DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 24 July 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1-14; Applicant did not cancel or add new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
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 Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and related arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the prior art of record does not disclose "a determiner configured or programmed to determine, based on an imaging angular field of the first imager, whether sunlight is located within a reference angular field defined as an angular field within the imaging angular field" and "in response to the determiner determining that the sunlight is located within the reference angular field, the vessel operation controller is configured or programmed to change an actual traveling direction of the hull to an angle at which the sunlight is located outside the reference angular field," as recited in Applicant's claim 1. Examiner does not agree.
Regarding the “determiner” limitation, Dittmer discloses “Given the sun's position over the given location at the given time, the computing system could then determine position relative to the image capture device's field of view if the vehicle is travelling
In response to applicant’s second assertion for the claimed response to the sunlight being in the field of view, Dittmer teaches that there are scenarios where “during travel of the vehicle according to the generated route, the sun may still end up being proximate to the object in the field of view of the image capture device from the perspective of the image capture device, even though the computing system generated a route in an attempt to help avoid that situation” (see para. 0131). Thus, Dittmer teaches responding to the sunlight being within the angular field.
Because Dittmer acknowledges that sunlight may still be present when it is attempting to avoid it, the teaching that it is possible to “generate a route that avoids travel of the vehicle through at least that portion of that particular traffic lane (e.g., a slight movement of the vehicle within the particular traffic lane that avoids travel through the portion)” (see para. 0126) is relevant to read on the remaining part of the claimed invention where the “controller is configured or programmed to change an actual traveling direction of the hull to an angle at which the sunlight is located outside the reference angular field”.
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittmer, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0152107).
For claim 1, Dittmer discloses a steering control device comprising: a first imager fixed to a vehicle to capture an image of a subject (see Fig. 2, #210); and a controller (see Fig. 1, #106) configured or programmed to include: a vessel operation controller (see Fig. 1, #106) configured or programmed to perform an automated vessel operation of the hull based on a captured image obtained by the first imager (see paras. 0077, 0084); and a determiner (see Fig. 1, #106) configured or programmed to determine, based on an imaging angular field of the first imager, whether sunlight is located within a reference angular field defined as an angular field within the imaging angular field (see paras. 0101, 0109; see also para. 0147, emphasis on present tense); wherein in response to the determiner determining that the sunlight is located within the reference angular field (see para. 0131, sunlight may occur despite predictive efforts to avoid), the vessel operation controller is configured or programmed to change an actual traveling direction of the hull to an angle at which the sunlight is located outside the reference angular field (see paras. 0125, 0126, slight turn to avoid sunlight portion). Dittmer does not explicitly teach a marine vessel steering control for controlling a hull. However, Dittmer does disclose that this teaching is applicable to boats (see para. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Dittmer to enable marine vessel hull control and to turn to avoid unexpected or inaccurately predicted sunlight based on reasonable requisite knowledge, a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a computing system that could track the sun's position relative to a geographic area, and could determine a route for the vehicle that helps prevent a situation where the sun is proximate to an object within the field of view of the image capture device from the perspective of the image capture device (see para. 0027). It should be noted that this rejection is applied to any claims containing these elements, despite not being explicitly repeated for each and every use of these terms.
With reference to claim 2, Dittmer further discloses wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine that the sunlight is located within the reference angular field based on a position having a luminance equal to or higher than a value being located within the reference angular field (see para. 0146). However, Dittmer does not explicitly disclose a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Dittmer to include a light value threshold to enable marine vessel hull control based on reasonable requisite knowledge, a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a computing system that could track the sun's position relative to a geographic area, and could determine a route for the vehicle that helps prevent a situation where the sun is proximate to an object within the field of view of the image capture device from the perspective of the image capture device (see para. 0027). It should be noted that this rejection is applied to any claims containing these elements, despite not being explicitly repeated for each and every use of these terms.
Regarding claim 3, Dittmer further discloses a second imager including a wide imaging angular field including the imaging angular field of the first imager (see para. 0120); wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine that the sunlight is located within the reference angular field (see paras. 0101, 0109; see also para. 0147, emphasis on present tense) based on a captured image obtained by the second imager (see para. 0120) including a position having a luminance equal to or higher than a value within an angular field corresponding to the reference angular field (see para. 0146).
Pertaining to claim 4, Dittmer further discloses the determiner is configured or programmed to estimate a location of the sunlight based on a location of the hull and a current time (see paras. 0106-0107), and to determine whether the sunlight is located within the reference angular field (see paras. 0101, 0109; see also para. 0147, emphasis on present tense) based on the estimated location of the sunlight and a total light quantity of an image within the reference angular field (see para. 0146).
With regards to claim 5, Dittmer further teaches wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to determine that the sunlight is located within the reference angular field (see paras. 0101, 0109; see also para. 0147, emphasis on present tense) based on the estimated location of the sunlight is within the reference angular field (see paras. 0106-0107, 0131) and the total light quantity of the image within the reference angular field being equal to or larger than a predetermined light quantity (see para. 0146).
Referring to claim 6, Dittmer further teaches wherein, in response to the determiner determining that the sunlight is located within the reference angular field (see paras. 0101, 0109; see also para. 0147, emphasis on present tense), the vessel operation controller is configured or programmed to change the actual traveling direction of the hull in one of a leftward direction or a rightward direction in which a center of the reference angular field becomes farther away from the sunlight (see paras. 0127, 0129, 0126, slight turn to avoid sunlight portion, 0131).
Dittmer does not explicitly disclose the exact direction angle to change. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge to customize or limit the amount of direction change based on the teachings of Dittmer and would have found it obvious to limit the direction change based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a computing system that could track the sun's position relative to a geographic area, and could determine a route for the vehicle that helps prevent a situation where the sun is proximate to an object within the field of view of the image capture device from the perspective of the image capture device (see para. 0027).
With reference to claim 7, Dittmer further teaches wherein, in response to the determiner determining that the sunlight is located within the reference angular field (see paras. 0101, 0109; see also para. 0147, emphasis on present tense), the vessel operation controller is configured or programmed to change the actual traveling direction of the hull in which the turning angle in which the sunlight is located outside the reference angular field becomes smaller (see paras. 0127, 0129; 0126, slight turn to avoid sunlight portion). Dittmer does not explicitly disclose the exact amount of turning angle to change. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the knowledge to customize or limit the amount of direction change based on the teachings of Dittmer and would have found it obvious to limit the direction change based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a computing system that could track the sun's position relative to a geographic area, and could determine a route for the vehicle that helps prevent a situation where the sun is proximate to an object within the field of view of the image capture device from the perspective of the image capture device (see para. 0027).
With regards to claim 8, Dittmer further teaches wherein the reference angular field is smaller than the imaging angular field of the first imager (see para. 0120); and in response to a determination that where the sunlight enters a region within the imaging angular field and outside the reference angular field, the vessel operation controller is configured or programmed to change the actual traveling direction of the hull by a first predetermined angle in one of a leftward direction or a rightward direction in which a center of the reference angular field becomes farther away from the sunlight (see paras. 0127, 0129; 0126, slight turn to avoid sunlight portion).
For claim 9, Dittmer further teaches wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to estimate a location of the sunlight based on a location of the hull and a current time (see paras. 0106-0107); and the vessel operation controller is configured or programmed to predict whether the sunlight will enter the reference angular field based on the estimated location of the sunlight and weather information (see para. 0120), and upon a prediction that the sunlight will enter the reference angular field (see paras. 0101, 0109), the vessel operation controller is configured or programmed to change the actual traveling direction of the hull by a first predetermined angle in one of a leftward direction or a rightward direction in which a center of the reference angular field becomes farther away from the sunlight (see paras. 0127, 0129).
For claims 10-12, Dittmer does not explicitly disclose executing a turn where the sun is not inside the field of view. However, this is considered general operation of a vehicle. Official Notice is taken in that turning a vehicle to a target travelling direction is well known within the art. Any movement at any time is a well known, easily configurable possibility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to turn a vehicle in the direction of the desired target travelling direction and/or waiting any amount of time, without consideration of the sunlight when the sun is not a factor in navigation based on the motivation to improve a computing system that could track the sun's position relative to a geographic area, and could determine a route for the vehicle that helps prevent a situation where the sun is proximate to an object within the field of view of the image capture device from the perspective of the image capture device (see para. 0027).
With reference to claim 13, Dittmer further discloses wherein the determiner is configured or programmed to estimate a location of the sunlight based on a location of the hull and a current time (see paras. 0106-0107); Dittmer does not explicitly disclose the remaining limitations. However, Dittmer discloses turning into the sunlight under certain conditions (see paras. 0121-0123). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to turn a vehicle in the direction of the desired target travelling direction in view of sunlight when there may be light occlusion an angle amount away from view center based on the motivation to improve a computing system that could track the sun's position relative to a geographic area, and could determine a route for the vehicle that helps prevent a situation where the sun is proximate to an object within the field of view of the image capture device from the perspective of the image capture device (see para. 0027).
Claim 14 defines elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to the elements and subject matter defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected based on that citations and reasoning applied above for claim 1.
Referring to claim 15, Dittmer further teaches a marine vessel comprising: the marine vessel steering control device according to claim 1 (see para. 0031).
Conclusion
As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights