DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on February 3, 2025, which claims foreign priority to JP2024-061164, filed on April 5, 2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (see certified copy received on March 4, 2025), and thus the effective filing date is April 5, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges two information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 3, 2025 and July 31, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent claims. This action is made non-final.
35 USC § 101 Evaluation
5. The pending claims were evaluated for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although claims recite limitations that can be interpreted as abstract ideas (specifically, mental processes) (i.e., “detect an operation stationary state in which the operating position does not change for a predetermined time” in independent claims), the claims also recite additional elements (i.e., “perform ship holding control for holding a behavior of the ship…”) which appear to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. It follows that the instant claims are eligible under § 101.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in the Office action.
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) 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: “an input unit configured to input an operating position of an operating device…” in Claim 1.1
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see Instant Specification as published (US 2025/0313325 A1), Fig. 1 (element IF), ¶¶ 0006, 0030, 0056, 0062-63; but see discussion of § 112(b) rejection, below). For the purposes of examination, the input unit is being considered as a computing component (implemented in hardware or in a combination of hardware and software of the ship).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
6. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1 recites “an input unit configured to input an operating position… ,“ but this limitation appears to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose a particular structure that is required to perform this function. It is noted that the instant Specification mentions the input unit (see, for example, Specification as published (US 2025/0313325 A1), Fig. 1 (element IF), ¶¶ 0006, 0030, 0056, 0062-63, but there does not appear to be any explicit disclosure or requirement that the input unit has to be implemented, at least in part, in hardware, thus a skilled artisan would not be able to readily understand which structure (or structures) are required to perform the claimed function. Therefore, Claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Dependent Claims 2-18 do not appear to cure the above-noted deficiency of Claim 1, thus they are rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-7, 11-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley et al. (hereinafter Bradley), US 7,305,928 B2, issued on December 11, 2007.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Bradley teaches a ship control device, comprising:
an input unit configured to input an operating position of an operating device for controlling a moving direction or propulsion force of the ship (see Figs. 7, 8, 11 (element 50 - joystick), col. 11, line 50 – col. 12, line 13, col. 16, lines 4-28).
processing circuitry configured to:
detect an operation stationary state in which the operating position does not change for a predetermined time (see col. 16, line 57 – col. 17, line 10, showing that the station keeping function can be activated in several ways, including when the station keeping (or position maintaining) is enabled and the joystick is inactive).
perform ship holding control for holding a behavior of the ship in case a ship holding condition, including the detection of the operation stationary state, is satisfied (see col. 16, line 57 – col. 17, line 10).
With respect to independent Claims 19 and 20, these claims are directed to a ship control method and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising similar steps and/or features as recited in Claim 1, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 1.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the operating device comprises: a joystick configured to be capable of performing forward operation, neutral and backward operations according to the operating position, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect the operation stationary state in which the operating position corresponding to the forward operation or the backward operation by the joystick does not change for the predetermined time, and hold the propulsion force at the time the detection occurs (see col. 16, lines 4-28).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the operating device comprises a joystick, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: detect the operation stationary state in case the operating position of the joystick remains in neutral, and hold the movement direction of the ship at the time the detection occurs (see col. 16, lines 4-28; see also col. 17, lines 6-10).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches, or at least suggests, wherein the operating device comprises a first switch for switching from manual navigation to automatic navigation, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: set a target value for the propulsion force of the ship to an initial propulsion force for holding the ship, upon detecting a switching operation of the first switch to automatic navigation, perform the ship holding control for holding the initial propulsion force after the propulsion force of the ship becomes the initial propulsion force (see Fig. 14 (element 120), col. 19, line 55 – col. 20, line 5, col. 20, lines 31-59).
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 4, as discussed above, and further teaches, or at least suggests, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: approach the initial propulsion force from the current propulsion force for holding the ship while adjusting an acceleration, upon detecting the switching to the automatic navigation by the first switch (see col. 19, line 55 – col. 20, line 5, col. 20, lines 31-59).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 4, as discussed above, and further teaches, or at least suggests, detect the operation stationary state in case the operating position of the joystick remains in neutral, after a start of the ship holding control for holding the initial propulsion force, and hold the movement direction at the time the detection occurs (see col. 15, line 60 – col. 16, line 3, col. 18, lines 14-30).
With respect to dependent Claim 7, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 4, as discussed above, and further teaches, or at least suggests, adjust the propulsion force at the time of the ship holding control based on an operation of the joystick in the bow-stern direction during the ship holding control (see col. 16, line 67 – col. 17, line 5).
With respect to dependent Claim 11, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 4, as discussed above, and further teaches, or at least suggests, cancel the ship holding control in case an operation of the first switch is detected during the ship holding control (see col. 16, lines 57-63, showing that the station keeping function requires an actuation of a switch – when such switch is not actuated (or is turned off), the station keeping function is not enabled/activated).
With respect to dependent Claim 12, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 2, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: cancel the ship holding control in case an operation of the joystick to the ship holding control cancel state is detected (see col. 16, line 67 – col. 17, line 5).
With respect to dependent Claim 13, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the behavior of the ship comprises the direction of movement comprising a rudder angle or a course of the ship, or the propulsion comprising a throttle opening, an engine speed, and a speed of the ship (see Figs. 11-14, col. 18, line 14 – col. 19, line 6, col. 21, lines 18-37).
With respect to dependent Claim 14, Bradley teaches the ship control device of claim 6, as discussed above, and further teaches, or at least suggests, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: adjust the propulsion force at the time of the ship holding control based on an operation of the joystick in the bow-stern direction during the ship holding control (see col. 16, line 67 – col. 17, line 5).
Discussion of Prior Art
The prior art of record does not appear to teach, disclose, or suggest the combination of limitations as recited in dependent Claims 8 or 15, particularly with respect to “start the intermittent control based on the operation of the second switch during the ship holding control.” Claims 9, 10, and 16-18 further depend from these claims, respectively. These claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the § 112 rejections set forth in this Office Action.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 ”It is noted that the recited limitation uses a generic placeholder (i.e., unit) coupled with functional language (i.e., input), without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function (and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier).
Prosecution Insights