DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 05/14/2025, 08/14/2025 and 05/11/2026 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
The list of claims 1-15 are pending in this application. In the claim set filed 05/14/2025:
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13 and 15 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-15 is/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.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite using a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller to perform: 1) estimating a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units; and 2) performing a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated.
The limitations of 1) estimating a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units; and 2) performing a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of: estimating a property of a wave by observing previously gathered sensor data(data from IMUs). The limitation reciting “performing a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated,” which is an operation that cannot be performed in the human mind, does not comprise positive recitation of performing a heading holding control of the marine vessel due to use of the “configured to” type language. Based on this assessment, the Examiner asserts that this limitation from claims 1, 11 and 13 as currently presented does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Note: In order to overcome the above, the Examiner suggest amending independent claims 1 and 13 to positively recite the vessel heading holding control (which the Applicant successfully does in claim 11, resulting in claims 11 and 12 not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101), for example by amending the claim language (in this example, for claim 1) as follows:
Claim 1 (Amended) A ship maneuvering system comprising:
a plurality of inertial measurement units;
and a controller configured or programmed to:
estimate a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units; and
wherein the controller further performs a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated.
The above proposed amendment would overcome the issues that the Examiner cited above, and similarly amending all of independent claims 1 and 13 would result in withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-10, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 indicated above – End of Examiner’s Note.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements – a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller to perform: 1) estimating a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units; and 2) performing a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated. The plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function using data gathered from broadly recited accelerometers) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does not/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller to perform: 1) estimating a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units; and 2) performing a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 14 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1 and 13
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite using a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller to perform: measuring a behavior of a hull of a marine vessel by the plurality of inertial measurement units.
The limitations of measuring a behavior of a hull of a marine vessel by the plurality of inertial measurement units, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of estimating measurements of a property of a wave by observing previously gathered sensor data(data from IMUs). The limitation reciting “by the plurality of inertial measurement units” amount to no more than mere data gathering(Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity – MPEP § 2106.05(g)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements – a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller to perform: measuring a behavior of a hull of a marine vessel by the plurality of inertial measurement units. The plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function using data gathered from broadly recited accelerometers) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does not/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a plurality of inertial measurement units(IMUs) and a controller to perform: measuring a behavior of a hull of a marine vessel by the plurality of inertial measurement units, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BJORNSSON et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0017189 A1) referenced as Bjornsson moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Bjornsson discloses:
“A ship maneuvering system comprising: a plurality of inertial measurement units; and a controller configured or programmed to:” [Bjornsson; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Bjornsson discloses a method of monitoring accelerations on a vessel(denoted 1 in Fig. 3 & 4) that implements a plurality of sensors in the form of gyroscopic accelerometers(denoted 3-6 in Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038, 0039) and a computing unit(denoted 2 in Fig. 3 & 4); See also: ¶: 0046, 0051];
“estimate a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units” [Bjornsson; Bjornsson further discloses: "The sensors 3 and 5 can be arranged to measure the acceleration caused by longitudinal, bow-stern movements from mechanical shocks impacting the bow and/or the stern of the planing hull craft 1. The sensors 4 and 6 can be arranged to detect and/or measure acceleration caused by sway, port-starboard or starboard-port movements from mechanical shocks impacting the port or starboard sides of the planing hull craft 1;" Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038];
“and perform a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated” [Bjornsson; "Note that some embodiments may include functionality for implementing automated controls. For example, act 28 illustrates an act of implementing automated operational control. This may include, for example, implementing cruise control functions, throttle control, route guidance, trim control, etc.;" ¶: 0061;
"Such functionality may be used to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam. In particular, the automated operation controls to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam may be implemented in conjunction with other automated operation controls for navigation or other unmanned vessel controls. Indeed, while examples have been shown with respect to mitigating wave slam, this functionality may be useful in seakeeping in general;" ¶: 0062; See also: Fig. 7; ¶: 0048-0050, 0066, 0067].
With respect to claim 2, Bjornsson discloses: “wherein the plurality of inertial measurement units are located at least two positions among a bow, a stern, a starboard side, or a port side of the hull” [Bjornsson; "The sensors 3-6 can be positioned in any suitable location on the planing hull craft 1 for collecting acceleration information. For instance, FIGS. 3-6 show four sensors with sensor 3 located in the stern, sensor 4 located on the starboard side, sensor 5 located on the bow, and sensor 6 located on the port side of the planing hull craft 1. The sensors 3 and 5 can be arranged to measure the acceleration caused by longitudinal, bow-stern movements from mechanical shocks impacting the bow and/or the stern of the planing hull craft 1. The sensors 4 and 6 can be arranged to detect and/or measure acceleration caused by sway, port-starboard or starboard-port movements from mechanical shocks impacting the port or starboard sides of the planing hull craft 1. It should be appreciated that other sensor combinations and sensing functions may be implemented in other embodiments;" Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038].
With respect to claim 4, Bjornsson discloses: “The ship maneuvering system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to estimate the property of the wave received by the marine vessel based on a deviation between roll angles of the hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units” [Bjornsson; In at least Fig. 2 and accompanying paragraphs 0022 and 0038, Bjornsson discloses that one parameter that is measured by the gyroscopic accelerometers is the acceleration caused by a wave slamming into the vessel causing it to sway in the roll motion depicted in Fig. 2].
With respect to claim 6, Bjornsson discloses: “The ship maneuvering system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to change a parameter of the heading holding control in accordance with the property of the wave in a case where it is determined that the marine vessel is receiving the wave” [Bjornsson; "Note that some embodiments may include functionality for implementing automated controls. For example, act 28 illustrates an act of implementing automated operational control. This may include, for example, implementing cruise control functions, throttle control, route guidance, trim control, etc.;" ¶: 0061;
"Such functionality may be used to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam. In particular, the automated operation controls to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam may be implemented in conjunction with other automated operation controls for navigation or other unmanned vessel controls. Indeed, while examples have been shown with respect to mitigating wave slam, this functionality may be useful in seakeeping in general;" ¶: 0062; See also: Fig. 7; ¶: 0048-0050, 0066, 0067].
With respect to claim 11, Bjornsson discloses:
“A control method for a ship maneuvering system including a plurality of inertial measurement units, the control method comprising:” [Bjornsson; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Bjornsson discloses a method of monitoring accelerations on a vessel(denoted 1 in Fig. 3 & 4) that implements a plurality of sensors in the form of gyroscopic accelerometers(denoted 3-6 in Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038, 0039) and a computing unit(denoted 2 in Fig. 3 & 4); See also: ¶: 0046, 0051];
“estimating a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units” [Bjornsson; Bjornsson further discloses: "The sensors 3 and 5 can be arranged to measure the acceleration caused by longitudinal, bow-stern movements from mechanical shocks impacting the bow and/or the stern of the planing hull craft 1. The sensors 4 and 6 can be arranged to detect and/or measure acceleration caused by sway, port-starboard or starboard-port movements from mechanical shocks impacting the port or starboard sides of the planing hull craft 1;" Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038];
“and performing a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated” [Bjornsson; "Note that some embodiments may include functionality for implementing automated controls. For example, act 28 illustrates an act of implementing automated operational control. This may include, for example, implementing cruise control functions, throttle control, route guidance, trim control, etc.;" ¶: 0061;
"Such functionality may be used to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam. In particular, the automated operation controls to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam may be implemented in conjunction with other automated operation controls for navigation or other unmanned vessel controls. Indeed, while examples have been shown with respect to mitigating wave slam, this functionality may be useful in seakeeping in general;" ¶: 0062; See also: Fig. 7; ¶: 0048-0050, 0066, 0067].
With respect to claim 12, Bjornsson discloses: “The control method for the ship maneuvering system according to claim 11, further comprising: changing a parameter of the heading holding control in accordance with the property of the wave in a case where it is determined that the marine vessel is receiving the wave” [Bjornsson; "Note that some embodiments may include functionality for implementing automated controls. For example, act 28 illustrates an act of implementing automated operational control. This may include, for example, implementing cruise control functions, throttle control, route guidance, trim control, etc.;" ¶: 0061;
"Such functionality may be used to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam. In particular, the automated operation controls to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam may be implemented in conjunction with other automated operation controls for navigation or other unmanned vessel controls. Indeed, while examples have been shown with respect to mitigating wave slam, this functionality may be useful in seakeeping in general;" ¶: 0062; See also: Fig. 7; ¶: 0048-0050, 0066, 0067].
With respect to claim 13, Bjornsson discloses:
“A marine vessel comprising: a hull; and a ship maneuvering system comprising: a plurality of inertial measurement units; and a controller configured or programmed to:” [Bjornsson; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Bjornsson discloses a method of monitoring accelerations on a vessel(denoted 1 in Fig. 3 & 4), which comprises a hull, and implements a plurality of sensors in the form of gyroscopic accelerometers(denoted 3-6 in Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038, 0039) and a computing unit(denoted 2 in Fig. 3 & 4); See also: ¶: 0046, 0051];
“estimate a property of a wave received by a marine vessel based on a behavior of a hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units” [Bjornsson; Bjornsson further discloses: "The sensors 3 and 5 can be arranged to measure the acceleration caused by longitudinal, bow-stern movements from mechanical shocks impacting the bow and/or the stern of the planing hull craft 1. The sensors 4 and 6 can be arranged to detect and/or measure acceleration caused by sway, port-starboard or starboard-port movements from mechanical shocks impacting the port or starboard sides of the planing hull craft 1;" Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038];
“and perform a heading holding control based on an influence on the marine vessel caused by the wave of which the property is estimated” [Bjornsson; "Note that some embodiments may include functionality for implementing automated controls. For example, act 28 illustrates an act of implementing automated operational control. This may include, for example, implementing cruise control functions, throttle control, route guidance, trim control, etc.;" ¶: 0061;
"Such functionality may be used to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam. In particular, the automated operation controls to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam may be implemented in conjunction with other automated operation controls for navigation or other unmanned vessel controls. Indeed, while examples have been shown with respect to mitigating wave slam, this functionality may be useful in seakeeping in general;" ¶: 0062; See also: Fig. 7; ¶: 0048-0050, 0066, 0067].
With respect to claim 14, Bjornsson discloses: “The marine vessel according to claim 13, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to change a parameter of the heading holding control in accordance with the property of the wave in a case where it is determined that the marine vessel is receiving the wave” [Bjornsson; "Note that some embodiments may include functionality for implementing automated controls. For example, act 28 illustrates an act of implementing automated operational control. This may include, for example, implementing cruise control functions, throttle control, route guidance, trim control, etc.;" ¶: 0061;
"Such functionality may be used to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam. In particular, the automated operation controls to prevent and/or reduce the effects of wave slam may be implemented in conjunction with other automated operation controls for navigation or other unmanned vessel controls. Indeed, while examples have been shown with respect to mitigating wave slam, this functionality may be useful in seakeeping in general;" ¶: 0062; See also: Fig. 7; ¶: 0048-0050, 0066, 0067].
With respect to claim 15, Bjornsson discloses: “A ship maneuvering system comprising: a plurality of inertial measurement units; and a controller configured or programmed to measure a behavior of a hull of a marine vessel by the plurality of inertial measurement units” [Bjornsson; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Bjornsson discloses a method of monitoring accelerations on a vessel(denoted 1 in Fig. 3 & 4) that implements a plurality of sensors in the form of gyroscopic accelerometers(denoted 3-6 in Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038, 0039) and a computing unit(denoted 2 in Fig. 3 & 4). Bjornsson further discloses: "The sensors 3 and 5 can be arranged to measure the acceleration caused by longitudinal, bow-stern movements from mechanical shocks impacting the bow and/or the stern of the planing hull craft 1. The sensors 4 and 6 can be arranged to detect and/or measure acceleration caused by sway, port-starboard or starboard-port movements from mechanical shocks impacting the port or starboard sides of the planing hull craft 1;" Fig. 3 & 4; ¶: 0038; See also: ¶: 0046, 0051].
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjornsson in view of Arbuckle et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0231980 A1) referenced as Arbuckle moving forward.
With respect to claim 3, Bjornsson does not specifically state: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to estimate the property of the wave received by the marine vessel based on a deviation between yaw rates of the hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units.”
Arbuckle, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling marine vessels, teaches: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to estimate the property of the wave received by the marine vessel based on a deviation between yaw rates of the hull of the marine vessel measured by the plurality of inertial measurement units” [Arbuckle; "Using a station keeping algorithm, the control module 16 will therefore determine that a counterclockwise yaw movement (arrow CCW) of, in this example, 8.8 degrees is required to return the vessel 10 to the target heading TH;" ¶: 0033;
"The heading error 280 and yaw rate 266 are sent to a heading and heading velocity filter 228, which uses the heading error 280, yaw rate 266, and the roll roughness condition estimate from the roll roughness condition estimator 222 to determine heading error and yaw rate that are compensated for recurring roll;" ¶: 0040; See also: Fig. 2A & 2B; ¶: 0041, 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel as disclosed by Bjornsson to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a marine vessel to maintain a heading and position based on changes in yaw rate and pitch angle of the marine vessel caused by surrounding water roughness as taught by Arbuckle with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel that is more robust in its ability to compensate for disturbances in a marine vessels heading and/or position while further increasing the life of the power transmission mechanisms and the propulsion devices and optimizing noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) transmitted to the vessel by reducing the effects that recurring errors caused by rough water conditions have on the frequency of the propulsion system's corrective control actions [Arbuckle; ¶: 0036, 0059].
With respect to claim 5, Bjornsson does not specifically state: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to estimate the property of the wave received by the marine vessel based on a change amount of a pitch of the hull of the marine vessel measured by at least one of the plurality of inertial measurement units.”
Arbuckle teaches: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to estimate the property of the wave received by the marine vessel based on a change amount of a pitch of the hull of the marine vessel measured by at least one of the plurality of inertial measurement units” [Arbuckle; "FIGS. 2A and 2B schematically illustrate the station keeping algorithms performed by the control module 16. Referring to FIG. 2A, the AHRS 19 provides vessel pitch measurements at 256 and vessel roll measurements at 258 to the control module 16. The AHRS 19 also determines the actual position 262, actual heading 264, actual speed over ground (linear velocity) 260, and actual yaw rate (rotational velocity) 266 of the vessel 10. Using this information from the AHRS 19, the control module 16 determines position and heading error with respect to a predetermined target position and heading from the storage system 16 a along three axes: fore-aft, left-right, and yaw. For example, the control module 16 determines at least one of a difference between a measured (actual) global position 262 and a preselected (target) global position 268 and a difference between a measured (actual) heading 264 and a preselected (target) heading 270, such as each of a left-right position error 74, fore-aft position error 276, and heading error 280. Next, the control module 16 calculates at least one of a desired linear velocity (for example, left-right desired velocity 284 and fore-aft desired velocity 286) based on the position difference(s) 274, 276, and a desired rotational velocity 288 based on the heading difference 280. The control module 16 may multiply the left-right position error 274, fore-aft position error 276, and heading error 280 by respective calibrated constants and send the results through a limiter (see 272, 278, 282) to calculate each respective desired velocity: left/right desired velocity 284, fore/aft desired velocity 286, and desired rotational velocity 288;" Fig. 2A & 2B; ¶: 0039; See also: Fig. 5; ¶: 0032, 0040-0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel as disclosed by Bjornsson to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a marine vessel to maintain a heading and position based on changes in yaw rate and pitch angle of the marine vessel caused by surrounding water roughness as taught by Arbuckle with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel that is more robust in its ability to compensate for disturbances in a marine vessels heading and/or position while further increasing the life of the power transmission mechanisms and the propulsion devices and optimizing noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) transmitted to the vessel by reducing the effects that recurring errors caused by rough water conditions have on the frequency of the propulsion system's corrective control actions [Arbuckle; ¶: 0036, 0059].
With respect to claim 7, Bjornsson does not specifically state: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to consider a yaw rate that is generated in the hull of the marine vessel and is caused by the wave when a steering angle of the marine vessel is set in the heading holding control of which the parameter is changed.”
Arbuckle teaches: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to consider a yaw rate that is generated in the hull of the marine vessel and is caused by the wave when a steering angle of the marine vessel is set in the heading holding control of which the parameter is changed” [Arbuckle; "Using a station keeping algorithm, the control module 16 will therefore determine that a counterclockwise yaw movement (arrow CCW) of, in this example, 8.8 degrees is required to return the vessel 10 to the target heading TH;" ¶: 0033; See also: Fig. 2A, 2B, 5; ¶: 0032, 0040-0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel as disclosed by Bjornsson to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a marine vessel to maintain a heading and position based on changes in yaw rate and pitch angle of the marine vessel caused by surrounding water roughness as taught by Arbuckle with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel that is more robust in its ability to compensate for disturbances in a marine vessels heading and/or position while further increasing the life of the power transmission mechanisms and the propulsion devices and optimizing noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) transmitted to the vessel by reducing the effects that recurring errors caused by rough water conditions have on the frequency of the propulsion system's corrective control actions [Arbuckle; ¶: 0036, 0059].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjornsson in view of Johnson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0300056 A1) referenced as Johnson moving forward.
With respect to claim 8, Bjornsson does not specifically state: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set an upper limit value of an absolute value of the steering angle of the marine vessel in accordance with the property of the wave when the steering angle of the marine vessel is set in the heading holding control of which the parameter is changed.”
Johnson, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling marine vessels, teaches: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set an upper limit value of an absolute value of the steering angle of the marine vessel in accordance with the property of the wave when the steering angle of the marine vessel is set in the heading holding control of which the parameter is changed” [Johnson; "As shown in FIG. 1C, rear portion 101C of mobile structure 101 includes steering sensor/actuator 150 configured to sense a steering angle of rudder 152 and/or to physically adjust rudder 152 to a variety of positive and/or negative steering angles, such as a positive steering angle α measured relative to a zero steering angle direction (e.g., designated by a dashed line 134). In various embodiments, steering sensor/actuator 150 may be implemented with a steering actuator angle limit (e.g., the positive limit is designated by an angle β and a dashed line 136 in FIG. 1), and/or a steering actuator rate limit “R”;" Fig. 1C; ¶: 0063;
"For example, a steering actuator rate limit may be a limit of how quickly steering sensor/actuator 150 can change a steering angle of a steering mechanism (e.g., rudder 132), and, in some embodiments, such steering actuator rate limit may vary depending on a speed of mobile structure 101 along heading 104 (e.g., a speed of a ship relative to surrounding water, or of a plane relative to a surrounding air mass). In further embodiments, a steering actuator rate limit may vary depending on whether steering sensor/actuator 150 is turning with (e.g., an increased steering actuator rate limit) or turning against (e.g., a decreased steering actuator rate limit) a prevailing counteracting force, such as a prevailing current (e.g., a water and/or air current). A prevailing current may be determined from sensor signals provided by orientation sensor 140, gyroscope/accelerometer 122, speed sensor 124, and/or GPS 126, for example;" ¶: 0064; See also: ¶: 0065-0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel as disclosed by Bjornsson to incorporate the teachings regarding limiting the steering actuator amount and/or steering actuator rate of a marine vessel based on the relative speed and position of the marine vessel with respect to the surrounding water using a feedforward disturbance model as taught by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel that is more robust in its ability to “improve steering over simple error feedback autopilot controllers by applying more helm immediately, in the form of a steering angle disturbance adjustment/estimate, so long as the disturbance model has access to measurements of roll angle and wind speed/direction and can reliably determine and/or estimate the relationship between gust/roll and weather helm for mobile structure” [Johnson; ¶: 0017, 0018, 0094].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjornsson in view of INOUE (United States Patent Publication 2021/0229791 A1) referenced as Inoue moving forward.
With respect to claim 9, Bjornsson does not specifically state: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to consider the influence of the wave in the heading holding control in a case where a wavelength of the wave of which the property is estimated is equal to or longer than a hull length of the marine vessel.”
Inoue, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling marine vessels, teaches: “wherein the controller is configured or programmed to consider the influence of the wave in the heading holding control in a case where a wavelength of the wave of which the property is estimated is equal to or longer than a hull length of the marine vessel” [Inoue; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Inoue discloses measuring a wavelength of a following wave(S61 in Fig. 6), comparing the wavelength with the length of the vessel to determine if the wavelength is in a suitable range, wherein the suitable range is denoted as greater than or equal to 0.6 times the length of the vessel and less than 2.3 times the length of the vessel(S62 in Fig. 6), thereby teach the Applicant's claimed "equal to or longer than a hull length of the marine vessel" limitation; See also: ¶: 0008, 0050, 0052-0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel as disclosed by Bjornsson to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling the marine vessel based on a comparison of the wavelength of the approaching wave and the length of the vessel as taught by Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a marine vessel to perform real-time control based on accelerations caused by waves contacting the vessel that is more robust in its ability to automatically prevent the vessel from becoming parallel to a following wave; therefore, the marine vessel easily recovers from the sudden movement originating from broaching without relying on a vessel operator. [Inoue; ¶: 0009, 0040, 0041].
Examiner’s Note on Potential Allowable Subject Matter: The Applicant will note that the above Non-Final rejection does not provide prior art rejections for claim(s) 10, as the Examiner was unable to find a combination of references to reasonably formulate prior art rejections of these claim(s).
However, the Examiner, is not able to object to these claims and indicate them as containing allowable subject matter, as claim(s) 10 stand rejected under 35 USC § 101. However, if the Applicant is were to re-formulate the independent claim(s) such that it/they are patent eligible in view of 35 USC § 101, further amendment to the independent claims comprising the limitations presented in claim(s) 10 (and all intervening dependent claims) would result in the Examiner finding the claims in condition for allowance, pending final search and consideration.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Surma (United States Patent 12,570,387 B1) discloses: A system includes a vision system camera mounted to a marine vessel with an associated field of view of the vessel's environment. The system receives image data from the camera and identifies waves in the marine vessel's environment based on the image data. When the system determines that a wave's height exceeds a threshold and that the current heading of the marine vessel is misaligned with the wave's heading, the system automatically adjusts the vessel's heading to align more closely with the wave's heading.
Igarashi et al. (United States Patent Publication 2011/0307128 A1) discloses: An automatic vessel position holding control method for holding a vessel position and a vessel heading of a vessel on the ocean in order to reduce a positional deviation and a heading deviation sharply as compared with the conventional automatic vessel position holding control by performing feedforward control for estimating and then compensating for at least one of a wave drifting force and a wave drifting moment that act on the vessel, wherein a vessel position holding control is performed that includes such controls as estimating waves entering the vessel from motion thereof, calculating at least one of the wave drifting force and the wave drifting moment from the estimated waves and performing feedforward control for at least one of the calculated wave drifting force and the calculated wave drifting moment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights