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 INTERPRETATION
The first and second computing devices are understood in view of specification paras. [0044]-[0045] and [0047] to comprise conventional computer equipment.
The first and second communication devices are understood to in view of specification para. [0019] to include short-range communication devices including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, wireless LAN, or similar.
Throughout the claims, “referring to” is understood to be equivalent to “based on”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are, in claims 1-5:
“first module that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between a first oscillating body and a target”, and
“second module that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target with higher accuracy than the first module”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Corresponding structure could not be clearly identified.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 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.
In claim 1 lines 1-7, claim limitations “first module that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between a first oscillating body and a target” and “second module that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target with higher accuracy than the first module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding the second module, claim 1 recites “the second module has a first communication device, the first communication device is configured to be able to communicate directly with a second communication device attached to the target”, where the communication devices are understood to in view of specification para. [0019] to include devices capable of short-range communication devices including Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, wireless LAN, or similar. Further regarding the second module, claim 2, which depends on claim 1, recites “wherein the second module is equipped with a first positioning antenna, a second positioning antenna, and a third positioning antenna, and calculating the positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target when the first communication device and the second communication device are within a range capable of direct communication includes, acquiring a first position measured by the first positioning antenna, a second position measured by the second positioning antenna, and a third position measured by the third positioning antenna”. However, the first communication device recited in claim 1 as part of the second module does not appear to be sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, nor is it clear that the first communication device combined with the first, second, and third positioning antennas recited in claim 2 are sufficient. The written description does not appear to provide any additional description of the second module. In addition, Examiner could not clearly identify any structure corresponding to the first module, either in the claims or in the written description.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 1 lines 23-25, it is unclear how to interpret the scope of “specific information related to the position of the target received by the first communication device from the second communication device”. The only example of “specific information” in the specification is found in para. [0028], and comprises current positions of fourth, fifth, and sixth power plant antennas, where the power plant appears to correspond to the claimed “target”. However, claim 1 does not recite any antennas or positions of antennas. It is unclear, in the context of claim 1, what falls within the scope of “specific” information. Is “specific” intended to mean, for example, “precise”? This may be an issue of translation.
Regarding claim 2 lines 20-22, the scope of “modifying a first reference vector from the first positioning antenna to a first predetermined point in the attitude of the first oscillating body at a predetermined time” cannot be clearly determined, as it is unclear how to modify a vector to a point in the attitude and the specification does not appear to provide any description.
The remaining claims are dependent.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 have been rejected as indefinite because the specification fails to clearly link limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to corresponding structure. Claims 1-5 are therefore correspondingly rejected for lack of written description.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostrem (US 20180149727 A1) in view of Takayama (US 20020050952 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Ostrem teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Ostrem are lined through] a positioning system comprising (marine vessel 102, Fig. 1) and a target (target node 104 on platform 100, Fig. 1), a second module (Vessel Nodes 204a...n, Fig. 2) that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target (abstract “Relative geographic coordinates of the vessel and the target node using the range measurements received from the at least two vessel nodes may be determined”; para. [0022] “relative/local position reference system... with... vessel nodes 204a-204n”) (206, 207, Fig. 2), wherein
the second module has a first communication device (any one of antennas 205a...n on Vessel Nodes 204a...n, Fig. 2), the first communication device is configured to be able to communicate directly (210a...n, Fig. 2 in view of para. [0022] “the nodes 204 may use radio frequency (RF) signals 210a, 210b, and 210n, such as 2.4 GHz and/or 5 GHz frequency range signals, that communicate digital data 212a-212n”) with a second communication device attached to the target (antenna 203, Fig 2), and
the first computing device (206, 207, Fig. 2) calculates the positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target using the information acquired by the second module (Vessel Nodes 204a...n, Fig. 2), the information including specific information related to the position of the target received by the first communication device from the second communication device (para. [0033] “A respective verified range measurement may be received from each of the vessel nodes. Relative geographic coordinates between the vessel and the target node may be determined by performing a trilateration calculation and fuse the trilateration calculations with inertial measurements in a state estimator”), when the first communication device and the second communication device are within a range capable of direct communication (the above steps cannot be performed unless the first and second communication devices are within such range).
As indicated by the lined through language above, Ostrem does not teach:
(1) the positioning system comprising a first module that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target, wherein the first computing device calculates the positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target using the information acquired by the first module, when the first communication device and the second communication device are not within a range capable of direct communication; or
(2) the second module providing higher accuracy than the first module.
Regarding (1), Takayama, in analogous art (para. [0002] “ship-borne facilities”; para. [0048] “communicating messages concerning... locations, etc., of other ships” and “the present invention can be implemented as a waterborne complementary unit for the AIS, such as a unit mounted on a buoy, which is mounted on a waterborne structure placed fixedly in a certain water area or a waterborne floating structure”), teaches an oscillating body (abstract “ship”) and a target (para. [0048] “buoy” and “waterborne structure; para. [0107] “a barge, a lighthouse, or an artificial island, or other floating structures, such as a buoy”), wherein the oscillating body comprises a first module (Fig. 1 “ADE UNIT FOR AIS”; Fig. 2, showing details of ADE, including VHF RADIO CIRCUIT 40e) that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target (GPS 40g in Fig. 1 “measures the current position” as per para. [0075]; VHF RADIO CIRCUIT 40e in view of para. [0108] “the VHF radio circuit 40e receives the message from surrounding ships or the coast station under the control of the controller 40f”, where the message includes “dynamic information, such as the current position of the ship” as per para. [0031]), wherein a first computing device calculates the positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target using the information acquired by the first module (calculation of the positional relationship using the acquired information is inherent to para. [0019] “displaying positional relationship between the ship and other ship... using auxiliary lines” and “The controller 10d displays on the screen of the AIS display 20 items of information corresponding to the static and dynamic information concerning other ships received by the TDMA receiver 10g from other ships or the like, preferably along with static and dynamic information concerning the ship on which the AIS transponder 10 is installed”), when the first communication device and the second communication device are not within a range capable of direct communication (the range of Takayama’s VHF signals is inherently longer than that of the “Spread spectrums at about 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz,and/or ultra wide band (UWB) frequency range signals” taught by Ostram in para. [0022], therefore Takayama’s AIS system will provide the positional relationship when the Ostrem’s first and second communication devices are not within direct communication range).
It would have been obvious to modify Ostrem by adding AIS functionality as taught by Takayama because it is well-known to include AIS on maritime equipment like Ostrem’s oscillating body and target and it has the advantage of providing situational awareness at longer ranges than Ostrem’s spread spectrum and UWB signals.
Regarding (2), one of ordinary skill would expect the range measurements performed by Ostrem’s Vessel Nodes 204a...n to provide higher accuracy than Takayama’s AIS, which is GPS based. See Ostrem para. [0002] “Relative reference systems... are needed where GNSS systems have limitations (e.g., satellite obstructions close to oil rigs)”, where Ostrem’s Vessel Nodes 204a...n are a relative reference system (abstract “relative”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostrem (US 20180149727 A1) in view of Takayama (US 20020050952 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saari (US 20030124982 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ostrem teaches wherein the first communication device and the second communication device perform direct communication at 2.4 GHz, which is well-known to be used for wireless LAN – for example, see Sarai para. [0007] “WLAN 802.11b mobile communication is a wireless communication standard to cover local areas to supply wireless access to a local area network, e.g., of a company. This standard uses a radio frequency at 2.4 GHz”. Ostrem further teaches “the vessel nodes and/or platform node may be configured with network address(es) of the other nodes so that range communications may be limited to being between two specific nodes (i.e., a vessel node and the target node)” (para. [0031], emphasis added). If not inherent, it would at least have been obvious to implement Ostrem’s communication using wireless LAN because it is a well-known method of communication at 2.4 GHz that could be used with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, Ostrem teaches first, second, and third antennas (205a-n, Fig. 2). However Ostrem’s antennas measure distances, not first, second, and third positions as recited in claim 2, and Ostrem further does not teach or make obvious:
calculating the positional relationship between the first oscillating body and the target when the first communication device and the second communication device are within a range capable of direct communication includes,
acquiring a first position measured by the first positioning antenna, a second position measured by the second positioning antenna, and a third position measured by the third positioning antenna,
calculating a current attitude of the first oscillating body at the first position from a first vector from the first position to the second position and a second vector from the first position to the third position,
modifying a first reference vector from the first positioning antenna to a first predetermined point in the attitude of the first oscillating body at a predetermined time in accordance with the calculated current attitude of the first oscillating body at the first position,
calculating a position of the first predetermined point in the current attitude of the first oscillating body by adding the modified first reference vector to the first position, and calculating a current positional relationship between the first predetermined point and the target by referring to the specific information.
Claims 3-4 depend on claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stolte (US 20080086267 A1) teaches an AIS positioning system comprising a first module (para. [0040] “Each vessel 120 may be equipped with an AIS subscriber terminal”) that acquires information for calculating a positional relationship between a first oscillating body and a target (para. [0049] “The AIS is an autonomous and continuous broadcast system, operating in the VHF maritime mobile band and is capable of exchanging information, such as, for example, vessel identification, position, course, speed and more, between ships and shore. The AIS broadcast system performs information exchange between vessels within VHF range of each other (e.g., approximately 30 Nmi)”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights