DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9 and 18 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) or (pre-AIA ) Fourth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent Claims stand on their own without dependency on another claim. The Examiner notes that Applicant has demonstrated their full understanding and ability to properly draft dependent claims based on the presentation of independent Claim 1 tied to “A ship control device” followed by explicit language matching the embodiment of the parent claim found in dependent Claims 2-3, 5, 7, and 10 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 1”); Claim 4 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 3”); Claim 6 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 5”); Claim 8 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 4”); Claim 9 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 8”); Claim 12 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 2”); Claim 13 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 12”); Claims 14 and 17 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 13”); Claim 15 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 14”); Claim 16 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 15”); and Claim 18 (i.e., “The ship control device of claim 17”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected because Claim(s) 11 is/are written as an independent-type claim(s) (i.e., “A ship control system”) but it contain two issues: (1) it has explicit language tying dependency on another claim (i.e., “the ship control device of claim 1”), and (2) it recites an embodiment that is not identical to the embodiment of their respective parent claim.
The Office’s position is that such claim construction provides a way to avoid paying fees associated with independent claims. The Examiner is not accusing the Applicant of such practice but claims that follow this type of claim construction shall be rejected under 35 USC § 112(d) or (pre-AIA ) Fourth Paragraph until amended into independent form.
Solution: Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(B) or (pre-AIA ) Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(B):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the ship control device of claim 1” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Judicial Exception 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1-20.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the following limitation(s):
“measure an overshoot amount of a heading of the ship during turning based on an excessive turning amount of the heading with respect to a setting direction of the ship” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III Mental Process.); and
“calculates a rudder angle offset amount which suppresses an overshoot during turning based on the overshoot amount” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered a Mathematical Concept which “is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations” furthermore, “[I]t is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) I.);
Yes, because Claim(s) 11 recite(s) the following limitation(s): “…comprising the ship control device of claim 1” which means the follow limitations are carried over into claim 11:
“measure an overshoot amount of a heading of the ship during turning based on an excessive turning amount of the heading with respect to a setting direction of the ship” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III Mental Process.);
“calculates a rudder angle offset amount which suppresses an overshoot during turning based on the overshoot amount” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered a Mathematical Concept which “is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations” furthermore, “[I]t is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols”. See MPEP § 2106.04 (a)(2) I.).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 contain the same limitations as Claim 1; therefore, Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 1 recites the following limitation(s): “processing circuitry”.
No, Claim 11 recites the following limitations(s):
“…comprising the ship control device of claim 1” which means the follow limitations are carried over into claim 11: “processing circuitry”; and
“a sensor configured to acquire an observation value associated with a behavior of the ship including the heading” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered a Mere Data Gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.) (Please also see Examiner’s evidence for gyrocompass below.).
No, Claim 19 does not recite any additional elements.
No, Claim 20 recites the following limitation(s): “non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer”.
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, for example, as generic computer functions for collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer hardware/physical components (e.g., “processing circuitry” from Claims 1 and 11; “sensor” from Claim 11and “non-transitory computer storage medium” from Claim 20). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim(s) 1, 11, 19 and 20 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“The use of the gyrocompass is also well known in its application to sea navigation, specifically for obtaining the ‘true bearing’…” (US 20110138641 A1, [0006])
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
Claim(s) 19 and 20 contain the same limitations as Claim 1; therefore, Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claim(s) 1, 11, 19 and 20. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 11, 19 and 20 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-18 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by English Translation of JP 2008230484 A (hereafter “NPL-U”).
As to Claim 1, NPL-U discloses A ship control device (e.g., “computer”; see at least [0027]), comprising:
processing circuitry (e.g., “optimal controller 3”) configured to (see at least [0027]):
measure an overshoot amount of a heading of the ship during turning based on an excessive turning amount of the heading with respect to a setting direction of the ship (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]), and
calculates a rudder angle offset amount which suppresses an overshoot during turning based on the overshoot amount (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 2, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
measure the overshoot amount every time an overshoot occurs in a plurality of turnings (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]), and
calculate and update the rudder angle offset amount every time the overshoot amount is measured (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 3, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
set the maximum value of the excessive turning amount measured a plurality of times in one turn as the overshoot amount (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 4, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
set a command rudder angle based on the setting direction and the heading, and output the command rudder angle corrected by the rudder angle offset amount (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]), and
correct the command rudder angle by the rudder angle offset amount when the maximum value of the overshoot amount is equal to or greater than a threshold for correction (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 5, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
calculate a standard deviation of the heading (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]), and
calculate the rudder angle offset amount based on the overshoot amount and the standard deviation of the heading (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 6, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
calculate the standard deviation of the heading during course keeping of the ship (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 7, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
calculate a correction value for the rudder angle offset amount based on a difference between the overshoot amount and the standard deviation of the heading (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]), and
correct the rudder angle offset amount based on adding the rudder angle offset amount calculated during the past turning and the correction value (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 8, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
calculate a normalized rudder angle offset amount based on a turning angle (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]), and
correct the command rudder angle based on the normalized rudder angle offset amount (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 10, NPL-U discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to (see at least [0027]):
determine an occurrence of an overshoot based on the heading, the setting direction, and an turn rate (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]), and
measure the overshoot amount when the overshoot occurs (see at least Abstract, [0015], [0018]-[0020], [0023]).
As to Claim 11, NPL-U discloses A ship control system (e.g., “automatic steering apparatus”; see at least [0001]) comprising
the ship control device of claim 1 (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
a sensor configured to acquire an observation value associated with a behavior of the ship including the heading (see at least [0027] – “gyrocompass 2”).
Claim 12 repeats the subject matter of Claim 3 and rejected in like manner.
Claim 13 repeats the subject matter of Claim 4 and rejected in like manner.
Claim 14 repeats the subject matter of Claim 5 and rejected in like manner.
Claim 15 repeats the subject matter of Claim 6 and rejected in like manner.
Claim 16 repeats the subject matter of Claim 7 and rejected in like manner.
Claim 17 repeats the subject matter of Claim 8 and rejected in like manner.
Claims 19 and 20 repeat the subject matter of Claim 1 and rejected in like manner.
Written Authorization Required for Internet Communication
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. The written authorization may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mail, or fax. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is best reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, ERIN PIATESKI, is available at telephone number (571) 270-7429.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF