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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 6/13/2025. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 6/13/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
3. 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 in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations in Claims 1 and 5 are:
A current position detection unit
A docking position determination unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
6. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-4, have been included based on its dependency.
The disclosure does not describe the claimed functions of “a current position detection unit configured to detect a current position of the boat” and “a docking position determination unit configured to determine a docking position,” which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention. The omitted subject matter is critical for one of ordinary skill in the art to know what specific computer components may accomplish the claimed functionality.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
7. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned, including Claims 2-4, have been included based on its dependency.
8. Claim limitation including “a current position detection unit configured to detect a current position of the boat” and “a docking position determination unit configured to determine a docking position” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A current position detection unit and a docking position determination unit are being interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, as a processing for determination positions.
9. The disclosure does not explicitly define the structure of the current position detection unit and the docking position determination unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dake (US 20210347449 A1).
13. Regarding Claim 1, Dake teaches an automatic docking device for automatically docking a boat, the boat including (Dake: [0040]):
A boat propulsor configured to generate a propulsion force of the boat (Dake: [0044]);
A propulsion direction variable mechanism configured to change a left-right direction of the propulsion force (Dake: [0045]);
And a joystick boat maneuvering device including an operation lever, a manual operation processor, and a propulsion controller, the manual operation processor being configured to (Dake: [0060]):
Detect a displacement of the operation lever in a case where the operation lever is operated (Dake: [0060]);
And output a lever operation signal corresponding to the detected displacement of the operation lever to the propulsion controller, and the propulsion controller is configured to control the boat propulsor and the propulsion force variable mechanism, based on the lever operation signal, to move the boat, the automatic docking device comprising (Dake: [0060]);
A current position detection unit configured to detect a current position of the boat (Dake: [0051]);
A docking position determination unit configured to determine a docking position (Dake: [0017]);
And an automatic docking processor configured to, in a case where the operation lever is not operated and an instruction to automatically dock the boat is input, output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller of the joystick boat maneuvering device, the lever operation signal corresponding to a displacement of the operation lever, the displacement being required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detection unit to the docking position determined by the docking position determination unit (Dake: [0011] and [0064]).
14. Regarding Claim 3, Dake remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the boat includes an object detection device configured to detect an obstacle around the boat, and the automatic docking processor is configured to (Dake: [0019], [0020], and [0025]):
Determine a route along which the boat is moved from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detection unit to the docking position determined by the docking position determination unit without the boat coming into contact with the obstacle detected by the object detection device (Dake: [0024] and [0093]);
And output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller of the joystick boat maneuvering device, the lever operation signal corresponding to a displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat along the route (Dake: [0027] and [0061]).
15. Regarding Claim 5, Dake teaches an automatic docking system for automatically docking a boat, the automatic docking system comprising (Dake: [0040]):
A boat propulsor configured to generate a propulsion force of the boat (Dake: [0044]);
A propulsion direction variable mechanism configured to change a left-right direction of the propulsion force (Dake: [0045]);
A joystick boat maneuvering device; and an automatic docking device, wherein the joystick boat maneuvering device includes an operation lever, a manual operation processor, and a propulsion controller, the manual operation processor is configured to (Dake: [0060]):
Detect a displacement of the operation lever in a case where the operation lever is operated, and output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller, the lever operation signal corresponding to the detected displacement of the operation lever (Dake: [0060]),
the propulsion controller is configured to control the boat propulsor and the propulsion force variable mechanism, based on the lever operation signal, to move the boat, and the automatic docking device includes (Dake: [0060]):
A current position detection unit configured to detect a current position of the boat (Dake: [0051]);
A docking position determination unit configured to determine a docking position (Dake: [0017]);
And an automatic docking processor configured to, in a case where the operation lever is not operated and an instruction to automatically dock the boat is input, output a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller of the joystick boat maneuvering device, the lever operation signal corresponding to a displacement of the operation lever, the displacement being required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detection unit to the docking position determined by the docking position determination unit (Dake: [0011] and [0064]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
18. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
19. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dake (US 20210347449 A1) in view of Johnson (EP 3639104 B1; already of record).
20. Regarding Claim 2, Dake remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Dake fails to explicitly teach in a case where the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operation lever and the displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detection unit to the docking position determined by the docking position determination unit are the same, the automatic docking processor outputs a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller, the lever operation signal being same as the lever operation signal output from the manual operation processor to the propulsion controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches in a case where the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operation lever and the displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat from the current position of the boat detected by the current position detection unit to the docking position determined by the docking position determination unit are the same, the automatic docking processor outputs a lever operation signal to the propulsion controller, the lever operation signal being same as the lever operation signal output from the manual operation processor to the propulsion controller (Johnson: [0096] and [0180] Note that the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operation lever and the displacement of the operation lever required to move the boat being the same is interpreted as initializing the autonomous docking when the vessel speed is at a predefined threshold.).
Dake and Johnson are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dake to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to output a lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor in a case where the displacement of the operation lever by an operation on the operator lever and the displacement on the operation lever required to move the boat are the same because it provides the benefit of the user deciding when to engage the autonomous docking process as explicitly explained in [0096] of Johnson.
21. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dake (US 20210347449 A1) in view of Tyers (US 20220206496 A1).
22. Regarding Claim 4, Dake remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Dake fails to explicitly teach the automatic docking processor is configured to, in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller, stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tyers teaches the automatic docking processor is configured to, in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller, stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor to the propulsion controller (Tyers: [0047], [0117], and [0119]).
Dake and Tyers are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of marine vessel control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dake to incorporate the teachings of Tyers to stop outputting the lever operation signal from the automatic docking processor in a case where the operation lever is operated while the lever operation signal is being output because it provides the benefit of quickly disengaging the automatic docking operation when requested by the operator to move the vessel from its holding position as explicitly explained [0119] of Tyers.
Conclusion
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663