CTNF 19/038,008 CTNF 98971 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-5 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-5 are rejected. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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: “a sea route plan generating unit”, “a tidal current determining unit”, and “an information acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 3-5. See specification [0017-0023] “The floating body control unit 160 controls various processes in the power generation floating body 100. The floating body control unit 160may be configured as a control unit including, for example, a Central Processing Unit(CPU) and a storage device and an input/output interface required for the operation of CPU. The storage device may include, for example, Read Only Memory(ROM), Random Access Memory(RAM), and data storage. The floating body control unit 160 may be connected to each of the units 110, 120, 130, and 150 by a data bus, for example, via an input/output interface. The floating body control unit 160 may control various operations performed by the units 110, 120, 130, and 150. The storage device may hold various kinds of information necessary for each process performed by the power generation floating body 100.In the storage device, for example, a floating body ID may be held. The floating body ID may be unique information for identifying the power generation floating body 100. For example, various types of information (including a control instruction) output from the power generation floating body 100 may include a floating body ID to indicate an output source” . 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. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites: A sea route plan generating system, comprising: a sea route plan generating unit for generating, with respect to at least one power generation floating body that performs wind power generation using a kite while sailing at sea, a sea route plan for sailing the power generation floating body at a predetermined sailing angle based on wind conditions; and a tidal current determining unit for determining whether a tidal current flowing in a direction opposite to a wind direction is present, based on the wind conditions, wherein when determination is made that the tidal current is present, the sea route plan generating unit generates the sea route plan such that the power generation floating body proceeds at the sailing angle at which power generation efficiency of the wind power generation increases in a sea area of the tidal current. Claim 5 recites a parallel apparatus in the form of a power generation floating body including substantially the same abstract limitations as claim 1. Step 1: Statutory Category : – Yes Claims 1-4 are directed to a system, and claim 5 is directed to a machine / apparatus in the form of a power generation floating body, which fall within the statutory categories of machine under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP 2106.03. Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes In Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 PEG, a claim is analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (c) mental processes. The Office submits that foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite a judicial exception in the form of mental processes because, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they amount to: observing wind conditions, determining whether a current is present and whether it flows opposite the wind direction, evaluating whether a particular sailing angle would improve power generation efficiency, selecting or generating a route based on that evaluation, and, in claim 4, observing and comparing state information from multiple floating bodies to infer current conditions. These are observations, evaluations, judgments, and decision-making steps that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, even if the claims recite that a “system,” “unit,” or floating body performs them. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). More specifically, claim 1 recites, in substance: receiving or recognizing wind conditions, determining whether a current exists and whether it flows opposite to the wind, evaluating which sailing angle would increase power generation efficiency, deciding on a route plan based on that evaluation, and causing the floating body to proceed accordingly. This is an abstract idea because it is fundamentally a process of collecting information, evaluating information, and making a decision based on that evaluation. For example, a human navigator could observe wind direction and current direction, determine whether the current opposes the wind, decide that a certain sailing angle would better increase the wind effect on a kite, and then choose a route accordingly. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 in apparatus form. It likewise recites observing wind/current conditions, determining whether an opposite current exists, deciding on a route/sailing angle to improve efficiency, and implementing that decision in the context of a kite-powered floating body. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application: -No In Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is evaluated to determine whether it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The Office submits that foregoing underlined limitation (s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. additional elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in claim 1 include, for example: a sea route plan generating system, a sea route plan generating unit, a tidal current determining unit, a power generation floating body, a kite, sailing at sea. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely describe using generic functional components and a particular maritime environment to carry out the abstract idea. The recited “units” merely perform generic information processing and decision-making functions. The floating body and kite merely provide the field of use or technological environment in which the abstract route-planning idea is applied. The claim does not recite a specific improvement to kite structure, wind-energy conversion hardware, vessel propulsion hardware, current sensing hardware, or route-planning computer technology itself. In other words, the claims do not recite a specific improvement in how the kite operates, how the floating body physically generates power, how tidal current is physically sensed, or how the route-planning system functions internally. Instead, they use those components as tools to: gather wind/current/state information, analyze the information, determine a route or sailing angle, and implement that result. That is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h) explain that merely linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment is insufficient. The same applies to claim 5 , which merely restates the same abstract idea in apparatus form. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No In Step 2B, the claims are evaluated to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element or combination of additional elements adds an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic functional components in a maritime wind-power context. The recited system, units, floating body, kite, externally acquired information, and inter-floating-body communication perform only their ordinary and expected functions: the route plan generating unit generates a route, the current determining unit determines current from information, the information acquisition unit acquires information, the communication among floating bodies exchanges information, the kite and floating body provide the operating environment. There is no recited inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claims do not recite: a specific improvement to wind-power generation hardware, a specific improvement to kite control technology, a specific improvement to maritime communication technology, a specific improvement to current sensing technology, or any unconventional technological arrangement beyond generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible. Independent Claims Claim 5 recites the same abstract idea in apparatus form. It likewise recites collecting environmental information, evaluating current and wind relationships, determining a sailing angle / route outcome, and implementing the result in the context of a kite-powered floating body. The same rationale above applies. Dependent Claims Claim 2 adds the rule that the sailing angle is one at which the apparent wind received by the kite increases. This is merely an additional decision rule or optimization criterion applied to the abstract idea. Claim 3 adds externally acquiring wind and tidal current information and using that information in the current determination and route generation. This is still collecting additional information and using it in the abstract analysis and decision-making process. Claim 4 adds communication among multiple floating bodies, sharing of state information, determining current based on changes in that information, and generating the route to include a current area. This is still information gathering from multiple sources, evaluating the information, inferring a condition, and making a route-planning decision. It remains directed to the same abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US 20200240787 A1), in view of Larson (US 20110272527 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Jha discloses a sea route plan generating system for a vessel [0012] “a novel system and method for predicting, forecasting and suggesting voyage plans for a vessel” (i.e., sea route plan generating system), and [0013] “a computer-based system and method are disclosed for selecting routes for a voyage plan for a vessel” (i.e., a system including a sea route plan generating unit)., comprising: a sea route plan generating unit for generating, … , a sea route plan for sailing … the floating body at a predetermined sailing angle based on wind conditions [0013] “a computer-based system and method are disclosed for selecting routes for a voyage plan for a vessel, by performing the steps of: a. identifying each of a start point, a destination and an acceptable destination arrival period, b. querying a database to determine historically-used routes as candidates for selection (i.e., generating a sea route plan for sailing for a floating body), obtaining weather data that forecasts position and timing of adverse weather conditions along historically-used routes, e. calculating ship headings and speeds along the candidate routes (i.e., determining the vessel’s sailing heading / sailing predetermined angle) subject to the acceptable destination arrival period” [0030] “Historical and forecast weather data may preferably include, for a given latitude & longitude, wave height, wind speed, wind direction (i.e., wind conditions)., ocean current speed, ocean current direction and Beaufort wind force scale.”, and a tidal current determining unit for determining whether a tidal current flowing in a direction opposite to a wind direction is present, based on the wind conditions wherein when determination is made that the tidal current is present, the sea route plan generating unit generates the sea route plan [0030] “Historical and forecast weather data may preferably include ocean current speed, ocean current direction” (i.e., information used to determine whether a current is present and its direction), Historical and forecast weather data may preferably include, for a given latitude & longitude, wave height, wind speed, wind direction (i.e., wind conditions)., ocean current speed, ocean current direction and Beaufort wind force scale” wherein the current direction and wind direction data permit determination of whether a tidal/ocean current flowing in a direction opposite to a wind direction is present (i.e., comparing ocean current direction to wind direction). [0013] “a computer-based system and method are disclosed for selecting routes for a voyage plan for a vessel, by performing the steps of: a. identifying each of a start point, a destination and an acceptable destination arrival period, b. querying a database to determine historically-used routes as candidates for selection (i.e., generating a sea route plan for sailing for a floating body), Jha does not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “with respect to at least one power generation floating body that performs wind power”, “generation using a kite while sailing at sea”, and “that the power generation floating body proceeds at the sailing angle at which power generation efficiency of the wind power generation increases in a sea area of the tidal current.” However, Larson teaches a power generation floating body / ship at sea performing wind power generation using a kite [0015] “The power generating kite system 100 can be installed on the ground, ocean platform, a ship or other suitable venues (i.e., power generation floating body while sailing at sea), [0016] “The power generating kite system 100 includes a kite or airfoil 110 and a generator 180 (i.e., wind power generation using a kite)” Larson further teaches that the system proceeds at an angle relative to wind that increases power generation efficiency [0018] “The yaw motor 150 turns the power generating kite system 100 at an appropriate angle with respect to environmental wind direction to increase relative energy production (i.e., sailing angle at which power generation efficiency increases), and “turned at an appropriate angle with respect to environmental wind direction to increase relative efficiency” (i.e., power generation efficiency increases at the selected angle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jha and Larson teachings to modify Jha’s sea route plan generating system, which already generates vessel route plans using wind direction, current direction, headings, bearings, and waypoints, to apply Larson’s kite-based wind power generation vessel arrangement and Larson’s teaching of selecting an angle relative to wind to increase energy production, so that the sea route plan causes the vessel to proceed at a sailing angle that improves kite-based power generation efficiency when current and wind conditions are favorable. A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Jha and Larson teachings to improve the system power generation and energy harvesting efficiency using a kite on a sailing floating body Larson [0018] “The secure base structure 190 provides stability to the power generating kite system 100 and is turned by the yaw motor 150 at an appropriate angle with respect to environmental wind direction to increase relative efficiency.” Regarding Claim 2, The combination of Jha and Larson teaches the sea route plan generating system according to claim 1, Jha does not appear to teach the full claim imitation regarding “wherein the sailing angle at which the power generation efficiency increases is a sailing angle at which an apparent wind that is received by the kite increases.” However, Larson teaches equivalent teachings wherein the sailing angle at which the power generation efficiency increases is a sailing angle at which an apparent wind that is received by the kite increases [0018] “The weather instruments 170 are utilized to measure the environmental wind speed, wind direction. These measured variables drive the control unit 120 to determine a relatively productive kite 110 placement (i.e., selecting a kite position/angle based on the wind received by the kite). The yaw motor 150 turns the power generating kite system 100 at an appropriate angle with respect to environmental wind direction to increase relative energy production” (i.e., the selected angle is the one that increases the effective wind acting on the kite and therefore increases power generation efficiency)” [0020] “The force (F) generated by a kite is dependent on airflow velocity v (i.e., the energy-producing force depends on the wind velocity received by the kite, corresponding to the claimed apparent wind that is received by the kite). Larson teaches that wind variables received at the kite drive productive kite placement and that the force/energy generated by the kite depends on the airflow velocity received by the kite. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jha and Larson teachings to implement the route angle/heading of Jha’s route planning system in accordance with Larson’s teaching that the kite system should be oriented based on wind conditions so as to increase the wind velocity acting on the kite, thereby increasing power generation efficiency. A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Jha and Larson teachings to improve the system power generation and energy harvesting efficiency using a kite on a sailing floating body Larson [0018] “The secure base structure 190 provides stability to the power generating kite system 100 and is turned by the yaw motor 150 at an appropriate angle with respect to environmental wind direction to increase relative efficiency.” Regarding claim 5, The claim recites a power generation floating body of the parallel limitations in claim 1, respectively for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected using the same rationale and reasoning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US 20200240787 A1), in view of Larson (US 20110272527 A1), and further in view of Mansor (US 20210125502 A1) . Regarding claim 3, The combination of Jha and Larson teaches the sea route plan generating system according to claim 1, further comprising: Jha discloses an information acquisition unit for acquiring information externally [0027] “At step 104 of FIG. 1, a Voyage Consumption Optimization (VCOPT) element 204 invokes a voyage API to query a BIGDATA service 206 to invoke a Big Data Process API 230 to invoke a Sea Route API 240 to query a Sea Route Service 208 (for example, NETPAS available at https://www.netpas.net) to determine applicable routes often used by merchant captains. (i.e., an information acquisition unit acquiring)”, [0030] “VCOPT service 204 may retrieve vessel-specific design data and weather data from BIGDATA service 206, which may have been obtained, for example from AO registry service 212 (see, e.g., https://demoregistry.alphaorimarine.com) and third-party weather services 210 (for example, PLANETOS available at https://planetos.com/), respectively, via metadata API 260 and weather API 250. (i.e., acquiring information externally). wherein the tidal current determining unit determines whether the tidal current is present, based on tidal current conditions information regarding the tidal current that is…, and on wind conditions information regarding the wind conditions …, Jha discloses that the system determines route planning inputs using wind conditions information and ocean current information acquired externally [0030] “Historical and forecast weather data may preferably include wind speed, wind direction, ocean current speed, ocean current direction” (i.e., wind conditions information and tidal current conditions information acquired by the information acquisition unit). Jha further discloses that the sea route plan generating unit generates the sea route plan based on the wind conditions information [0013] “obtaining weather data … calculating ship headings and speeds along the candidate routes” (i.e., generating the route based on acquired weather/wind information), [0029] “speed to sail at different geographical locations based on weather” (i.e., route generation based on weather/wind conditions information), and [0051] “Best Weather 1 and 2 Provides the top two detailed voyage plans which includes speed, weather, bearing and waypoints” (i.e., generating the route plan based on weather information). , Jha in view of Larson does not to expressly teach that the current presence determination is made based on externally acquired tidal current conditions information and externally acquired wind conditions information in the broad environmental-information sense recited as acquired by the information acquisition unit externally . However, Mansor teaches equivalent teachings [0050] “The environmental information may include sea-state, local weather conditions (i.e., external environmental information including relevant current/weather conditions), and [0057] “The current sea-state may be obtained via local observation or monitoring systems, or via a centralized system weather provider” (i.e., information acquired externally regarding sea/current conditions). The vessel state may be used to determine one or more of: a true wind speed and direction and, current from the vessel speed through the water/heading and speed over ground/course over ground” (i.e., determining wind/current conditions from acquired information).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jha, Larson, and Mansor teachings to use Jha’s externally acquired weather and route-planning information together with Mansor’s express teaching of acquiring sea-state/current information from external monitoring systems or centralized weather providers in order to determine the presence of current conditions and generate the sea route plan accordingly. A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Jha, Larson, and Mansor teachings to improve the system overall accuracy of environmental-condition determination Mansor [0102] “A general objective of the normalization is to allow learned behavior to be applied to different vessel dimensions. The normalization may involve scaling analogous to the operations applied when scaling vessel model tests in tanks to full scale vessel behavior which is well known in the art. The normalization may additionally include mapping different vessel design parameters to improve the accuracy of the model.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jha (US 20200240787 A1), in view of Larson (US 20110272527 A1), and further in view of Ponsford (US 20140210658 A1), and further in view of Mansor (US 20210125502 A1) . Regarding claim 4, The combination of Jha, Larson, Ponsford, and Mansor teaches the sea route plan generating system according to claim 1, Jha discloses the route-plan aspect of including some current-affected route areas [0030] “ocean current speed, ocean current direction (i.e., identifying sea areas having current conditions), [0031] “several feasible routes” and “speed recommendations along segments of each route” (i.e., route construction over route segments / sea areas), and [0050]-[0053] route plans including “bearing and waypoints” (i.e., selecting a route that includes a particular sea area). Larson teaches a power generation floating body / ship at sea performing wind power generation using a kite [0015] “The power generating kite system 100 can be installed on the ground, ocean platform, a ship or other suitable venues (i.e., power generation floating body while sailing at sea), [0016] “The power generating kite system 100 includes a kite or airfoil 110 and a generator 180 (i.e., wind power generation using a kite)” Jha and Larson do not appear to teach the full claim limitation regarding “wherein a plurality of the … floating bodies creates a fleet while communicating among the … floating bodies, state information including at least one of a sailing state and a power generating state of each of the … floating bodies is shared among the … floating bodies” However, Ponsford teaches equivalent teachings. Ponsford teaches a plurality of maritime vessels operating together and sharing data wherein a plurality of the … floating bodies creates a fleet while communicating among the … floating bodies, state information including at least one of a sailing state and a power generating state of each of the … floating bodies is shared among the … floating bodies [0026] “a system 10 includes maritime domain awareness systems installed on a plurality of maritime vessels 11a-11f for sharing radar track data and other data between the vessels 11a-11f that are within a communication range (i.e., plurality of floating bodies creates a fleet while communicating among the floating bodies).” Ponsford further teaches that vessel information/state is shared among participating vessels [0029] “The AIS reports include identification and navigation information about the vessel (i.e., state information including at least a sailing state), See also [0040] “receives other-ship radar track data and associated other-ship location values from one or more other participating vessels” (i.e., shared information from each vessel), and [0044] “configured to transmit own ship radar track data and own-ship location values to one or more other participating vessels” (i.e., sharing vessel state/information among the vessels). Ponsford further teaches self-organized vessel grouping/networking [0049] “the domain extension device 38 on each vessel may function as a network node in one or more self-organizing network” [0050] “the network may be formed on an ad-hoc basis when each vessel enters the communication range of another vessel” (i.e., fleet communicating among the floating bodies). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jha, Larson and Ponsford to make the system wherein a plurality of the power generation floating bodies creates a fleet while communicating among the power generation floating bodies, state information including at least one of a sailing state and a power generating state of each of the power generation floating bodies is shared among the power generation floating bodies. A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Jha, Larson and Ponsford to improve overall system awareness by avoiding collision between a fleet of floating bodies Ponsford [0005] “Maritime domain awareness is also important to private maritime vessels, such as commercial ships and private yachts. For example, private vessels may wish to be aware of their surrounding so as to reduce risks of accidental collisions with other vessels, stationary objects or geographical features. The private vessels may also wish to monitor other targets around the vessel to detect potential pirate or terrorist activities.” The combination of Jha and Ponsford does not expressly teach “the tidal current determining unit determines whether the tidal current is present, based on a change in state information of each of the … floating bodies, and when determination is made that the tidal current is present, the sea route plan generating unit generates the sea route plan such that the sea area of the tidal current is included” However, Mansor teaches that the current is determined based on a change in state information of each of the floating bodies wherein the tidal current determining unit determines whether the tidal current is present, based on a change in state information of each of the … floating bodies, and when determination is made that the tidal current is present, the sea route plan generating unit generates the sea route plan such that the sea area of the tidal current is included, Mansor teaches equivalent teachings [0057] “The vessel state may be used to determine current from the vessel speed through the water/heading and speed over ground/course over ground” (i.e., determining current based on vessel state information). When combined with Ponsford’s sharing of vessel state/information among multiple vessels, this teaches determining the presence of current based on changes in the state information of the communicating fleet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Jha, Ponsford, and Mansor teachings so that shared vessel state information from multiple communicating floating bodies is used to determine current conditions, and Jha’s route planning is then used to generate a route plan that includes the sea area of the current. A person that is skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Jha, Ponsford, and Mansor teachings to improve the overall accuracy of determining current/environmental conditions from multiple vessel states Mansor [0102] “A general objective of the normalization is to allow learned behavior to be applied to different vessel dimensions. The normalization may involve scaling analogous to the operations applied when scaling vessel model tests in tanks to full scale vessel behavior which is well known in the art. The normalization may additionally include mapping different vessel design parameters to improve the accuracy of the model.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSAM ALZATEEMEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F. 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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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. /HUSSAM ALDEEN ALZATEEMEH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/038,008 Page 21 Art Unit: 3662
