DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 2-21 are pending. Claims dated 06/18/2026 are being examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner Note
This Office Action acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s submission filed 06/18/2026 in response to the Rule 1.105.
Claims 2-21 are examined with the effective filing date of June 16, 2017.
Regarding future response(s), in the case of any change(s)/amendment(s), as this application is associated with a large number of applications with differing filing dates, the Examiner requests the Applicant to continue to provide an effective filing date and support for the changed/amended claims. In the case the Examiner is unable to discern and/or does not receive information as to which application(s) provide support, another requirement for information may be requested to ensure any cited art is before the effective filing date and continue to maintain proper examination 35 USC 131.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2025 and 04/20/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“logic device configured to…” in at least claim 2
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. Specifically, per para [0052] of the PGPUB US-20250172948-A1, Controller 130 may be implemented as any appropriate logic device (e.g., processing device, microcontroller, processor, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), field programmable gate array (FPGA), memory storage device, memory reader, or other device or combinations of devices) that may be adapted to execute, store, and/or receive appropriate instructions, such as software instructions implementing a control loop for controlling various operations of navigation control system 190, mobile structure 101, and/or other elements of system 100, for example.
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.
Double Patenting
Claims 2 and 12 of the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11899465.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12205473. Although the claims at issue are not identical because instant claim 1 recites a watercraft maneuver as opposed to a docking signal, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 2 recites the same external disturbance estimation technique and calibration steps as that presented in claim 9 of the US Patent.
Claim 2 of 19/031,263
Claim 9 of US-11899465-B2
A system comprising: a logic device configured to determine a first thrust for a watercraft maneuver and to control a navigation control system of the watercraft to generate the first thrust;
wherein determining the first thrust by the logic device comprises the logic device causing calibration of thrust generation prior to the watercraft maneuver to adjust the first thrust for disturbances including wind and water disturbances;
wherein the calibration comprises the logic device performing operations of:
controlling the navigation control system to keep the watercraft from moving;
determining a hover-mode thrust which is a trust generated by the navigation control system to keep the watercraft from moving; and
adjusting the first thrust based on the hover-mode thrust.
The system of claim 1, wherein:
the determining the one or more docking assist control signals comprises:
determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the marine vessel; and
determining the one or more docking assist control signals based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the one or more docking assist control signals are configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the marine vessel according to the received docking assist parameters;
wherein the determining wind and/or water current disturbances comprises:
placing the system in a hover mode where the target linear and/or angular velocities are zero; and
using a thrust provided by the system in hover mode as an indication of the wind and/or water current disturbances.
Both claims employ the hover mode to estimate external disturbances, and modifying the patented system to encompass a watercraft maneuver as opposed to specifically a docking control signals as claimed in the patented system claim 1, would have constituted no more than an obvious variation in implementing the same disturbance estimation and compensation methodology. Accordingly, instant claim 2 is rejected under the doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. Similarly, method claim 12 of the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over method claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11899465.
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 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 2, 4, 11-12, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamura et al. (US-20190041857-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Tamura.
Regarding claim 2, Tamura teaches a system comprising:
a logic device configured to determine a first thrust for a watercraft maneuver of a watercraft and to control a navigation control system of the watercraft to generate the first thrust ([0010] … calculate a thrust setting value used to cause the ship to move closer to the target position; [0063] As a result of the learning of the external force performed in such a manner, the reference value is added to the feedback term of the PD control. This makes it possible to cancel the external force acting on the ship 100, and to calculate a thrust setting value used to cause the ship 100 to move closer to the target position);
wherein determining the first thrust by the logic device comprises the logic device causing calibration of thrust generation prior to the watercraft maneuver to adjust the first thrust for disturbances including wind and water disturbances ([0008] wherein while a state where the joystick lever is not operated is maintained […] the ship handling device executes the dynamic positioning control; FIG. 6 step 121: Execute dynamic positioning control by PD control; [0053] In the dynamic positioning control, the side thruster controller 11 and the ECUs 16 are controlled so that a thrust given by the propulsion device 17 is balanced with an external force including a wind force and a tidal force);
wherein the calibration comprises the logic device performing operations of ([0048] The ship handling control device 15 can calculate an external force acting on the ship 100):
controlling the navigation control system to keep the watercraft from moving ([0055] Next, with reference to FIG. 6, the following will describe learning of an external force in the dynamic positioning control);
determining a hover-mode thrust which is a thrust generated by the navigation control system to keep the watercraft from moving; and ([0062] In step S125, a thrust setting value at the time of the determination in step S123 and the determination in step S124, i.e., a thrust setting value representing the thrust balanced with the external force is stored as a reference value)
adjusting the first thrust based on the hover-mode thrust ([0063] In step S126, the reference value is added (vector added) to the thrust setting value resulting from the PD control […] As a result of the learning of the external force performed in such a manner, the reference value is added to the feedback term of the PD control. This makes it possible to cancel the external force acting on the ship 100, and to calculate a thrust setting value used to cause the ship 100 to move closer to the target position).
Regarding claim 4, Tamura teaches the system of claim 2.
Tamura also teaches further comprising determining a sideslip factor for the watercraft from the calibration ([0062] …a thrust setting value representing the thrust balanced with the external force is stored as a reference value -- In Tamura, the stored reference value compensates for external disturbances which includes sideways movement of a ship through the water away from its intended heading, caused by the force of wind, current, or wave action pushing against the hull. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interprets the reference value comprises a sideslip factor).
Regarding claim 11, Tamura teaches the system of claim 2.
Tamura also teaches wherein the system comprises the watercraft (FIG. 1 ship body 1), and the navigation control system comprises a propulsion system (FIG. 1 propulsion device 17) and a steering system (FIG. 1 ship handling device 7).
Regarding claim 12, Tamura teaches a method comprising: performing a watercraft maneuver using a navigation control system controlled by a logic device ([0010] … calculate a thrust setting value used to cause the ship to move closer to the target position; [0063] As a result of the learning of the external force performed in such a manner, the reference value is added to the feedback term of the PD control. This makes it possible to cancel the external force acting on the ship 100, and to calculate a thrust setting value used to cause the ship 100 to move closer to the target position);
prior to performing the watercraft maneuver, determining, by the logic device, a first thrust for the watercraft maneuver; and controlling the navigation control system by the logic device to generate the first thrust ([0008] wherein while a state where the joystick lever is not operated is maintained […] the ship handling device executes the dynamic positioning control; FIG. 6 step 121: Execute dynamic positioning control by PD control);
wherein determining, by the logic device, the first thrust comprises calibrating the thrust generation prior to the watercraft maneuver to adjust the first thrust for disturbances including wind and water disturbances ([0053] In the dynamic positioning control, the side thruster controller 11 and the ECUs 16 are controlled so that a thrust given by the propulsion device 17 is balanced with an external force including a wind force and a tidal force);
wherein the calibrating comprises the logic device performing operations of ([0048] The ship handling control device 15 can calculate an external force acting on the ship 100):
controlling the navigation control system to keep the watercraft from moving ([0055] Next, with reference to FIG. 6, the following will describe learning of an external force in the dynamic positioning control);
determining a hover-mode thrust which is a thrust generated by the navigation control system to keep the watercraft from moving; and ([0062] In step S125, a thrust setting value at the time of the determination in step S123 and the determination in step S124, i.e., a thrust setting value representing the thrust balanced with the external force is stored as a reference value)
adjusting the first thrust based on the hover-mode thrust ([0063] In step S126, the reference value is added (vector added) to the thrust setting value resulting from the PD control […] As a result of the learning of the external force performed in such a manner, the reference value is added to the feedback term of the PD control. This makes it possible to cancel the external force acting on the ship 100, and to calculate a thrust setting value used to cause the ship 100 to move closer to the target position).
Regarding claim 14, Tamura teaches the method of claim 12.
Tamura also teaches further comprising determining a sideslip factor for the watercraft from the calibrating ([0062] …a thrust setting value representing the thrust balanced with the external force is stored as a reference value -- In Tamura, the stored reference value compensates for external disturbances which includes sideways movement of a ship through the water away from its intended heading, caused by the force of wind, current, or wave action pushing against the hull. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interprets the reference value comprises a sideslip factor).
Regarding claim 21, Tamura teaches the method of claim 12.
Tamura also teaches wherein the navigation control system comprises a propulsion system (FIG. 1 propulsion device 17) and a steering system (FIG. 1 ship handling device 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura, in view of Akuzawa (US-20150089427-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Akuzawa.
Regarding claim 3, Tamura teaches the system of claim 2.
While Tamura also teaches the compensated force outputs (FIG. 6 S126) enable moving to a target position and orientation ([0032], [0038]), but Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the watercraft maneuver comprises autonomous docking.
However, Akuzawa teaches wherein a watercraft maneuver comprises autonomous docking (FIG. 4 automatic berthing control unit 110; [0096] In the automatic berthing mode, the propulsive force control unit 104 and the steering control unit 105 prepares the output command signals and the steering command signals for the respective outboard motors 3L and 3R based on output command signals and steering command signals provided from the automatic berthing control unit 110 and outputs the prepared signals to the corresponding engine ECUs 33.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify use of the compensated force outputs to move to a target position and orientation as taught in Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto to include wherein a watercraft maneuver comprises autonomous docking (target position and orientation is at a dock), with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of applying the location to a dock for direct access. It has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of different locations would have had the predictable result of maintaining the position and orientation of the watercraft.
Regarding claim 13, Tamura teaches the method of claim 12.
While Tamura also teaches the compensated force outputs (FIG. 6 S126) enable moving to a target position and orientation ([0032], [0038]), but Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the watercraft maneuver comprises autonomous docking.
However, Akuzawa teaches wherein a watercraft maneuver comprises autonomous docking (FIG. 4 automatic berthing control unit 110; [0096] In the automatic berthing mode, the propulsive force control unit 104 and the steering control unit 105 prepares the output command signals and the steering command signals for the respective outboard motors 3L and 3R based on output command signals and steering command signals provided from the automatic berthing control unit 110 and outputs the prepared signals to the corresponding engine ECUs 33.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify use of the compensated force outputs to move to a target position and orientation as taught in Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto to include wherein a watercraft maneuver comprises autonomous docking (target position and orientation is at a dock), with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of applying the location to a dock for direct access. It has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of different locations would have had the predictable result of maintaining the position and orientation of the watercraft.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura, in view of Gustin et al. (US-20110172858-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Gustin.
Regarding claim 5, Tamura teaches the system of claim 2.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to use the calibration to convert a user interface device from a thrust controller into a velocity controller.
However, Gustin teaches wherein the logic device is configured to use a calibration ([0056] Briefly, state estimation is the processing of propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N to reduce or eliminate undesired data or signal components from propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N, such as noise and unwanted frequency components, and to extract useful information and data to be forwarded to force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B)
to convert a user interface device (FIG. 3C method selection switch 38A and 38B; [0052] …wherein first method selection switch 38A selectively connects vector difference outputs 36B to one of force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B. Second method selection switch 38B in turn connects the maneuvering commands 36C or 36D from force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B to the input of the actuator loop 32)
from a thrust controller (FIG. 3B force command processor 36A; [0031] In the force command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the acceleration of the vessel 2; [0028] The actuator loop 32, in turn, translates the maneuvering commands from the input loop 30 into control signals to the thrusters 24, the engines 16 and the rudders 22A to control these elements to generate the forces necessary for the vessel 2 to follow the pilot's input commands)
into a velocity controller (FIG. 3B rate command processor 36B; [0031] … and in the rate command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the velocity of the vessel 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify how the calibration as taught in Tamura is used on the user interface device to incorporate the teachings of Gustin to include wherein the logic device is configured to use the calibration to convert a user interface device from a thrust controller into a velocity controller, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of better pilot experience as “the pilot may select between these command modes as desired and according, for example, the method the pilot feels most comfortable with or the method the pilot feels is most appropriate for a given set of circumstances” (Gustin [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Tamura, as modified, teaches the system of claim 5.
Tamura also teaches wherein the user interface device is a joystick (FIG. 3 joystick lever 10).
Regarding claim 15, Tamura teaches the method of claim 12.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to use the calibrating to convert a user interface device from a thrust controller into a velocity controller.
However, Gustin teaches wherein the logic device is configured to use a calibrating ([0056] Briefly, state estimation is the processing of propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N to reduce or eliminate undesired data or signal components from propulsion output signals 42P and navigational output signals 46N, such as noise and unwanted frequency components, and to extract useful information and data to be forwarded to force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B)
to convert a user interface device (FIG. 3C method selection switch 38A and 38B; [0052] …wherein first method selection switch 38A selectively connects vector difference outputs 36B to one of force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B. Second method selection switch 38B in turn connects the maneuvering commands 36C or 36D from force command processor 36A and rate command processor 36B to the input of the actuator loop 32)
from a thrust controller (FIG. 3B force command processor 36A; [0031] In the force command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the acceleration of the vessel 2; [0028] The actuator loop 32, in turn, translates the maneuvering commands from the input loop 30 into control signals to the thrusters 24, the engines 16 and the rudders 22A to control these elements to generate the forces necessary for the vessel 2 to follow the pilot's input commands)
into a velocity controller (FIG. 3B rate command processor 36B; [0031] … and in the rate command mode the pilot's joystick control inputs are translated into commands controlling the velocity of the vessel 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify how the calibration as taught in Tamura is used on the user interface device to incorporate the teachings of Gustin to include wherein the logic device is configured to use the calibrating to convert a user interface device from a thrust controller into a velocity controller, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of better pilot experience as “the pilot may select between these command modes as desired and according, for example, the method the pilot feels most comfortable with or the method the pilot feels is most appropriate for a given set of circumstances” (Gustin [0031]).
Regarding claim 16, Tamura, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15.
Tamura also teaches wherein the user interface device is a joystick (FIG. 3 joystick lever 10).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura, in view of Ward et al. (US-20180057132-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Ward.
Regarding claim 7, Tamura teaches the system of claim 2.
While Tamura also teaches the compensated force outputs (FIG. 6 S126) enable moving to a target position and orientation ([0032], [0038]), Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the watercraft maneuver comprises assisted docking.
However, Ward teaches wherein a watercraft maneuver comprises assisted docking ([0040] FIGS. 7-10 show various situations in which the marine vessel 10 is approaching an object, such as a slip, dock, or sea wall. Often times, because of the precise control over translational and rotational movement of the marine vessel 10 provided in the joysticking mode, an operator will use the joysticking mode when approaching such objects in order to position the marine vessel 10 in a desired position with respect to the object without making contact with the object. […] However, either due to operator error while in the joysticking mode; due to disturbances caused by wind, current, and/or waves; or due to inherent error in the GPS system 38 that provides information for the station keeping mode, the marine vessel 10 may nonetheless come too close to the object, which can result in damage to the vessel 10. Therefore, the present disclosure contemplates a method in which information from the distance and direction sensors 72-78 is used by the controller 24 to compare a desired movement of the marine vessel 10 with a shortest distance between the object and the marine vessel 10 and a direction of the object with respect to the marine vessel, and thereafter to select whether to command the marine propulsion system 20 to generate thrust to achieve the desired movement, or alternatively whether to command the marine propulsion system 20 to generate thrust to achieve a modified movement that ensures the marine vessel 10 will not contact the object)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify use of the compensated force outputs as taught in Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Ward to include wherein the watercraft maneuver comprises assisted docking, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of applying the location to a quay/pier for direct access. It has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of different locations would have had the predictable result of maintaining the position and orientation of the watercraft. Further, the operator obtains the benefits of joystick control which an operator may feel is more beneficial for “precise control” (Ward [0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Tamura teaches the method of claim 12.
While Tamura also teaches the compensated force outputs (FIG. 6 S126) enable moving to a target position and orientation ([0032], [0038]), Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the watercraft maneuver comprises assisted docking.
However, Ward teaches wherein a watercraft maneuver comprises assisted docking ([0040] FIGS. 7-10 show various situations in which the marine vessel 10 is approaching an object, such as a slip, dock, or sea wall. Often times, because of the precise control over translational and rotational movement of the marine vessel 10 provided in the joysticking mode, an operator will use the joysticking mode when approaching such objects in order to position the marine vessel 10 in a desired position with respect to the object without making contact with the object. […] However, either due to operator error while in the joysticking mode; due to disturbances caused by wind, current, and/or waves; or due to inherent error in the GPS system 38 that provides information for the station keeping mode, the marine vessel 10 may nonetheless come too close to the object, which can result in damage to the vessel 10. Therefore, the present disclosure contemplates a method in which information from the distance and direction sensors 72-78 is used by the controller 24 to compare a desired movement of the marine vessel 10 with a shortest distance between the object and the marine vessel 10 and a direction of the object with respect to the marine vessel, and thereafter to select whether to command the marine propulsion system 20 to generate thrust to achieve the desired movement, or alternatively whether to command the marine propulsion system 20 to generate thrust to achieve a modified movement that ensures the marine vessel 10 will not contact the object)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify use of the compensated force outputs as taught in Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Ward to include wherein the watercraft maneuver comprises assisted docking, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of applying the location to a quay/pier for direct access. It has been held that the substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious if the substitution yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In this case, the substitution of different locations would have had the predictable result of maintaining the position and orientation of the watercraft. Further, the operator obtains the benefits of joystick control which an operator may feel is more beneficial for “precise control” (Ward [0040]).
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura, in view of Non-Patent Literature: “Kongsberg Maritime AS, K-Pos DP (OS) Dynamic Positioning System – Operator Manual, Release 8.2, Rev. C, June 2014” and herein after will be referred to as Kongsberg.
Regarding claim 8, Tamura teaches the system of claim 2.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to provide the first thrust determined by the logic device to a user interface for display.
However, Kongsberg teaches wherein the logic device is configured to provide a first thrust determined by the logic device to a user interface for display (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 316, Section: Display views: Thrust Force displayed as 338 kN).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the logic device is configured to provide the first thrust determined by the logic device to a user interface for display, with a reasonable expectation of success to show thruster forces (Kongsberg pages 306-323), which by extension provides operator feedback regarding vessel maneuvering forces.
Regarding claim 9, Tamura, as modified, teaches the system of claim 8.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to provide the first thrust determined by the logic device to the user interface for displaying the first thrust determined by the logic device relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg also teaches wherein the logic device is configured to provide a first thrust determined by the logic device to the user interface for displaying the first thrust determined by the logic device relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tamura, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the logic device is configured to provide the first thrust determined by the logic device to the user interface for displaying the first thrust determined by the logic device relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator of exceeding the limit value for percentage of available thrust (Kongsberg pages 312-314).
Regarding claim 10, Tamura, as modified, teaches the system of claim 9.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device is configured to warn the user before external disturbance overwhelms a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg teaches wherein the logic device is configured to warn the user before external disturbance overwhelms a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 272, Section: Display views: This displays the warning and alarm limits for position and heading deviation. Green indicates that the limits are currently active; page 278, Section: Display views: These are position warning and alarm limit circles (centred on the position setpoint). With automatic surge and sway control, and with position limits enabled, these circles indicate the warning and alarm limits for position deviation. When the vessel reference point crosses the warning limit circle, a warning is given. When the vessel reference point crosses the alarm limit circle, an alarm is given. […] The short lines, dashed and solid, are heading warning and alarm limit markers (centred on the heading setpoint). With automatic yaw control, and with heading limits enabled, these markers indicate the warning and alarm limits for heading deviation. When the vessel heading crosses the warning limit, a warning is given. When the vessel heading crosses the alarm limit, an alarm is given; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the logic device is configured to warn the user before external disturbance overwhelms a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator before significant positional and/or heading deviations due to external disturbances occur.
Regarding claim 18, Tamura teaches the method of claim 12.
Tamura does not explicitly teach further comprising displaying the first thrust determined by the logic device on a display of a user interface.
However, Kongsberg teaches further comprising displaying the first thrust determined by the logic device on a display of a user interface (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 316, Section: Display views: Thrust Force displayed as 338 kN).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include further comprising displaying the first thrust determined by the logic device on a display of a user interface, with a reasonable expectation of success to show thruster forces (Kongsberg pages 306-323), which by extension provides operator feedback regarding vessel maneuvering forces.
Regarding claim 19, Tamura, as modified, teaches the method of claim 18.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the first thrust determined by the logic device is displayed relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg also teaches wherein the first thrust determined by the logic device is displayed relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 311, Section: Display views: These are numerical values and bar graphs showing the thruster force for each thruster unit. The bar graphs show the percentage of the maximum available thrust and are scaled individually; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tamura, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the first thrust determined by the logic device is displayed relative to a maximum maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator of exceeding the limit value for percentage of available thrust (Kongsberg pages 312-314).
Regarding claim 20, Tamura, as modified, teaches the method of claim 19.
Tamura does not explicitly teach wherein the logic device warns the user before external disturbance overwhelms a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system.
However, Kongsberg teaches wherein the logic device warns the user before external disturbance overwhelms a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system (page 272, Section: Display views: This displays the warning and alarm limits for position and heading deviation. Green indicates that the limits are currently active; page 278, Section: Display views: These are position warning and alarm limit circles (centred on the position setpoint). With automatic surge and sway control, and with position limits enabled, these circles indicate the warning and alarm limits for position deviation. When the vessel reference point crosses the warning limit circle, a warning is given. When the vessel reference point crosses the alarm limit circle, an alarm is given. […] The short lines, dashed and solid, are heading warning and alarm limit markers (centred on the heading setpoint). With automatic yaw control, and with heading limits enabled, these markers indicate the warning and alarm limits for heading deviation. When the vessel heading crosses the warning limit, a warning is given. When the vessel heading crosses the alarm limit, an alarm is given; page 312, Section: Display views: For all thruster symbols: The colour of the bars changes to yellow when the thrusters pass the limit for percentage of available thrust (typically 80%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Tamura to incorporate the teachings of Kongsberg to include wherein the logic device warns the user before external disturbance overwhelms a maneuvering capability of the navigation control system, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the operator before significant positional and/or heading deviations due to external disturbances occur.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20170253314-A1: Ward teaches a station keeping mode (corresponding to claimed hover mode) and accounting for wind, waves, current, or the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights