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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 4, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-14, 16, and 19-23 are pending, of which claims 1-3, 8, 12-14, 19, and 23 and have been amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous 112 rejections set forth in the prior Nonfinal Office Action.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the rejection of the last Nonfinal Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the rejection of the last Nonfinal Office Action is withdrawn. The current Non-Final rejection along with the corresponding reasoning outlined below is to be the only Official rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19 of the presently filed claims is written as dependent to claim 18, even though claim 18 is presently canceled. Appropriate correction is required. In the presently filed claims, claim 19 has been interpreted as being dependent to the independent claim 12.
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, 8, 12, 19, and 23 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. The independent claims 1, 12, and 23 recite “the vessel's force model”, and dependent claims 8 and 19 recite “the vessel’s inverse force model”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations as neither are introduced in the claims prior to their recitation.
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:
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuckle et al. (US 20200249678 A1) in view of Zhu et al. (US 20190317516 A1, referred to as Zhu ‘516), Zhu et al. (US 20120095621 A1, referred to as Zhu ‘621), and Fossen et al. (Non-patent Literature ‘Line‑of‑sight path‑following control utilizing an extended Kalman filter for estimation of speed and course over ground from GNSS positions’).
Regarding claim 1, Arbuckle teaches a method of controlling a marine surface vessel including one or more actuators, comprising:
receiving a nominal position signal and a nominal heading signal of the marine surface vessel in a navigation frame ([0022] and [0033]);
generating a plurality of nominal control signals based on one or more of
the nominal position signal and the nominal heading signal, the nominal control signals including a nominal force signal and a nominal moment signal ([0034], forward/back force and left/right force are computed);
receiving a plurality of sensed value signals including a sensed position signal, a sensed velocity signal, a sensed yaw angle signal, and a sensed yaw rate signal ([0039], actual position, actual speed, actual heading (i.e. angle), and actual yaw rate are determined);
generating a plurality of tracking error signals including a position tracking error signal generated based on the sensed position signal, a velocity tracking error signal generated based on the sensed velocity signal, a yaw angle tracking error signal generated based on the sensed yaw angle signal, and a yaw rate tracking error signal generated based on the sensed yaw rate signal ([0039] and [0045] and seen in Figs. 2A & 2B, where a position tracking error is generated as a left/right error 274 and a fore/aft error 276, a velocity tracking error is generated as left/right velocity error 290 and fore/aft velocity error 290, a yaw angle tracking error is generated as heading error 280, and a yaw rate tracking error is generated as rotational velocity error 294);
generating a plurality of tracking error control signals including a velocity tracking error control signal generated based on the position tracking error signal, a force tracking error control signal generated based on the velocity tracking error signal, a yaw tracking error control signal generated based on a sway component of the velocity tracking error signal, and a moment tracking error control signal generated based on the yaw rate tracking error signal ([0039] and [0045] and seen in Figs. 2A & 2B, where a velocity tracking error control is generated as the desired left/right velocity 284 and the desired fore/aft velocity 286, a force tracking error control is generated as the fore/aft and left/right DMD signals sent after 244 and 248, and a moment tracking error control is generated as the yaw DMD sent after 252; Note that the yaw tracking error control signal, as best interpreted from [0083] of applicant’s disclosure, is taught by Arbuckle in [0040]);
generating a plurality of command signals including a force command signal and a moment command signal ([0034]);
and controlling the one or more actuators of the marine surface vessel based on the force command signal and the moment command signal ([0047]).
Arbuckle discloses vessel guidance to a singular target position or heading [0022] while not being privy to multiple different positions or headings. It does not each teach iteratively performing these operations corresponding to a planned trajectory, and does not teach that the force and moment command signals are generated by summing nominal force and nominal moment signals with the tracking error signals, wherein the nominal moment signal is generated by: subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal to generate a nominal yaw angle signal; pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal; pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal, and multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal.
In the field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘516 teaches a method for allowing a vehicle to follow a planned trajectory, said method comprising calculating a nominal position and heading signal corresponding to a planned trajectory of a vehicle ([0007-0008] and [0047-0051]), and teaches that total a total force command is generated by summing nominal force vectors and calculated control force vectors as calculated by an error controller ([0079]). It further teaches determining a moment command signal by summing nominal moment and nominal error feedback ([0089-0090]), wherein the nominal moment signal is generated by:
subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal to generate a nominal yaw angle signal ([0087], where the yaw angle ψ is known to be produced by subtracting sideslip β from the course angle χ, i.e. the heading angle);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal ([0088], where ψnom is pseudo-derived to obtain dot over ψnom, which is equal to the nominal yaw rate rnom);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal ([0089-0090], where rnom is pseudo-derived to obtain dot over the nominal yaw acceleration signal dot over rnom),
and multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal ([0089-0090] and Eqn. 33).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement these control processes for the marine vessel of Arbuckle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Arbuckle with the trajectory and feedback control of Zhu ‘516 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to achieve a nominal trajectory as taught by Zhu ‘516 ([0047-0050]), thereby allowing a series of points to be traveled accurately rather than singular predetermined waypoints. This simplifies the operation of the marine vessel for its captain, and is performed with considerations for the challenges that such a trajectory following system will encounter ([0047-0050]).
When calculating the nominal yaw angle signal via the difference between the nominal sideslip and the nominal course angle, Zhu ’516 does not teach lowpass filtering the difference to generate a nominal yaw angle signal.
Various forms of lowpass filtering for path-following marine surface vessels are known in the art as in the same field of endeavor, Fossen teaches the obtaining of a course angle via the use of an extended Kalman filter, which performs the functions of a lowpass filter (Page 807, Col. 2, Para. 4; Page 808, Col. 1, Para. 1 and Col 2, Paras. 2-3). One of ordinary skill would recognize that lowpass filtering the minuend in a subtraction results in a lowpass filtering of the difference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to lowpass filter the difference to obtain the nominal yaw angle based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to achieve the well-known stabilizing effects granted by lowpass filters, thus ensuring that the nominal yaw angle is less indicative of noise that would result from the traditional calculation of the course angle. Using the specific filtering of Fossen confers the additional advantage of a low-cost alternative for calculating course angle that still ensures accuracy (see Paras. 1-4 of introduction on Pages 806-807, and Paras. 1-2 of conclusion on pages 812-813).
The invention of Zhu ‘516 pertains to land vehicles, and thus asserts certain kinematic properties that do not apply to boats, including zero lateral acceleration from lateral force and an assumption of zero lateral skidding ([0055] and [0064]), and thus sets the nominal sideslip angle to 0 ([0087]). Although Fossen discloses the use of and consideration towards sideslip, it is not privy to the determination of the sideslip value either. As a result, the prior combination does not explicitly teach using the nominal lateral force signal to compute a nominal sideslip angle signal based on the vessel’s inverse force model.
In the field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘621 teaches using the nominal lateral force signal to compute a nominal sideslip angle signal based on the vessel’s inverse force model ([0067], [0069], and [0109], where nominal sideslip is calculated from the nominal forces to achieve a nominal trajectory for a vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to calculate the nominal sideslip angle from the nominal forces via a force model based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that the nominal yaw angle is determined accurately with consideration to sideslip as water vessels are well known to be subject to various forces, such as waves, that create a sideslip in the vessel that cannot be ignored in order for path following to be accurate.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu ‘516 further teaches wherein generating the nominal force signal comprises:
pseudo-differentiating the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame nominal velocity signal ([0081], where Pnom is pseudo-derived to achieve dot over Pnom-, i.e. the n-frame velocity signal);
applying a first inverse translational kinematics function including a nominal yaw angle signal as a coefficient of rotation to the n-frame nominal velocity signal to generate a b-frame nominal velocity signal ([0081] and see Eqn. 18);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal b-frame velocity signal to generate a b-frame nominal acceleration signal ([0083], where Vnom is pseudo-derived to achieve dot over Vnom, i.e. the nominal acceleration);
and applying an inverse translational dynamics function including the nominal yaw rate signal, the b-frame nominal velocity signal, the b-frame nominal acceleration signal, and a mass of the marine surface vessel to generate the b-frame nominal force signal ([0083] and see Eqn. 24, where rnom is the nominal yaw rate per [0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu ‘516 further teaches wherein generating the force tracking error control signal comprises:
subtracting a sensed position signal from the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame position tracking error signal ([0081]);
applying the inverse translational kinematics function including the nominal yaw angle signal as the coefficient of rotation to the position tracking error signal to generate a b-frame down-range error vector signal ([0081]);
applying a first proportional-integral control law to the b-frame down-range error vector signal to generate a velocity tracking error control signal ([0082] and see Eqn. 21);
summing the nominal velocity signal and the velocity tracking error control signal to generate a velocity command signal ([0082] and see Fig. 2, where Vnom and Vctrl are summed to produce Vcom);
subtracting the sensed velocity signal from the velocity command signal to generate the velocity tracking error signal ([0083]);
and applying a second proportional-integral control law to the velocity tracking error signal to generate the force tracking error control signal ([0084] and see Eqn. 26).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu ‘516 teaches wherein generating the moment tracking error control signal comprises:
subtracting a sensed yaw angle signal from the yaw angle command signal to generate a yaw angle tracking error signal ([0088], ψerr = ψsen – ψcom);
applying a third proportional-integral control law to the yaw angle tracking error signal to generate a yaw rate tracking error control signal ([0088] and see Eqn. 31);
summing the yaw rate tracking error control signal and the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a yaw rate command signal ([0088], rcom = rnom + rctrl);
subtracting the sensed yaw rate signal from the yaw rate command signal to generate the yaw rate tracking error signal ([0089]);
and applying a fourth proportional-integral control law to the yaw rate tracking error signal to generate the moment tracking error control signal ([0091] and see Eqn. 34).
Since the invention of Zhu ‘516 is for land vehicles, it teaches that lateral forces do not generate lateral displacement ([0084]). Thus, it does not teach generating a yaw angle command signal based on the force command signal
Zhu ‘621 further teaches:
generating a yaw angle command signal based on the force command signal (see Fig. 2, operation performed by Guidance Command Control Allocation).
As lateral forces do generate lateral displacement for boats, it would have been obvious to generate the yaw angle command signal based on the force command signals for the motivation of ensuring that the subsequent values are generated so as to correct for any lateral force, such as those caused by ocean waves.
Regarding claim 12, Arbuckle teaches a system for controlling a marine surface vessel including one or more actuators, comprising:
one or more processors ([0028]);
and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and including program code ([0028]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a nominal position signal and a nominal heading signal of the marine surface vessel in a navigation frame ([0022] and [0033]);
generating a plurality of nominal control signals based on one or more of
the nominal position signal and the nominal heading signal, the nominal control signals including a nominal force signal and a nominal moment signal ([0034], forward/back force and left/right force are computed);
receiving a plurality of sensed value signals including a sensed position signal, a sensed velocity signal, a sensed yaw angle signal, and a sensed yaw rate signal ([0039], actual position, actual speed, actual heading (i.e. angle), and actual yaw rate are determined);
generating a plurality of tracking error signals including a position tracking error signal generated based on the sensed position signal, a velocity tracking error signal generated based on the sensed velocity signal, a yaw angle tracking error signal generated based on the sensed yaw angle signal, and a yaw rate tracking error signal generated based on the sensed yaw rate signal ([0039] and [0045] and seen in Figs. 2A & 2B, where a position tracking error is generated as a left/right error 274 and a fore/aft error 276, a velocity tracking error is generated as left/right velocity error 290 and fore/aft velocity error 290, a yaw angle tracking error is generated as heading error 280, and a yaw rate tracking error is generated as rotational velocity error 294);
generating a plurality of tracking error control signals including a velocity tracking error control signal generated based on the position tracking error signal, a force tracking error control signal generated based on the velocity tracking error signal, a yaw tracking error control signal generated based on a sway component of the velocity tracking error signal, and a moment tracking error control signal generated based on the yaw rate tracking error signal ([0039] and [0045] and seen in Figs. 2A & 2B, where a velocity tracking error control is generated as the desired left/right velocity 284 and the desired fore/aft velocity 286, a force tracking error control is generated as the fore/aft and left/right DMD signals sent after 244 and 248, and a moment tracking error control is generated as the yaw DMD sent after 252; Note that the yaw tracking error control signal, as best interpreted from [0083] of applicant’s disclosure, is taught by Arbuckle in [0040]);
generating a plurality of command signals including a force command signal and a moment command signal ([0034]);
and controlling the one or more actuators of the marine surface vessel based on the force command signal and the moment command signal ([0047]).
Arbuckle discloses vessel guidance to a singular target position or heading [0022] while not being privy to multiple different positions or headings. It does not each teach iteratively performing these operations corresponding to a planned trajectory, and does not teach that the force and moment command signals are generated by summing nominal force and nominal moment signals with the tracking error signals, wherein the nominal moment signal is generated by: subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal to generate a nominal yaw angle signal; pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal; pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal, and multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal.
In the field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘516 teaches a method for allowing a vehicle to follow a planned trajectory, said method comprising calculating a nominal position and heading signal corresponding to a planned trajectory of a vehicle ([0007-0008] and [0047-0051]), and teaches that total a total force command is generated by summing nominal force vectors and calculated control force vectors as calculated by an error controller ([0079]). It further teaches determining a moment command signal by summing nominal moment and nominal error feedback ([0089-0090]), wherein the nominal moment signal is generated by:
subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal to generate a nominal yaw angle signal ([0087], where the yaw angle ψ is known to be produced by subtracting sideslip β from the course angle χ, i.e. the heading angle);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal ([0088], where ψnom is pseudo-derived to obtain dot over ψnom, which is equal to the nominal yaw rate rnom);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal ([0089-0090], where rnom is pseudo-derived to obtain dot over the nominal yaw acceleration signal dot over rnom),
and multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal ([0089-0090] and Eqn. 33).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement these control processes for the marine vessel of Arbuckle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Arbuckle with the trajectory and feedback control of Zhu ‘516 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to achieve a nominal trajectory as taught by Zhu ‘516 ([0047-0050]), thereby allowing a series of points to be traveled accurately rather than singular predetermined waypoints. This simplifies the operation of the marine vessel for its captain, and is performed with considerations for the challenges that such a trajectory following system will encounter ([0047-0050]).
When calculating the nominal yaw angle signal via the difference between the nominal sideslip and the nominal course angle, Zhu ’516 does not teach lowpass filtering the difference to generate a nominal yaw angle signal.
Various forms of lowpass filtering for path-following marine surface vessels are known in the art as in the same field of endeavor, Fossen teaches the obtaining of a course angle via the use of an extended Kalman filter, which performs the functions of a lowpass filter (Page 807, Col. 2, Para. 4; Page 808, Col. 1, Para. 1 and Col 2, Paras. 2-3). One of ordinary skill would recognize that lowpass filtering the minuend in a subtraction results in a lowpass filtering of the difference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to lowpass filter the difference to obtain the nominal yaw angle based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to achieve the well-known stabilizing effects granted by lowpass filters, thus ensuring that the nominal yaw angle is less indicative of noise that would result from the traditional calculation of the course angle. Using the specific filtering of Fossen confers the additional advantage of a low-cost alternative for calculating course angle that still ensures accuracy (see Paras. 1-4 of introduction on Pages 806-807, and Paras. 1-2 of conclusion on pages 812-813).
The invention of Zhu ‘516 pertains to land vehicles, and thus asserts certain kinematic properties that do not apply to boats, including zero lateral acceleration from lateral force and an assumption of zero lateral skidding ([0055] and [0064]), and thus sets the nominal sideslip angle to 0 ([0087]). Although Fossen discloses the use of and consideration towards sideslip, it is not privy to the determination of the sideslip value either. As a result, the prior combination does not explicitly teach using the nominal lateral force signal to compute a nominal sideslip angle signal based on the vessel’s inverse force model.
In the field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘621 teaches using the nominal lateral force signal to compute a nominal sideslip angle signal based on the vessel’s inverse force model ([0067], [0069], and [0109], where nominal sideslip is calculated from the nominal forces to achieve a nominal trajectory for a vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to calculate the nominal sideslip angle from the nominal forces via a force model based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that the nominal yaw angle is determined accurately with consideration to sideslip as water vessels are well known to be subject to various forces, such as waves, that create a sideslip in the vessel that cannot be ignored in order for path following to be accurate.
Regarding claim 13, Zhu ‘516 further teaches wherein generating the nominal force signal comprises:
pseudo-differentiating the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame nominal velocity signal ([0081], where Pnom is pseudo-derived to achieve dot over Pnom-, i.e. the n-frame velocity signal);
applying a first inverse translational kinematics function including a nominal yaw angle signal as a coefficient of rotation to the n-frame nominal velocity signal to generate a b-frame nominal velocity signal ([0081] and see Eqn. 18);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal b-frame velocity signal to generate a b-frame nominal acceleration signal ([0083], where Vnom is pseudo-derived to achieve dot over Vnom, i.e. the nominal acceleration);
and applying an inverse translational dynamics function including the nominal yaw rate signal, the b-frame nominal velocity signal, the b-frame nominal acceleration signal, and a mass of the marine surface vessel to generate the b-frame nominal force signal ([0083] and see Eqn. 24, where rnom is the nominal yaw rate per [0088]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu ‘516 further teaches wherein generating the force tracking error control signal comprises:
subtracting a sensed position signal from the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame position tracking error signal ([0081]);
applying the inverse translational kinematics function including the nominal yaw angle signal as the coefficient of rotation to the position tracking error signal to generate a b-frame down-range error vector signal ([0081]);
applying a first proportional-integral control law to the b-frame down-range error vector signal to generate a velocity tracking error control signal ([0082] and see Eqn. 21);
summing the nominal velocity signal and the velocity tracking error control signal to generate a velocity command signal ([0082] and see Fig. 2, where Vnom and Vctrl are summed to produce Vcom);
subtracting the sensed velocity signal from the velocity command signal to generate the velocity tracking error signal ([0083]);
and applying a second proportional-integral control law to the velocity tracking error signal to generate the force tracking error control signal ([0084] and see Eqn. 26).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu ‘516 teaches wherein generating the moment tracking error control signal comprises:
subtracting a sensed yaw angle signal from the yaw angle command signal to generate a yaw angle tracking error signal ([0088], ψerr = ψsen – ψcom);
applying a third proportional-integral control law to the yaw angle tracking error signal to generate a yaw rate tracking error control signal ([0088] and see Eqn. 31);
summing the yaw rate tracking error control signal and the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a yaw rate command signal ([0088], rcom = rnom + rctrl);
subtracting the sensed yaw rate signal from the yaw rate command signal to generate the yaw rate tracking error signal ([0089]);
and applying a fourth proportional-integral control law to the yaw rate tracking error signal to generate the moment tracking error control signal ([0091] and see Eqn. 34).
Since the invention of Zhu ‘516 is for land vehicles, it teaches that lateral forces do not generate lateral displacement ([0084]). Thus, it does not teach generating a yaw angle command signal based on the force command signal
Zhu ‘621 further teaches:
generating a yaw angle command signal based on the force command signal (see Fig. 2, operation performed by Guidance Command Control Allocation).
As lateral forces do generate lateral displacement for boats, it would have been obvious to generate the yaw angle command signal based on the force command signals for the motivation of ensuring that the subsequent values are generated so as to correct for any lateral force, such as those caused by ocean waves.
Regarding claim 23, Arbuckle teaches a computer program product for controlling a marine surface vessel including one or more actuators, comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0030]);
and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and including program code ([0028]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving a nominal position signal and a nominal heading signal of the marine surface vessel in a navigation frame ([0022] and [0033]);
generating a plurality of nominal control signals based on one or more of
the nominal position signal and the nominal heading signal, the nominal control signals including a nominal force signal and a nominal moment signal ([0034], forward/back force and left/right force are computed);
receiving a plurality of sensed value signals including a sensed position signal, a sensed velocity signal, a sensed yaw angle signal, and a sensed yaw rate signal ([0039], actual position, actual speed, actual heading (i.e. angle), and actual yaw rate are determined);
generating a plurality of tracking error signals including a position tracking error signal generated based on the sensed position signal, a velocity tracking error signal generated based on the sensed velocity signal, a yaw angle tracking error signal generated based on the sensed yaw angle signal, and a yaw rate tracking error signal generated based on the sensed yaw rate signal ([0039] and [0045] and seen in Figs. 2A & 2B, where a position tracking error is generated as a left/right error 274 and a fore/aft error 276, a velocity tracking error is generated as left/right velocity error 290 and fore/aft velocity error 290, a yaw angle tracking error is generated as heading error 280, and a yaw rate tracking error is generated as rotational velocity error 294);
generating a plurality of tracking error control signals including a velocity tracking error control signal generated based on the position tracking error signal, a force tracking error control signal generated based on the velocity tracking error signal, a yaw tracking error control signal generated based on a sway component of the velocity tracking error signal, and a moment tracking error control signal generated based on the yaw rate tracking error signal ([0039] and [0045] and seen in Figs. 2A & 2B, where a velocity tracking error control is generated as the desired left/right velocity 284 and the desired fore/aft velocity 286, a force tracking error control is generated as the fore/aft and left/right DMD signals sent after 244 and 248, and a moment tracking error control is generated as the yaw DMD sent after 252; Note that the yaw tracking error control signal, as best interpreted from [0083] of applicant’s disclosure, is taught by Arbuckle in [0040]);
generating a plurality of command signals including a force command signal and a moment command signal ([0034]);
and controlling the one or more actuators of the marine surface vessel based on the force command signal and the moment command signal ([0047]).
Arbuckle discloses vessel guidance to a singular target position or heading [0022] while not being privy to multiple different positions or headings. It does not each teach iteratively performing these operations corresponding to a planned trajectory, and does not teach that the force and moment command signals are generated by summing nominal force and nominal moment signals with the tracking error signals, wherein the nominal moment signal is generated by: subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal to generate a nominal yaw angle signal; pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal; pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal, and multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal.
In the field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘516 teaches a method for allowing a vehicle to follow a planned trajectory, said method comprising calculating a nominal position and heading signal corresponding to a planned trajectory of a vehicle ([0007-0008] and [0047-0051]), and teaches that total a total force command is generated by summing nominal force vectors and calculated control force vectors as calculated by an error controller ([0079]). It further teaches determining a moment command signal by summing nominal moment and nominal error feedback ([0089-0090]), wherein the nominal moment signal is generated by:
subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal to generate a nominal yaw angle signal ([0087], where the yaw angle ψ is known to be produced by subtracting sideslip β from the course angle χ, i.e. the heading angle);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal ([0088], where ψnom is pseudo-derived to obtain dot over ψnom, which is equal to the nominal yaw rate rnom);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal ([0089-0090], where rnom is pseudo-derived to obtain dot over the nominal yaw acceleration signal dot over rnom),
and multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal ([0089-0090] and Eqn. 33).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement these control processes for the marine vessel of Arbuckle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Arbuckle with the trajectory and feedback control of Zhu ‘516 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to achieve a nominal trajectory as taught by Zhu ‘516 ([0047-0050]), thereby allowing a series of points to be traveled accurately rather than singular predetermined waypoints. This simplifies the operation of the marine vessel for its captain, and is performed with considerations for the challenges that such a trajectory following system will encounter ([0047-0050]).
When calculating the nominal yaw angle signal via the difference between the nominal sideslip and the nominal course angle, Zhu ’516 does not teach lowpass filtering the difference to generate a nominal yaw angle signal.
Various forms of lowpass filtering for path-following marine surface vessels are known in the art as in the same field of endeavor, Fossen teaches the obtaining of a course angle via the use of an extended Kalman filter, which performs the functions of a lowpass filter (Page 807, Col. 2, Para. 4; Page 808, Col. 1, Para. 1 and Col 2, Paras. 2-3). One of ordinary skill would recognize that lowpass filtering the minuend in a subtraction results in a lowpass filtering of the difference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to lowpass filter the difference to obtain the nominal yaw angle based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to achieve the well-known stabilizing effects granted by lowpass filters, thus ensuring that the nominal yaw angle is less indicative of noise that would result from the traditional calculation of the course angle. Using the specific filtering of Fossen confers the additional advantage of a low-cost alternative for calculating course angle that still ensures accuracy (see Paras. 1-4 of introduction on Pages 806-807, and Paras. 1-2 of conclusion on pages 812-813).
The invention of Zhu ‘516 pertains to land vehicles, and thus asserts certain kinematic properties that do not apply to boats, including zero lateral acceleration from lateral force and an assumption of zero lateral skidding ([0055] and [0064]), and thus sets the nominal sideslip angle to 0 ([0087]). Although Fossen discloses the use of and consideration towards sideslip, it is not privy to the determination of the sideslip value either. As a result, the prior combination does not explicitly teach using the nominal lateral force signal to compute a nominal sideslip angle signal based on the vessel’s inverse force model.
In the field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘621 teaches using the nominal lateral force signal to compute a nominal sideslip angle signal based on the vessel’s inverse force model ([0067], [0069], and [0109], where nominal sideslip is calculated from the nominal forces to achieve a nominal trajectory for a vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination to calculate the nominal sideslip angle from the nominal forces via a force model based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that the nominal yaw angle is determined accurately with consideration to sideslip as water vessels are well known to be subject to various forces, such as waves, that create a sideslip in the vessel that cannot be ignored in order for path following to be accurate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, it is noted that claims 8 and 19 have discrepancies with the independent claims 1 and 12 upon which they rely. Claims 1 and 12 include “subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal and lowpass filtering the difference to generate a nominal yaw angle signal”, whereas claims 8 and 19 merely include “subtracting the nominal sideslip signal from the nominal heading signal to generate the nominal yaw angle signal” without any lowpass filtering being performed. If the claims were to be amended so that both of these clauses were included in the same independent claim, said claim may be indefinite as there would be confusion as to whether or not the difference is being lowpass filtered. Applicant is advised to resolve this discrepancy if they so choose to amend the independent claims to include the limitations of claims 8 and 19.
Claims 9-11 and 20-22 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments. Filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous nonfinal rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Arbuckle, Zhu ‘516, Zhu ‘621, and Fossen as seen in the presently given rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights