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 .
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim as written could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the measurement device itself changes position on the ship. However, this interpretation is not supported by the specification, and the examiner takes it to mean that the processor may set the installed position of the measurement device as the reference point. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dake (US 2024/0184311 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dake discloses an information processing device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions ([0039]); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions ([0039]) to:
acquire measurement data ([0040]: “The LIDAR 11 can acquire any surrounding environment data indicating the environment around the ship 2.”) which is a set of data specified by a pair of an index representing a position in a horizontal direction and an index representing a position in a vertical direction generated by a measurement device installed on a ship ([0049] discloses that the LiDAR retrieves three-dimensional point group data, which includes a horizontal position and a vertical position.; Figures 2B, 4A, 4B);
extract the data representing a nearest neighbor point which is nearest to a reference point of the ship, from the data representing measured points of a berthing place, for each index representing the position in a horizontal direction ([0089]: “map generation updating unit 17 excludes, from the target to be placed on the map 41, the point-group data 40's portion having a distance from the ship 2 closer than the predetermined distance.”);
set the reference point at a next processing time, based on the nearest neighbor points ([0052]: “The ship 2's position and azimuth used as a reference for the map generation updating unit 17 to plot the point-group data 40 on the map 41 include the below-described ship 2's position and azimuth output by the position azimuth estimation unit 19,”).
Regarding Claim 2, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Dake further discloses wherein the processor sets the reference point based on reliability of the nearest neighbor point ([0055]: “ the position azimuth estimation unit 19 can acquire the accurate position and the ship 2's azimuth by matching the high point stored as the map 41 by the map generation updating unit 17 with the high point that is based on the detection result of the LIDAR 11.”).
Regarding Claim 3, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Dake further discloses wherein the processor sets a position on the ship where the measurement device is installed, as the reference point ([0052]), when the reliability of the nearest neighbor point is equal to or lower than a predetermined value ([0061], low structures are considered unreliable, [0009]).
Regarding Claim 4, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Dake further discloses wherein the processor sets the reference point by changing a height of the position where the measurement device is installed according to a distance between the ship and the berthing place, when the reliability of the nearest neighbor point is higher than a predetermined value ([0061], low structures are considered unreliable, [0009]).
Regarding Claim 10, Dake discloses a control method executed by a computer ([0039]), comprising:
acquiring measurement data ([0040]: “The LIDAR 11 can acquire any surrounding environment data indicating the environment around the ship 2.”) which is a set of data specified by a pair of an index representing a position in a horizontal direction and an index representing a position in a vertical direction generated by a measurement device installed on a ship ([0049] discloses that the LiDAR retrieves three-dimensional point group data, which includes a horizontal position and a vertical position.; Figures 2B, 4A, 4B);
extracting the data representing a nearest neighbor point which is nearest to a reference point of the ship, from the data representing measured points of a berthing place, for each index representing the position in a horizontal direction ([0089]: “map generation updating unit 17 excludes, from the target to be placed on the map 41, the point-group data 40's portion having a distance from the ship 2 closer than the predetermined distance.”); and
setting the reference point at a next processing time, based on the nearest neighbor points ([0052]: “The ship 2's position and azimuth used as a reference for the map generation updating unit 17 to plot the point-group data 40 on the map 41 include the below-described ship 2's position and azimuth output by the position azimuth estimation unit 19,”).
Regarding Claim 11, Dake discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to execute processing ([0039]) of:
acquiring measurement data ([0040]: “The LIDAR 11 can acquire any surrounding environment data indicating the environment around the ship 2.”) which is a set of data specified by a pair of an index representing a position in a horizontal direction and an index representing a position in a vertical direction generated by a measurement device installed on a ship ([0049] discloses that the LiDAR retrieves three-dimensional point group data, which includes a horizontal position and a vertical position.; Figures 2B, 4A, 4B);
extracting the data representing a nearest neighbor point which is nearest to a reference point of the ship, from the data representing measured points of a berthing place, for each index representing the position in a horizontal direction ([0089]: “map generation updating unit 17 excludes, from the target to be placed on the map 41, the point-group data 40's portion having a distance from the ship 2 closer than the predetermined distance.”); and
setting the reference point at a next processing time, based on the nearest neighbor points ([0052]: “The ship 2's position and azimuth used as a reference for the map generation updating unit 17 to plot the point-group data 40 on the map 41 include the below-described ship 2's position and azimuth output by the position azimuth estimation unit 19,”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dake in view of Kaji (US 2007/0073454 A1) and further in view of Saito (JP 2519256 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, which depends from rejected Claim 2, Dake does not teach and Saito does teach wherein the processor sets, as the reference point, a first reference point used for extraction of the data representing the nearest neighbor point and a second reference point used for extraction of the data representing a measured point of a fender provided at the berthing place, when the reliability of the nearest neighbor point is higher than a predetermined value (Figure 8; [0096], the measurement points are reference points; [0091], distances are calculated with reference to a horizontal line, which requires a second reference point at low elevation angle.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kaji to use a horizontal reference point and second measurement reference point to calculate the angle and distance between a ship and a pier or other object. It is well-known in the art to apply such geometric relationships to calculate distances and angles, and a skilled worker could have incorporated this into the device with a predictable result.
Dake does not teach and Kaji does not teach and Saito does teach wherein the observed object is a fender (Page 1, paragraphs 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Saito to detect and measure the distance to a fender into the device of Dake. Saito notes on Page 3 that it is important to know the repetitive displacement and strain on a fender to prevent accidents and damage to the ship and fender.
Regarding Claim 6, which depends from rejected Claim 5, Dake does not teach and Kaji does teach wherein the processor sets the first reference point to have a large elevation angle when viewed from a quay, and sets the second reference point to have a small elevation angle when viewed from the quay (Figure 8; [0068]; [0091]; Kaji discloses using a right triangle with one vertex at the ship and two reference points at the dock to calculate the elevation angle. This is mathematically equivalent to having the reversed orientation with two reference points on the ship and one on the pier. Indeed, the equivalent triangle is shown in Figure 8 of Kaji.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kaji to use right triangles to calculate a distance and elevation between a ship and a berth. The teachings of Kaji show that it is possible to calculated distances and elevation angles using a minimal number of points, and a skilled worker would find it obvious to use the same geometry with two reference points on the ship, and could implement this arrangement with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends from rejected Claim 5, Dake further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate a quay distance corresponding to a distance from the ship to a quay of the berthing place, based on a search result of the nearest neighbor point using the first reference point ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends from rejected Claim 7, Dake does not teach and Kaji does not teach and Saito does teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate a fender distance corresponding to a distance from the ship to the fender, based on a search result of the nearest neighbor point using the second reference point (Page 4, reference position is set inside the tip of the fender; Page 6, “A standardized distance D from the reference position 7 to the ship 1 is calculated. The calculation is performed by the following formula.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Saito to detect and measure the distance to a fender into the device of Dake. Saito notes on Page 3 that it is important to know the repetitive displacement and strain on a fender to prevent accidents and damage to the ship and fender.
Regarding Claim 9, which depends from rejected Claim 8, Dake does not teach and Kaji does not teach and Saito does teach wherein the processor calculates an overhang length which is a maximum value of a difference value between the quay distance calculated within a predetermined time and the fender distance, and calculates the fender distance by subtracting the overhang length from the quay distance (Figure 2; Page 6: “A standardized distance D from the reference position 7 to the ship 1 is calculated. The calculation is performed by the following formula. D = L-A In the present embodiment, the reference position 7 is set so as to coincide with the docking normal line 6. As a result, in this embodiment, The reference position 7 is set to coincide with the tip position of the fender 3.”; Page 6: “And a calculation program for calculating the normalized distance D by subtracting the distance A between the transducers 5-1 and 5-2 and the reference position 7 from the distance L, and the normalized distance D is D” Here A is identified with the overhang distance of the fender assembly beyond the quay or pier, D is the distance between the fender and the ship, and L is the total distance between the pier and the ship.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Saito to detect and measure the distance to a fender into the device of Dake. Saito notes on Page 3 that it is important to know the repetitive displacement and strain on a fender to prevent accidents and damage to the ship and fender.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sonobe (US 2023/0221138 A1) discloses a ship navigation system for suppressing errors in movement.
Gonring (US 7,561,886 B1) discloses a method by which the position of a marine vessel can be determined relative to a stationary object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights