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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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) 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) are: “an acquisition unit to…”, “an automatic navigation unit to…” in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
In claim 1 line 5, the recited limitation “a marine vessel” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the marine vessel recited previously or if this is a different marine vessel.
In claim 4, the recited limitation “guide a recommended loading area of the cargo in the marine vessel based on a weight and/or a size of the cargo” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner what is being guided here? Is the limitation intended to recite “guide the marine vessel to a recommended area of the cargo based on a weight and/or a size of the cargo”?
In claim 11, the recited limitation “if the departure permission information is not generated” is indefinite. The claim recites an ”if” statement and does not necessitate the condition in the claim. Examiner recommend amending the claim to recite “when the departure permission information is not generated”.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 13 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected 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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al (US 20220001970 A1) in view of Qiu et al (US 20200279221 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hara discloses an unmanned system in a marine vessel, the unmanned system comprising: an acquisition unit to acquire destination information of a cargo to be delivered (see at least [0014], [0024], [0105-0107], and [0111-0119]); an automatic navigation unit to cause a marine vessel to automatically navigate in an unmanned manner to a destination port indicated by the destination information (see at least [0041], [0053], [0060], [0167] and [0186-0188]); and a controller configured or programmed perform a fixed point holding of the marine vessel when the marine vessel arrives at the destination port (see at least [0086]).
Hara do not specifically disclose wherein the unmanned system is an unmanned delivery system, and a controller configured or programmed to issue an arrival notification.
Qiu teaches wherein the unmanned system is an unmanned delivery system, and a controller configured or programmed to issue an arrival notification (see at least [0027-0032], [0041-0042], [0067-0071], [0107-0111], and [0017-0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Qiu wherein the unmanned system is an unmanned delivery system, and a controller configured or programmed to issue an arrival notification. This would be done to reduce missing deliveries and reduce re-deliveries (see Qiu para 0005).
With respect to claim 3, Hara do not specifically disclose wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to cause the marine vessel to depart on a condition that a shipper of the cargo has generated departure permission information permitting departure.
Qiu teaches wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to cause the marine vessel to depart on a condition that a shipper of the cargo has generated departure permission information permitting departure (see at least [0082], [0097], and [0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Qiu wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to cause the marine vessel to depart on a condition that a shipper of the cargo has generated departure permission information permitting departure. This would be done to reduce missing deliveries and reduce re-deliveries (see Qiu para 0005).
With respect to claim 6, Hara do not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to transmit the arrival notification to a communication terminal device corresponding to the destination port.
Qiu teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to transmit the arrival notification to a communication terminal device corresponding to the destination port (see at least [0027-0032], [0041-0042], [0067-0071], [0107-0111], and [0017-0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Qiu wherein the controller is configured or programmed to transmit the arrival notification to a communication terminal device corresponding to the destination port. This would be done to reduce missing deliveries and reduce re-deliveries (see Qiu para 0005).
With respect to claim 7, Hara do not specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to function as a transmission unit to transmit, to a communication terminal device corresponding to the destination port, display information to display at least one of a list of cargoes to be unloaded at the destination port, an estimated time of arrival at the destination port, or an estimated time of departure from the destination port.
Qiu teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to function as a transmission unit to transmit, to a communication terminal device corresponding to the destination port, display information to display at least one of a list of cargoes to be unloaded at the destination port, an estimated time of arrival at the destination port, or an estimated time of departure from the destination port (see at least [0031-0032], [0041], [0082], and [0109-0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Qiu wherein the controller is configured or programmed to function as a transmission unit to transmit, to a communication terminal device corresponding to the destination port, display information to display at least one of a list of cargoes to be unloaded at the destination port, an estimated time of arrival at the destination port, or an estimated time of departure from the destination port. This would be done to reduce missing deliveries and reduce re-deliveries (see Qiu para 0005).
With respect to claim 10, Hara do not specifically disclose wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to cause the marine vessel to depart on condition that a recipient at a destination of the arrival notification has generated departure permission information permitting departure.
Qiu teaches wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to cause the marine vessel to depart on condition that a recipient at a destination of the arrival notification has generated departure permission information permitting departure (see at least [0027-0032], [0041-0042], [0067-0071], [0107-0111], and [0017-0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Qiu wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to cause the marine vessel to depart on condition that a recipient at a destination of the arrival notification has generated departure permission information permitting departure. This would be done to reduce missing deliveries and reduce re-deliveries (see Qiu para 0005).
With respect to claim 11, Hara do not specifically disclose wherein in a case where a predetermined period of time has elapsed after the fixed point holding is started at the destination port, the automatic navigation unit causes the marine vessel to depart even if the departure permission information is not generated.
Qiu teaches wherein in a case where a predetermined period of time has elapsed after the fixed point holding is started at the destination port, the automatic navigation unit causes the marine vessel to depart even if the departure permission information is not generated (see at least [0031-0032], [0043-0044], and [0071-0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Qiu wherein in a case where a predetermined period of time has elapsed after the fixed point holding is started at the destination port, the automatic navigation unit causes the marine vessel to depart even if the departure permission information is not generated. This would be done to reduce missing deliveries and reduce re-deliveries (see Qiu para 0005).
With respect to claim 12, it is a method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective unmanned delivery system claim 1. As such, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective unmanned delivery system claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 13, Hara as modified by Qiu discloses A marine vessel comprising: the unmanned delivery system according to claim 1 (see at least [abstract]).
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al (US 20220001970 A1) in view of Qiu et al (US 20200279221 A1) in view of Al Dhaheri et al (US 20200265377 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Hara as modified by Qui do not specifically teach wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire correspondence information that associates the cargo with the destination information; and the controller is configured or programmed to include the correspondence information in the arrival notification.
Al Dhaheri teaches wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire correspondence information that associates the cargo with the destination information (see at least [0013-0015], [0030], [0056-0057], [0090-0093], [0103], [0110-0112], [0121], and [0143-0146]); and the controller is configured or programmed to include the correspondence information in the arrival notification (see at least [0013-0015], [0030], [0056-0057], [0090-0093], [0103], [0110-0112], [0121], and [0143-0146]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara as modified by Qiu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Al Dhaheri wherein the acquisition unit is configured to acquire correspondence information that associates the cargo with the destination information; and the controller is configured or programmed to include the correspondence information in the arrival notification. This would be done to reduce delays at ports and increase efficiency at delivery ports (see Al Dhaheri para 0002).
With respect to claim 4, Hara as modified by Qui do not specifically teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to guide a recommended loading area of the cargo in the marine vessel based on a weight and/or a size of the cargo.
Al Dhaheri teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to guide a recommended loading area of the cargo in the marine vessel based on a weight and/or a size of the cargo (see at least [0015-0016], [0038-0039], [0079], [0091-0092], [0097], and [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara as modified by Qiu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Al Dhaheri wherein the controller is configured or programmed to guide a recommended loading area of the cargo in the marine vessel based on a weight and/or a size of the cargo. This would be done to reduce delays at ports and increase efficiency at delivery ports (see Al Dhaheri para 0002).
With respect to claim 5, Hara as modified by Qui do not specifically teach wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to start a departure on condition that a total weight of the cargo loaded on the marine vessel is within a first predetermined amount or that a total weight of the marine vessel including the cargo is within a second predetermined amount.
Al Dhaheri teaches wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to start a departure on condition that a total weight of the cargo loaded on the marine vessel is within a first predetermined amount or that a total weight of the marine vessel including the cargo is within a second predetermined amount (see at least [0015-0016], [0038-0039], [0079], [0091-0092], [0097], and [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara as modified by Qiu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Al Dhaheri wherein the automatic navigation unit is configured to start a departure on condition that a total weight of the cargo loaded on the marine vessel is within a first predetermined amount or that a total weight of the marine vessel including the cargo is within a second predetermined amount. This would be done to reduce delays at ports and increase efficiency at delivery ports (see Al Dhaheri para 0002).
With respect to claim 8, Hara as modified by Qui do not specifically teach wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a cargo unloading permission process to enable unloading of the cargo in response to acquisition of unloading preparation completion information indicating that preparation to receive the cargo is completed.
Al Dhaheri teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a cargo unloading permission process to enable unloading of the cargo in response to acquisition of unloading preparation completion information indicating that preparation to receive the cargo is completed (see at least [0097], [0108-0110], [0113], [0148], and [0157]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara as modified by Qiu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Al Dhaheri wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform a cargo unloading permission process to enable unloading of the cargo in response to acquisition of unloading preparation completion information indicating that preparation to receive the cargo is completed. This would be done to reduce delays at ports and increase efficiency at delivery ports (see Al Dhaheri para 0002).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al (US 20220001970 A1) in view of Qiu et al (US 20200279221 A1) in view of Al Dhaheri et al (US 20200265377 A1) in view of Fedorynski et al (US 11,934,988 B1).
With respect to claim 9, Hara as modified by Qiu and Al Dhaheri do not specifically teach wherein the cargo unloading permission process includes unlocking a door of a cargo room or unlocking a door to enter the marine vessel.
Fedorynski teaches wherein the cargo unloading permission process includes unlocking a door of a cargo room or unlocking a door to enter the marine vessel (see at least [Col. 27 lines 30 -Col. 28 line 29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hara as modified by Qiu and Al Dhaheri, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fedorynski wherein the cargo unloading permission process includes unlocking a door of a cargo room or unlocking a door to enter the marine vessel. This would be done to increase efficiency of deliveries to different customers (see Fedorynski abstract).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights