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 .
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 January 24, 2020.
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 or 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 08/27/2025 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-20240319746-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 2-21 of the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12205473.
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 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12205473. Although the claims at issue are not identical because instant claim 1 further recites that the projected collision detection area corresponds to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 2 recites the same collision-risk estimation technique as that presented in claim 2 of the US Patent.
Excerpt from Claim 2 of 19/031,263
Claim 2 of US-12205473-B2
…wherein the logic device is configured to determine the projected collision risk estimation by:
identifying projected collision detection voxels of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle voxels corresponding to the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and
determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels and/or a weighted counted of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels
The system of claim 1, wherein determining the projected collision risk estimation for each projected collision detection area comprises:
identifying projected collision detection voxels of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle voxels corresponding to a navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and
determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels and/or a weighted count of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels, the projected collision risk estimation being defined by the simple count and/or the weighted count.
Both claims employ the same voxel-overlap algorithm to determine projected risk estimation, and modifying the patented system to expressly recite that the projected collision detection area corresponds to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure would have constituted no more than an obvious variation in implementing the same collision avoidance methodology. Accordingly, instant claim 2 is rejected under the doctrine of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. Similarly, claims 3-11 and 12-21 of the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 and 11-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12205473.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “determining the projected collision risk estimation for each projected collision detection area; and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand corresponding to the projected collision detection area that minimizes a thruster or velocity demand cost function based, at least in part, on the projected collision risk estimation and the received navigation control parameters”.
Tyers (US 20170205829 A1), in view of Heukelom (US-20200174481-A1), in view of Gibson (US-5548694-A) does not explicitly teach: wherein the determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand comprises: determining the projected collision risk estimation for each projected collision detection area; and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand corresponding to the projected collision avoidance area that minimizes a thruster or velocity demand cost function based, at least in part, on the projected collision risk estimation and the received navigation control parameters.
Closest prior art Fulgenzi (“Dynamic Obstacle Avoidance in uncertain environment combining PVOs and Occupancy Grid”, DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2007.363554) teaches wherein the determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand comprises: determining the projected collision risk estimation for each projected collision detection area and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand corresponding to the projected collision avoidance area (Section III Paragraph B: Compute the probability of collision; Section III Paragraph C: Choice of the control input: If
T
c
o
l
l
(v)<=
T
s
a
f
e
(v), the velocity is considered dangerous and discarded, otherwise it'll be considered safe enough to be applied. For each velocity, the next robot position and heading are computed, so to calculate a utility value and lead the robot toward the goal: If the velocity is found to be safe enough it is chosen as the next control for the robot, otherwise it is discarded. The algorithm is iterated until a safe velocity is found. The chosen control is then applied and the algorithm is iterated).
Fulgenzi does not teach: minimizes a thruster or velocity demand cost function based, at least in part, on the projected collision risk estimation and a deviation from a user demand contained in the received navigation control parameters.
However, Chun teaches: a minimizing of a thruster or velocity demand cost function (col 5 ln.9-35 This means that the settings of the processor 38 (see FIG. 3) governing the manipulator 6 and the thruster 12 are obtained by using a mathematical algorithm that minimizes the cost function with weighting factors; FIG. 4 illustrates an example of such an algorithm—termed a quadratic regulator algorithm—that may be employed for this purpose […] Vx(θ, θ) represents the velocity term), but Chun does not teach the cost function is based, at least in part, on the projected collision risk estimation and the received navigation control parameters.
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 2-3, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US-20170205829-A1), in view of Heukelom et al. (US-20200174481-A1), in view of Gibson (US-5548694-A) and herein after will be referred to as Tyers, Heukelom, and Gibson respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Tyers teaches a system comprising:
a logic device (Fig. 1 processor control unit “PCU” 30) configured to provide navigation control for a mobile structure and to communicate with a user interface (Fig. 1 thruster manual controls 61, fwd/rev drive selector 62, control panel 20) and a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure (Fig. 1 distance sensing transducers 40P, 40S and position sensing transducers 46, 47), wherein the logic device is configured to:
receive navigation control parameters from the user interface interface (Fig. 5A operator provides inputs to user interface - steps 102A, 106A, 108A) and perimeter sensor data from the perimeter ranging system ([0026] a plurality of transducers to detect and transmit a set of distance information between the marine vessel and an external object; supported by [0035]-[0037]);
determine a projected collision risk estimation (Fig. 11b compute safe area to navigate (costmap) Examiner interprets the costs in the cost map to represent a projected collision risk estimation);
determine one or more navigation control signals configured to maneuver the mobile structure based, at least in part, on the received navigation control parameters and the projected collision risk estimation (Fig. 5B transducer data used to control thrusters - steps 112B, 114B and Fig. 5C steps 112C, 114C, 116C, 120C), wherein the one or more navigation control signals comprises a collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand; and (Fig. 6 step 206 collision avoidance mode and step 216: vessel reduces velocity to stop 20 ft from the external object; supported by [0046])
provide the one or more navigation control signals to a navigation control system for the mobile structure (Fig. 5B PCU communicates with navigation control system in steps 118B-120B; see also Fig. 5C steps 116C-118C).
Tyers does not explicitly teach that the projected collision risk estimation is based on an overlap of a projected collision detection area with a navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, the projected collision detection area corresponding to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure, wherein the logic device is configured to determine the projected collision risk estimation by: identifying projected collision detection voxels of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle voxels corresponding to the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels and/or a weighted counted of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels.
However, Heukelom teaches an projected collision risk estimation is based on an overlap of a projected collision detection area with a navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data (FIG. 5 region probability 518 based on overlapping region 516; [0063] In some examples, if an individual region probability 510 or 518 is above a threshold the trajectory 504 can be rejected as representing too high of a risk associated with a collision or a near-collision),
the projected collision detection area corresponding to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure (FIG. 5 320** and 504; [0062] …a region 320** associated with a position of the vehicle 320 along the trajectory 504 at time TN)
wherein the logic device is configured to determine the projected collision risk estimation by (FIG. 7 processor(s) 716):
identifying projected collision detection cells of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle cells corresponding to the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells and/or a weighted counted of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells ([0062] In some instances, the region probability 518 associated with the N-th time TN can represent a summing, accumulation, integration, or aggregation of the portion of the aggregation prediction probabilities 514 associated with the overlapping region 516).
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 projected collision risk estimation is determined in Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Heukelom to include the projected collision risk estimation is based on an overlap of a projected collision detection area with a navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, the projected collision detection area corresponding to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure, wherein the logic device is configured to determine the projected collision risk estimation by: identifying projected collision detection cells of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle cells corresponding to the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells and/or a weighted counted of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “generating more accurate and/or safer trajectories” (Heukelom [0023]), “discarding unsafe trajectories, thereby reducing processing and memory usage” (Heukelom [0023]), and “accordingly, techniques for evaluating risk can be performed faster than conventional techniques, which may allow for a faster response or may allow a computing system to consider additional alternative trajectories, thereby improving safety outcomes, performance, and/or accuracy” (Heukelom [0023]).
Because Heukelom discloses using cells instead of voxels in an occupancy map, Tyers, in view of Heukelom does not explicitly teach voxels.
However, Gibson teaches a collision detection system that uses voxel representation (col 9 ln. 35- 55: In order to detect such collisions, voxels in the object array are transformed into occupancy map coordinates at 45 such that the addresses or codes representing the object are stored at 47 in the occupancy map […] As can be seen, occupancy map codes or addresses 47 and 55 are seen to overlap at a region 57 indicating a collision which is detected at 59).
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 the cells as taught in Tyers, in view of Heukelom to employ voxel representation as taught in Gibson, because a voxel is merely the three-dimensional (3D) analogue of a two-dimensional (2D) cell, and navigation systems commonly select either a 2D cell or 3D voxel representation depending on the dimensionality of the sensor data and environment being modeled. 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, substituting voxels for cells would have been a predictable use of a known equivalent spatial discretization technique to model occupancy maps while preserving the same projected-collision detection identification functionality. Further as evidence of the interchangeability of voxels for cells, it appears from Applicant’s PGPUB US-20250201129-A1 para. [0118], the invention would work equally well with either a 2D occupancy map or grid of voxels.
Regarding claim 3, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Tyers also teaches wherein the one or more navigation control signals are determined by: determining one or more projected collision detection areas for the mobile structure within a two dimensional occupancy map ([0099] For the creation of the occupancy grid-map, in another of these embodiments, the method 1100 may include the application of probabilistic approaches and multi-resolution scan-matching to complete a map useful in path planning; Fig. 11B step 1156 project to 2D scan; the Examiner understands in Tyers that the probabilistic location of the objects in the occupancy grid-map reads on the limitation “one or more projected collision detection areas”),
wherein each projected collision detection area corresponds to a test thruster or velocity demand; and ([0062] At step 216, the plurality of actuators 53 control the forward/reverse drive selector 62 reducing velocity by 0.06 knots per foot of travel to stop the marine vessel 60 twenty feet from the external object 70)
determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the one or more projected collision detection areas and the received perimeter sensor data, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to maneuver the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data (Fig. 11A step 1108 move marine vessel using the mapping; Fig. 11B steps 1160, 1162, 1164 - compute safe area to navigate, compute paths, execute path; [0109] Having determined the position of the marine vessel 1001 and calculated at least one path, the central processing unit 103 may then calculate the required directional torque values for every individual thruster mounted on the marine vessel 1001. The required forces and torques at time t may be controlled and calculated by a PID algorithm based on the following formula, supported by [0110]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 6, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Tyers, as modified also teaches wherein each overlapping voxel is weighted according to a distance to a nearest extent of the mobile structure, a measurement of how stationary the corresponding navigation hazard is, and/or other obstacle and/or motion characteristics of the navigation hazard and/or the mobile structure (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Heukelom [0062] In some instances, the region probability 518 associated with the N-th time TN can represent a summing, accumulation, integration, or aggregation of the portion of the aggregation prediction probabilities 514 associated with the overlapping region 516; see rejection of claim 12 cited to Gibson teaching voxels).
Regarding claim 8, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Tyers also teaches wherein: the navigation control parameters comprise user input provided to a user interface for the mobile structure for direct navigational control of the mobile structure, a target track for the mobile structure, and/or a target position and/or orientation for the mobile structure (Fig. 5A step 106A user inputs a final desired distance, supported by [0058] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Tyers also teaches wherein the determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises: determining a relative velocity of the navigation hazard disposed within a monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system based, at least in part, on the received perimeter sensor data; and (Fig. 6 step 208; [0061] At step 208, once the bow distance, velocity and position transducer 46 is activated, the bow distance, velocity and position transducer 46 will detect and transmit real time distance and velocity information between the bow 69 of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70);
determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined relative velocity of the navigation hazard, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to maneuver the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard (Fig. 6 step 216: vessel reduces velocity to a stop; Examiner submits that control to reduce velocity to 0.06 knots per foot of travel, from 5 knots (at step 212) to a stop is a maneuver of the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard).
Regarding claim 11, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Tyers also teaches wherein: wherein: the navigation control system comprises one or more of a steering actuator, a propulsion system, and/or a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure; and (Fig. 1 automatic docking system 10 includes thruster controls 61 and propulsion system; [0087] The system 1000 includes a propulsion system of a marine vessel 1001 including at least one thruster, at least one drive system, and at least one actuator);
the navigation control signals are configured to evade the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data by maintaining or increasing a range to the navigation hazard and/or by decreasing a relative velocity of the navigation hazard towards the mobile structure and to minimize deviation from the navigation control parameters while evading the navigation hazard (Fig. 5b step 120B-122B marine vessel maintains range with external object; [0013] maintain that position indefinitely regardless of the wind and water currents while the system is in operation).
Regarding claim 12, Tyers teaches a method comprising:
receiving navigation control parameters from a user interface (Fig. 1 thruster manual controls 61, fwd/rev drive selector 62, control panel 20; Fig. 5A operator provides inputs to user interface - steps 102A, 106A, 108A) for a mobile structure and perimeter sensor data from a perimeter ranging system mounted to the mobile structure (Fig. 1 distance sensing transducers 40P, 40S and position sensing transducers 46, 47; [0026] a plurality of transducers to detect and transmit a set of distance information between the marine vessel and an external object; supported by [0035]-[0037]);
determining a projected collision risk estimation (Fig. 11b compute safe area to navigate (costmap) Examiner interprets the costs in the cost map to represent a projected collision risk estimation);
determining one or more navigation control signals configured to maneuver the mobile structure based, at least in part, on the received navigation control parameters and the projected collision risk estimation (Fig. 5B transducer data used to control thrusters - steps 112B, 114B and Fig. 5C steps 112C, 114C, 116C, 120C), wherein the one or more navigation control signals comprises a collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand (Fig. 6 step 206 collision avoidance mode and step 216: vessel reduces velocity to stop 20 ft from the external object; supported by [0046]); and
providing the one or more navigation control signals to a navigation control system for the mobile structure (Fig. 5B PCU communicates with navigation control system in steps 118B-120B; see also Fig. 5C steps 116C-118C).
Tyers does not explicitly teach that the projected collision risk estimation is based on an overlap of a projected collision detection area with a navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, the projected collision detection area corresponding to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure, wherein determining the projected collision risk estimation comprises: identifying projected collision detection voxels of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle voxels corresponding to the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels and/or a weighted counted of overlapping projected collision detection voxels and obstacle voxels.
However, Heukelom teaches a projected collision risk estimation is based on an overlap of a projected collision detection area with a navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data (FIG. 5 region probability 518 based on overlapping region 516; [0063] In some examples, if an individual region probability 510 or 518 is above a threshold the trajectory 504 can be rejected as representing too high of a risk associated with a collision or a near-collision),
the projected collision detection area corresponding to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure (FIG. 5 320** and 504; [0062] …a region 320** associated with a position of the vehicle 320 along the trajectory 504 at time TN)
wherein determining the projected collision risk estimation comprises (FIG. 7 processor(s) 716):
identifying projected collision detection cells of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle cells corresponding to the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells and/or a weighted counted of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells ([0062] In some instances, the region probability 518 associated with the N-th time TN can represent a summing, accumulation, integration, or aggregation of the portion of the aggregation prediction probabilities 514 associated with the overlapping region 516).
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 projected collision risk estimation is determined in Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Heukelom to include the projected collision risk estimation is based on an overlap of a projected collision detection area with a navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, the projected collision detection area corresponding to a calculated future position and/or trajectory of the mobile structure, wherein determining the projected collision risk estimation comprises: identifying projected collision detection cells of the projected collision detection area that are also obstacle cells corresponding to the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, and determining the projected collision risk estimation based, at least in part, on a simple count of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells and/or a weighted counted of overlapping projected collision detection cells and obstacle cells, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of “generating more accurate and/or safer trajectories” (Heukelom [0023]), “discarding unsafe trajectories, thereby reducing processing and memory usage” (Heukelom [0023]), and “accordingly, techniques for evaluating risk can be performed faster than conventional techniques, which may allow for a faster response or may allow a computing system to consider additional alternative trajectories, thereby improving safety outcomes, performance, and/or accuracy” (Heukelom [0023]).
Because Heukelom discloses using cells instead of voxels in an occupancy map, Tyers, in view of Heukelom does not explicitly teach voxels.
However, Gibson teaches a collision detection system that uses voxel representation (col 9 ln. 35- 55: In order to detect such collisions, voxels in the object array are transformed into occupancy map coordinates at 45 such that the addresses or codes representing the object are stored at 47 in the occupancy map […] As can be seen, occupancy map codes or addresses 47 and 55 are seen to overlap at a region 57 indicating a collision which is detected at 59).
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 the cells as taught in Tyers, in view of Heukelom to employ voxel representation as taught in Gibson, because a voxel is merely the three-dimensional (3D) analogue of a two-dimensional (2D) cell, and navigation systems commonly select either a 2D cell or 3D voxel representation depending on the dimensionality of the sensor data and environment being modeled. 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, substituting voxels for cells would have been a predictable use of a known equivalent spatial discretization technique to model occupancy maps while preserving the same projected-collision detection identification functionality. Further as evidence of the interchangeability of voxels for cells, it appears from Applicant’s PGPUB US-20250201129-A1 para. [0118], the invention would work equally well with either a 2D occupancy map or grid of voxels.
Regarding claim 13, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12.
Tyers also teaches wherein the determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises: determining one or more projected collision detection areas for the mobile structure within a two dimensional occupancy map ([0099] For the creation of the occupancy grid-map, in another of these embodiments, the method 1100 may include the application of probabilistic approaches and multi-resolution scan-matching to complete a map useful in path planning; Fig. 11B step 1156 project to 2D scan; the Examiner understands in Tyers that the probabilistic location of the objects in the occupancy grid-map reads on the limitation “one or more projected collision detection areas”),
each projected collision detection area corresponding to a test thruster or velocity demand; and ([0062] At step 216, the plurality of actuators 53 control the forward/reverse drive selector 62 reducing velocity by 0.06 knots per foot of travel to stop the marine vessel 60 twenty feet from the external object 70)
determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the one or more projected collision detection areas and the received perimeter sensor data, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand and is configured to cause the navigation control system to maneuver the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data (Fig. 11A step 1108 move marine vessel using the mapping; Fig. 11B steps 1160, 1162, 1164 - compute safe area to navigate, compute paths, execute path; [0109] Having determined the position of the marine vessel 1001 and calculated at least one path, the central processing unit 103 may then calculate the required directional torque values for every individual thruster mounted on the marine vessel 1001. The required forces and torques at time t may be controlled and calculated by a PID algorithm based on the following formula, supported by [0110]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 16, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12.
Tyers, as modified also teaches wherein each overlapping voxel is weighted according to a distance to a nearest extent of the mobile structure, a measurement of how stationary the corresponding navigation hazard is, and/or other obstacle and/or motion characteristics of the navigation hazard and/or the mobile structure (see rejection of claim 12 cited to Heukelom [0062] In some instances, the region probability 518 associated with the N-th time TN can represent a summing, accumulation, integration, or aggregation of the portion of the aggregation prediction probabilities 514 associated with the overlapping region 516; see rejection of claim 12 cited to Gibson teaching voxels).
Regarding claim 18, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12.
Tyers also teaches wherein: the navigation control parameters comprise user input provided to a user interface for the mobile structure for direct navigational control of the mobile structure, a target track for the mobile structure, and/or a target position and/or orientation for the mobile structure (Fig. 5A step 106A user inputs a final desired distance, supported by [0058] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12.
Tyers also teaches wherein the determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises: determining a relative velocity of the navigation hazard disposed within a monitoring perimeter of the perimeter ranging system based, at least in part, on the received perimeter sensor data; and (Fig. 6 step 208; [0061] At step 208, once the bow distance, velocity and position transducer 46 is activated, the bow distance, velocity and position transducer 46 will detect and transmit real time distance and velocity information between the bow 69 of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70);
determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined relative velocity of the navigation hazard, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to maneuver the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard (Fig. 6 step 216: vessel reduces velocity to a stop; Examiner submits that control to reduce velocity to 0.06 knots per foot of travel, from 5 knots (at step 212) to a stop is a maneuver of the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard).
Regarding claim 21, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12.
Tyers also teaches wherein: wherein: the navigation control system comprises one or more of a steering actuator, a propulsion system, and/or a thrust maneuver system for the mobile structure; and (Fig. 1 automatic docking system 10 includes thruster controls 61 and propulsion system; [0087] The system 1000 includes a propulsion system of a marine vessel 1001 including at least one thruster, at least one drive system, and at least one actuator);
the navigation control signals are configured to evade the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data by maintaining or increasing a range to the navigation hazard and/or by decreasing a relative velocity of the navigation hazard towards the mobile structure and to minimize deviation from the navigation control parameters while evading the navigation hazard (Fig. 5b step 120B-122B marine vessel maintains range with external object; [0013] maintain that position indefinitely regardless of the wind and water currents while the system is in operation).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers, in view of Heukelom, in view of Gibson, in view of Fulgenzi et al. (“Dynamic Obstacle Avoidance in uncertain environment combining PVOs and Occupancy Grid”, DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2007.363554) and herein after will be referred to as Fulgenzi.
Regarding claim 4, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 3.
Tyers, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein: each projected collision detection area corresponds to a projection time interval for all projected collision detection areas and a test thruster or velocity demand unique for each projected collision detection area.
However, Fulgenzi teaches: wherein: each projected collision detection area corresponds to a projection time interval for all projected collision detection areas (Fig. 3 occupancy map; Section II: Paragraph A: The Bayesian Occupancy filter: a prediction step is performed […] for each cell…; Section III Paragraph B: Compute the probability of collision: Given a robot velocity
v
r
and an obstacle velocity
v
n
, the probability of collision of a cell r with a cell o in the SO(
v
r
′,r) is: Equation 5. Considering the whole robot dimension, the maximum probability of collision in the interval [t−1, t] is kept for each object k: Equation 6; see also Section III: Paragraph C: Choice of the control input: For a given velocity v, the probability of collision is recursively computed for each time step t; when […] the time of collision is estimated as the minimum between t and
T
p
r
e
d
– The Examiner interprets the time from t to
T
p
r
e
d
as a projection time interval).
and a test thruster or velocity demand unique for each projected collision detection area (Section III Paragraph C: Choice of the control input: If
T
c
o
l
l
(v)<=
T
s
a
f
e
(v), the velocity is considered dangerous and discarded, otherwise it'll be considered safe enough to be applied. For each velocity, the next robot position and heading are computed, so to calculate a utility value and lead the robot toward the goal: If the velocity is found to be safe enough it is chosen as the next control for the robot, otherwise it is discarded. The algorithm is iterated until a safe velocity is found. The chosen control is then applied and the algorithm is iterated).
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 Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Fulgenzi include wherein: each projected collision detection area corresponds to a projection time interval for all projected collision detection areas and a test thruster or velocity demand unique for each projected collision detection area, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of computing the “probability of collision at a given time instant t in the future” (Fulgenzi Section III).
Regarding claim 14, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13.
Tyers, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein: each projected collision detection area corresponds to a projection time interval for all projected collision detection areas and a test thruster or velocity demand unique for each projected collision detection area.
However, Fulgenzi teaches: wherein: each projected collision detection area corresponds to a projection time interval for all projected collision detection areas (Fig. 3 occupancy map; Section II: Paragraph A: The Bayesian Occupancy filter: a prediction step is performed […] for each cell…; Section III Paragraph B: Compute the probability of collision: Given a robot velocity
v
r
and an obstacle velocity
v
n
, the probability of collision of a cell r with a cell o in the SO(
v
r
′,r) is: Equation 5. Considering the whole robot dimension, the maximum probability of collision in the interval [t−1, t] is kept for each object k: Equation 6; see also Section III: Paragraph C: Choice of the control input: For a given velocity v, the probability of collision is recursively computed for each time step t; when […] the time of collision is estimated as the minimum between t and
T
p
r
e
d
– The Examiner interprets the time from t to
T
p
r
e
d
as a projection time interval).
and a test thruster or velocity demand unique for each projected collision detection area (Section III Paragraph C: Choice of the control input: If
T
c
o
l
l
(v)<=
T
s
a
f
e
(v), the velocity is considered dangerous and discarded, otherwise it'll be considered safe enough to be applied. For each velocity, the next robot position and heading are computed, so to calculate a utility value and lead the robot toward the goal: If the velocity is found to be safe enough it is chosen as the next control for the robot, otherwise it is discarded. The algorithm is iterated until a safe velocity is found. The chosen control is then applied and the algorithm is iterated).
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 Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Fulgenzi include wherein: each projected collision detection area corresponds to a projection time interval for all projected collision detection areas and a test thruster or velocity demand unique for each projected collision detection area, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of computing the “probability of collision at a given time instant t in the future” (Fulgenzi Section III).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers, in view of Heukelom, in view of Gibson, in view of Behrendt et al. (US-20200369351-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Behrendt.
Regarding claim 7, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 3.
Tyers also teaches: further comprising the user interface, wherein the logic device is configured to: render a display view on the user interface for the mobile structure (Fig. 1 display 23), but Tyers does not explicitly teach wherein the display view comprises a chart comprising at least one of the one or more projected collision detection areas and a perimeter polygon or a virtual bumper polygon corresponding to the mobile structure.
However, Behrendt teaches wherein the display view comprises a chart comprising at least one of the one or more projected collision detection areas and a perimeter polygon or a virtual bumper polygon corresponding to the mobile structure ([0046] In one implementation, seen in FIG. 7, the system 38 may be further configured to determine and display a second or more set of one or more boundaries 88 which are located at different distances from the vessel 32 than the first set of boundaries 86. Distances between the vessel 32 and each such boundary 86, 88 may be adjustable by the user; [0007] The image processing computer may be further configured to define a virtual boundary and to add the virtual boundary at a specified distance around the vessel to the first image displayed on the display device, and may be further configured to determine and communicate a warning to the user when the first object crosses the virtual boundary, and may be further configured to automatically display the first image generated by the at least one camera oriented in the direction of the first object – this information is supported by at least p. 11 of the earlier-filed U.S. provisional patent application titled “Marine Docking System,” Ser. No. 62/852,550, filed May 24, 2019 which this prior art claims priority to).
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 Tyers, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Behrendt include wherein the display view comprises a chart comprising at least one of the one or more projected collision detection areas and a perimeter polygon or a virtual bumper polygon corresponding to the mobile structure, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the user when an object crosses the virtual boundary (Behrendt [0007]).
Regarding claim 17, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 13.
Tyers also teaches: further comprising: rendering a display view on a user interface for the mobile structure (Fig. 1 display 23), but Tyers does not explicitly teach wherein the display view comprises a chart comprising at least one of the one or more projected collision detection areas and a perimeter polygon or a virtual bumper polygon corresponding to the mobile structure.
However, Behrendt teaches wherein the display view comprises a chart comprising at least one of the one or more projected collision detection areas and a perimeter polygon or a virtual bumper polygon corresponding to the mobile structure ([0046] In one implementation, seen in FIG. 7, the system 38 may be further configured to determine and display a second or more set of one or more boundaries 88 which are located at different distances from the vessel 32 than the first set of boundaries 86. Distances between the vessel 32 and each such boundary 86, 88 may be adjustable by the user; [0007] The image processing computer may be further configured to define a virtual boundary and to add the virtual boundary at a specified distance around the vessel to the first image displayed on the display device, and may be further configured to determine and communicate a warning to the user when the first object crosses the virtual boundary, and may be further configured to automatically display the first image generated by the at least one camera oriented in the direction of the first object – this information is supported by at least p. 11 of the earlier-filed U.S. provisional patent application titled “Marine Docking System,” Ser. No. 62/852,550, filed May 24, 2019 which this prior art claims priority to).
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 Tyers, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Behrendt include wherein the display view comprises a chart comprising at least one of the one or more projected collision detection areas and a perimeter polygon or a virtual bumper polygon corresponding to the mobile structure, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of warning the user when an object crosses the virtual boundary (Behrendt [0007]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers, in view of Heukelom, in view of Gibson, in view of Kishimoto et al. (US-20180015994-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Kishimoto.
Regarding claim 10, Tyers, as modified, teaches the system of claim 2.
Tyers does not explicitly teach: wherein determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises: determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure; and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data.
However, Kishimoto teaches: wherein determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises:
determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure ([0053] Note that the sensor 23 may output the detected heading, velocity, wind direction, wind speed, and tidal current to the ship controller 24 as needed; [0056] The disturbance bearing estimating module 240 may estimate a bearing at which a disturbance that moves the ship 10 exists. The disturbance may mainly be comprised of a tidal current and wind);
and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data ([0155] the user may input the docking location Dock to arrive at on the nautical chart, to the user-interface 25; Fig. 13 target track course 702 comprising fixed position points and target docking position as the final destination; [0065] The ship controller 24 may control the thrust direction so that the heading opposes to the estimated disturbance bearing; see Equations in [0089] that show the ship’s target bearing Ψx accounts for changes in wind and tidal disturbances; [0141] In this manner, the ship 10 may automatically navigate along the fixed point position Pp which is sequentially changed along the bearing of the tidal current vector Tid while orienting the heading Ψs to oppose to the bearing of the wind vector Wnd; also supported by [0101]-[0111]).
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 Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto to include wherein determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises: determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure; and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, for the motivation to help ensure “the movable body is not drifted by the disturbance” (Kishimoto Abstract), and as a result, “the control device of the movable body may prevent the movable body from moving on an unnecessary path (Kishimoto [0031]).
Regarding claim 20, Tyers, as modified, teaches the method of claim 12.
Tyers does not explicitly teach: wherein the determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises: determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure; and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data.
However, Kishimoto teaches: wherein determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises:
determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure ([0053] Note that the sensor 23 may output the detected heading, velocity, wind direction, wind speed, and tidal current to the ship controller 24 as needed; [0056] The disturbance bearing estimating module 240 may estimate a bearing at which a disturbance that moves the ship 10 exists. The disturbance may mainly be comprised of a tidal current and wind);
and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data ([0155] the user may input the docking location Dock to arrive at on the nautical chart, to the user-interface 25; Fig. 13 target track course 702 comprising fixed position points and target docking position as the final destination; [0065] The ship controller 24 may control the thrust direction so that the heading opposes to the estimated disturbance bearing; see Equations in [0089] that show the ship’s target bearing Ψx accounts for changes in wind and tidal disturbances; [0141] In this manner, the ship 10 may automatically navigate along the fixed point position Pp which is sequentially changed along the bearing of the tidal current vector Tid while orienting the heading Ψs to oppose to the bearing of the wind vector Wnd; also supported by [0101]-[0111]).
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 Tyers to incorporate the teachings of Kishimoto to include wherein determining the one or more navigation control signals comprises: determining wind and/or water current disturbances affecting navigation of the mobile structure; and determining the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand based, at least in part, on the determined wind and/or water current disturbances, wherein the collision avoidance thruster or velocity demand is configured to cause the navigation control system to compensate for the determined wind and/or water current disturbances while maneuvering the mobile structure to minimize risk of collision with the navigation hazard identified in the perimeter sensor data, for the motivation to help ensure “the movable body is not drifted by the disturbance” (Kishimoto Abstract), and as a result, “the control device of the movable body may prevent the movable body from moving on an unnecessary path (Kishimoto [0031]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10303178-B1: Gutman, relevant to determining an overlap, discloses “the CMB module of the vehicle 100 checks for overlap of the trajectory 420 with the occupied cells 521-532. Because none of the cells 521-532 overlap with the trajectory 420, the vehicle 100 can safely continue along the roadway 400”
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