DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 2, 5, 13, and 16 recite "the nominal yaw rate signal". Claims 3 and 14 recites “the nominal yaw angle signal” and “the nominal velocity signal”. Claims 7 and 18 recite “the nominal lateral force signal”. Claims 8 and 19 recite “the lateral drift”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which they depend. The limitation that generating the force command signal comprises “summing the nominal force signal and the force tracking error control signal” as added by claims 4 and 15 fails to further limit the independent claims as the force command signal of the independent claims is already “generated by summing the nominal force signal and the force tracking error control signal”. The limitation that generating the moment command signal comprises “summing the nominal moment signal and the moment tracking error control signal” as added by claims 6 and 17 fails to further limit the independent claims as the moment command signal of the independent claims is already “generated by summing the nominal moment signal and the moment tracking error control signal”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 12-13, 15-17, 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 20120095621 A1, referred to as Zhu ‘621).
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 teaches the claims for mapping 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 determined by Arbuckle.
In the same field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘621 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 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 ([0108] and [0114]). It further teaches determining a moment command signal by summing nominal moment and nominal error feedback control moment vectors in a similar fashion ([0061-0064]).
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 ‘621 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to achieve a nominal trajectory as taught by Zhu ‘621 ([0109]), 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.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the nominal force signal comprises:
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 ([0100], equation 4);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal b-frame velocity signal to generate a b-frame nominal acceleration signal ([0105]);
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 ([0058] and [0105]).
Zhu ‘621 teaches Pseudo-deriving, and it teaches using an n-frame nominal velocity signal to obtain a b-frame nominal velocity signal. But it doesn't explicitly teach how this n-frame nominal velocity signal is obtained, and it doesn’t teach pseudo-differentiating the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame nominal velocity signal.
However, Zhu ‘621 does teach pseudo-deriving nominal values as part of the other inverse rotational kinematics loops ([0040] being one such nominal vector, the pseudo-deriving operation being shown in Fig. 3). It is also well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that deriving a positional value yields a velocity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the pseudo-deriving techniques disclosed by Zhu ‘621 to obtain the n-frame nominal velocity signal in order to be able to perform an inverse translational kinematics function as required to generate the b-frame nominal velocity signal.
Regarding claim 4, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the force command signal comprises:
summing the nominal force signal and the force tracking error control signal ([0108] and [0114]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the moment tracking error control signal comprises:
generating a yaw angle command signal based on the force command signal (Fig. 2, operation performed by Guidance Command Control Allocation);
subtracting a sensed yaw angle signal from the yaw angle command signal to generate a yaw angle tracking error signal (Fig. 2, where the difference between the received feedback angle command and the sensed angles 58 is determined);
applying a third proportional-integral control law to the yaw angle tracking error signal to generate a yaw rate tracking error control signal (Fig. 2, operation performed by OL Attitude LTV Tracking Error Control);
summing the yaw rate tracking error control signal and the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a yaw rate command signal (Fig. 2, where the output of Inverse Translational Kinematics Loop 3 and OL Attitude LTV Tracking Error Control Loop 3 are summed);
subtracting the sensed yaw rate signal from the yaw rate command signal to generate the yaw rate tracking error signal ([0124] and Fig. 2, where the difference between the resulting summation and the sensed angular body rate 60 is determined);
and applying a fourth proportional-integral control law to the yaw rate tracking error signal to generate the moment tracking error control signal ([0063] and Fig. 2, the operation being performed by IL Attitude LTV Tracking Error Control Loop 4).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the moment command signal comprises:
summing the nominal moment signal and the moment tracking error control signal ([0061-0064]).
Regarding claim 12, Arbuckle teaches a system for controlling a marine surface vessel including one or more actuators, comprising:
one or more processors;
and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and including program code that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the system to:
receive a nominal position signal and a nominal heading signal of the marine surface vessel in a navigation frame ([0022] and [0033]);
generate 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);
receive 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);
generate 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);
generate 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]);
generate a plurality of command signals including a force command signal and a moment command signal ([0034]);
and control the one or more actuators of the marine surface vessel based on the force command signal and the moment command signal ([0047]).
Arbuckle teaches the claims for mapping 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 determined by Arbuckle.
In the same field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘621 teaches a system for allowing a vehicle to follow a planned trajectory, said system performing operations comprising calculating a nominal position and heading signal corresponding to a planned trajectory of a vehicle ([0007-0008]), 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 ([0108] and [0114]). It further teaches determining a moment command signal by summing nominal moment and nominal error feedback control moment vectors in a similar fashion ([0061-0064]).
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 ‘621 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to achieve a nominal trajectory as taught by Zhu ‘621 ([0109]), 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.
Regarding claim 13, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the nominal force signal comprises:
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 ([0100], equation 4);
pseudo-differentiating the nominal b-frame velocity signal to generate a b-frame nominal acceleration signal ([0105]);
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 ([0058] and [0105]).
Zhu ‘621 teaches Pseudo-deriving, and it teaches using an n-frame nominal velocity signal to obtain a b-frame nominal velocity signal. But it doesn't explicitly teach how this n-frame nominal velocity signal is obtained, and it doesn’t teach pseudo-differentiating the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame nominal velocity signal.
However, Zhu ‘621 does teach pseudo-deriving nominal values as part of the other inverse rotational kinematics loops ([0040] being one such nominal vector, the pseudo-deriving operation being shown in Fig. 3). It is also well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that deriving a positional value yields a velocity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the pseudo-deriving techniques disclosed by Zhu ‘621 to obtain the n-frame nominal velocity signal in order to be able to perform an inverse translational kinematics function as required to generate the b-frame nominal velocity signal.
Regarding claim 15, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the force command signal comprises:
summing the nominal force signal and the force tracking error control signal ([0108] and [0114]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the moment tracking error control signal comprises:
generating a yaw angle command signal based on the force command signal (Fig. 2, operation performed by Guidance Command Control Allocation);
subtracting a sensed yaw angle signal from the yaw angle command signal to generate a yaw angle tracking error signal (Fig. 2, where the difference between the received feedback angle command and the sensed angles 58 is determined);
applying a third proportional-integral control law to the yaw angle tracking error signal to generate a yaw rate tracking error control signal (Fig. 2, operation performed by OL Attitude LTV Tracking Error Control);
summing the yaw rate tracking error control signal and the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a yaw rate command signal (Fig. 2, where the output of Inverse Translational Kinematics Loop 3 and OL Attitude LTV Tracking Error Control Loop 3 are summed);
subtracting the sensed yaw rate signal from the yaw rate command signal to generate the yaw rate tracking error signal ([0124] and Fig. 2, where the difference between the resulting summation and the sensed angular body rate 60 is determined);
and applying a fourth proportional-integral control law to the yaw rate tracking error signal to generate the moment tracking error control signal ([0063] and Fig. 2, the operation being performed by IL Attitude LTV Tracking Error Control Loop 4).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein generating the moment command signal comprises:
summing the nominal moment signal and the moment tracking error control signal ([0061-0064]).
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:
receive a nominal position signal and a nominal heading signal of the marine surface vessel in a navigation frame ([0022] and [0033]);
generate 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);
receive 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);
generate 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);
generate 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]);
generate a plurality of command signals including a force command signal and a moment command signal ([0034]);
and control the one or more actuators of the marine surface vessel based on the force command signal and the moment command signal ([0047]).
Arbuckle teaches the claims for mapping 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 determined by Arbuckle.
In the same field of trajectory tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘621 teaches a system for allowing a vehicle to follow a planned trajectory, said system performing operations comprising calculating a nominal position and heading signal corresponding to a planned trajectory of a vehicle ([0007-0008]), 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 ([0108] and [0114]). It further teaches determining a moment command signal by summing nominal moment and nominal error feedback control moment vectors in a similar fashion ([0061-0064]).
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 ‘621 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to achieve a nominal trajectory as taught by Zhu ‘621 ([0109]), 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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuckle in view of Zhu ‘621 as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20190317516 A1, referred to further as Zhu ‘516).
Regarding claim 3, Arbuckle teaches subtracting a sensed position signal from the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame position tracking error signal ([0039]). Zhu ‘621 further teaches:
summing the nominal velocity signal and the velocity tracking error control signal to generate a velocity command signal (see Fig. 2, where the output of translational kinematics loop 1 and OL guidance LTV tracking error controller loop 1 are summed);
subtracting the sensed velocity signal from the velocity command signal to generate the velocity tracking error signal (see Fig. 2, where the resulting summation is subtracted by sensed velocity 56);
and applying a second proportional-integral control law to the velocity tracking error signal to generate the force tracking error control signal (see Fig. 2, the operation performed by IL guidance LTV tracking error controller Loop 2).
The prior combination does not consider the b-frame down-range error in these equations, and does not teach 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, and applying a first proportional-integral control law to the b-frame down-range error vector signal to generate a velocity tracking error control signal.
In the same field of controlling tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘516 teaches a method for allowing a vehicle to follow a planned trajectory, said method comprising:
applying the inverse translational kinematics function including the sensed 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]);
and 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]);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply these teachings, using the nominal yaw angle signal and n-frame position tracking error signal so as to bridge the position tracking error outputted by Arbuckle and the velocity tracking error control signal inputted by Zhu ‘621. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include these operations of Zhu ‘516 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Zhu ‘516, to give considerations to constraints of motion, such as nonholonomic constraints, to determine a more accurate velocity tracking error control signal ([0081]).
Regarding claim 14, Arbuckle teaches subtracting a sensed position signal from the nominal position signal to generate an n-frame position tracking error signal ([0039]). Zhu ‘621 further teaches:
summing the nominal velocity signal and the velocity tracking error control signal to generate a velocity command signal (see Fig. 2, where the output of translational kinematics loop 1 and OL guidance LTV tracking error controller loop 1 are summed);
subtracting the sensed velocity signal from the velocity command signal to generate the velocity tracking error signal (see Fig. 2, where the resulting summation is subtracted by sensed velocity 56);
and applying a second proportional-integral control law to the velocity tracking error signal to generate the force tracking error control signal (see Fig. 2, the operation performed by IL guidance LTV tracking error controller Loop 2).
The prior combination does not consider the b-frame down-range error in these equations, and does not teach 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, and applying a first proportional-integral control law to the b-frame down-range error vector signal to generate a velocity tracking error control signal.
In the same field of controlling tracking control for vehicles, Zhu ‘516 teaches a system for allowing a vehicle to follow a planned trajectory, said system comprising operations of:
applying the inverse translational kinematics function including the sensed 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]);
and 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]);
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply these teachings, using the nominal yaw angle signal and n-frame position tracking error signal so as to bridge the position tracking error outputted by Arbuckle and the velocity tracking error control signal inputted by Zhu ‘621. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include these operations of Zhu ‘516 based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Zhu ‘516, to give considerations to constraints of motion, such as nonholonomic constraints, to determine a more accurate velocity tracking error control signal ([0081]).
Claims 7-11 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuckle in view of Zhu ‘621 as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Fossen et al. (Non-patent Literature ‘Line-of-Sight Path Following for Dubins Paths’).
Regarding claim 7, Arbuckle teaches subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal and lowpass filtering the difference to generate a nominal yaw angle signal ([0039-0041]). Zhu ‘621 further 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]);
and pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal (Fig. 2, operation performed by Inverse Rotational Kinematics Loop 3).
The prior combination does not teach 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 control for path following for vehicles, Fossen teaches multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal (page 825, Col. 1, lines 15-17 and equation 51), with Blanke- as cited by Fossen- specifying that this is produced by pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal (see citation [3] of Fossen, citing a teaching from Page 4, lines 11-13 and equation 4 of Blanke et al, Non-patent Literature ‘Rudder-Roll Damping Autopilot Robustness to Sway-Yaw-Roll Couplings’). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this a differentiation of the yaw rate as deriving a speed/rate value is well-known to produce acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination by determining the nominal moment signal in this manner based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of determining the values for trajectory following with a consideration of the inertial force caused by the nautical vessel, thereby increasing accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Arbuckle teaches:
generating a nominal velocity signal based on the nominal position signal ([0039]);
generating a nominal yaw rate signal based on the nominal heading signal ([0039]);
and generating a nominal force signal including a nominal surge component and a nominal sway component based on the nominal yaw rate signal and the nominal velocity signal ([0034]).
Fossen further teaches:
determining a required sway velocity to overcome the lateral drift based on the sway component of the nominal force signal and the vessel’s force model parameters (Page 823, Col. 2, section B., where a sway component of the velocity is determined to cancel the calculated sideslip signal);
generating a nominal sideslip signal based on a ratio of the required sway velocity to the surge component of the nominal velocity (Page 822, Col. 2, lines 1-19, where the phase is calculated as a ration of surge v and sway u);
and subtracting the nominal sideslip signal from the nominal heading signal to generate the nominal yaw angle signal (Page 822, Col. 2, lines 1-19, where the course angle is produced as the difference between the sideslip angle and heading angle).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu ‘621 further teaches applying a second inverse translational kinematics function including the nominal heading signal as the coefficient of rotation to the pseudo-differentiated n-frame nominal position signal to generate the nominal b-frame velocity signal ([0100], and where the Inverse Translational Kinematics of Fig. 3 is performed).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu ‘621 further teaches pseudo-differentiating the nominal heading signal to generate the nominal yaw rate signal (Fig. 2, where the Inverse Rotational Kinematics Loop 3 performs the operation).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein the marine surface vessel has a mass ([0105], mass m), and generating the nominal force signal comprises:
pseudo-differentiating the nominal velocity signal to generate a nominal acceleration signal ([0105], where the pseudo-differentiator calculates the nominal acceleration signal);
applying a second inverse translational dynamics function including the nominal yaw rate signal as the coefficient of rotation to the nominal velocity signal to generate a result ([0105], where the first term in the brackets of equation 11 represents the limitation);
subtracting the result from the nominal acceleration signal to generate a difference ([0105], where the difference between the previous result and the nominal acceleration signal is determined within the brackets of equation 11);
and multiplying the difference by the mass of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal force signal ([0105], where this difference in the brackets is then multiplied by m in equation 11).
Regarding claim 18, Arbuckle teaches subtracting the nominal sideslip angle signal from the nominal heading angle signal and lowpass filtering the difference to generate a nominal yaw angle signal ([0039-0041]). Zhu ‘621 further 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]);
and pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw angle signal to generate a nominal yaw rate signal (Fig. 2, operation performed by Inverse Rotational Kinematics Loop 3).
The prior combination does not teach 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 control for path following for vehicles, Fossen teaches multiplying the nominal yaw acceleration signal by a rotational inertia of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal moment signal (page 825, Col. 1, lines 15-17 and equation 51), with Blanke- as cited by Fossen- specifying that this is produced by pseudo-differentiating the nominal yaw rate signal to generate a nominal yaw acceleration signal (see citation [3] of Fossen, citing a teaching from Page 4, lines 11-13 and equation 4 of Blanke et al, Non-patent Literature ‘Rudder-Roll Damping Autopilot Robustness to Sway-Yaw-Roll Couplings’). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this a differentiation of the yaw rate as deriving a speed/rate value is well-known to produce acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination by determining the nominal moment signal in this manner based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of determining the values for trajectory following with a consideration of the inertial force caused by the nautical vessel, thereby increasing accuracy.
Regarding claim 19, Arbuckle teaches:
generating a nominal velocity signal based on the nominal position signal ([0039]);
generating a nominal yaw rate signal based on the nominal heading signal ([0039]);
and generating a nominal force signal including a nominal surge component and a nominal sway component based on the nominal yaw rate signal and the nominal velocity signal ([0034]).
Fossen further teaches:
determining a required sway velocity to overcome the lateral drift based on the sway component of the nominal force signal and the vessel’s force model parameters (Page 823, Col. 2, section B., where a sway component of the velocity is determined to cancel the calculated sideslip signal);
generating a nominal sideslip signal based on a ratio of the required sway velocity to the surge component of the nominal velocity (Page 822, Col. 2, lines 1-19, where the phase is calculated as a ration of surge v and sway u);
and subtracting the nominal sideslip signal from the nominal heading signal to generate the nominal yaw angle signal (Page 822, Col. 2, lines 1-19, where the course angle is produced as the difference between the sideslip angle and heading angle).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu ‘621 further teaches applying a second inverse translational kinematics function including the nominal heading signal as the coefficient of rotation to the pseudo-differentiated n-frame nominal position signal to generate the nominal b-frame velocity signal ([0100], and where the Inverse Translational Kinematics of Fig. 3 is performed).
Regarding claim 21, Zhu ‘621 further teaches pseudo-differentiating the nominal heading signal to generate the nominal yaw rate signal (Fig. 2, where the Inverse Rotational Kinematics Loop 3 performs the operation).
Regarding claim 22, Zhu ‘621 further teaches wherein the marine surface vessel has a mass ([0105], mass m), and generating the nominal force signal comprises:
pseudo-differentiating the nominal velocity signal to generate a nominal acceleration signal ([0105], where the pseudo-differentiator calculates the nominal acceleration signal);
applying a second inverse translational dynamics function including the nominal yaw rate signal as the coefficient of rotation to the nominal velocity signal to generate a result ([0105], where the first term in the brackets of equation 11 represents the limitation);
subtracting the result from the nominal acceleration signal to generate a difference ([0105], where the difference between the previous result and the nominal acceleration signal is determined within the brackets of equation 11);
and multiplying the difference by the mass of the marine surface vessel to generate the nominal force signal ([0105], where this difference in the brackets is then multiplied by m in equation 11).
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 9AM-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