DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are pending. Claims dated 06/12/2026 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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the 101 rejections. Applicant argues the information transmitted to notify the operator or user on the target ship now includes limitations of controlling the target ship to move to a safe watersand which forms a closed loop of “integrating abstract concepts into practical applications” (p. 12 of remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees that these limitations impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Specifically, the claim recites the additional limitation of:
“notifying the target ship, by a radio signal, to perform safety measures; and performing the safety measures including controlling the target ship to move to a safe watersand in response to the notifying the target ship, by a radio signal; wherein the step of notifying the target ship, by the radio signal, to perform the safety measures comprises: controlling a light device of the target ship to emit a light signal to transmit information to an operator of the target ship for the operator to control the target ship; wherein the step of controlling the light device of the target ship to emit the light signal comprises: turning on searchlights of the target ship, or turning on lights for deck lighting of the target ship”
The additional limitation uses the result of a mental process/calculation to trigger a communication instructing an operator of the target ship to perform turning on of lights and controlling the target ship. The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, radio transmitter, lighting system, or any other technology, nor does it effect a transformation of an article or otherwise impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Instead, notifying is contingent upon the determination and merely conveys the result for human action. The human action of an operator turning on lights and controlling the ship merely implements the result of the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, amounting only to insignificant post-solution activity.
As support, the present claim is analogous to claims found patent ineligible in In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Brown, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to a mental process of evaluating hair characteristics and determining a hair style even though the claims further recited physically cutting the hair. The court concluded that the physical cutting step merely implemented the result of the abstract idea and did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, amounting only to insignificant post-solution activity.
Likewise, in the present claim, after performing the abstract steps directed towards (1) calculation of an anchoring area and (2) determination of a congestion level and whether the anchoring area is or is not in a crowded state, the claim merely recites notifying the target ship by a radio signal (wherein the Applicant’s specification [0082] describes that the radio signal is sent out by a vessel traffic service system (VTS)) so that an operator controls the target ship (moving/turning on lights). Similar to the claiming of a person cutting the hair in Brown, the notification to the target ship merely communicates the outcome of the abstract idea so that the operator may turn on lights and move the ship. The claimed radio transmission or claiming of a person to turn on lights/steer a ship does not improve the operation of the radio transmitter, the lighting system, or any other technology, but instead serves only as insignificant post-solution activity implementing the result of the judicial exception. Therefore, the 101 rejections are substantially maintained as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed towards a computer readable storage medium (CSRM), however, the specification does not limit the term to explicitly exclude signals, carrier waves, or other transitory signals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO, see In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir 1989). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage media, particular when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). Thus, claim 12 is rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
This type of 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection may be overcome by claiming that the “computer readable storage medium” is “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Claim 1) A method for controlling an anchorage state of a ship, comprising steps:
obtaining ship trajectories of ships within a certain time period in an anchorage;
evaluating the anchorage state of the ships by a processor, wherein the evaluating the anchorage state of the ships comprises:
screening out ship trajectories including an anchoring process and eliminating trajectory points in a non-anchored state in the ship trajectories including the anchoring process to obtain anchoring trajectories of anchored ships; clustering anchoring points in each of the anchoring trajectories, and using a cluster center of the anchoring points of each of the anchoring trajectories as an anchoring position point of each of the anchored ships;
establishing an anchoring data set according to the anchoring position point of each of the anchored ships; selecting anchoring data records in a predetermined time period in the anchoring data set; and establishing an anchored ship position point set corresponding to the predetermined time period;
establishing Thiessen polygons one-to-one corresponding to the anchoring position points in the anchored ship position point set; calculating an area of each of the Thiessen polygons to obtain an anchoring area of a corresponding anchored ship; and
determining a congestion level of the ships in the anchorage and a utilization rate of the anchorage based on a comparison result of the anchoring area of the corresponding anchored ship and a threshold specification area;
wherein determining the congestion level of the ships in the anchorage based on the comparison result of the anchoring area of the corresponding anchored ship and the threshold specification area comprises steps:
when an anchoring area of any one of the ships is less than the threshold specification area, determining that the one of the ships is in a crowded state; and
when a proportion of ships in the crowded state of all the ships in the anchorage is greater than a preset proportion, determining that the anchorage is in the crowded state, and when the proportion of the ships in the crowded state of all the ships in the anchorage is not greater than the preset proportion, determining that the anchorage is not in the crowded state,
wherein the method further comprises steps:
in response to when it is determined that the anchorage is in the crowded state, determining a target ship from the ships in the anchorage by the processor;
notifying the target ship, by a radio signal, to perform safety measures; and
performing the safety measures including controlling the target ship to move to a safe watersand in response to the notifying the target ship, by a radio signal;
wherein the step of notifying the target ship, by the radio signal, to perform the safety measures comprises:
controlling a light device of the target ship to emit a light signal to transmit information to an operator of the target ship for the operator to control the target ship;
wherein the step of controlling the light device of the target ship to emit the light signal comprises:
turning on searchlights of the target ship, or turning on lights for deck lighting of the target ship.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a series of (1) mathematical concepts to calculate an anchoring area of a ship and (2) mental steps to determine of a congestion level and whether the anchoring area is or is not in a crowded state.
Specifically, the limitation “evaluating the anchorage state of the ships by a processor, wherein the evaluating the anchorage state of the ships comprises: screening out ship trajectories including an anchoring process and eliminating trajectory points in a non-anchored state in the ship trajectories including the anchoring process to obtain anchoring trajectories of anchored ships” in the context of the claim encompasses a mathematical relationship. In light of applicant’s specification [0008], the screening out of a ship trajectory is done through removing a ship trajectory when “the average ship speed is less than the speed threshold value”. This inequality comparison to screen out ship trajectories is a mathematical relationship between the average ship speed and speed threshold value.
The limitation “clustering anchoring points in each of the anchoring trajectories, and using a cluster center of the anchoring points of each of the anchoring trajectories as an anchoring position point of each of the anchored ships” in the context of the claim encompasses mathematical calculations. In light of applicant’s specification [0009], said clustering and using said cluster center is based on “a K-means clustering algorithm”. The K-means clustering algorithm is a well-known mathematical algorithm. This limitation recites mathematical calculations via the K-means algorithm.
The limitation “establishing an anchoring data set according to the anchoring position point of each of the anchored ships; selecting anchoring data records in a predetermined time period in the anchoring data set; and establishing an anchored ship position point set corresponding to the predetermined time period” is part of the steps for calculating an anchoring area of a ship, specifically directed toward establishing and selecting said values in the calculating step.
The limitation “establishing Thiessen polygons one-to-one corresponding to the anchoring position points in the anchored ship position point set; calculating an area of each of the Thiessen polygons to obtain an anchoring area of a corresponding anchored ship” in the context of the claim encompasses mathematical calculations, specifically using well-known mathematical formulas to establish the Thiessen polygons. Calculating the area of a Thiessen polygon is a mathematical concept.
The limitation “wherein determining the congestion level of the ships in the anchorage based on the comparison result of the anchoring area of the corresponding anchored ship and the threshold specification area comprises steps: when an anchoring area of any one of the ships is less than the threshold specification area, determining that the one of the ships is in a crowded state; and when a proportion of ships in the crowded state of all the ships in the anchorage is greater than a preset proportion, determining that the anchorage is in the crowded state, and when the proportion of the ships in the crowded state of all the ships in the anchorage is not greater than the preset proportion, determining that the anchorage is not in the crowded state” encompasses mental evaluation by comparing an sizes of areas with predefined threshold dimensions to determine congestion.
The limitation “wherein the method further comprises steps: in response to when it is determined that the anchorage is in the crowded state, determining a target ship from the ships in the anchorage by the processor” encompasses mental observation to choose a target ship.
Accordingly, the each of the above claim limitations recites an abstract idea, namely directed towards (1) calculation of an anchoring area and (2) determination of a congestion level and whether the anchoring area is or is not in a crowded state.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation, “obtaining ship trajectories of ships within a certain time period in an anchorage” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering. It has been held that limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional limitations “notifying the target ship, by a radio signal, to perform safety measures; and performing the safety measures including controlling the target ship to move to a safe watersand in response to the notifying the target ship, by a radio signal; wherein the step of notifying the target ship, by the radio signal, to perform the safety measures comprises: controlling a light device of the target ship to emit a light signal to transmit information to an operator of the target ship for the operator to control the target ship; wherein the step of controlling the light device of the target ship to emit the light signal comprises: turning on searchlights of the target ship, or turning on lights for deck lighting of the target ship”. amounts to insignificant extra solution activity. The additional limitation merely uses the result of a mental process/calculation to trigger a communication instructing an operator of the target ship to perform activity. The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer, radio transmitter, lighting system, or any other technology, nor does it effect a transformation of an article or otherwise impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. technological improvement. Instead, notifying is contingent upon the determination and merely conveys the result for human action.
As support, the present claim is analogous to claims found patent ineligible in In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Brown, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims were directed to a mental process of evaluating hair characteristics and determining a hair style even though the claims further recited physically cutting the hair. The court concluded that the physical cutting step merely implemented the result of the abstract idea and did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, amounting only to insignificant post-solution activity.
Likewise, in the present claim, after performing the abstract steps directed towards (1) calculation of an anchoring area and (2) determination of a congestion level and whether the anchoring area is or is not in a crowded state, the claim merely recites notifying the target ship by a radio signal (wherein the Applicant’s specification [0082] describes that the radio signal is sent out by a vessel traffic service system (VTS)) so that an operator controls the target ship (moving/turning on lights). Similar to the claiming of a person cutting the hair in Brown, the notification to the target ship merely communicates the outcome of the abstract idea so that the operator may turn on lights and move the ship. The claimed radio transmission or claiming of a person to turn on lights/steer a ship does not improve the operation of the radio transmitter, the lighting system, or any other technology, but instead serves only as insignificant post-solution activity implementing the result of the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Regarding the data gathering steps:
It has been determined that such limitations are conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Further, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as said data gathering uses automatic identification system (AIS) data (see Applicant’s para. [0006]) which is a well-known and conventional data format in the art.
Regarding the insignificant post solution activity steps:
Examples of insignificant post-solution activities can include merely displaying a result (e.g., output) on a display device, merely communicating a message based on the result, merely recording the result in a memory storage device, and the like. Adding a final step of transmitting collected information to a process that recites an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function, and as recited above the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, specifically directed to additional aspects of the mathematical calculations processes (further elaborating on steps for (1) calculation of an anchoring area and (2) determination of a congestion level and whether the anchoring area is or is not in a crowded state), but are not integrated into a practical application, and as reasoned above, mere transmission of data over networks and/or mere displaying/alerting/notifying are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Claims 10-14 recite computer elements to perform the abstract ideas and computer elements to perform the data gathering, but these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of using a processor and computer readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer elements do not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, 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 a congestion level of the ships in the anchorage and a utilization rate of the anchorage based on a comparison result of the anchoring area of the corresponding anchored ship and a threshold specification area; wherein determining the congestion level of the ships in the anchorage based on the comparison result of the anchoring area of the corresponding anchored ship and the threshold specification area comprises steps: when an anchoring area of any one of the ships is less than the threshold specification area, determining that the one of the ships is in a crowded state; and when a proportion of ships in the crowded state of all the ships in the anchorage is greater than a preset proportion, determining that the anchorage is in the crowded state, and when the proportion of the ships in the crowded state of all the ships in the anchorage is not greater than the preset proportion, determining that the anchorage is not in the crowded state, wherein the method further comprises steps: when it is determined that the anchorage is in the crowded state, determining a target ship from the ships in the anchorage”.
The closest prior art is Zhang (US-20220412743-A1) which discloses the method for calculating an anchoring area of a ship. However, the prior arts are silent as to the specific method steps on determining a congestion level of the ships in the anchorage and a utilization rate of the anchorage.
The following prior arts do disclose a determination of a congestion level of a water area, but do not teach the claimed comparisons to obtain the determination.
CN-116797117-A: Chen teaches quantifying and evaluating congestion of a port by analyzing time, resource, and economic cost.
KR-20240082684-A: Lim teaches prediction of port congestion by using received AIS ship navigation information
CN-113822513-A: Hou teaches determining a congestion index of a port based on delay rate and/or latency, where the delay rate is the ratio of the number of harbors that pass through the harbor waiting at the anchor site to the total number of harbors and the latency is the waiting time of the ship in the anchor area when the ship enters the port according to the docking record of the ship in the port and the berthing area and the anchor area of the port.
CN-117218901-A: Zhang teaches determining a channel congestion degree by considering the size and quantity of the ships
WO-2024096673-A1: An teaches calculating a congestion in areas and dividing them into 4 levels: free, normal, crowded, and very crowded
Regarding claims 2-8 and 10-14, claims 2-8 and 10-14 are also potentially allowable based on their dependence to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-116797117-A, KR-20240082684-A, CN-113822513-A, CN-117218901-A, and WO-2024096673-A1 as explained above
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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