Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 7/18/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant filed four IDSs on 7/18/25, 10/23/25, 1/31/26, and 6/08/26; they are considered.
Claimed Interpretation
4. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 (a method), and 11 (a device) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., claiming a mathematical concept) without significantly more
A. Per independent claims 1, and 11: Applicant claims:
A method performed by a device, comprising a memory and a processor, for calculating a collision risk of a ship, the method comprising:
calculating an available velocity area based on maneuvering performance of a host ship, the available velocity area being an area comprising available various velocities based on the maneuvering performance;
calculating a velocity obstacle area where there is a possibility of collision between an object and the host ship;
calculating an overlapping area where the available velocity area and the
velocity obstacle area overlap each other; and
calculating a collision risk by applying a corresponding weight value to the overlapping area.
A1. 101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a method (a process), and a device; therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
A2. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, and 11 includesa limitation that recite an abstract idea (emphasized with bold-face terms) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites a broad concept for calculating a collision risk of a ship, comprising:
calculating an available velocity area based on maneuvering performance of a host ship, the available velocity area being an area comprising available various velocities based on the maneuvering performance;
calculating a velocity obstacle area where there is a possibility of collision between an object and the host ship;
calculating an overlapping area where the available velocity area and the
velocity obstacle area overlap each other; and
calculating a collision risk by applying a corresponding weight value to the overlapping area.
Independent claim 11: A device for calculating a collision risk of a ship, comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to
calculate an available velocity area based on maneuvering performance of a
host ship, the available velocity area being an area comprising available various
velocities based on the maneuvering performance,
calculate a possible collision area/risk of an object and the host ship,
calculate an overlapping area where the available velocity area and the velocity
obstacle area overlap each other; and
calculate a collision risk by applying a corresponding weight value to the
overlapping area.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mathematical relationship” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitations with calculations. Specifically, the mathematical relationships encompass generic calculations/computations of related values. Finally, a solution for that calculating steps supporting a broad intention of integrating those calculating outputs; accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
B. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using “a weight value” or “there is a possibility of collision” to implement an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., “the available velocity area being an area comprising available various velocities based on the maneuvering performance”), or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application (e.g., for a collision risk of a ship).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are ““a weight value”, “there is a possibility of collision” , “the available velocity area being an area comprising available various velocities based on the maneuvering performance” (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”); the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
C. 101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a claimed device, the additional element of using a device having a memory and a processor amounts to nothing more than mere generic components/device to apply the exception for a similar output; this cannot provide an inventive concept; hence, the claim 11 is not patent eligible.
D. Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected on 35 USC 101 because these claims require the calculating results of an available velocity area, the calculating of a velocity obstacle area, the calculating of.an overlapping area, and the calculating of a collision risk from their parent claims 1, and 11. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationales as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per independent claim 1: A method performed by a device, comprising a memory and a processor, for calculating a collision risk of a ship, the method comprising:
calculating an available velocity area based on maneuvering performance of a host ship, the available velocity area being an area comprising available various velocities based on the maneuvering performance;
calculating a velocity obstacle area where there is a possibility of collision between an object and the host ship;
calculating an overlapping area where the available velocity area and the
velocity obstacle area overlap each other; and
calculating a collision risk by applying a corresponding weight value to the overlapping area.
Independent claim 11: A device for calculating a collision risk of a ship, comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to
calculate an available velocity area based on maneuvering performance of a
host ship, the available velocity area being an area comprising available various
velocities based on the maneuvering performance,
calculate a possible collision area/risk of an object and the host ship,
calculate an overlapping area where the available velocity area and the velocity
obstacle area overlap each other; and
calculate a collision risk by applying a corresponding weight value to the
overlapping area.
The examiner fails to perform claimed steps of calculating as required by claimed limitations.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 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. The claimed steps of calculating as required by claimed limitations are unclear.
i. Per dependent claims 4, and 14: The examiner fails to see a clarity in these claims in order to formulate a meaningful search:
- the maneuvering performance of the host ship includes the available various
velocities and available various angular velocities of the host ship (every ship possesses these claimed limitations), and
the calculating of the available velocity area comprises calculating the available
velocity area based on both the available various velocities and the available various
angular velocities of the ship.
This claimed limitation is unclear.
ii. Per dependent claims 5, and 15: The examiner fails to see a clarity in these claims in order to search:
the calculating of the available velocity area (of what ship?) comprises calculating the available
velocity area based on a velocity vector with respect to the movement direction of the
host ship, a velocity vector (of what? How far is it from the host ship?) with respect to a direction perpendicular to the movement
direction of the host ship, and a current angular velocity vector of the host ship.
iii. Per dependent claims 6, and 16: The examiner fails to see a clarity in these claims in order to search (because they are dependent of “unclear” claims 4, and 14):
the calculating of the available velocity area comprises calculating the available
velocity area additionally based on specification of equipment in the host ship, stored
in the memory, including specification of propellers and motors (It is also well-known to estimate a ship’s velocity/performance within an area with claimed data/detailed information)..
iv. Per dependent claims 7, and 17: The examiner fails to see a clarity in these claims in order to search (because they are dependent of “unclear” claims 6, and 16):
the calculating of the available velocity area comprises calculating the available
velocity area additionally based on specification of equipment in the host ship, stored
in the memory, including specification of propellers and motors.
It is also well-known to estimate a ship’s velocity/performance within an area with claimed data/detailed information of a ship’s ability/data).
v. Per dependent claims 8, and 18: The examiner fails to see a clarity in these claims in order to search (because they are dependent of “unclear” claims 6, and 16):
- the calculating of the available velocity area comprises calculating the available
velocity area additionally based on external forces applied to the host ship, the external
forces including sea wind and ocean current (note that applicant broad claims “additionally based on external force” this required limitation is indefinite).
vi. Per dependent claims 9, and 19: The examiner fails to see a clarity in these claims in order to search (because they are dependent of “unclear” claims 1, and 11):
obtaining sensing information of the object by using a plurality of sensors, the
sensing information including a velocity and a direction of the object; and
wherein the calculating a velocity obstacle area comprising:
setting an obstacle area as a circular area having a position of the object after
a predetermined time at a center based on the velocity and the direction of the object,
a diameter of the circular area being determined based on a size of the object, a size
of the host ship and a preset safety range, and
connecting a position of the host ship with points circumscribing the obstacle
area.
The examiner fails to see the purpose of this required step: “
connecting a position of the host ship with points circumscribing the obstacle
area.”
Claim interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
8. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
9. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “...a data capturing unit...” (see claims 1, 7 or 13-14).
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
10. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
11. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function
12. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
13. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: at least one processor is configured to ... ” (see pending “structure” claims 11-20).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding “unique” structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
14. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
15. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
16. Claims 1-3, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kersulec et al (US Pub. 20210166568 A1- hereafter Kersulec’568).
A, Per independent claims 1, and 11: Because the above “calculation” issue, Kersulec’568 teaches a device, and an associated method for estimating a collision risk of a ship, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor (see Kersulec’568, para. [0055]-[0056]) , to:
estimating an available velocity area based on ability/maneuvering performance of a host ship (see Kersulec’568, para. [0021]) (wherein the available velocity area being an area comprising available various velocities based on the maneuvering performance – this claimed language is insignificant),
estimating a possible collision area of an object and the host ship (see Kersulec’568, para. [0132]); and
estimating a collision risk by applying a corresponding weight value to the overlapping area (see Kersulec’568, para. [0137]),
Kersulec’568 does not disclose about calculating an area where the available velocity area and the velocity obstacle area overlap each other (see Kersulec’568, para. [0076]); however, using sensors, and sailing information: moving velocities, directions of ships, estimating “a probability” of overlapping area containing a host ship, and a moving obstacle would be obtained.
. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kersulec’568 to estimating an overlapping area where the available velocity area, and the velocity obstacle area overlap each other because their positions can be monitored anytime with a ship’s display/monitor.
B. Per dependent claims 2, and 12: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Kersulec’568 suggests about controlling maneuvering of the host ship based on the estimated collision risk (e.g., to reduce a collision risk, see Kersulec’568, para. [0106], claim 2).
C. Per dependent claims 3 and 13: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims that for each positions in the area, an available velocity area for each positions in the area, a velocity vector, an acceleration vector, and an angular acceleration vector, and a position vector of the host ship, corresponding to the each of the positions included in the available velocity area, Kersulec’568 suggests about controlling maneuvering of the
host ship based on the estimated collision risk (e.g., to reduce a collision risk, see Kersulec’568, para. [0106], and claim 2).
16. Claims 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kersulec’568 in view of Zhang et al (CN 114331042 A) and in view of Suzuki et al (US Pub. 20200035106 A1)
: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
In addition to Kersule’568 concept, Suzuki et al suggest about generating an avoidance route for the object based on the collision risk (see Suzuki et al., para [0070] [0074]), and Zhang’042 suggests that the controlling maneuvering of the host ship based on the cestimated collision risk comprises the controlling maneuvering of the host ship based on the generated avoidance route (see Zhang’042 page 4, Background“In order to reduce the frequency of the occurrence of the ship collision accidents and reduce the consequences of the collision accidents, scholars in related fields at home and abroad carry out detailed analysis and research on ship collision risks and ship collision avoidance systems”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Kersulec’568 with Zhang et al, and with Suzuki because they are in the same field of endeavor to reduce risk to ship’s collisions.
Conclusion
17. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
18. The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:00AM- 6:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights