DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This NON-FINAL communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/06/2024, 11/06/2025, and 01/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 2 is 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
The examiner has identified apparatus claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire measurement data generated by a measuring device provided on a ship;
acquire a position of at least one marker among markers provided to a berthing place, based on the measurement data; and
set a search range of a point cloud of an edge portion of the berthing place, based on the position of the at least one marker.
The examiner submits that foregoing the bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process” as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. “set a search range of a point cloud of an edge portion of the berthing place, based on the position of the at least one marker” is equivalent to a person determining a where a sensor should search based on the data gathered, i.e. a mental process of judgment based on observation.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire measurement data generated by a measuring device provided on a ship;
acquire a position of at least one marker among markers provided to a berthing place, based on the measurement data; and
set a search range of a point cloud of an edge portion of the berthing place, based on the position of the at least one marker.
Regarding the limitations, “a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to” the examiner submits that this is an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technologic environment. The memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the acquiring and setting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer component.
Regarding the limitations “acquire measurement data generated by a measuring device provided on a ship; acquire a position of at least one marker among markers provided to a berthing place, based on the measurement data;” the examiner submits that this is an example of mere data gathering. In particular, measurement data and position data is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, 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 (MPEP § 2106.05).
Accordingly, the additional limitations do 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 (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitations of claim 1 are examples of adding insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution, post-solution) to the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering conducted by a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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, similar to the claims shown above.
Claim 2 recites the additional limitations “wherein the processor acquires a position of a first marker provided on a front side of the ship, and a position of a second marker provided on a rear side of the ship, and wherein the processor sets a substantially rectangular area or a substantially rectangular parallelepiped area corresponding to the position of the first marker and the position of the second marker as the search range.” This is equivalent to mere data gathering followed by a mental process to define a rectangular search area based on the position of a marker. The position data is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional limitations “wherein the processor acquires a position of one marker provided on a front side or a rear side of the ship, and wherein the processor sets the search range based on an interval of two markers provided to the berthing place and the position of the one marker.” This is equivalent to mere data gathering followed by a mental process to define a search area based on the observed position of the two markers. The position data is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 9 and 10 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Therefore, claims 1-10 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heling et al. (US 20210088667 A1) in view of Dake et al. (US 20240184311 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Heling teaches:
An information processing device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
(Heling – Fig. 12, Processor 204 and Memory 206)
acquire measurement data generated by a measuring device provided on a ship;
(Heling – [0042] “FIG. 3 is a schematic depiction of an array of LIDAR sensors consistent with the present teachings. In various embodiments, as an alternative to the single LIDAR sensor 250 shown in FIG. 2, LIDAR sensors 260 (forming a LIDAR array 300) are mounted to a common rotational platform 264, which can be tilted up and down to scan a region within a desired field of view. In various embodiments, a rotational motor 266 is employed to rotate the common rotational platform 264 to allow the LIDAR sensors 260 to scan vertically to detect distances and characteristics of objects within the field of view of the LIDAR sensors 260.”)
acquire a position of at least one marker among markers provided to a berthing place, based on the measurement data; and
(Heling – [0003] “The system has one or potentially more light detection ranging (LIDAR) sensors for detecting structures across a region by vertically scanning the region using the LIDAR sensors. The system also includes a memory element configured to store characteristics of the detected structure. Additionally, the system includes a processing element that can identify a primary reference point associated with navigation of the marine vessel to the desired position based on the characteristics of the detected structure and display information about a current position of the marine vessel in relation to the desired position.”)
set a search range
(Heling – [0033] “At medium range, when the variance threshold from the phase above has been met, the disclosed navigation systems begin searching for a secondary reference point. A secondary reference point is established by tracking a distinct point that shows a consistent positive linear correlation to the primary reference point. This provides a degree of certainty that the secondary reference point is a fixed object on the dock, and not noise, water, or another independently-moving object. Because this point is not moving relative to the edge of the dock (and is therefore unlikely to move going forward), the distance to this secondary reference point can be considered after factoring in the distance between the primary and secondary reference points.”)
Heling does not explicitly teach point cloud data, however, Dake teaches:
(Dake – [0061] “In view of these circumstances, the position azimuth estimation unit 19 of the present embodiment excludes, from the matching target, the point group that corresponds to the low structure such as the dock 51, and executes the matching based only on the point group that corresponds to the structure of a certain height or more such as the power supply post 52. This makes it possible to estimate, with high accuracy, the ship 2's position and azimuth. Further, since the number of point groups is reduced by narrowing down the matching targets, reduction in the calculation amount can be accomplished.”)
Heling and Dake are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of monitoring a dock for ship docking assistance. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heling with Dake to include collecting point-group data of the dock in order to accurately acquire the positional relation between the ship and the dock and to properly dock the ship at a target docking position (Dake, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Heling and Dake teach the limitations of claim 1.
Dake further teaches:
wherein two markers are provided to the berthing place at positions of difference heights from an upper surface of the berthing place.
(Dake – [0061] “In view of these circumstances, the position azimuth estimation unit 19 of the present embodiment excludes, from the matching target, the point group that corresponds to the low structure such as the dock 51, and executes the matching based only on the point group that corresponds to the structure of a certain height or more such as the power supply post 52. This makes it possible to estimate, with high accuracy, the ship 2's position and azimuth. Further, since the number of point groups is reduced by narrowing down the matching targets, reduction in the calculation amount can be accomplished.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heling with Dake to include collecting point-group data of markers on a dock of different heights in order to accurately acquire the positional relation between the ship and the dock and to properly dock the ship at a target docking position (Dake, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites a method comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising substantially the same limitation as claim 1 above, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. Additionally, Heling further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to execute processing of:
(Heling – [0058] “The processor 204 provides processing functionality for at least the controller 202 and can include any number of processors, micro-controllers, circuitry, field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other processing systems, and resident or external memory for storing data, executable code, and other information accessed or generated by the controller 202. The processor 204 can execute one or more software programs (e.g., multiple motor control module 210) embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g., memory 206) that implement techniques described herein.”)
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heling et al. (US 20210088667 A1) in view of Dake et al. (US 20240184311 A1) and in further view of Gonring et al. (US 7561886 B1).
Regarding claim 2,
The combination of Heling and Dake teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Heling and Dake does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Gonring teaches:
wherein the processor acquires a position of a first marker provided on a front side of the ship, and a position of a second marker provided on a rear side of the ship, and
(Gonring – Fig. 1, fixed reference devices 16 and 18, [Col. 5 lines 20-30] “With continued reference to FIG. 2, it should be understood that the procedure described above, in conjunction with the initiation signal 20 and the response signal transmitted by the first fixed reference device 16, can be repeated in conjunction with the first position sensor 21 and the second fixed reference device 18.”)
wherein the processor sets a substantially rectangular area or a substantially rectangular parallelepiped area corresponding to the position of the first marker and the position of the second marker as the search range.
(Gonring – [Col. 7 lines 46-58] “In FIG. 7, lines X and L are intentionally shown as being in non-parallel association with each other. To assist in maneuvering the marine vessel 10 in relation to the dock 12, it is important to know the angular relationship between lines X and L. As can be seen from FIG. 7 and the discussion regarding the known dimensions and angles, it can be seen that simple geometric calculations can determine all of the angles between line L and lines A and B. In addition, all of the angles between line X and lines A and C can be easily calculated. Since the length of line A is also known, the magnitude of angle .PHI. can be calculated. This allows the microprocessor 26, described above in conjunction with FIG. 3, to determine the degree of parallelism between lines X and L.”)
Gonring is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of determining the location of markers on a dock. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heling and Dake with Gonring to include monitoring markers on a front side and a rear side of a ship in order to easily determine the measurements between the markers and the boat (Gonring, Col. 7 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Heling, Dake, and Gonring teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Gonring further teaches:
wherein the processor sets the search range by using a distance from a straight line along the edge portion of the berthing place to the first marker and a distance from the straight line to the second marker.
(Gonring – [Col. 5 lines 20-30] “With continued reference to FIG. 2, it should be understood that the procedure described above, in conjunction with the initiation signal 20 and the response signal transmitted by the first fixed reference device 16, can be repeated in conjunction with the first position sensor 21 and the second fixed reference device 18. This allows the linear distance between the second fixed reference device 18 and the first position sensor 21 to be calculated as a function of the time it takes for the initiation signal to travel to the second fixed reference device 18 and be responded to with a transmission from the second fixed reference device 18.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heling and Dake with Gonring to include monitoring markers on a front side and a rear side of a ship in order to easily determine the measurements between the markers and the boat (Gonring, Col. 7 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 4,
The combination of Heling and Dake teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Heling further teaches:
wherein the processor acquires a position of one marker provided on a front side or a rear side of the ship, and
(Heling – [0032] “Next the disclosed navigation systems have identified the edge of a dock (or other reference destination) with a relatively high degree of confidence using disclosed methods of dock edge detection. The dock edge serves as a reference point for identifying a secondary reference point when a consistent secondary reference becomes available as the boat moves towards to the dock. As the boat approaches, LIDAR data will become less variant between scans.”)
The combination of Heling and Dake does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Gonring teaches:
wherein the processor sets the search range based on an interval of two markers provided to the berthing place and the position of the one marker.
(Gonring – [Col. 5 lines 20-30] “With continued reference to FIG. 2, it should be understood that the procedure described above, in conjunction with the initiation signal 20 and the response signal transmitted by the first fixed reference device 16, can be repeated in conjunction with the first position sensor 21 and the second fixed reference device 18. This allows the linear distance between the second fixed reference device 18 and the first position sensor 21 to be calculated as a function of the time it takes for the initiation signal to travel to the second fixed reference device 18 and be responded to with a transmission from the second fixed reference device 18.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heling and Dake with Gonring to include monitoring markers on a front side and a rear side of a ship in order to easily determine the measurements between the markers and the boat (Gonring, Col. 7 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 5,
The combination of Heling, Dake, and Gonring teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Heling further teaches:
wherein the processor sets the search range by using a distance from a straight line along the edge portion of the berthing place to the one marker.
(Heling – [0033] “At medium range, when the variance threshold from the phase above has been met, the disclosed navigation systems begin searching for a secondary reference point. A secondary reference point is established by tracking a distinct point that shows a consistent positive linear correlation to the primary reference point. This provides a degree of certainty that the secondary reference point is a fixed object on the dock, and not noise, water, or another independently-moving object. Because this point is not moving relative to the edge of the dock (and is therefore unlikely to move going forward), the distance to this secondary reference point can be considered after factoring in the distance between the primary and secondary reference points.”)
Regarding claim 6,
The combination of Heling, Dake, and Gonring teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Gonring further teaches:
wherein the processor sets the search range by using a total length of the ship.
(Gonring – [Col. 5 line 63 – Col. 6 lines 5] “With continued reference to FIG. 4, dashed line L represents the linear distance between the first and second position sensors, 21 and 22, which are identified as points M and N. The distances represented by lines A and B can be determined as described above by transmitting a signal from the first position sensor 21, receiving that signal by the first fixed reference device 16, responding by transmitting a signal from the first fixed reference device 16 back to the first position sensor 21, and receiving that response signal by the first position sensor 21.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heling and Dake with Gonring to include monitoring markers on a front side and a rear side of a ship in order to easily determine the measurements between the markers and the boat (Gonring, Col. 7 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 7,
The combination of Heling and Dake teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Heling and Dake does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, Gonring teaches:
wherein the processor acquires a position of a first marker provided on a front side of the ship and a position of a second marker provided on a rear side of the ship, and
(Gonring – Fig. 1, fixed reference devices 16 and 18, [Col. 5 lines 20-30] “With continued reference to FIG. 2, it should be understood that the procedure described above, in conjunction with the initiation signal 20 and the response signal transmitted by the first fixed reference device 16, can be repeated in conjunction with the first position sensor 21 and the second fixed reference device 18. This allows the linear distance between the second fixed reference device 18 and the first position sensor 21 to be calculated as a function of the time it takes for the initiation signal to travel to the second fixed reference device 18 and be responded to with a transmission from the second fixed reference device 18.”)
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate a distance from a reference position of the ship to ends of a berthing area where the ship should be positioned when the ship is going to berth at the berthing place, based on the position of the first marker, the position of the second marker, and a straight line along the edge portion of the berthing place.
(Gonring – [Col. 7 lines 46-66] “This allows the microprocessor 26, described above in conjunction with FIG. 3, to determine the degree of parallelism between lines X and L. If the goal is to maneuver the marine vessel toward a parallel relationship between lines X and L and move the marine vessel toward the dock 12, the magnitude of angle .PHI. can be very useful. Alternatively, the marine vessel 10 can be maneuvered until the dimensions of lines A and D are generally equal to each other prior to moving the marine vessel, in a sidle movement, toward the dock 12 as the magnitudes of lines A and D are decreased in a coordinated fashion.”)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Heling and Dake with Gonring to include monitoring markers on a front side and a rear side of a ship in order to easily determine the measurements between the markers and the boat (Gonring, Col. 7 lines 23-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Rivers et al. (US 20210269128 A1) discloses To help visually quantify the magnitudes indicated by translational thrust indicator, maneuvering guide may include a set of translational thrust scale markers implemented as a plurality of circles with increasing radiuses and centered on mobile structure perimeter indicator, where each circle corresponds to a particular translational thrust percentage of a maximum available translational thrust generated by navigation control system across the circumference of the circle, for example, or where each circle corresponds to a particular absolute measure of translational thrust (e.g., in units of force).
Pavlica (US 20220214689 A1) discloses a method of controlling a vessel along an inland waterway is presented that includes receiving sensor data including geographic location data from a plurality of sensors on the vessel; receiving tiled data from the one or more edge nodes; and determining operating parameters to perform a mission task based on tiled data from the one or more edge nodes and the sensor data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE HUBER whose telephone number is (703)756-1765. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, JAMES LEE can be reached at (571)-270-5965. 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.
/M.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights