DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 01/22/2025. Claims 1 - 20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0078], the first sentence “The method 200 is recursive and occurs at occurs at at least one sampling rate.” is an improper sentence that needs correcting.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "…and the at least one signal" but depends on claim 16. Claim 17 is what introduces "…and the at least one signal" in which claim 18 doesn’t depend on. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5 – 7, 16 - 17, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12486006B1 (hereinafter, “Naik”), and further in view of US20200105143A1 (hereinafter, “Ramstrum”).
9. Regarding claims 1 & 16, Naik teaches a method for controlling an off-road vehicle relative to a secondary off-road vehicle, the method being executed by a processor of the vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving an input from the secondary off-road vehicle, the input being indicative of a position of the secondary off-road vehicle ([Col. 24 Lines 61 – 67] – Col. 25 Lines 1 – 15] Fig. 3); Naik teaches a vessel (314) (secondary off-road vehicle) that can be determined if impact is likely to happen. The vessel (10) determines this by observing movements of the vessel (314) over a predetermined period of time to determine if its path is to make impact with the vessel (10). The observation of movements that the vessel (314) is providing are inputs that the vessel (10) is receiving through sensors located on vessel (10). Vessel (10) can project the position of vessel (314) based on these received movement inputs from vessel (10) [Col. 24 Lines 64 – 67] – [Col. 25 Lines 1 - 9].
determining a predicted trajectory path of the vehicle [Col. 14 Lines 41 – 67] – [Col. 15 Lines 1 – 27]; Naik teaches the vessel (10) traversing a planned path that is set by the controller(s) or a planned path set by an operator.
10. Naik further teaches determining a trajectory position of the vehicle,… [Col. 14 Lines 41 – 69] Naik teaches projecting a periodically projecting a model of vessel (10) forward along the trajectory path to determine the vessel’s (10) future trajectory position amongst the planned path (trajectory path).
Naik does not explicitly teach …the trajectory position corresponding to a point of interest on the predicted trajectory path selected based on at least a distance between the vehicle and the position of the secondary off-road vehicle;
However, Ramstrum teaches …the trajectory position corresponding to a point of interest on the predicted trajectory path selected based on at least a distance between the vehicle and the position of the secondary off-road vehicle ([0019] – [0020] Fig. 1 – 2); Ramstrum teaches an ownship track (111) which is a planned path amongst other nearby ships (120) and various hazards (130). The system provides a map visualization (200) that shows where nearby ships are expected to be in the future relative to the ownship’s (110) navigational path. This includes identifying a closest point of approach (CPA) (point of interest) along the predicted track. These CPAs identify specific points along the predicted trajectory where interaction with a secondary nearby ship (120) becomes relevant for collision avoidance. Therefore, these CPAs constitutes as points of interest on a predicted trajectory path as well as distance between the ownship (110) and other nearby ships (120) being taken into account. These CPAs are selected based on distance between other nearby ships (120).
Naik and Ramstrum are analogous art because Naik teaches a vessel (10) traversing a planned path while Ramstrum teaches an ownship track that identifies a closest point of approach along the predicted track that is based on distance. One of ordinary skill would have had the motivation to combine Naik with Ramstrum since both are directed to marine vessel navigation and safe traversal of a planned route in the presence of surrounding other vessels and obstacles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the CPA and predicted-track analysis techniques of Ramstrum into the planned route traversal system of Naik would improve navigational safety and collision avoidance by allowing the vessel not only to follow a planned route, but also to proactively identify positions along the route where proximity to another vessel or obstacle may become hazardous.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ramstrum, to modify the teachings of Naik to include the teachings of Ramstrum to provide more safer and more intelligent vessel navigation.
11. Naik teaches determining a separation distance between the trajectory position of the vehicle and the position of the secondary off-road vehicle; and ([Col. 24 Lines 61 – 67] – [Col. 25 Lines 1 – 48] Fig. 3) Naik teaches associating an area (304) that if an object or another vessel comes into, most likely an impact is happening. Naik also teaches detecting an object or vessel and associating that object/vessel with a surrounding area (316) which can be used as a hazardous area. These areas constitute as separation distance amongst both vessels since separation distance can be calculated using the radius of vessel (314) and the area (304) of vessel (10).
12. Naik does not explicitly teach in response to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold, controlling a speed of the vehicle.
However, Ramstrum in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to the separation distance being less than a distance threshold, controlling a speed of the vehicle [0027]. Ramstrum calculates projected separation distances between the ownship (110) and the nearby ships (120) and compares those projected distances to predetermined thresholds in order to identify potential collision scenarios. When the projected separation distance falls below the threshold, the system teaches modifying the speed of the ownship (110) to increase separation distance and avoid collision conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Naik with the teachings of Ramstrum, to further prevent any collision from occurring.
13. Regarding claims 2 & 19, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an arrival time until the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, and wherein controlling the speed of the vehicle is based, at least in part, on the arrival time.
However, Ramstrum in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an arrival time until the vehicle reaches the trajectory position, and wherein controlling the speed of the vehicle is based, at least in part, on the arrival time [0016]. The arrival time until the vehicle reaches the trajectory position will be interpreted as the arrival time at any point of the ownship track (111) (trajectory position). Ramstrum teaches evaluating the distance along the ownship track (111) to the CPA point and determines an arrival time based on the ownship’s (111) current speed. This arrival time is used in conjunction with courses of action (COA). These COAs may vary the ownship’s (111) speed which means that the speed is based on the arrival time. Therefore, Ramstrum teaches determining an arrival time until the vehicle reaches a trajectory position.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Naik with the teachings of Ramstrum, to have a set arrival time to let the user know when the ownship will arrive at a specific spot.
14. Regarding claim 5, Naik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle further comprises a camera and wherein receiving the input of the secondary off-road vehicle comprises receiving an input from the camera ([Col. 16 Lines 52 – 67] – [Col. 17 Lines 1 – 9], [Col. 24 Lines 61 – 67] – Col. 25 Lines 1 – 15] Fig. 3). Receiving an input from the second off-road vehicle from the camera will be interpreted as the first off-road vehicle having a camera that is receiving an input from the secondary off-road vehicle by capturing data from the monitoring of the secondary off-road vehicle. Naik teaches a vessel (314) (secondary off-road vehicle) that can be determined if impact is likely to happen. The vessel (10) determines this by observing movements of the vessel (314) over a predetermined period of time to determine if its path is to make impact with the vessel (10) ([Col. 24 Lines 61 – 67] – Col. 25 Lines 1 – 15] Fig. 3). The observation of movements that the vessel (314) is providing are inputs that the vessel (10) is receiving through sensors, such as a camera [Col. 16 Lines 52 – 67] – [Col. 17 Lines 1 – 9], located on vessel (10).
15. Regarding claim 6, Naik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the input of the secondary off-road vehicle further comprises receiving at least one of: a speed of the secondary off-road vehicle, an acceleration of the secondary off-road vehicle, an orientation of the secondary off-road vehicle, and a steering angle of the secondary off-road vehicle [Col. 24 Lines 61 – 67] – [Col. 25 Lines 1 – 15]. The vessel (10) can determine a velocity of the object, object being the vessel (314). The vessel (10) receives input measurements based on the monitoring of the movements of the vessel (314) over a predetermined period of time. Therefore, Naik teaches the vessel (10) receiving the speed input from the vessel (314) based on the monitoring of the movements over a predetermined period of time.
16. Regarding claim 7, Naik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
determining the predicted trajectory path, determining the trajectory position, and determining the separation distance are recursive and occurs at at least one sampling rate [Col. 14 Lines 41 – 67] – [Col 15. Lines 1 – 27]. Naik teaches a predicted trajectory path, determining the trajectory position, and determining separation distance. Refer back to claim 1 above for these specific limitations. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the disclosed path planned, projected model of vessel (10) forward along the path planned, and the distance assessment are repeatedly re-executed within an iterative navigation control loop in order to maintain current collision risk and route planning information for a moving vessel (10) operating in a dynamic marine environment. Due to how the vessel (10) position, heading, speed, and surrounding object information are periodically sampled and updated over time at regular or irregular intervals, the system performs recursive determinations of the planned path, projected planned path positioning, and separation distance at one or more recurring sampling intervals corresponding to a refresh or update rate of the navigation system.
17. Regarding specifically claim 16, Naik teaches determining a secondary off-road vehicle predicted trajectory path [Col. 24 Lines 61 – 67] – [Col. 25 Lines 1 – 15]; Vessel (10) can predict or project a path (predicted trajectory path) of vessel (314) based on observed movements of the vessel (314) (secondary off-road) over a period of time. This predicted or projected path of vessel (314) constitutes as a secondary off-road vehicle predicted trajectory path.
18. Regarding claim 17, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 16, wherein receiving the input from the secondary off-road vehicle comprises:
receiving at least one signal indicative of at least one of: a current orientation of the secondary off-road vehicle, a speed of the secondary off-road vehicle, an acceleration of the secondary off-road vehicle, a steering angle of the secondary off-road vehicle, a user input of the secondary off-road vehicle, and a position of the secondary off-road vehicle.
However, Ramstrum in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein receiving the input from the secondary off-road vehicle comprises:
receiving at least one signal indicative of at least one of: a current orientation of the secondary off-road vehicle, a speed of the secondary off-road vehicle, an acceleration of the secondary off-road vehicle, a steering angle of the secondary off-road vehicle, a user input of the secondary off-road vehicle, and a position of the secondary off-road vehicle [0019]. Ramstrum teaches a map visualization (200) that is displayed on the ownship (110) to map out nearby ships (120) as the ownship (110) travels its ownship track (111). Each ship (120) is monitored to collect its current speed and course. Since this map visualization (200) is being fed information in relation to other secondary ships (secondary off-road vehicle) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the ownship (110) to be receiving signals that contain speed data and course data of other nearby ships (120) as input into the system to accurately monitor and pinpoint these nearby ships (120) onto the map visualization.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Naik with the teachings of Ramstrum, to have other secondary ships nearby be displayed as accurately as possible due to the movement of these other ships to prevent any collisions from occurring.
Claim(s) 3 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12486006B1 (hereinafter, “Naik”), and further in view of US20200105143A1 (hereinafter, “Ramstrum”), and further in view of US20230339582A1 (hereinafter, “Moromi”).
20. Regarding claims 3 & 20, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 2, wherein:
controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises limiting a speed of the vehicle, and
in response to a decrease of the arrival time, increasing limitation of the speed of the vehicle.
However, Moromi teaches the method of claim 2, wherein:
controlling the speed of the vehicle comprises limiting a speed of the vehicle, and
…increasing limitation of the speed of the vehicle [0026] - [0029], [0046]. Moromi teaches a speed control controller that is implemented by the BCU (15). The speed control controller has a set acceleration block (29) which limits acceleration acceptable by the passenger which in turn also limits speed of the hull (11) [0026] - [0029]. The target vessel speed block (36) can also be set based on what the passenger allows [0046]. Therefore, limitation of the speed of the hull (11) can be increased or decreased depending on what the passenger allows for.
Naik does not explicitly teach in response to a decrease of the arrival time,…
However, Ramstrum teaches in response to a decrease of the arrival time,… [0016], [0025] Ramstrum teaches a decrease in arrival time because Ramstrum determines projected timing associated with future positions along the ownship track (111), such as CPAs or future interaction locations, and continuously updates ownship navigation as the ownship (110) progresses towards that position. As the ownship (110) continues traveling along the predicted route, the remaining time until the vessel reaches the projected trajectory position will decrease.
Moromi and Ramstrum are analogous art to Naik because Moromi teaches a speed control controller that has a set acceleration block and a target vessel speed block that both will limit together the speed of the hull while Ramstrum teaches an arrival time that will decrease as the ownship continues to travel to a projected trajectory position along its ownship track. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Moromi and Ramstrum because both address complementary aspects of the same marine vessel speed control problem. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that incorporating the arrival time and decreasing arrival time of Ramstrum into the speed limiting control system of Moromi would enhance responsiveness and safety of the speed controller by allowing it to dynamically adjust acceleration limits and target speed constraints based on how quickly the vessel is approaching a predicted trajectory position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Moromi, to modify the teachings of the modified Naik reference to include the teachings of Moromi to further tighten speed speed restrictions as the arrival time decreases.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12486006B1 (hereinafter, “Naik”), and further in view of US20200105143A1 (hereinafter, “Ramstrum”), and further in view of US20200259820A1 (hereinafter, “McCall”).
22. Regarding claim 4, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the input of the secondary off-road vehicle comprises receiving a signal compatible with C-V2X communication.
However, McCall in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the input of the secondary off-road vehicle comprises receiving a signal compatible with C-V2X communication ([0053], [0094], [0168], [0170] – [0171] Fig. 26). McCall teaches the term vehicles is not limited to automobiles, but also refers to boats [0053]. McCall also mentions that C-V2X transceivers are located in the vehicles [0094]. The term vehicle encompassing boats as well. McCall teaches later in the specification that watercrafts, marine vessels, vehicles within range along coastal areas use short-range receiving/long-range transmitting antennas (608) in order to receive and transmit signals to each other [0168]. Due to how McCall uses these C-V2X transceivers by implementing them into vehicles, vehicles being also boats, watercrafts, etc., cargo ship (12) can communicate with tugboat (610) using the framework of these transceivers with the bouys via C-V2X communication [0170] – [0171].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Naik with the teachings of Ramstrum, to offer better range to marine vessels when out in the water.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12486006B1 (hereinafter, “Naik”), and further in view of US20200105143A1 (hereinafter, “Ramstrum”), and further in view of JPA 1994211190-000000 (hereinafter, “Shigetada”).
24. Regarding claim 8, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position; and
in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, controlling the speed of the vehicle.
However, Ramstrum teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a trajectory speed of the vehicle at the trajectory position; and [0016] Ramstrum teaches varying ownship (110) speed as it navigates the ownship track (111) (trajectory position). If speed can be varied, this implies that the speed can be calculated at that point in the ownship track (111) to determine whether it needs to be changed to increase or decrease its calculated value when determining a COA.
Naik does not explicitly teach in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, controlling the speed of the vehicle.
However, Shigetada teaches in response to the trajectory speed being greater than a speed threshold, controlling the speed of the vehicle [0008]. Shigetada teaches in response to an abnormal degree of impact due to the ship speed being greater than the limit value, slowing down the vessel to a predetermined value (threshold).
Ramstrum and Shigetada are analogous art to Naik because Ramstrum teaches varying ownship speed as it navigates the ownship track which implies that speed can be calculated at that point and changed to whether it should increase or decrease while Shigeta teaches lowering the speed of the ship to a predetermined value when it is detected that the ship speed is greater than a limit value. One of ordinary skill would have had the motivation to combine Ramstrum and Shigetada because they both address the same problem, safe vessel speed control. Combining Ramstrum’s predictive track and time awareness with Shigetada’s threshold triggered speed limiting would produce a more robust marine control system. The vessel could anticipate when it is approaching a hazardous trajectory condition and then impose a speed reduction when the predicted speed or motion state crosses a limit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Shigetada, to modify the teachings of the modified Naik reference to include the teachings of Shigetada to improve collision avoidance.
Claim(s) 9 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12486006B1 (hereinafter, “Naik”), and further in view of US20200105143A1 (hereinafter, “Ramstrum”), and further in view of JPA 1994211190-000000 (hereinafter, “Shigetada”), and further in view of US20220355902A1 (hereinafter, “Hasselskog”).
26. Regarding claim 9, Naik teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
receiving a signal from at least one sensor, the vehicle including the at least one sensor for detecting at least one of: a current orientation of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle of the vehicle, a user input, and a current position of the vehicle; and [Col. 11 Lines 29 – 56] Naik teaches implementing an attitude heading reference system (AHRS) that may detect the 3D orientation of the vessel (10). A GPS receiver (40) can be located on the vessel (10) which may also provide information related to positioning of the vessel (10).
Naik does not explicitly teach wherein determining the trajectory speed of the vehicle comprises:
using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor to determine the trajectory speed.
However, Hasselskog teaches wherein determining the trajectory speed of the vehicle comprises:
using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor to determine the trajectory speed [0029], [0044] – [0045], [0051] – [0052], [0058], [0082]. Hasselskog teaches having one or more sensor devices (125) configured to obtain information indicating the shape of the water surface in front of the hydrofoil (130) [0029]. The controller unit (110) receives sensor data representing the water conditions and inputs the information, along with the speed of the watercraft and measured acceleration, into a neural network (prediction algorithm) to predict wave acceleration affecting the watercraft (120) [0044] – [0045], [0051] – [0052], [0082]. This neural network constitutes as a prediction algorithm due to its predicting behavior. Hassekskog further teaches a target route (trajectory) and corresponding acceleration profile for the watercraft (120) based on predicted conditions [0058]. Due to the neural network using measured speed data and sensor derived wave information to predict future watercraft (120) motion and calculate a target route and acceleration/speed behavior, the speed of the watercraft (120) can be measured along its target route.
Naik and Hasselskog are analogous art because Naik teaches determining a 3D orientation and a position of the vessel while Hasselskog teaches using a neural network that intakes acceleration and speed data and predicts the speed of the watercraft along a target route. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Naik and Hasselskog because both are directed towards improving navigation control and predictive motion management of marine vessels using sensor derived information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the prediction accuracy of the neural network disclosed in could be improved by supplying more precise vessel state information, including 3D orientation and positional data taught by a Naik. Combining both Naik and Hasselskog would have predictably enhanced the neural network’s ability to model vessel dynamics, environmental interaction, and future trajectory behavior because vessel orientation directly affects acceleration vectors and route following performance in marine/ocean environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hasselskog, to modify the teachings of the modified Naik reference to include the teachings of Hasselskog to further determine speed along the predicted route to more accurately predict a time on arrival or predict when an interaction with an object may occur.
27. Regarding claim 10, Naik teaches the method of claim 9, wherein receiving the signal from the at least one sensor comprises receiving a signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a steering angle sensor, a user input sensor, and a global navigation satellite system [Col. 11 Lines 29 – 56]. Naik teaches using an AHRS that provides 3D orientation of vessel (10) by integrating gyroscopic measurements and accelerometer data. A GPS receiver (40) is also implemented for global positioning system data.
28. Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a signal from at least one sensor, the vehicle including the at least one sensor for detecting at least one of: a current orientation of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, a user input, and a current position of the vehicle; and [Col. 11 Lines 29 – 56] Naik teaches implementing an attitude heading reference system (AHRS) that may detect the 3D orientation of the vessel (10). A GPS receiver (40) can be located on the vessel (10) which may also provide information related to positioning of the vessel (10).
However, Naik does not explicitly teach wherein determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises:
using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor.
However, Hasselskog teaches wherein determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises:
using a prediction algorithm and the signal from the at least one sensor [0029], [0044] – [0045], [0051] – [0052], [0058], [0082]. Hasselskog teaches having one or more sensor devices (125) configured to obtain information indicating the shape of the water surface in front of the hydrofoil (130) [0029]. The controller unit (110) receives sensor data representing the water conditions and inputs the information, along with the speed of the watercraft and measured acceleration, into a neural network (prediction algorithm) to predict wave acceleration affecting the watercraft (120) [0044] – [0045], [0051] – [0052], [0082]. This neural network constitutes as a prediction algorithm due to its predicting behavior. Hassekskog further teaches a target route (trajectory) and corresponding acceleration profile for the watercraft (120) based on predicted conditions [0058]. Due to the neural network using measured speed data and sensor derived wave information to predict future watercraft (120) motion and calculate a target route and acceleration/speed behavior, the speed of the watercraft (120) can be measured along its target route.
Naik and Hasselskog are analogous art because Naik teaches determining a 3D orientation and a position of the vessel while Hasselskog teaches using a neural network that intakes acceleration and speed data and predicts the speed of the watercraft along a target route. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to combine Naik and Hasselskog because both are directed towards improving navigation control and predictive motion management of marine vessels using sensor derived information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the prediction accuracy of the neural network disclosed in could be improved by supplying more precise vessel state information, including 3D orientation and positional data taught by a Naik. Combining both Naik and Hasselskog would have predictably enhanced the neural network’s ability to model vessel dynamics, environmental interaction, and future trajectory behavior because vessel orientation directly affects acceleration vectors and route following performance in marine/ocean environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Hasselskog, to modify the teachings of the modified Naik reference to include the teachings of Hasselskog to further determine speed along the predicted route to more accurately predict a time on arrival or predict when an interaction with an object may occur.
29. Regarding claim 12, Naik teaches the method of claim 11, wherein determining the predicted trajectory path of the vehicle comprises determining at least one of: a magnitude of steering the vehicle, a rate of change of steering the vehicle, a magnitude of throttle, a rate of change of throttle, a magnitude of braking, and a rate of change of braking [Col. 14 Lines 41 – 58]. Naik teaches a vessel (10) traversing a path planned (predicted trajectory path) by the controller(s). As the vessel (10) traverses this planned path, the controller(s) can determine whether a cell in the occupancy grid that the vessel (10) is predicted to traverse is occupied. Due to this cell in the occupancy grid being occupied, the planned path will be evaluated again and changed to avoid that detected object in the cell of the occupancy grid. The avoidance of the detected object will require a change in propulsion of the vessel (10) to avoid colliding with the object. This change in propulsion relates to a throttle change because the throttle on a vessel is a mechanism that manages the vessel’s speed and acceleration. Therefore, in order to change the propulsion of the vessel (10) to determine a new planned path, a rate of change in throttle will have to occur.
30. Regarding claim 13, Naik teaches the method of claim 11, wherein receiving the signal from the at least one sensor comprises receiving the signal from at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a steering angle sensor, a user input sensor, and a global positioning system [Col. 11 Lines 29 – 56]. Naik teaches using an AHRS that provides 3D orientation of vessel (10) by integrating gyroscopic measurements and accelerometer data. A GPS receiver (40) is also implemented for global positioning system data.
31. Regarding claim 14, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining an arrival time until the vehicle reaches the trajectory position; and
determining a probability of interaction, the probability of interaction being determined at least in part by the separation distance and an accuracy of the at least one sensor; and wherein:
controlling the speed of the vehicle is based, at least in part, on the arrival time and the probability of interaction.
However, Ramstrum in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining an arrival time until the vehicle reaches the trajectory position; and
determining a probability of interaction, the probability of interaction being determined at least in part by the separation distance and an accuracy of the at least one sensor; and wherein:
controlling the speed of the vehicle is based, at least in part, on the arrival time and the probability of interaction [0016], [0019] – [0020]. The arrival time until the vehicle reaches the trajectory position will be interpreted as the arrival time at any point of the ownship track (111) (trajectory position). Ramstrum teaches evaluating the distance along the ownship track (111) to the CPA point and determines an arrival time based on the ownship’s (111) current speed [0016]. Ramstrum also teaches closest point of approaches (CPA). A CPA being when the ownship (110) will be the closest to an object along the ownship track (111) [0019] – [0020]. Figure 2 displays these CPAs and have dashed lines (221) which represent a high warning of a close collision, dotted lines (225) representing a medium warning, and dot-dashed lines (232) representing a low warning (Fig. 2). These variations of lines shown on the map screenshot in figure 2 represent a probability of interaction by determining whether the probability of collision is high, medium, or low based on distance to the ownship (111). It would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill that for the ownship (110) to gauge distance from the detected objects, a sensor would have to be present on the ownship to make that determination of probability. Therefore, the speed of the ownship (110) is based on the detected CPAs to avoid any collisions and arrival time in order to maintain the same arrival time.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Naik with the teachings of Ramstrum, to detect and alert a user or passengers of a probability of a collision in order to enforce more or less safety protocols to avoid such collisions.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12486006B1 (hereinafter, “Naik”), and further in view of US20200105143A1 (hereinafter, “Ramstrum”), and further in view of US20140129126A1 (hereinafter, “Richardson”).
33. Regarding claim 15, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising triggering at least one of a visual and an audible alert to a driver of the vehicle to indicate that the vehicle speed is being controlled.
However, Richardson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising triggering at least one of a visual and an audible alert to a driver of the vehicle to indicate that the vehicle speed is being controlled ([0041] Fig. 3A). Richardson teaches monitoring vehicle speed and presenting speed related information to the user through the speed display (280). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying the controlled or regulated speed of the ship (100) via the speed display (280) constitutes as a visual indication that the vehicle speed is being controlled by the system.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Naik with the teachings of Richardson, to make the driver more aware of what current speed state the ship is in.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US12486006B1 (hereinafter, “Naik”), and further in view of US20200105143A1 (hereinafter, “Ramstrum”), and further in view of US20230384462A1 (hereinafter, “Anderson”).
35. Regarding claim 18, Naik does not explicitly teach the method of claim 16, wherein determining the secondary off-road vehicle predicted trajectory path comprises using a prediction algorithm and the at least one signal.
However, Anderson in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 16, wherein determining the secondary off-road vehicle predicted trajectory path comprises using a prediction algorithm and the at least one signal [0013], [0027], [0029], [0037]. Anderson teaches determining predicted trajectory paths of other ships using a forecasting algorithm (prediction algorithm) [0013], [0027], [0029], [0037] and at least one signal because Anderson discloses receiving automatic identification system (AIS) and long-range identification and tracking (LRIT) vessel signals and processing the received signals using forecasting algorithms and to estimate future secondary vessels (secondary off-road vehicle) positions and movement paths [0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of the modified Naik reference with the teachings of Anderson, to reliably predict the trajectory of other nearby vessels to accurately monitor and avoid collisions with those nearby vessels.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. 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.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights