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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an navigation control unit” should be “a navigation control unit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an power change rate limiter” should be “a power change rate limiter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an power characteristic” should be “a power characteristic”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1-6). Accordingly, claims 1-6 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An electric propulsion control system for a vessel, comprising:
-an acceleration/deceleration control unit receiving a speed command, controlling acceleration based on a rate of change in an output of an engine of the vessel, and controlling deceleration by limiting a torque command value according to the speed command to a safety driving region; and
-a regenerative energy control unit estimating an amount of regenerative power generated based on a propeller speed of the vessel and a torque command generated by the acceleration/deceleration control unit, and controlling a torque limitation of the acceleration/deceleration control unit so that an estimated amount of the regenerative power generated is less than or equal to a current load amount.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” because receiving a speed command and then estimating an amount of regenerative power generated can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An electric propulsion control system for a vessel, comprising:
-an acceleration/deceleration control unit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 56-60) receiving a speed command, controlling acceleration based on a rate of change in an output of an engine of the vessel, and controlling deceleration by limiting a torque command value according to the speed command to a safety driving region; and
-a regenerative energy control unit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 56-60) estimating an amount of regenerative power generated based on a propeller speed of the vessel and a torque command generated by the acceleration/deceleration control unit, and controlling a torque limitation of the acceleration/deceleration control unit so that an estimated amount of the regenerative power generated is less than or equal to a current load amount.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 4: The claim specifies control unit calculating power change rate and comparing it to the calculated power change rate, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as receiving a speed command, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); e.g., estimating an amount of regenerative power, performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim 4, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claim 4 (calculating and comparing), e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-6
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura et al. (JP 2014201195 A).
As per claim 1, Tamura teaches an electric propulsion control system for a vessel, comprising:
-an acceleration/deceleration control unit receiving a speed command, controlling acceleration based on a rate of change in an output of an engine of the vessel, and controlling deceleration by limiting a torque command value according to the speed command to a safety driving region (Tamura: pg. 2; A propulsion motor speed signal for holding a speed command signal. The speed adjusting unit calculates the torque.); and
-a regenerative energy control unit estimating an amount of regenerative power generated based on a propeller speed of the vessel and a torque command generated by the acceleration/deceleration control unit, and controlling a torque limitation of the acceleration/deceleration control unit so that an estimated amount of the regenerative power generated is less than or equal to a current load amount (Tamura: pg. 3; The power generated by the propulsion motor is regenerated through power converter in the regenerative operation mode. ).
As per claim 2, the system of claim 1 is as described. Tamura teaches further comprising:
-an navigation control unit calculating an power change rate per unit time based on a current power amount to a target power amount when the speed command is received, and determining an optimal navigation mode among a plurality of navigation modes set in advance based on a calculated power change rate (Tamura: pg. 3; The deceleration speed command signal is the power value of the ship speed signal detected at the start of deceleration. The speed decreases exponentially from the deceleration speed command signal at a speed faster than the free-run deceleration characteristic over time.); and
-a navigation mode conversion unit converting a navigation mode into a corresponding navigation mode among the plurality of navigation modes according to the navigation mode determined by the navigation control unit, and transmitting the navigation mode to the acceleration/deceleration control unit (Tamura: pg. 2-3; The electric propulsion device by a deceleration operation when the power converter performs either a deceleration control, stop control, or operation switching control from forward to reverse. The deceleration speed command signal is the power value of the ship speed signal detected at the start of deceleration. The speed decreases exponentially from the deceleration speed command signal at a speed faster than the free-run deceleration characteristic over time.).
As per claim 3, the system of claim 1 is as described. Tamura teaches wherein the acceleration/deceleration control unit includes,
-a speed controller comparing a current propeller speed of the vessel with a target propeller speed and outputting the torque command value (Tamura: pg. 2; The power converter supplies to the propulsion motor in accordance with the command, thereby, the torque of the propulsion motor is controlled and the rotation speed of the motor that drives the propulsion machine is controlled to the command speed.);
-an power change rate limiter modifying the torque command value from the speed controller according to engine power characteristics of the vessel, a generator power of the vessel, and a current navigation mode (Tamura: pg. 2; The power converter supplies to the propulsion motor in accordance with the command, thereby, the torque of the propulsion motor is controlled and the rotation speed of the motor that drives the propulsion machine is controlled to the command speed.); and
-a safety driving region setting device limiting a modified torque command value from the power change rate limiter to the safety driving region.
As per claim 4, the system of claim 2 is as described. Tamura teaches wherein the navigation control unit includes,
-an power change rate calculation unit calculating the power change rate per unit time based on the current power amount to the target power amount when the speed command is received (Tamura: pg. 2; The power converter supplies to the propulsion motor in accordance with the command, thereby, the torque of the propulsion motor is controlled and the rotation speed of the motor that drives the propulsion machine is controlled to the command speed.); and
-an optimal navigation mode selection unit comparing the power change rate calculated by the power change rate calculation unit with a power change rate capable of being performed by each of the plurality of navigation modes and determining whether the power change rate is performable in a current navigation mode, and determining the optimal navigation mode among the plurality of navigation modes through comparison of the power change rates (Tamura: pg. 2-3; The electric propulsion device by a deceleration operation when the power converter performs either a deceleration control, stop control, or operation switching control from forward to reverse. The deceleration speed command signal is the power value of the ship speed signal detected at the start of deceleration. The speed decreases exponentially from the deceleration speed command signal at a speed faster than the free-run deceleration characteristic over time.).
As per claim 6, the system of claim 1 is as described. Tamura teaches wherein the regenerative energy control unit includes,
-a regenerative power estimation unit estimating an amount of regenerative power generated based on a current propeller speed and a torque command calculated by the speed controller (Tamura: pg. 3; The power generated by the propulsion motor is regenerated through power converter in the regenerative operation mode.);
-a comparison unit comparing the amount of the regenerative power estimated by the regenerative power estimation unit with the current load amount (Tamura: pg. 3); and
-a torque control unit controlling a torque limitation of the safety driving region setting device so that the estimated amount of regenerative power generated is less than or equal to the current load amount (Tamura: pg. 2; The speed adjusting unit calculates the torque.).
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 (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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (JP 2014201195 A) in view of Stender et al. (KR 20130054330 A).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 4 is as described. Tamura does not explicitly teach the following, however, Stender teaches wherein the navigation mode conversion unit includes,
-a navigation mode unit by a power characteristic having a normal mode and a fast mode set in advance (Stender: pg. 7; Mode manager may be unique to the mode set up with certain situations.);
-a navigation mode unit by engine fuel having a fuel mode and a gas mode set in advance (Stender: pg. 7; Different modes handled by the mode manager are “normal” operating mode and fuel saving mode.); and
-a navigation mode unit by vessel location having a normal seagoing mode and a port mode set in advance (Stender: pg. 7; Mode manager may be unique to the mode set up with certain situations.), and
-the navigation mode conversion unit transmits a converted navigation mode to the safety driving region setting device by conversion into an appropriate navigation mode among respective modes of the navigation mode unit by an power characteristic, the navigation mode unit by engine fuel, and the navigation mode unit by vessel location, according to the navigation mode determined by the navigation control unit (Stender: pg. 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2018/0162352 – Teaches a method for controlling vehicle based on calculating torque and predictions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
