DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The amended list of claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-22 are pending in this application. In the amended claim set filed 07/13/2026:
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 11, 13 and 16 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 has/have been canceled.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 15 and 18-20 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 has/have been newly added.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed on 07/13/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicants’ remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the Invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) pertaining to “logic device,” Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and have been found persuasive. Therefore, the Invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) pertaining to “logic device” has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and have been found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101(claim(s) 7 and 17 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but have since been canceled), Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered, but have not been found persuasive.
The Applicant first argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that the aforementioned features of independent
claims 1 and 11 are no less burdensome for the human mind than "calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges" as in the MPEP example noted above, especially considering that Applicant's claims are directed to dynamic proximity alert systems that are configured to render a complex maneuvering guide for hazard avoidance with multiple graphical indicators (mobile structure perimeter indicator, virtual bumper perimeter indicator, virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator), and to determine hazard escalation zones that correspond to ranges within a thickness of a virtual bumper perimeter about a perimeter of the watercraft. Specification, page 12 lines 5-8, page 112 lines 9-19, page 141 lines 1-15.
The real-time processing of perimeter sensor data to identify navigation hazards such as "approaching dock[s] or tie down post[s], other vehicles, floating debris, mooring lines, swimmers or water life" (Specification, page 24 lines 16-17) and the dynamic rendering of hazard indicators cannot practically be performed in the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is likening their invention to narrow defined claim limitation pertaining to a GPS receiver and calculated pseudoranges, which is not akin to the claimed invention. Rather the claimed invention recites monitoring “perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system,” which is a far broader claim limitation, and could easily be replicated via a human’s eyes.
The Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s claimed invention can be performed in the human mind as follows a human uses their eyes to see a hazard in the direction of travel ahead based on an arbitrarily defined safety envelope; when the human sees danger within the defined safety envelope, the human may provide a warning. The Applicant’s claim limitations pertaining to rendering on a display via a user interface an indicator within a virtual bumper perimeter indicator is extra-solution activity, as these steps simply comprise displaying sensor data on a display, based on the determined biased virtual bumper perimeter. Put another way, the Applicant’s solution, is the determination that the virtual bumper should be updated due to a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure, the actual rendering/displaying a display step does not impact the performance of the mobile structure in anyway nor does it attempt to renavigate the mobile structure in anyway way. It simply indicates that there is an object within an arbitrarily defined perimeter without substantially more.
The Applicant then argues: “The Office Action maintains that "the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity." Office Action, page 11. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., inventive concept). This can be evidenced at least by the "practical application" and "improvement" analysis presented above.
Further, Applicant submits that the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In this regard, the present amended claims utilize technology that provides meaningful features not found with generic computer components. For example, the described processes herein provide improvements to usage of logic devices and mobile structure navigation to provide collision avoidance. See Specification, page 57 lines 8-14.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant states in a conclusory way that the claimed invention improves the usage of logic devices and collision avoidance in the context of mobile structure navigation. No aspect of the claimed invention causes the mobile device to avoid a collision, displaying an object, based on an arbitrarily defined perimeter does not clearly improve collision avoidance. Furthermore, the Applicant has not demonstrated how the claimed invention improves the performance of the broadly recite “logic device,” which as the Applicant highlights in their response to the invocation(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), may simply be interpreted as a microprocessor. Specifically, what about the Applicant’s method of displaying objects within a virtual bumper perimeter improves the functionality of the microprocessor.
Therefore, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been maintained.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
In particular the Applicant argues that the Lee in view of Harnett does not disclose: “determine a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure;” and “render the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on: the monitored perimeter sensor data, and the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee discloses displaying a plurality of safety envelopes on a display screen, i.e. “rendering the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on: the monitored perimeter sensor data.” The Harnett reference in this case must then resolve the deficiencies of Lee with regards to determining “a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure.” The Examiner asserts that Harnett resolves this deficiency by disclosing: “the navigation safety system 500 may determine an appropriate threshold distance value 520 based upon the current metrics associated with the watercraft (e.g., velocity, stopping distance, wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others). For example, the navigation safety system 500 may scale the threshold distance value 520, either continuously or lockstep, based upon the velocity, stopping distance, or any other metric associated with the watercraft or hazard” in ¶: 0040. Put another way, the navigation safety system will gradually and continuously increase the range of the threshold distance as the velocity(magnitude and direction of the speed that the boat is traveling at), which may then be subsequently displayed based on the previous recitation of the Lee reference. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Lee in view of Harnett discloses Applicant’s cited claim limitations.
Due to the amendments to claims 1 and 11, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) has/have been withdrawn, but have been replaced with rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and therefore claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Office Note: Due to Applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a logic device and display that perform the following: 1) communicate with the user interface and render a hazard avoidance interface on the display; 2) monitor perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure, wherein the perimeter sensor data corresponds to at least a hazard monitoring area within a monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system; 3) determine a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure; 4) render the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on the monitored perimeter sensor data, wherein the hazard avoidance interface comprises a maneuvering guide comprising a mobile structure perimeter indicator, a virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator and corresponding to a safety perimeter for the mobile structure, and a virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator disposed substantially within the virtual bumper perimeter indicator; and 5) indicate a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system.
The limitations of: 1) communicate with the user interface and render a hazard avoidance interface on the display; 2) monitor perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure, wherein the perimeter sensor data corresponds to at least a hazard monitoring area within a monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system; 3) determine a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure; 4) render the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on the monitored perimeter sensor data; and 5) indicate a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a logic device and display nothing in the claim(s) preclude(s) the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the logic device and display language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of: monitoring perimeter sensor data and calculating a relative distance between an object and the vessel and notifying when the object and vessel become too close. The remaining steps reciting communicating with the user interface, rendering a hazard avoidance interface and indicating a relative position, respectively, comprise Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, they are not satisfactory in integrating the exception into a practical application. Communicating with the user interface in order to render an interface and indicate a relative position are simply forms of data gather and displaying of gather data(outputting data), and therefore recite Insignificant Post-Solution Activity. If claim a limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) only recite(s) the following additional element(s) – a logic device and display to perform: 1) communicating with the user interface and rendering a hazard avoidance interface on the display; 2) monitoring perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure; 3) determining a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure; 4) rendering the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on the monitored perimeter sensor data; and 5) indicating a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system. The logic device and display in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, transmitting, receiving data from a generic sensor and outputting data) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a logic device and display to perform: 1) communicating with the user interface and rendering a hazard avoidance interface on the display; 2) monitoring perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure; 3) determining a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure; 4) rendering the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on the monitored perimeter sensor data; and 5) indicating a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6, 8-10, 12-16 and 18-22 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1 and 11.
In particular, claims 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 18-22 are further directed towards defining the parameters of the interface(s) on the display, displaying sensor data of the watercraft (video feed and thrust information) and changing display parameters for the interface (selection of a thickness of one or more perimeter indicator segments/biasing a safety perimeter on a display). Therefore, these claims further recite Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, claims 3-6 and 13-16 are further directed towards determining a navigational bias, using the determined navigational bias to define a spatially biased safety perimeter, and displaying this perimeter. Claims 4-6 and 14-16 further define alternatives to the type of sensor data that may be considered in the above cited determining steps. The determining steps above using sensor data are possible for a human mind to perform. The remaining limitations pertain to displaying the determined biases and therefore further recite Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Examiner’s Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim(s), for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling an apparatus in a specific way based on the data comparison performed or further showing that the claimed subject matter is an improvement to a technical field. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (Korean Patent Publication 101864570B1) in view of Harnett (United States Patent Publication 2017/0365175 A1) referenced as Lee and Harnett, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, while Lee discloses:
“A system comprising: a user interface for a mobile structure comprising a display” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses a user interface unit(denoted 141 in Fig. 3) that includes a monitor screen to display parameters pertaining to an electronic propulsion vessel(denoted 200 in Fig. 1). The above disclosed electronic propulsion vessel has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "mobile structure;" Fig. 1 & 3; ¶: 0038-0041];
“and a logic device configured to communicate with the user interface and render a hazard avoidance interface on the display” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses that screen displays a respective danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone(denoted at a range of 100m, 500m and 1000m and rendered accordingly, respectively, in Fig. 6 and 7) to provide alerts when objects interact with the respective zones, for example. The screen displaying the respective danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "render(ing) a hazard avoidance interface on the display;" Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076];
“wherein the logic device is configured to: monitor perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure, wherein the perimeter sensor data corresponds to at least a hazard monitoring area within a monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee further discloses that the images displayed to the display screen are based on image frames acquired from a camera unit in order to display the previously recited danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone. The above disclosed camera unit has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited: "wherein the perimeter sensor data corresponds to at least a hazard monitoring area within a monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system;" Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076];
“wherein the hazard avoidance interface comprises a maneuvering guide comprising a mobile structure perimeter indicator, a virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator and corresponding to a safety perimeter for the mobile structure, and a virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator disposed substantially within the virtual bumper perimeter indicator” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses, at least in Fig. 7, a display screen that displays a plurality of perimeters corresponding to the previously recited danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone, respectively. Therefore the disclosed display screen in Fig. 7 has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "wherein the hazard avoidance interface comprises a maneuvering guide comprising a mobile structure perimeter indicator." Lee further discloses comparing subsequent image frames to determine when an object enters the surveillance region displayed in Fig. 7 in order to alert the operator accordingly. The disclosed surveillance area has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator and corresponding to a safety perimeter for the mobile structure." The disclosed alert displayed to the vessel operator based on the position of an object with respect to the surveillance zone in subsequent image frames has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "and a virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator disposed substantially within the virtual bumper perimeter indicator;" Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076];
“wherein the virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator is configured to indicate a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses estimating an approaching speed and a distance from an object to the monitored vessel using the image frames captured by the previously disclosed camera unit. The disclosed estimation of approaching speed and distance has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "indicate a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system;" Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076];
Lee does not specifically state:
“determine a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure;”
“render the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on: the monitored perimeter sensor data, and the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias.”
Harnett, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling watercrafts, teaches:
“determine a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure” [Harnett; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Harnett discloses a threshold value pertaining to a distance of hazards from a watercraft is variably adjusted in an automatic way based on the current metrics of the watercraft "e.g., velocity, stopping distance,
wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others" (¶: 0040). Therefore the disclosed current metrics have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a direction and magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure;" Fig. 1 & 4; ¶: 0035-0043];
“render the hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on: the monitored perimeter sensor data, and the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias” [Harnett; "For example, the navigation safety system 500 may scale the threshold distance value 520, either continuously or lockstep, based upon the velocity, stopping distance, or any other metric associated with the watercraft or hazard;" ¶: 0040; See also: ¶: 0041-0043, 0049, 0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 2, Lee discloses: “wherein: the virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator is configured to indicate a relative position and/or proximity of the navigation hazard detected at or within any one of a plurality of hazard escalation zones distributed concentrically within the hazard monitoring area and rendered to be visually distinguishable from each other” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses that the previously recited danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone in Fig. 7 are concentrically arranged, i.e. as circles of varying radius based on distance from the vessel, and they are visually distinguishable as they are located are varying distances from the vessel accordingly; Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076].
With respect to claim 3, Lee does not specifically state the limitations of claim 3.
Harnett teaches:
“wherein the logic device is configured to: determine a spatially biased safety perimeter for the mobile structure and a spatially biased hazard monitoring area within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system based, at least in part, on the determined direction and magnitude of the navigational bias, wherein: the spatially biased hazard monitoring area encloses the spatially biased safety perimeter and/or the spatially biased safety perimeter encloses the mobile structure perimeter” [Harnett; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Harnett discloses a threshold value pertaining to a distance of hazards from a watercraft is variably adjusted in an automatic way based on the current metrics of the watercraft "e.g., velocity, stopping distance,
wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others" (¶: 0040). Therefore, the disclosed current metrics have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a direction and magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure;"
In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Harnett further discloses using the above recited current metrics of the watercraft to generate a threshold distance and a second threshold distance, wherein the second threshold distance is "closer" to the watercraft than the first threshold distance, and wherein the second threshold distance may be a minimum safe distance between the hazard and the watercraft. In view of this disclosure, the disclosed threshold distance variably set based on current metrics of the watercraft has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a spatially biased hazard monitoring area within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system based," "wherein: the spatially biased hazard monitoring area encloses the spatially biased safety perimeter." Furthermore, the disclosed second threshold distance has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a spatially biased safety perimeter for the mobile structure" "wherein: the spatially biased safety perimeter encloses the mobile structure perimeter;" Fig. 1 & 4; ¶: 0035-0043, 0049, 0084];
“and the virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator is configured to indicate a relative position and/or proximity of the navigation hazard detected at or within the spatially biased hazard monitoring area, any one of a plurality of spatially biased hazard escalation zones distributed within the spatially biased hazard monitoring area and rendered visually distinguishable from each other, and/or the spatially biased safety perimeter for the mobile structure” [Harnett; "The raw radar returns may then be converted into electrical energy to form marine electronic data 310 and, more specifically, radar data. This marine electronic data 310 may be received by one or more marine electronic devices ( e.g., marine electronic device 300 in FIGS. 3-4), may be processed to determine if a hazard is present in the projected path of the watercraft 100, and may be used to generate an image of the above the surface environment (e.g., a radar image) that may be presented on a display ( e.g., screen 305 in FIG. 3-4 or display 601 in FIG. 6);" Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0026; See also: ¶: 0038, 0040-0044, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 4, Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an absolute velocity of the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined absolute velocity of the mobile structure.”
Harnett teaches: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an absolute velocity of the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined absolute velocity of the mobile structure” [Harnett; "In such an embodiment, the navigation safety system 500 may determine an appropriate threshold distance value 520 based upon the current metrics associated with the watercraft (e.g., velocity, stopping distance, wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others);" Fig. 4; ¶: 0040; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0035-0039, 0041-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 5, Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an environmental disturbance velocity impacting navigation of the mobile structure, wherein the environmental disturbance velocity comprises a wind velocity and/or a water current velocity; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined environmental disturbance velocity.”
Harnett teaches: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an environmental disturbance velocity impacting navigation of the mobile structure, wherein the environmental disturbance velocity comprises a wind velocity and/or a water current velocity; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined environmental disturbance velocity” [Harnett; "In such an embodiment, the navigation safety system 500 may determine an appropriate threshold distance value 520 based upon the current metrics associated with the watercraft (e.g., velocity, stopping distance, wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others);" Fig. 4; ¶: 0040; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0035-0039, 0041-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 6, Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining a minimum thrust availability direction associated with a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined minimum thrust availability direction;”
“and/or determining a relative hazard approach velocity from the mobile structure towards the navigation hazard based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined relative hazard approach velocity.”
Harnett teaches: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining a minimum thrust availability direction associated with a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined minimum thrust availability direction” [Harnett; "In such an embodiment, the navigation safety system 500 may determine an appropriate threshold distance value 520 based upon the current metrics associated with the watercraft (e.g., velocity, stopping distance, wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others);" Fig. 4; ¶: 0040. The disclosed stopping distance has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "thrust availability direction associated with a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure;" See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0035-0039, 0041-0043];
“and/or determining a relative hazard approach velocity from the mobile structure towards the navigation hazard based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined relative hazard approach velocity” [Harnett; This claim limitation does not require claim mapping from the prior art in order for the prior art to sufficiently disclose the cited claim limitations, due to use of the alternative operator "or" preceding the claim limitation.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 11, while Lee discloses:
“A method comprising: monitoring perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to a mobile structure, wherein the perimeter sensor data corresponds to at least a hazard monitoring area within a monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses that images displayed to a display screen are based on image frames acquired from a camera unit in order to display a disclosed recited danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone. The above disclosed images provided by the camera unit have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited: "monitoring perimeter sensor data provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to a mobile structure;" Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076];
“wherein the hazard avoidance interface comprises a maneuvering guide comprising a mobile structure perimeter indicator, a virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator and corresponding to a safety perimeter for the mobile structure, and a virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator disposed substantially within the virtual bumper perimeter indicator” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses, at least in Fig. 7, a display screen that displays a plurality of perimeters corresponding to the previously recited danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone, respectively. Therefore the disclosed display screen in Fig. 7 has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "wherein the hazard avoidance interface comprises a maneuvering guide comprising a mobile structure perimeter indicator." Lee further discloses comparing subsequent image frames to determine when an object enters the surveillance region displayed in Fig. 7 in order to alert the operator accordingly. The disclosed surveillance area has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator and corresponding to a safety perimeter for the mobile structure." The disclosed alert displayed to the vessel operator based on the position of an object with respect to the surveillance zone in subsequent image frames has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "and a virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator disposed substantially within the virtual bumper perimeter indicator;" Fig. 1, 3, 5-7; ¶: 0038-0041, 0073-0076];
“wherein the virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator is configured to indicate a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses estimating an approaching speed and a distance from an object to the monitored vessel using the image frames captured by the previously disclosed camera unit. The disclosed estimation of approaching speed and distance has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "indicate a relative position and/or proximity of a navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system;" Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076];
Lee does not specifically state:
“determining a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure;”
“and rendering a hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on: the monitored perimeter sensor data; the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias.”
Harnett teaches:
“determining a direction and a magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure” [Harnett; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Harnett discloses a threshold value pertaining to a distance of hazards from a watercraft is variably adjusted in an automatic way based on the current metrics of the watercraft "e.g., velocity, stopping distance,
wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others" (¶: 0040). Therefore the disclosed current metrics have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a direction and magnitude of a navigational bias associated with navigation of the mobile structure;" Fig. 1 & 4; ¶: 0035-0043];
“and rendering a hazard avoidance interface based, at least in part, on: the monitored perimeter sensor data; the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias” [Harnett; "For example, the navigation safety system 500 may scale the threshold distance value 520, either continuously or lockstep, based upon the velocity, stopping distance, or any other metric associated with the watercraft or hazard;" ¶: 0040; See also: ¶: 0041-0043, 0049, 0084].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 12, Lee discloses: “wherein: the virtual bumper perimeter indicator is concentric to and symmetrically spaced about the mobile structure perimeter indicator by a selected indicator thickness corresponding to a selected thickness of the safety perimeter for the mobile structure; a perimeter of the hazard monitoring area is concentric to and symmetrically spaced about the safety perimeter by a hazard monitoring perimeter thickness that is equal to or greater than the thickness of the safety perimeter for the mobile structure; and the virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator is configured to indicate a relative position and/or proximity of the navigation hazard detected at or within any one of a plurality of hazard escalation zones distributed concentrically within the hazard monitoring area and rendered to be visually distinguishable from each other” [Lee; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Lee discloses that the previously recited danger zone, boundary zone, surveillance zone and safety zone in Fig. 7 are concentrically arranged, i.e. as circles of varying radius based on distance from the vessel, and they are visually distinguishable as they are located are varying distances, selected to be 100m, 500m and 1000m (as disclosed in Fig. 6, for example) from the vessel accordingly; Fig. 5-7; ¶: 0073-0076];
With respect to claim 13, Lee does not specifically state the limitations of claim 13.
Harnett teaches:
“further comprising: and determining a spatially biased safety perimeter for the mobile structure and a spatially biased hazard monitoring area within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system based, at least in part, on the determined direction and magnitude of the navigational bias, wherein: the spatially biased hazard monitoring area encloses the spatially biased safety perimeter and/or the spatially biased safety perimeter encloses the mobile structure perimeter” [Harnett; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Harnett further discloses using the above recited current metrics of the watercraft to generate a threshold distance and a second threshold distance, wherein the second threshold distance is "closer" to the watercraft than the first threshold distance, and wherein the second threshold distance may be a minimum safe distance between the hazard and the watercraft. In view of this disclosure, the disclosed threshold distance variably set based on current metrics of the watercraft has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a spatially biased hazard monitoring area within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system based," "wherein: the spatially biased hazard monitoring area encloses the spatially biased safety perimeter." Furthermore the disclosed second threshold distance has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "a spatially biased safety perimeter for the mobile structure" "wherein: the spatially biased safety perimeter encloses the mobile structure perimeter;" ¶: 0040-0043, 0049, 0084];
“and the virtual bumper perimeter intrusion indicator is configured to indicate a relative position and/or proximity of the navigation hazard detected at or within any one or more spatially biased hazard escalation zones distributed within the spatially biased hazard monitoring area and rendered visually distinguishable from each other” [Harnett; "The raw radar returns may then be converted into electrical energy to form marine electronic data 310 and, more specifically, radar data. This marine electronic data 310 may be received by one or more marine electronic devices ( e.g., marine electronic device 300 in FIGS. 3-4), may be processed to determine if a hazard is present in the projected path of the watercraft 100, and may be used to generate an image of the above the surface environment (e.g., a radar image) that may be presented on a display ( e.g., screen 305 in FIG. 3-4 or display 601 in FIG. 6);" Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0026; See also: ¶: 0038, 0040-0044, 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 14, Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an absolute velocity of the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined absolute velocity of the mobile structure.”
Harnett teaches: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an absolute velocity of the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined absolute velocity of the mobile structure” [Harnett; "In such an embodiment, the navigation safety system 500 may determine an appropriate threshold distance value 520 based upon the current metrics associated with the watercraft (e.g., velocity, stopping distance, wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others);" Fig. 4; ¶: 0040; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0035-0039, 0041-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 15, Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an environmental disturbance velocity impacting navigation of the mobile structure, wherein the environmental disturbance velocity comprises a wind velocity and/or a water current velocity; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined environmental disturbance velocity.”
Harnett teaches: “wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining an environmental disturbance velocity impacting navigation of the mobile structure, wherein the environmental disturbance velocity comprises a wind velocity and/or a water current velocity; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined environmental disturbance velocity” [Harnett; "In such an embodiment, the navigation safety system 500 may determine an appropriate threshold distance value 520 based upon the current metrics associated with the watercraft (e.g., velocity, stopping distance, wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others);" Fig. 4; ¶: 0040; See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0035-0039, 0041-0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 16, Lee does not specifically state:
“wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining a minimum thrust availability direction associated with a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined minimum thrust availability direction;”
“and/or determining a relative hazard approach velocity from the mobile structure towards the navigation hazard based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined relative hazard approach velocity.”
Harnett teaches:
“wherein the determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias comprises: determining a minimum thrust availability direction associated with a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined minimum thrust availability direction” [Harnett; "In such an embodiment, the navigation safety system 500 may determine an appropriate threshold distance value 520 based upon the current metrics associated with the watercraft (e.g., velocity, stopping distance, wind speed, current direction, current distance to the hazard, velocity of the hazard if applicable, among others);" Fig. 4; ¶: 0040. The disclosed stopping distance has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "thrust availability direction associated with a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure;" See also: Fig. 1; ¶: 0035-0039, 0041-0043];
“and/or determining a relative hazard approach velocity from the mobile structure towards the navigation hazard based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data; and determining the direction and magnitude of the navigational bias based, at least in part, on the determined relative hazard approach velocity” [Harnett; This claim limitation does not require claim mapping from the prior art in order for the prior art to sufficiently disclose the cited claim limitations, due to use of the alternative operator "or" preceding the claim limitation.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding variably adjusting a warning area pertaining to a distance of a hazard from a watercraft based on obtained sensor data as taught by Harnett with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to automatically detect and control the vehicle to automatically avoid hazards along the route [Harnett; ¶: 0002-0004].
With respect to claim 20, Lee discloses: “wherein the mobile structure comprises a watercraft” [Lee; See the disclosed electronic propulsion ship (vessel) disclosed in Fig. 1 that shows the ship operating on water; Fig. 1; ¶: 0001; Abstract];
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Harnett and Paoletti (United States Patent Publication 2013/0194126 A1) referenced as Paoletti moving forward.
With respect to claim 8, Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the maneuvering guide comprises: a virtual bumper perimeter thickness indicator, a virtual bumper perimeter thickness selector, and/or a virtual bumper perimeter segment selector configured to enable, disable, indicate, and/or provide for user selection of a thickness of one or more perimeter indicator segments of the virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator.”
Paoletti, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling watercrafts, teaches: “wherein the maneuvering guide comprises: a virtual bumper perimeter thickness indicator, a virtual bumper perimeter thickness selector, and/or a virtual bumper perimeter segment selector configured to enable, disable, indicate, and/or provide for user selection of a thickness of one or more perimeter indicator segments of the virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator” [Paoletti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Paoletti discloses knobs(denoted 16 and 17 in Fig. 3C) that allow the operator of a ship to set a respective radar range(using knob 16) and a guard-distance(using second knob 17) to set the distance to trigger warnings for nearby objects; Fig. 3, 9; ¶: 0049, 0052, 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding allowing the operator of a watercraft to manually set a distance to trigger a warning based on proximity to an object as taught by Paoletti with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to accurately determine readings from a plurality of radar cameras and to subsequently merge their data to further display to the watercraft operator [Paoletti; ¶: 0033, 0050, 0080].
With respect to claim 18, Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the maneuvering guide comprises: a virtual bumper perimeter thickness indicator, a virtual bumper perimeter thickness selector, and/or a virtual bumper perimeter segment selector configured to enable, disable, indicate, and/or provide for user selection of a thickness of one or more perimeter indicator segments of the virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator.”
Paoletti teaches: “wherein the maneuvering guide comprises: a virtual bumper perimeter thickness indicator, a virtual bumper perimeter thickness selector, and/or a virtual bumper perimeter segment selector configured to enable, disable, indicate, and/or provide for user selection of a thickness of one or more perimeter indicator segments of the virtual bumper perimeter indicator disposed about the mobile structure perimeter indicator” [Paoletti; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Paoletti discloses knobs(denoted 16 and 17 in Fig. 3C) that allow the operator of a ship to set a respective radar range(using knob 16) and a guard-distance(using second knob 17) to set the distance to trigger warnings for nearby objects; Fig. 3, 9; ¶: 0049, 0052, 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding allowing the operator of a watercraft to manually set a distance to trigger a warning based on proximity to an object as taught by Paoletti with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to accurately determine readings from a plurality of radar cameras and to subsequently merge their data to further display to the watercraft operator [Paoletti; ¶: 0033, 0050, 0080].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Harnett and Vanhakartano et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0073392 A1) referenced as Vanhakartano moving forward.
With respect to claim 9, Lee does not specifically state the limitations of claim 9.
Vanhakartano, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling watercrafts, teaches:
“wherein the maneuvering guide comprises: an obstruction map generated based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data, wherein the obstruction map comprises at least the navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system” [Vanhakartano; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Vanhakartano discloses a touchscreen display for a marine vessel in which surrounding islands(denoted 404 and 408 in Fig. 4) are indicated with respect to a series of concentric circles setting a perimeter around the marine vessel. The disclosed islands displayed relative to a perimeter set around a marine vessel have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "obstruction map generated based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data, wherein the obstruction map comprises at least the navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system;" Fig. 4 & 5; ¶: 0039-0047];
“a translational thrust indicator configured to indicate a translational maneuvering thrust magnitude and direction relative to an orientation of the mobile structure perimeter indicator; and/or a rotational thrust indicator configured to indicate a rotational maneuvering thrust magnitude and direction relative to the orientation of the mobile structure perimeter indicator” [Vanhakartano; "In an example embodiment, the steering and propulsion system 142 comprises two or more separately controllable thrusters configured to steer and propel the marine vessel 140. The one or more processing units 110 are configured to display 306, 316 the current representation 1200 and the reference representation 1210 such that a single combined vector 310, 318 presents both a magnitude of the combined power of the two or more separately controllable thrusters and a direction of the combined angle of the two or more separately controllable thrusters. With this example embodiment, the user 180 immediately sees the magnitude and direction of the combined vectors (actual and reference), whereby the user 180 is able to steer the marine vessel 140 based on a good understanding of the operation status of the steering and propulsion system 142;" ¶: 0101; See also: Fig. 12; ¶: 0096-0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding displaying the thrust parameters or a marine vessel propulsion system on a navigational display as taught by Vanhakartano with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to determine a future geographic location of the marine vessel may be dangerous and to display a warning accordingly [Vanhakartano; ¶: 0048].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Harnett and Ohshima et al. (United States Patent Publication 2010/0070139 A1) referenced as Ohshima moving forward.
With respect to claim 10, while Lee discloses:
“The system of claim 1, wherein the hazard avoidance interface comprises: one or more video feeds provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure” [Lee; "The electric propulsion vessel includes four cameras installed in each of the four directions, and further includes a camera unit that acquires images of the four directions of the electric propulsion vessel using the four cameras, and the control unit analyzes the images to monitor objects around the electric propulsion vessel;" ¶: 0011;
"The control unit analyzes the second number of video frames per second to determine whether an object that has entered the boundary area is approaching;" ¶: 0015;
"At step S510, the control unit (145) acquires images of the surroundings of the electric propulsion vessel (200) at a first number of image frames per second and analyzes the acquired first number of image frames per second. For example, the control unit (145) can acquire video frames at 30 per second;" Fig. 5; ¶: 0074];
“wherein the system further comprises a navigation control system for the mobile structure, wherein: the mobile structure comprises a watercraft” [Lee; In at least Fig. 1 Lee depicts the disclosed electric propulsion vessel as a watercraft (denoted 200 in Fig. 1)];
“the navigation control system comprises one or more of a steering actuator, a propulsion system, and a thrust maneuver system; and the logic device is configured to generate control signals for the navigation control system to pilot the watercraft to remove the navigation hazard from a spatially biased hazard monitoring area within the monitoring perimeter and/or one or more spatially biased hazard escalation zones distributed within the spatially biased hazard monitoring area, and/or to avoid collision with the navigation hazard” [Lee; "For example, referring to FIG. 8, a situation in which an object, i.e., another vessel, approaches the periphery of an electric propulsion vessel (200) based on images acquired through cameras installed in four directions of the electric propulsion vessel (200) may be as shown in (a) of FIG. 8. Here, when another vessel approaches from the front or rear, it would be desirable for the electric propulsion vessel (200) to turn left or right. And, when another vessel approaches from the side, it would be desirable for the electric propulsion vessel (200) to increase its speed and proceed at a high speed to avoid a collision with the other vessel approaching from the side and avoid the local point. Therefore, the control unit (145) can output a control request message for steering angle or acceleration through the monitor screen of the user interface unit (141) depending on the direction in which another ship is approaching. If the control unit (145) is implemented so as to directly control the steering angle and speed of the electric propulsion vessel (200), the control unit (145) may output a message indicating the control situation while controlling the steering angle or acceleration;" Fig. 8; ¶: 0086];
Lee does not specifically state: “wherein each video feed of the one or more video feeds is rendered left of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a port side of the mobile structure and is rendered right of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a starboard side of the mobile structure.”
Ohshima, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling vehicles based on their surroundings, teaches:
“wherein each video feed of the one or more video feeds is rendered left of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a port side of the mobile structure and is rendered right of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a starboard side of the mobile structure” [Ohshima; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ohshima discloses a vehicle with four cameras mounted to four positions of a vehicle(denoted 11a-11d, respectively, in Fig. 2). Oshima further discloses a display configuration, such as that disclosed in Fig. 10A, which presents: a respective image feed from a left, i.e. the "port side," side mounted camera (denoted 11c in Fig. 2); a respective image feed from a right, i.e. the "starboard side," side mounted camera (denoted 11d in Fig. 2) respective image feed. The feeds are displayed on either of their respective sides with regards to a centered rear-view camera feed (denoted RV in Fig. 10A). The RV display portion further includes a superimposed indicator guide line (DL) to aid in steering of the vehicle in its current traveling direction(reverse in this case). The disclosed RV display portion with superimposed indicator guide line (DL) has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "maneuvering guide." The disclosed camera feed from the left-side mounted vehicle mirror has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "one or more video feeds is rendered left of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a port side of the mobile structure." Similarly, the disclosed camera feed from the right-side mounted vehicle mirror has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "one or more video feeds...is rendered right of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a starboard side of the mobile structure;" Fig. 2, 9C, 10A & 10B; ¶: 0101, 0112, 0113, 0121, 0124, 0126, 0127, 0131-0137].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding displaying camera feeds on the left and ride side of a display interface from cameras on a left side and right side of the vehicle, respectively, as taught by Ohshima with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to improve visibility and suppress potential driver discomfort using the display mode [Ohshima; ¶: 0133].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Harnett, Ohshima and Vanhakartano.
With respect to claim 19, while Lee discloses:
“The method of claim 11,” “wherein the hazard avoidance interface comprises: one or more video feeds provided by a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure”[Lee; "The electric propulsion vessel includes four cameras installed in each of the four directions, and further includes a camera unit that acquires images of the four directions of the electric propulsion vessel using the four cameras, and the control unit analyzes the images to monitor objects around the electric propulsion vessel;" ¶: 0011;
"The control unit analyzes the second number of video frames per second to determine whether an object that has entered the boundary area is approaching;" ¶: 0015;
"At step S510, the control unit (145) acquires images of the surroundings of the electric propulsion vessel (200) at a first number of image frames per second and analyzes the acquired first number of image frames per second. For example, the control unit (145) can acquire video frames at 30 per second;" Fig. 5; ¶: 0074];
Lee does not specifically state: “wherein the maneuvering guide comprises: an obstruction map generated based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data, wherein the obstruction map comprises at least the navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system;”
“a translational thrust indicator configured to indicate a translational maneuvering thrust magnitude and direction relative to an orientation of the mobile structure perimeter indicator; and/or a rotational thrust indicator configured to indicate a rotational maneuvering thrust magnitude and direction relative to the orientation of the mobile structure perimeter indicator;”
Or “wherein each video feed of the one or more video feeds is rendered left of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a port side of the mobile structure and is rendered right of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a starboard side of the mobile structure.”
Ohshima teaches: “wherein each video feed of the one or more video feeds is rendered left of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a port side of the mobile structure and is rendered right of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a starboard side of the mobile structure” [Ohshima; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Ohshima discloses a vehicle with four cameras mounted to four positions of a vehicle(denoted 11a-11d, respectively, in Fig. 2). Oshima further discloses a display configuration, such as that disclosed in Fig. 10A, which presents: a respective image feed from a left, i.e. the "port side," side mounted camera (denoted 11c in Fig. 2); a respective image feed from a right, i.e. the "starboard side," side mounted camera (denoted 11d in Fig. 2) respective image feed. The feeds are displayed on either their respective sides with regards to a centered rear-view camera feed (denoted RV in Fig. 10A). The RV display portion further includes a superimposed indicator guide line (DL) to aid in steering of the vehicle in its current traveling direction(reverse in this case). The disclosed RV display portion with superimposed indicator guide line (DL) has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "maneuvering guide." The disclosed camera feed from the left-side mounted vehicle mirror has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "one or more video feeds is rendered left of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a port side of the mobile structure." Similarly, the disclosed camera feed from the right-side mounted vehicle mirror has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "one or more video feeds...is rendered right of the maneuvering guide if the video feed is provided by a camera of the perimeter ranging system that is disposed substantially on a starboard side of the mobile structure;" Fig. 2, 9C, 10A & 10B; ¶: 0101, 0112, 0113, 0121, 0124, 0126, 0127, 0131-0137].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding displaying camera feeds on the left and ride side of a display interface from cameras on a left side and right side of the vehicle, respectively, as taught by Ohshima with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to improve visibility and suppress potential driver discomfort using the display mode [Ohshima; ¶: 0133].
Vanhakartano teaches:
“wherein the maneuvering guide comprises: an obstruction map generated based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data, wherein the obstruction map comprises at least the navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system” [Vanhakartano; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Vanhakartano discloses a touchscreen display for a marine vessel in which surrounding islands(denoted 404 and 408 in Fig. 4) are indicated with respect to a series of concentric circles setting a perimeter around the marine vessel. The disclosed islands displayed relative to a perimeter set around a marine vessel have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "obstruction map generated based, at least in part, on the perimeter sensor data, wherein the obstruction map comprises at least the navigation hazard disposed within the monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system;" Fig. 4 & 5; ¶: 0039-0047];
“a translational thrust indicator configured to indicate a translational maneuvering thrust magnitude and direction relative to an orientation of the mobile structure perimeter indicator; and/or a rotational thrust indicator configured to indicate a rotational maneuvering thrust magnitude and direction relative to the orientation of the mobile structure perimeter indicator” [Vanhakartano; "In an example embodiment, the steering and propulsion system 142 comprises two or more separately controllable thrusters configured to steer and propel the marine vessel 140. The one or more processing units 110 are configured to display 306, 316 the current representation 1200 and the reference representation 1210 such that a single combined vector 310, 318 presents both a magnitude of the combined power of the two or more separately controllable thrusters and a direction of the combined angle of the two or more separately controllable thrusters. With this example embodiment, the user 180 immediately sees the magnitude and direction of the combined vectors (actual and reference), whereby the user 180 is able to steer the marine vessel 140 based on a good understanding of the operation status of the steering and propulsion system 142;" ¶: 0101; See also: Fig. 12; ¶: 0096-0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles as disclosed by Lee to incorporate the teachings regarding displaying the thrust parameters or a marine vessel propulsion system on a navigational display as taught by Vanhakartano with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for managing a watercraft based on the proximity of obstacles that is more robust in its ability to determine a future geographic location of the marine vessel may be dangerous and to display a warning accordingly [Vanhakartano; ¶: 0048].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights