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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 and 11/10/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12 and 20 recite (or limitations analogous to): “ ... a finial location ... ”
The Examiner believes that this is a typographical error and that the Applicant intended to recite “... a final location ...”, and for the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitations will be interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 and 17-20 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 112b because it is unclear what “to disassociate from the maritime vessel” entails. The generally accepted definition of disassociate is to disconnect or separate, however, the following claims and written description seem to further investigate on the maritime vessel of interest. Therefore, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art to know accurately interpret “disassociate from the maritime vessel”, and for the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the limitation as determining the intent of the maritime vessel of interest.
Claim 17 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium retaining instructions, which instructions,
wherein read by a processor, cause the processor to perform:” wherein it is unclear as to whether the phrase “which instructions” is attempting to further define the retained instructions or if it is merely a typographical error. Therefore claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 112b.
In regards to claim 18-20, the claims are dependent on rejected claim 17 and are therefore rejected based on dependency.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-23 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12339375 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. The claims at issue are nearly identical and are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
19/221,076 – Instant Application
US 12339375 B2 – Patented Invention
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
obtaining one or more location-reporting signals of a maritime vessel,
wherein the one or more location-reporting signals comprise one or more respective sets of geographical coordinates, each of which having a timestamp;
determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, wherein said determining is based on an identification that a maritime path indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals is unfeasible; and
performing a responsive action in response to the determination that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated.
Claim 2:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the maritime path is over a body of water, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on a geometry of the maritime path being inconsistent with maritime travel that is subject to sea conditions.
Claim 8:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe, wherein the responsive action comprises: instructing a sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals; and obtaining the new reading to confirm or refute the determination.
Claim 12:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the responsive action comprises: predicting a true path of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path of the maritime vessel is predicted using an initial location and a finial location, wherein the initial location and the final location are determined at a beginning and end, respectively, of a consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path begins at the initial location and ends at the final location and is different than a path derived directly from the locations reported in the consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel.
Claim 1:
A method implemented by a processor, the method comprising:
obtaining one or more location-reporting signals of a maritime vessel, wherein the one or more location-reporting signals comprise one or more respective sets of geographical coordinates, each of which having a timestamp;
presenting a maritime path indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals over an electronic User Interface (UI);
automatically determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, wherein said determining is based on an identification that the maritime path indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals is unfeasible, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on a shape of the maritime path being inconsistent with technical limitations of maritime travel, wherein the identification comprises determining that the shape of the maritime path comprises an exact geometric shape; and
in response to determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, performing a responsive action by:
instructing an imagery sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals, the new reading comprises one or more images;
obtaining the new reading from the imagery sensor;
confirming the determination of the partial fabrication based on the new reading;
predicting, based on said confirming, a true path of the maritime vessel; and
adjusting a presentation layer of the UI to graphically present the true path of the maritime vessel.
It can be that the scope of independent claim 1 of the patented invention, US 12339375 B2, performs the same obtaining, determining, performing, instructing, and predicting as claimed in claims 1, 2, 8, and 12 of the instant application ‘076. A difference can be seen in the patented invention of presenting and adjusting an electronic user interface (UI). In regards to the independent claims 14 and 17 of the instant application ‘076, the claims recite analogous limitations to rejected claim 1, and are therefore rejected under the same premise
Dependent Claims:
19/221,076 – Instant Application
US 12339375 B2 – Patented Invention
Claim 3:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on the maritime path indicating that the maritime vessel remained at the same exact location over time.
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on the maritime path indicating that the maritime vessel remained at the same exact location over time.
Claim 4:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the maritime path is over a body of water, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel.
Claim 5:
The method of Claim 1, wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated comprises identifying one or more metadata patterns of the maritime vessel, wherein the one or more metadata patterns comprise at least one of: an ownership change, a flag change, and a destination change.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 1 wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated comprises identifying one or more metadata patterns of the maritime vessel, wherein the one or more metadata patterns comprise at least one of: an ownership change, a flag change, and a destination change.
Claim 6:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the responsive action comprises alerting a user to disassociate from the maritime vessel.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the responsive action comprises alerting a user to disassociate from the maritime vessel.
Claim 7:
The method of Claim 1 comprising verifying that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated based on images, wherein the images depict the one or more sets of geographical coordinates during the one or more timestamps, wherein the images are absent of an object depicting the maritime vessel.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 1 comprising verifying that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated based on the one or more images, wherein the one or more images depict the one or more sets of geographical coordinates during the one or more timestamps, wherein the one or more images are absent of an object depicting the maritime vessel.
Claim 9:
The method of Claim 8, wherein the timeframe is a recent timeframe occurring no more than a predetermined elapsed time than a current time, whereby said instructing enables real-time gathering of information to confirm or refute the determination in real-time.
Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe, wherein the timeframe is a recent timeframe occurring no more than a predetermined elapsed time than a current time, whereby said instructing enables real-time gathering of information to confirm or refute the determination in real-time.
Claim 10:
The method of Claim 8, wherein the sensor is instructed to gather readings in an area of potential travel of a vessel similar to the maritime vessel, wherein the area of potential travel is defined based on a location of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals and based on a time elapsed since the timestamp of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals.
Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe, wherein the imagery sensor is instructed to gather readings in an area of potential travel of a vessel similar to the maritime vessel, wherein the area of potential travel is defined based on the location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals and based on a time elapsed since the timeframe of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals.
Claim 11:
The method of Claim 8, wherein the sensor is at least one of:
a satellite obtaining satellite imagery, wherein the satellite is instructed to obtain images at a specific location; and
an aircraft obtaining aerial imagery, wherein the aircraft is instructed to fly to the specific location to obtain the aerial imagery.
Claim 11:
The method of claim 1, wherein the imagery sensor is at least one of:
a satellite obtaining satellite imagery, wherein the satellite is instructed to obtain the one or more images at a specific location; and
an aircraft obtaining aerial imagery, wherein the aircraft is instructed to fly to the specific location to obtain the aerial imagery, the one or more images comprise the aerial imagery.
Claim 12:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the responsive action comprises: predicting a true path of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path of the maritime vessel is predicted using an initial location and a finial location, wherein the initial location and the final location are determined at a beginning and end, respectively, of a consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path begins at the initial location and ends at the final location and is different than a path derived directly from the locations reported in the consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel.
Claim 12:
The method of claim 1, wherein the true path of the maritime vessel is predicted using an initial location and a final location, wherein the initial location and the final location are determined at a beginning and end, respectively, of a consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path begins at the initial location and ends at the final location and is different than a path derived directly from the locations reported in the consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel.
Claim 13:
The method of Claim 1 wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated is further based on an identification of contradictions between raw maritime data within the one or more location-reporting signals.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated is further based on an identification of contradictions between raw maritime data within the one or more location-reporting signals.
Claim 15:
The system of Claim 14, wherein the maritime path is over a body of water, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on at least one of:
a geometry of the maritime path being inconsistent with maritime travel that is subject to sea conditions;
the maritime path indicating that the maritime vessel remained at the same exact location over time; and
the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel.
Claim 15:
The system of claim 14, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on at least one of:
the maritime path indicating that the maritime vessel remained at the same exact location over time; and
the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel.
See claim 14 regarding a geometry of the maritime path
Claim 16:
The system of Claim 14, wherein the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe, wherein the responsive action comprises:
instructing a sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals; and obtaining the new reading to confirm or refute the determination.
Claim 14:
...
in response to determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, performing a responsive action by:
instructing an imagery sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals, the new reading comprises one or more images;
obtaining the new reading from the imagery sensor;
confirming the determination of the partial fabrication based on the new reading;
....
Claim 18:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 17, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on at least one of:
a geometry of the maritime path being inconsistent with maritime travel that is subject to sea conditions;
the maritime path indicating that the maritime vessel remained at the same exact location over time; and
the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel.
Claim 20:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on at least one of:
the maritime path indicating that the maritime vessel remained at the same exact location over time; and
the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel.
See claim 19 regarding a geometry of the maritime path
Claim 19:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 18, wherein the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe, wherein the responsive action comprises: instructing a sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals; and obtaining the new reading to confirm or refute the determination.
Claim 19:
....
in response to determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, performing a responsive action by:
instructing an imagery sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals, the new reading comprises one or more images;
obtaining the new reading from the imagery sensor;
confirming the determination of the partial fabrication based on the new reading;
predicting, based on said confirming, a true path of the maritime vessel;
...
Claim 20:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of Claim 18, wherein the responsive action comprises: predicting a true path of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path of the maritime vessel is predicted using an initial location and a finial location, wherein the initial location and the final location are determined at a beginning and end, respectively, of a consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path begins at the initial location and ends at the final location and is different than a path derived directly from the locations reported in the consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel.
Claim 22:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19, wherein the true path of the maritime vessel is predicted using an initial location and a final location, wherein the initial location and the final location are determined at a beginning and end, respectively, of a consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path begins at the initial location and ends at the final location and is different than a path derived directly from the locations reported in the consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel.
Wherein it can be seen that the scope of the claims of the instant application 19/221,076 are analogous to the patented invention US 12339375 B2, as both are pertaining to a system for detecting, confirming, and responding to potentially fabricated maritime signals. It can be seen in the comparisons above that the claims of the instant application ‘076 are near verbatim to the patented invention US 12339375 B2.
A notable difference found in the comparison above is that the patented invention US 12339375 B2 recites an electronic user interface (UI) and adjusting a presentation layer of the UI.
Another notable difference found is that claim 13 of the patented invention US 12339375 B2 recites a machine learning classifier, a deep-learning classifier, an Artificial Neural Network (ANN), a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer readable medium. Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
If the claims recite at least one statutory category of invention, the claims require further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception of invention.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 17, recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A method comprising:
obtaining one or more location-reporting signals of a maritime vessel,
wherein the one or more location-reporting signals comprise one or more respective sets of geographical coordinates, each of which having a timestamp;
determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, wherein said determining is based on an identification that a maritime path indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals is unfeasible; and
performing a responsive action in response to the determination that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated.”
The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “performing a responsive action” in light of the specification includes “predicting a true path of the maritime vessel” (see [0018]).
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. The mere recitation of a generic computer would not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claims recite a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claims require further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 recites the following (underlined) additional limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A method comprising:
obtaining one or more location-reporting signals of a maritime vessel,
wherein the one or more location-reporting signals comprise one or more respective sets of geographical coordinates, each of which having a timestamp;
determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, wherein said determining is based on an identification that a maritime path indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals is unfeasible; and
performing a responsive action in response to the determination that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated.”
Wherein the additional elements amount to pre-solution data gathering.
With respect to claim 14, the claim additionally recites: “A system comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein said processor is configured to perform
...”
With respect to claim 17, the claim additionally recites: “A non-transitory computer readable medium retaining instructions, which instructions, wherein read by a processor, cause the processor to perform
...”
The functions of these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception, and require further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to the obtaining limitation of claims 1, 14 and 17, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). In addition, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
With respect to claim 14, as discussed above, the further additional elements (a processor and a memory) amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
With respect to claim 17, as discussed above, the further additional elements (a non-transitory computer readable medium retaining instructions read by a processor) amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-7, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 14, and 17, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8-9, 16 and 19 further recites that the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe and then further characterize the timeframe and confirming or refuting determinations in real time, which is a process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. Claims 8-9, 16 and 19 further recites the additional element of instructing a sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals and obtaining the new reading, which amounts to extra-solution data gathering. The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 further recites instructions to gather readings in an area of potential travel of a vessel similar to the maritime vessel, wherein the area of potential travel is defined based on a location of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals and based on a time elapsed since the timestamp of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals, which recites process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. The data collection by the sensor itself amounts to extra-solution data gathering (see claim 8-9 analysis above). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites wherein the sensor is at least one of: a satellite obtaining satellite imagery, wherein the satellite is instructed to obtain images at a specific location; and an aircraft obtaining aerial imagery, wherein the aircraft is instructed to fly to the specific location to obtain the aerial imagery. Obtaining images amounts to extra-solution activity, and the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The characterization of the sensor as a satellite obtaining satellite imagery or an aircraft obtaining aerial imagery merely amounts to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigdon et al. (20170043848; hereinafter Rigdon) in view of Delay et al. (20180203125; hereinafter Delay).
Regarding claim 1, Rigdon teaches a method comprising (Rigdon: Abstract):
obtaining one or more location-reporting signals of a maritime vessel, wherein the one or more location-reporting signals comprise one or more respective sets of geographical coordinates (Rigdon: “AIS data that is received from a vessel (e.g., a ship) may be evaluated to determine whether information provided by the transmitter (vessel) is incorrect. Incorrect information may include incorrect position information” ¶ 12, see also ¶ 15), ...
determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated, wherein said determining is based on an identification that a maritime path indicated by the one or more location-reporting signals is unfeasible (Rigdon: “Incorrect information may include incorrect position information or other information, such as incorrect identifying data or trip information. When incorrect information is detected, an analysis is performed to determine whether the vessel should be “flagged” for further attention” ¶ 12, “The AIS position data is also evaluated for “reasonableness” or “unreasonableness,” such as a deviation from an expected vessel location that exceeds a threshold distance or the position being associated with a location on land or in non-navigable waters ...” ¶ 15, see also ¶ 24, 26); and
performing a responsive action in response to the determination that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated (Rigdon: “The system of the present disclosure not only provides alerts based on suspicious AIS broadcasters, but also provides an indication (or categorization) of likely vessel intent ... ” ¶ 18, see also ¶ 24).
However, Rigdon fails to teach each of which [location reporting signals] having a timestamp.
In a similar field of endeavor, Delay teaches each of which [location reporting signals] having a timestamp (Delay: “the system 30 also advantageously provides for persistent surveillance capabilities resulting from the continuous and near real-time AIS data that is available throughout the voyage of a given marine vessel” ¶ 25, “each rendezvous event may be captured and recorded in the memory 41 in the following format” ¶ 29, “... timeStart, timeFinish, approxLat, approxLon” ¶ 30).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the data system of Rigdon so that it also includes each of which having a timestamp, as taught by Delay, in order to create efficient data analysis (Delay: ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 2, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the maritime path is over a body of water, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on a geometry of the maritime path being inconsistent with maritime travel that is subject to sea conditions (Rigdon: “conditions in the relevant areas (e.g., when country X is being blockaded, look for ships that may be spoofing AIS data and/or paperwork). An evaluation may look for innocuous explanations of AIS data anomalies that at first seem suspicious ... a ship following a circuitous route and/or varying speed outside of normal speeds could be engaged in hostile activity, or the ship could have mechanical troubles” ¶ 23, “a vessel may be flagged as a vessel identity anomaly is a result of the data indicating that the vessel is located in two or more places at the same time” ¶ 31, see also ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 3, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible based on the maritime path indicating that the maritime vessel remained at the same exact location over time (Rigdon: “a ship trolling back and forth in one location” ¶ 23).
Regarding claim 5, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated comprises identifying one or more metadata patterns of the maritime vessel, wherein the one or more metadata patterns comprise at least one of: an ownership change, a flag change, and a destination change (Rigdon: “analysis of the AIS data without the use of secondary data may allow for a determination of whether the AIS data is consistent with the vessel that is broadcasting the AIS data ... additional analysis can be performed to determine whether the vessel (and AIS number) matches patterns associated with specific types of data. As an illustrative example, smuggling often involves frequent ownership changes of a vessel. As another illustrative example, terrorism often involves one vessel masquerading as another vessel” ¶ 18, see also ¶ 21, 27).
Regarding claim 6, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the responsive action comprises alerting a user to disassociate from the maritime vessel (Rigdon: “In such cases, intent may be inferred at least broadly, and data that supports the inferred intent may be provided to a human operator to allow determination of whether to forward the alert to higher authorities or to take action” ¶ 18, see also ¶ 24, 43).
Regarding claim 7, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1 comprising verifying that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated (Rigdon: “AIS data that is received from a vessel (e.g., a ship) may be evaluated to determine whether information provided by the transmitter (vessel) is incorrect. Incorrect information may include incorrect position information or other information, such as incorrect identifying data or trip information. When incorrect information is detected, an analysis is performed to determine whether the vessel should be “flagged” for further attention” ¶ 12, see also ¶ 15, 24, 43) ...
However, Rigdon fails to teach based on images, wherein the images depict the one or more sets of geographical coordinates during the one or more timestamps, wherein the images are absent of an object depicting the maritime vessel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Delay teaches based on images, wherein the images depict the one or more sets of geographical coordinates during the one or more timestamps, wherein the images are absent of an object depicting the maritime vessel (Delay: “location and tracking of the vessel 31′ through the aerial imagery may be used to determine whether the vessel has actually gone and/or its true course. Similarly, the actual destination of a vessel 31′ may be determined, either in contrast to reported AIS data or in the absence of any reported AIS data, by the processor 42” ¶ 52).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the verification system of Rigdon so that it also includes the claimed limitation of utilizing images, as taught by Delay, in order to improve maritime anomaly analysis (Delay: ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 8, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1, ...
wherein the responsive action comprises: instructing a sensor to obtain a new reading at a location associated with the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals; and obtaining the new reading to confirm or refute the determination (Rigdon: “one or more sources of secondary data may be accessible to the computing device 102. For example, a first secondary data source 132 may include secondary position data, a second secondary data source 134 may include secondary vessel identification data ...” ¶ 27, “the AIS trip data may include an estimated time of arrival (ETA) at a destination (e.g., a port as illustrated in the graphical user interface 142), and the vessel trip anomaly may be indicative of a deviation of the estimated ETA at the destination from an expected ETA at the destination” ¶ 35, see also ¶ 33, 41, 44).
However, Rigdon fails to teach wherein the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe.
In a similar field of endeavor, Delay teaches wherein the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals are associated with a timeframe (Delay: “the system 30 also advantageously provides for persistent surveillance capabilities resulting from the continuous and near real-time AIS data that is available throughout the voyage of a given marine vessel” ¶ 25, “each rendezvous event may be captured and recorded in the memory 41 in the following format” ¶ 29, “... timeStart, timeFinish, approxLat, approxLon” ¶ 30, see also ¶ 28, 32).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the method of Rigdon so that it also includes the element of a timeframe, as taught by Delay, in order to improve vessel abnormality detection (Delay: ¶ 32).
Regarding claim 9, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein the timeframe is a recent timeframe occurring no more than a predetermined elapsed time than a current time (Rigdon: “historical data could be that the MMSI number is consistently wrong over time for a given vessel. This should be logged so that the incorrect MMSI number can be addressed at some point by the customer. By contrast, an MMSI number that is suddenly incorrect when the number is historically correct (or vice versa)” ¶ 44, Note: The Examiner notes that timeframes is established in claim 8 as being taught by Delay and that Rigdon teaches of a predetermined elapsed time) ...
Rigdon fails to teach whereby said instructing enables real-time gathering of information to confirm or refute the determination in real-time.
In a similar field of endeavor, Delay teaches whereby said instructing enables real-time gathering of information to confirm or refute the determination in real-time (Delay: “the AIS data is received or intercepted by the RF transceivers 37 at respective satellites 32 as the vessels 31 come within range, at Block 302. As also described above, this data is communicated to the terrestrial station 40 via the satellite constellation, at Block 303, which may then be processed by the terrestrial station as part of a persistent surveillance program, for example. In the illustrated example, the terrestrial station 40 optionally receives aerial marine imagery data from an imagery source to assist with the rendezvous analysis” ¶ 26, see also ¶ 25, 40).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the analysis system of Rigdon so that it also includes the claim limitations of enabling real-time gathering of information to confirm or refute the determination, as taught by Delay, in order to provide real-time improvements to the surveillance system (Delay: ¶ 25).
Regarding claim 10, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 8, wherein the sensor is instructed to gather readings (Rigdon: “The computing device 102 is configured to receive the AIS data 130. FIG. 1 illustrates that one or more sources of secondary data may be accessible to the computing device 102” ¶ 27, see also ¶ 33, 41) ...
However, Rigdon fails to teach in an area of potential travel of a vessel similar to the maritime vessel, wherein the area of potential travel is defined based on a location of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals and based on a time elapsed since the timestamp of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals.
In a similar field of endeavor, Delay teaches in an area of potential travel of a vessel similar to the maritime vessel, wherein the area of potential travel is defined based on a location of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals and based on a time elapsed since the timestamp of the at least partially fabricated location-reporting signals (Delay: “the system 30 also advantageously provides for persistent surveillance capabilities resulting from the continuous and near real-time AIS data that is available throughout the voyage of a given marine vessel” ¶ 25, “the processor 42 may optionally determine deviations from a reported course or from established shipping lanes (or speed deviations), at Block 307, as well as to detect gaps in reported data” ¶ 32, see also ¶ 48, 49).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the monitoring system of Rigdon so that it also includes the claimed element of area readings, as taught by Delay, in order to improve persistent surveillance (Delay: ¶ 25).
Regarding claim 12, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the responsive action comprises:
...
respectively, of a consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel (Rigdon: “If no reasonable explanation can be found for the deviation, then the deviation may be flagged as an anomaly (referred to herein as a “vessel position anomaly”)” ¶ 15, see also ¶ 18, 21, 27),
...
Rigdon fails to teach predicting a true path of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path of the maritime vessel is predicted using an initial location and a finial location, wherein the initial location and the final location are determined at a beginning and end,
...
wherein the true path begins at the initial location and ends at the final location and is different than a path derived directly from the locations reported in the consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Delay teaches predicting a true path of the maritime vessel, wherein the true path of the maritime vessel is predicted using an initial location and a finial location, wherein the initial location and the final location are determined at a beginning and end (Delay: “determine deviations from a reported course or from established shipping lanes (or speed deviations), ... as well as to detect gaps in reported data ... which may similarly result in an alert being generated ... when vessels turn off their AIS transmission and/or try to transmit “spoof” AIS data; when vessel “loitering” occurs; and identifying a vessel port of origin and predicting its destination based thereon and its reported course. With respect to deviation from a reported course or speed, this may also be determined based upon deviation greater than a threshold, such as more than 45 degrees off course” ¶ 32, see also ¶ 51, 52),
...
wherein the true path begins at the initial location and ends at the final location and is different than a path derived directly from the locations reported in the consecutive set of fabricated location-reporting signals of the maritime vessel (Delay: “further configured to determine whether an actual course for a given marine vessel 31′ deviates from a reported course from collected AIS data” ¶ 51, see also ¶ 52, 62).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the tracking system of Rigdon so that it also includes route analysis, as taught by Delay, in order to improve determination of the true path of the maritime vessel (Delay: ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 13, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein said determining that the one or more location-reporting signals are at least partially fabricated is further based on an identification of contradictions between raw maritime data within the one or more location-reporting signals (Rigdon: “determine whether the AIS data 130 includes anomalous data and to estimate a likelihood of malicious vessel intent based on a comparison of the anomalous data to secondary data” ¶ 28, “each of the AIS broadcast data fields may be compared to historically-recorded AIS records for this (or possibly similar/duplicate) vessel(s), as well as checked against manifest data and other types of records (e.g., from Coast Guard sources, etc.)” ¶ 34, see also ¶ 41).
Regarding claim 14, Rigdon teaches a system comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein said processor is configured to perform (Rigdon: “The computing device 102 includes a processor 106 and a memory 108 in communication with the processor 106. The memory 108 stores instructions that are executable by the processor 106 to perform various operations” ¶ 25):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, Rigdon teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium retaining instructions (Rigdon: “The computing device 102 ...” ¶ 25), which instructions,
wherein read by a processor, cause the processor to perform (Rigdon: “ ... includes a processor 106 and a memory 108 in communication with the processor 106. The memory 108 stores instructions that are executable by the processor 106 to perform various operations” ¶ 25):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 16, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 8, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 4, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigdon in view of Delay as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Mazor et al. (20200184828; hereinafter Mazor).
Regarding claim 4, Rigdon in view of Delay teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the maritime path is over a body of water, wherein the maritime path is determined to be unfeasible (Rigdon: “If no reasonable explanation can be found for the deviation, then the deviation may be flagged as an anomaly (referred to herein as a “vessel position anomaly”)” ¶ 15, see also ¶ 24, 26) ...
Rigdon in view of Delay fails to teach based on the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mazor teaches based on the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel (Mazor: “said validating the risk event comprises at least one of: identifying the vessel being located in a location where a depth is shallower than a draught of the vessel at a time of the risk event” ¶ 25, see also ¶ 40, 120).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the information system of Rigdon and Delay so that it also includes the element of the maritime path including passage at a depth inconsistent with reported draft of the maritime vessel, as taught by Mazor, in order to improve identification of unfeasible maritime paths through accurate risk identification (Mazor: ¶ 72).
In regards to claim(s) 15 and 18, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 2, 3, and 4, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 19 and 20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 8 and 12, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigdon in view of Delay as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 16-17 above, and further in Daehler (20170168133).
Regarding claim 11, Rigdon fails to teach the method of Claim 8, wherein the sensor is at least one of:
a satellite obtaining satellite imagery, wherein the satellite is instructed to obtain images at a specific location; and
an aircraft obtaining aerial imagery, wherein the aircraft is instructed to fly to the specific location to obtain the aerial imagery.
Firstly, in a similar field of endeavor, Delay teaches of a satellite obtaining satellite imagery, wherein the satellite is instructed to obtain images at a specific location (Delay: “a system 30 for monitoring a plurality of marine vessels 31 using a network of satellites 32 is first described” ¶ 23, “the imaging satellites 45 to generate AIS reports and aerial imagery 52 from AIS transmissions from the vessels 31, as noted above. The AIS data may take the form of both historical AIS data files 70 as well as one or more live AIS data streams 71. ... As part of the analytics, the processor 42 may correlate “tipoffs” from the AIS data along with the aerial imagery 52 to confirm changes in course, rendezvouses, etc., as will be discussed further below” ¶ 33).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the sensor system of Rigdon so that it also includes the element of satellite imagery, as taught by Delay, in order to enhance maritime system coverage (Delay: ¶ 25).
Secondly, in a similar field of endeavor, Daehler teaches an aircraft obtaining aerial imagery, wherein the aircraft is instructed to fly to the specific location to obtain the aerial imagery (Daehler: Fig. 2 Element 16, “the one or more observation platforms 16, such as in the form of one or more airborne observation platforms 24, may comprise one or more of an aircraft 32, an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) 34, including a high altitude UAV 34a” ¶ 44, see also ¶ 60).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the system of Rigdon and Delay so that it also includes the element of an aircraft obtaining aerial imagery, as taught by Daehler, in order to accurately track vessels (Daehler: ¶ 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Platzer (20140218242) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of maritime spoofing identification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights