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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Application Status
This office action is issued in response to the application filed 11/15/2024 (and claim amendments filed 1/22/2025). Claims 1-21 and 23-24 are pending. Claims 1-21 and 23-24 are rejected. This action is non-final. A three-month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 4, element 14b includes the misspelling of the word thruster(s), which is written as “Truster(s)”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claims 1, 4, 7-8 and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: Inclusion of a repetitive phrase: “wherein the control system is configured to configured to provide”;
Claims 1, 4, 7-8 and 11-20: The phrase “is configured to” is used, but should be discouraged because of the 112(f) issues that may arise. For example, in Claim 4 the limitation “wherein the control system is configured to provide the at least one first command to the first marine vessel and the at least one second command to the second marine vessel” does not appear to directly connect the “control system” with providing commands to the marine vessel without implying a software aspect (i.e., clearly distinguishing “control system” from “control means”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being unpatentable over Jensen (US 2021/0382484 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jensen discloses the limitations: a control system for controlling movement, position, or force {“Through a fixed pattern of a fixed number of maneuvers, the forces exerted on the tow line are determined and are stored and processed in a computer of a data processing system that implements the method according to the invention”, ¶[0029]} for a mechanically connected object comprising a plurality of marine vessels {as evident in Fig. 2, tugs 2.1 and 2.2 apply forces to direct ship 1}, the control system comprising: at least one processor configured to: receive a movement, position or force command for the mechanically connected object; and generate at least one first command for a first marine vessel of the plurality of marine vessels and at least one second command for a second marine vessel of the plurality of marine vessels, to control movement, position, or force of the mechanically connected object in response to the movement, position or force command for the mechanically connected object {“A method for controlling a towing train including a ship and at least one tug acting on the ship…calculating the required positions, orientations, and drive settings of the at least one acting tug using an algorithm that accesses the data model and generating control commands for the at least one tug such that the sum of all the force vectors and torques of the at least one acting tug corresponds to the required correction force vector and correction torque; transmitting the generated control commands to at least one acting tug and monitoring the completion of the control commands; and conducting an evaluation of the produced correction force vector and correction torque after completion of the control commands and generating and storing correction values in the data model when deviations are detected between the produced correction force vector and the required correction force vector and/or between the produced correction torque and the required correction torque and then repeating certain steps.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 2, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the mechanically connected object further comprises an assisted object {two lines 20, Fig. 2, and ¶[0039]}.
Regarding Claim 3, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system further comprises at least one memory storing computer readable instructions for the at least one processor {“Through a fixed pattern of a fixed number of maneuvers, the forces exerted on the tow line are determined and are stored and processed in a computer of a data processing system that implements the method according to the invention”, ¶[0029]} to generate the at least one first command and the at least one second command {“generating control commands for the at least one tug such that the sum of all the force vectors and torques of the at least one acting tug corresponds to the required correction force vector and correction torque; transmitting the generated control commands to at least one acting tug and monitoring the completion of the control commands”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 4, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to provide the at least one first command to the first marine vessel and the at least one second command to the second marine vessel {“generating control commands for the at least one tug such that the sum of all the force vectors and torques of the at least one acting tug corresponds to the required correction force vector and correction torque; transmitting the generated control commands to at least one acting tug and monitoring the completion of the control commands”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 5, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is located at the assisted object or located remotely from the mechanically connected object {“In a data processing system installed, for example, in a control room on board one of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 or in a remotely positioned control room, for example, on land, a data model that includes fixed data of the ship 1 and the tugs 2.1, 2.2 is stored in a corresponding memory.”, ¶[0040]}.
Regarding Claim 6, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system receives a control input from an input device located at the assisted object or located remotely from the mechanically connected object {“In a data processing system installed, for example, in a control room on board one of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 or in a remotely positioned control room, for example, on land, a data model that includes fixed data of the ship 1 and the tugs 2.1, 2.2 is stored in a corresponding memory.”, ¶[0040]}.
Regarding Claim 7, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to provide the at least one first command to the first marine vessel and the at least one second command to the second marine vessel through wireless communication {“In a data processing system installed, for example, in a control room on board one of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 or in a remotely positioned control room, for example, on land”, ¶[0040], and “transmitting the generated control commands to at least one acting tug”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 8, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to configured to provide the at least one first command to a first marine vessel control system of the first marine vessel and to provide the at least one second command to a second marine vessel control system of the second marine vessel {“These generated control commands are transmitted to the acting tugs 2.1, 2.2 and are either merely displayed in the respective bridge in order to assist the captain in executing the required maneuver or are immediately converted into commands for a dynamic positioning system of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 so that the tugs 2.1, 2.2 automatically start the control commands.”, ¶[0045]}.
Regarding Claim 9, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein a marine vessel control system for the first marine vessel at least partially implements the control system for controlling movement {“Through a fixed pattern of a fixed number of maneuvers, the forces exerted on the tow line are determined and are stored and processed in a computer of a data processing system that implements the method according to the invention”, ¶[0029]} of the mechanically connected object {as evident in Fig. 2, tugs 2.1 and 2.2 apply forces to direct ship 1}.
Regarding Claim 10, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system receives a control input from an input device located at the first marine vessel, and the control system controls both the first marine vessel and the second marine vessel {“The control commands that are generated and then transmitted to the at least one tug can either be merely displayed in the respective tug in order to serve as an aid to the captain who still controls the tug himself or in the respective tug, can be read as default values into a dynamic positioning system of the at least one tug so that the tug implements the control commands in a fully automated way. In this case, all that is needed is for the captain of the tug to monitor the process or else the tug is operated in an entirely unmanned fashion.”, ¶[0031]}.
Regarding Claim 11, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to provide the at least one second command to the second marine vessel {“These generated control commands are transmitted to the acting tugs 2.1, 2.2 and are either merely displayed in the respective bridge in order to assist the captain in executing the required maneuver or are immediately converted into commands for a dynamic positioning system of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 so that the tugs 2.1, 2.2 automatically start the control commands.”, ¶[0045]}.
Regarding Claim 12, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to provide the at least one second command to the second marine vessel through wireless communication {“These generated control commands are transmitted to the acting tugs 2.1, 2.2 and are either merely displayed in the respective bridge in order to assist the captain in executing the required maneuver or are immediately converted into commands for a dynamic positioning system of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 so that the tugs 2.1, 2.2 automatically start the control commands.”, ¶[0045]}.
Regarding Claim 13, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to provide the at least one second command to a second marine vessel control system of the second marine vessel {“These generated control commands are transmitted to the acting tugs 2.1, 2.2 and are either merely displayed in the respective bridge in order to assist the captain in executing the required maneuver or are immediately converted into commands for a dynamic positioning system of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 so that the tugs 2.1, 2.2 automatically start the control commands.”, ¶[0045]}.
Regarding Claim 14, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to maintain a position {“These generated control commands are transmitted to the acting tugs 2.1, 2.2 and are either merely displayed in the respective bridge in order to assist the captain in executing the required maneuver or are immediately converted into commands for a dynamic positioning system of the tugs 2.1, 2.2 so that the tugs 2.1, 2.2 automatically start the control commands.”, ¶[0045]; one skilled in the art will appreciated that the “required maneuver” may be to maintain the ships current location for a period of time}.
Regarding Claim 15, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to receive the movement, position or force command from a human operator, an autonomous system or a remotely controlled system {“One object of this invention is to provide a method for controlling a towing train including a ship of at least one tug acting on the ship, which method, as an automated assistance system, automatically determines the most efficient position and drive configuration of the individual tugs for a specific towing task and transmits them to the involved tugs so that they can then be correspondingly positioned and configured by their respective captains or be placed into the calculated positions and drive configurations in an automated fashion.”, ¶[0013]}.
Regarding Claim 16, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to control the first marine vessel and the second marine vessel such that the mechanically connected object keeps station or transits at least partially across a body of water {escort mode: “FIG. 1 shows the typical arrangement of a tug 2 operating in escort mode for a towing train, positioned behind a ship 1 to be assisted, which generates a propulsion vector 10 by its own propulsion or by another tug traveling ahead of it”, ¶[0038]}.
Regarding Claim 17, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to detect a position and/or orientation of the first and second marine vessels relative to the assisted object or each other {“The data model also includes variable environmental data such as the length and spatial position of the tow line 20, which are either entered manually or are automatically detected by corresponding sensors, the speed and direction of the ship 1 and tugs 2.1, 2.2”, ¶[0041]}.
Regarding Claim 18, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to adjust the position and/or orientation of the first and/or second marine vessels relative to the assisted object or each other {“FIG. 2 and calculates the required positions, orientations, and drive settings of the acting tugs 2.1, 2.2 drawing on the data stored in the data model and generates corresponding control commands for the tugs 2.1, 2.2, which comprise the angle θ between the ship 1 and tow line 20, the angle β between the ship 1 and the tug 2.1 and 2.2, respectively, the heading of the tug 2.1, 2.2, the propulsion system/rudder angle, and the performance or speed and thrust of the individual tug 2.1, 2.2.”, ¶[0044]}.
Regarding Claim 19, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to set or adjust one or more control parameters based on the position and/or orientation of the first and second marine vessels relative to the assisted object or each other {“The control commands generated using the method according to this invention can comprise the angle between the ship and tug, the angle between the ship and tow line, that heading of the tug, and the rudder angle and/or thrust of the propulsion systems of the tug.”, ¶[0030], and “FIG. 2 and calculates the required positions, orientations, and drive settings of the acting tugs 2.1, 2.2 drawing on the data stored in the data model and generates corresponding control commands for the tugs 2.1, 2.2, which comprise the angle θ between the ship 1 and tow line 20, the angle β between the ship 1 and the tug 2.1 and 2.2, respectively, the heading of the tug 2.1, 2.2, the propulsion system/rudder angle, and the performance or speed and thrust of the individual tug 2.1, 2.2.”, ¶[0044]}.
Regarding Claim 20, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control system is configured to control a plurality of marine vessels attached to the assisted object {“The force is transmitted to the ship by pulling on tow lines, which are known as hawsers, or by direct pushing with the bow or stern against the ship's hull.”, ¶[0003]} when one or more of the plurality of marine vessels are in longitudinal configuration, a modified longitudinal configuration and/or a transverse configuration {Fig. 2 is representative of tugs 2.1 and 2.2 applying push or pull forces to ship 1 at different locations and relative angle to the ship centerline depending on the commands received from the data processing system discussed in ¶[0029] and ¶[0040]; also, “The control commands generated using the method according to this invention can comprise the angle between the ship and tug, the angle between the ship and tow line, that heading of the tug, and the rudder angle and/or thrust of the propulsion systems of the tug.”, ¶[0030]}.
Regarding Claim 21, Jensen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Jensen explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the first and second marine vessels are attached to the assisted object at an angle that is different corresponding to an angle corresponding to a longitudinal or transverse arrangement {Fig. 2 is representative of tugs 2.1 and 2.2 applying push or pull forces to ship 1 at different locations and relative angle to the ship centerline depending on the commands received from the data processing system discussed in ¶[0029] and ¶[0040]; also, “The control commands generated using the method according to this invention can comprise the angle between the ship and tug, the angle between the ship and tow line, that heading of the tug, and the rudder angle and/or thrust of the propulsion systems of the tug.”, ¶[0030]}.
Regarding Claim 23, Jensen discloses the limitations: method of controlling movement, position, or force {“Through a fixed pattern of a fixed number of maneuvers, the forces exerted on the tow line are determined and are stored and processed in a computer of a data processing system that implements the method according to the invention”, ¶[0029]} of a mechanically connected object comprising a plurality of marine vessels {as evident in Fig. 2, tugs 2.1 and 2.2 apply forces to direct ship 1}, the method comprising, by at least one processor: {“A method for controlling a towing train including a ship and at least one tug acting on the ship…calculating the required positions, orientations, and drive settings of the at least one acting tug using an algorithm that accesses the data model and generating control commands for the at least one tug such that the sum of all the force vectors and torques of the at least one acting tug corresponds to the required correction force vector and correction torque; transmitting the generated control commands to at least one acting tug and monitoring the completion of the control commands; and conducting an evaluation of the produced correction force vector and correction torque after completion of the control commands and generating and storing correction values in the data model when deviations are detected between the produced correction force vector and the required correction force vector and/or between the produced correction torque and the required correction torque and then repeating certain steps.”, Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 24, Jensen discloses the limitations: at least one computer readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions , which, when executed by at least one processor {“Through a fixed pattern of a fixed number of maneuvers, the forces exerted on the tow line are determined and are stored and processed in a computer of a data processing system that implements the method according to the invention”, ¶[0029]}, perform a method of controlling movement, position, or force {as evident in Fig. 2, tugs 2.1 and 2.2 apply forces to direct ship 1} of a mechanically connected object comprising a plurality of marine vessels, the method comprising: receiving a movement, position or force command for the mechanically connected object; and generating at least one first command for a first marine vessel of the plurality of marine vessels and at least one second command for a second marine vessel of the plurality of marine vessels, to control movement, position, or force of the mechanically connected object in response to the movement, position or force command {“A method for controlling a towing train including a ship and at least one tug acting on the ship…calculating the required positions, orientations, and drive settings of the at least one acting tug using an algorithm that accesses the data model and generating control commands for the at least one tug such that the sum of all the force vectors and torques of the at least one acting tug corresponds to the required correction force vector and correction torque; transmitting the generated control commands to at least one acting tug and monitoring the completion of the control commands; and conducting an evaluation of the produced correction force vector and correction torque after completion of the control commands and generating and storing correction values in the data model when deviations are detected between the produced correction force vector and the required correction force vector and/or between the produced correction torque and the required correction torque and then repeating certain steps.”, Abstract}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen, Linying, Hans Hopman, and Rudy R. Negenborn. "Distributed model predictive control for cooperative floating object transport with multi-vessel systems." Ocean Engineering 191 (2019): 106515. {Use of multiple autonomous surface vehicles (ASV) to cooperatively transport a marine vehicle via coordinated actions.};
Du, Z., V. Reppa, and R. R. Negenborn. "Cooperative control of autonomous tugs for ship towing. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2 (53): 14470–14475." 2020. {Cooperative control of autonomous tugs for ship towing in a berthing scenario.};
Esposito, Joel, Matthew Feemster, and Erik Smith. "Cooperative manipulation on the water using a swarm of autonomous tugboats." 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2008. {A tracking controller and force allocation strategy to enable a swarm of autonomous tugboats to cooperatively move a large object on the water.};
Bidikli, Baris, Enver Tatlicioglu, and Erkan Zergeroglu. "Robust dynamic positioning of surface vessels via multiple unidirectional tugboats." Ocean Engineering 113 (2016): 237-245. {A model for the autonomous control of a large vessel using six unidirectional tugboats.};
KR 20160034642 A – An unmanned towing system comprised of multiple tugboats with a centralized control system.
KR 20110059206 A – A central control unit is used for remotely controlling a plurality of tugboats for applying propulsion force to a ship during docking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665