims 1, 7, and 26 recite the limitation “each representative sequence” in lines 11, 2, and 12, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if the respective sequence is one of multiple representative sequences that is previously recited in claim 1 lines 10-11, or a different representative sequence altogether.
Claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 21, and 23-25 are rejected as they inherit the rejections of the claim from which they depends on.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of predicting the movement of a vessel (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for predicting vessel movement, the method comprising: creating
historical trip data by:
receiving historical location data indicative of historical locations of multiple vessels,
identifying stop points in the historical locations indicative of ports where the multiple vessels stopped [mental process/step],
splitting the historical location data for each of the multiple vessels into multiple sequences of historical locations between the stop points, each of the multiple sequences representing one of multiple historical trips of the respective vessel, and
clustering the multiple sequences of historical locations to determine multiple representative sequences, each representative sequence representing one of multiple clusters; and
predicting future vessel movement by:
receiving a current geographical location for a current trip of a tracked vessel,
selecting one of the multiple representative sequences that is close to the geographical location [mental process/step], and
predicting future movement of the tracked vessel as proceeding along the selected one of the multiple representative trips [mental process/step].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identifying…,” “selecting…,” or “predicting…,” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
Claim 1 recites:
A method for predicting vessel movement, the method comprising: creating historical trip data by:
receiving historical location data indicative of historical locations of multiple vessels [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors],
identifying stop points in the historical locations indicative of ports where the multiple vessels stopped,
splitting the historical location data for each of the multiple vessels into multiple sequences of historical locations between the stop points, each of the multiple sequences representing one of multiple historical trips of the respective vessel [insignificant extra-solution activity (data source manipulation)], and
clustering the multiple sequences of historical locations to determine multiple representative sequences, each representative sequence representing one of multiple clusters [insignificant extra-solution activity (data source manipulation)]; and
predicting future vessel movement by:
receiving a current geographical location for a current trip of a tracked vessel [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors],
selecting one of the multiple representative sequences that is close to the geographical location, and
predicting future movement of the tracked vessel as proceeding along the selected one of the multiple representative trips.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving…,” “splitting…,” and “clustering…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer and software to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps acquiring position data, both current and historical, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vessel position data for use in the identifying and selecting steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The splitting and clustering steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of a processor organizing the position results from the identifying step), and amount to mere data source manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add 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, 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 is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the identifying, selecting and predicting… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…,” “splitting…,” and “clustering…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 26 recite a system having substantially the same features of claim 1 above, therefore claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 21, and 23-25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as calculating, comparing, determining, selecting, identifying, predicting, and querying and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as storing, filtering, and averaging. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 21, and 23-25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 26.
Therefore, claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 21, and 23-26 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15-16, 21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0109235 A1), hereinafter referred to as Anderson, in view of Fridman et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0018844 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fridman.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses:
A method for predicting vessel movement, the method comprising: creating historical trip data by:
receiving historical location data indicative of historical locations of multiple vessels ([0013] sentence (s.) 1, utilizes location and direction information from previous paths from other vessels, construed as historical),
identifying stop points in the historical locations indicative of ports where the multiple vessels stopped ([0046] s.5, “point databases” can be maintained for ships such as stated destination of the ship, construed as a stop point and necessarily indicative of a port),
splitting the historical location data for each of the multiple vessels into multiple sequences of historical locations between the stop points ([0013] as discussed above, s.1, estimates one or more possible headings, construed as multiple sequences, and s.2 where a body of water can be divided into “bins” of location and direction information), each of the multiple sequences representing one of multiple historical trips of the respective vessel ([0013] as discussed above and [0046] s.2, separate process periodically analyzes all available ship track histories to create a database of the typical behavior of ships in a given state (e.g. position and direction) for each small geospatial region of the world), and
predicting future vessel movement by:
receiving a current geographical location for a current trip of a tracked vessel ([0015] s.1, the system is adapted to generate a dynamic probability cloud starting at the time of receipt of the reported position message),
selecting one of the multiple representative sequences that is close to the geographical location (spatial indexing as disclosed in [0013] and [0047] where geospatial region of probability is generated for a target’s location for a specified point in time (i.e., future)), and
predicting future movement of the tracked vessel as proceeding along the selected one of the multiple representative trips ([0014] system can quickly build a probability cloud to represent the current and future position of any vessel from a recent S-AIS message)
Although Anderson discloses in [0013] as discussed above and further where a spatial index can be built based on the previous paths (which necessarily comprise of historical locations) taken by other vessels after passing through that bin, which is construed as clustering sequences to determine multiple representative sequences, but it does not explicitly disclose:
clustering the multiple sequences of historical locations to determine multiple representative sequences, each representative sequence representing one of multiple clusters.
However, Fridman teaches in [0062] s.4, that machine learning tools such as clustering may be applied. Further in [0097] that a path predictor may apply behavior models to calculate leg segments to graph the movements of the vessel, of which the nodes and weighted edges are calculated by clustering and merging said leg segments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of movement forecasting and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system and method of Anderson, by incorporating the clustering teachings of Fridman, as taught in [0009], that this allows improved tracking of the vessel by accurately predicting the vessel’s future locations.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method comprises, during creating the historical trip data:
storing each of the multiple sequences as a separate record on a database ([0046] s.2, periodically analyzes all available ship track histories to create a database of the typical behavior of ships in a given state (e.g. position and direction) for each small geospatial region of the world);
performing the clustering by performing a query on the database for one or more stop points to retrieve records holding sequences comprising the one or more stop points of the query and clustering the sequences retrieved from the database (see claim 1 regarding bins and geospatial indexing and [0046] that different point bases are maintained and can be queried to receive state variables including that of the position of the ship and the stated destination, which is construed as performing a query of the database which comprise stop points and clustering sequences based on that information).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises, during creating the historical trip data, filtering the historical location data by:
determining an information content in a time difference between the historical locations in each of the multiple sequences ([0003] AIS provides information such as the identification of the vessel, its speed, heading, and position at a given point in time as well as static information about the vessel and dynamic information about the current voyage and [0046] s.2, periodically analyzes all available ship track histories to create a database of the typical behavior of ships in a given state (e.g. position and direction) for each small geospatial region of the world ); and
selecting one or more of the multiple sequences that have a high information content for the clustering ([0030] dynamic probability cloud that identifies regions of probability in which a vessel is located based on the aggregation of information and can be color-coded to display higher and lower levels of probability based on aggregated information).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein the method further comprises selecting one or
more of the multiple historical trips that have a small variation in time difference between the historical locations ([0045] s.3, IPA uses the most recent two ship position reports and forecast a new position based on the elapsed time since the last report and the prior positions and speed data, which is construed as selected one or more historical trips that have small variation in time difference between the historical locations).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises a comparison between the prediction and an updated geographical location and determining an anomaly in the vessel movement based on the comparison ([0098] In another embodiment, the system is further adapted to compare each new position report with the statistical forecasting accuracy for that vessel and determines if the new position is sufficiently different from the expected position that it exceeds a predefined threshold constituting an anomalous position).
Regarding claims 10, 14, 17, 19-20, 22, and 27, the Applicant has elected to cancel the claims prior to examination and are therefore not currently under consideration.
Regarding claim 11, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the prediction of vessel movement comprises a prediction that the tracked vessel will follow the selected one of the multiple representative sequences ([0013] forecasting algorithm utilizes location and direction information for the vessel, and estimates one or more possible headings based on previous paths taken by other vessels from that location, and heading in substantially the same direction).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the stop points are one or more of vessel origin and vessel destination ([0046] s.5, “point databases” can be maintained for ships such as stated destination of the ship, construed as a stop point and necessarily indicative of a port).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
filtering the historical location data by one or more of vessel origin and vessel destination to select historical locations related to each of the multiple historical trips ([0013] a body of water can be divided into “bins” of location and direction information, and a spatial index can be built based on the previous paths taken by other vessels after passing through that bin, which is construed as filtering location data from a bin to a spatial index to point databases pertaining to stop points or destinations which necessarily may comprise of vessel origins or destinations); and
using respective stop points for the one or more of vessel origin and vessel destination (see claim 1 regarding [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising triggering, based on the prediction, events in a logistics application ([0003] Modern marine vessels including ships with gross tonnage exceeding 300GT, which is construed as vessels being used in a logistic application).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the vessel movement is predicted by a first software system and the method further comprises generating, by the first software system, an event to notify a second software system of the predicted vessel movement and the method further comprises triggering, by the event, an action performed by the second software system (see claim 1 regarding prediction software and [0051] s.3, anomaly tags can be used by display or alerting software that is downstream of the forecasting algorithms).
Regarding claim 21, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, storing the received historical location data on a relational database (see claim 3 regarding relational databases) as multiple data records comprising one record for each of the historical locations (see claim 1 regarding point databases) wherein identifying the multiple historical trips comprises creating a field value for each of the records in the relational database indicative of a trip identifier to indicate an association between a data record and one of the multiple historical trips (see claim 1 regarding the relationship between point databases, bins, and spatial index and [0023] disambiguating Automatic Identification System (AIS) transmissions from different vessels using the same Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) identifier and in the table following [0050] an IMO (International Maritime Organization number - a unique identifier assigned to vessels)).
Regarding claim 24, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the method comprises running a first service and a second service,
the first service is configured to perform the steps of receiving the historical location data, identifying stop points, and splitting the historical location data into the multiple sequences, the first service further stores the multiple sequences on a database (see claim 1 regarding the method and point databases and the organization of historical data); and
the second service is configured to retrieve the sequences from the database for the clustering of the sequences (see claim 2 regarding querying the databased).
Regarding claim 25, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
A non-transitory, computer readable medium with program code stored thereon that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the method of claim 1 ([0092] random access memory which is a form of non-transitory computer readable medium that contains program code).
Claim 26 recites a system having substantially the same features of claims 1 and 25 above, therefore claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 25.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0109235 A1), hereinafter referred to as Anderson, in view of Fridman et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/018844 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fridman, and Estrada et al. (US Pat. No. 11,861,894 B1), hereinafter referred to as Estrada
Regarding claim 3, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, which discloses the use of tables and databases, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the database is a relational database.
However, Estrada teaches in column (col) 5 lines (ln) 15-30, in a system for tracking sailing vessels the use of relational databases.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of movement forecasting and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system and method of Anderson, as already modified by Fridman, by incorporating the clustering relational database teachings of Estrade, as this is construed as a simple substitution that would provide for a predictable result of storing correlating information.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0109235 A1), hereinafter referred to as Anderson, in view of Fridman et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/018844 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fridman, and Franklin et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2020/142850 A1), hereinafter referred to as Franklin
Regarding claim 5, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, which discloses determining information content, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining the information content comprises determining an entropy of the historical locations.
However, Franklin teaches in [0121] how the probability cloud which expresses relative levels of quality yet is effected by increasing uncertainty (i.e., entropy, as understood in information theory) with time thereby making the cloud gradually uninformative due to widening probability.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of movement forecasting and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system and method of Anderson, as already modified by Fridman, by incorporating the entropy teachings of Franklin, as taught in [0052], that this allows improved the safety of vessels in and around a particular port.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0109235 A1), hereinafter referred to as Anderson, in view of Fridman et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/018844 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fridman, and Rasmus-Vorrath et al. (CA Pat. App. No. 3,109,581 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rasmus-Vorrath.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson, as modified by Fridman, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining each representative sequence (see claim 1),
but they do not explicitly disclose:
calculating a barycentre average of the sequences of historical locations in each of the multiple clusters.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath teaches in [0006] the one or more forecasting modules are configured to calculate Barycenter Averages. Further, in [0250] it teaches perform weighted Barycenter averaging can be applied to a historical sequence of sensor data obtained in the past to provide a distribution of sensor values that can be used as a substitute for current readings. These are utilized to predict weather conditions but one of ordinary skill in the art of data science would understand this time of averaging can be used on various forms of data to forecast based on historical occurrences.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of movement forecasting and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system and method of Anderson, as already modified by Fridman, by incorporating the barycenter average teachings of Rasmus-Vorrath, as taught in [0249], that this allows reinforced and improved predictions.
Regarding claim 18, Anderson, as modified by Fridman and Rasmus-Vorrath, discloses:
The method of claim 1,wherein predicting the future movement of the vessel comprises calculating a probability of the future movement and the probability is indicative of a weight associated with the selected one of the multiple representative trips and the weight is indicative of a number of sequences in the cluster represented by the selected one of the multiple representative trips.
However, Rasmus-Vorrath in [0250] it teaches perform weighted Barycenter averaging can be applied to a historical sequence of sensor data obtained in the past to provide a distribution of sensor values that can be used as a substitute for current readings.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0109235 A1), hereinafter referred to as Anderson, in view of Fridman et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/018844 A1), hereinafter referred to as Fridman, Rasmus-Vorrath et al. (CA Pat. App. No. 3,109,581 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rasmus-Vorrath, and Estrada et al. (US Pat. No. 11,861,894 B1), hereinafter referred to as Estrada.
Regarding claim 23, Anderson, as modified by Fridman and Rasmus-Vorrath, discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein
clustering comprises creating a field value indicative of an association between trip identifiers and cluster identifiers to indicate which trip belongs to which cluster (see claims 1 and 21), and
determining the multiple representative sequences comprises:
querying, based on one cluster identifier, the relational database for historical locations associated with a trip identifier that is associated with the one cluster identifier (see claim 3 regarding relational databases and claim 2 regarding querying the database), and
averaging the returned sequences, as indicated by trip identifiers, to determine one of the multiple representative sequences (see claim 7 regarding forecasting based on averages).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of movement forecasting and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle control system and method of Anderson, as already modified by Fridman, by incorporating the entropy teachings of Rasmus-Vorrath and Estrada, as acknowledged by Fridman, Rasmus-Vorrath, and Estrada in regards to claims 1, 3, and 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In particular the claim 8 limitations wherein the clustering comprises determining a similarity by warping the historical locations of a first sequence to determine an optimal match with the historical locations of a second sequence.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Gupta et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0256858) is directed towards providing surface vehicle tracking data, including indications of potential collision zones
Balva (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0142248) is directed towards selecting vehicles and optimizing routes based on historical route data and utilizing clustering to predict future routes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/KEITH A. VON VOLKENBURG/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3661