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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on Jul. 29, 2025. Claims 1-4 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claims Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the planner changes number of laps”, Examiner suggests reciting “wherein the planner changes the number of laps” or any appropriate correction.
Claim 1 recites “the power-generating floating body” and “the power generation floating body”, This inconsistency should be corrected to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of:
The claims fall within the statutory category of a "machine" or "system" (Step 1: YES). However, under the Alice/Mayo two-part test (Step 2), the claims risk rejection for being directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong One: The "planner" performs calculations based on "weather forecasts accuracy" and "sea condition forecasts accuracy" to "change the number of laps". This is an administrative or mathematical process that can be characterized as a mental process or a method of organizing human activity. The MPEP states that mental processes include "thinking" and "calculating" that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?. The claim describes a system for planning routes for floating bodies. While the specification asserts a "technical effect" of improving "operational efficiency", the claim language itself does not recite a specific technical improvement to computer functionality or a transformation of a physical article into a different state.
Step 2B: The claim limitations (collecting energy via transport ship, circulating between points) appear to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the maritime and energy sectors. Merely implementing the abstract idea of route adjustment based on data accuracy on a generic system does not provide "significantly more" than the exception itself.
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 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.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20230324181 (hereinafter, "Kinoshita") in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20180141622 (hereinafter, "Zhou").
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita discloses a route planning system for planning a route (“FIG. 4 is a diagram for describing an example of fuel ship course candidate generation processing in an adjustment range calculation unit of Embodiment 1” (para 0016)) for …
the route planning system comprising a planner configured to plan a route for the power-generating floating body (“the imbalance countermeasure amount calculation unit 12 adjusts the power generation plan and the ship allocation plan on the basis of the adjustable range of the power generation plan created in S11 and the ship allocation plan created in S13” (para 0046)) circulating between a meeting point (Fig. 8, #Supply location), at which a transport ship collecting energy from the power-generating floating body (Fig. 8, #Supply location), meets the power-generating floating body and a turning point different from the meeting point as the route (“as an advance preparation, the power generation planning device 10 generates, as an initial plan, for example, a ship allocation plan for fuel utilization indicating an arrival location, an arrival time, and fuel to be transported of a fuel ship, and a power generation plan indicating the start time and stop time and power generation amount of each generator and the transition of the fuel tank level for generating power equivalent to the power demand” (para 0035)),
wherein the planner changes number of laps the power generation floating body circulates the route before meeting with the transport ship (“The adjustment range calculation unit 11 generates these course candidates as an adjustable range. Note that the cost accompanying the travel differs among the course candidates i depending on the speed adjustment and destination change, and therefore the cost C.sub.i=τC.sub.ij required for fuel transport such as the travel cost is calculated for each candidate” (para 0044)) on the basis of at least one of weather forecasts accuracy and sea condition forecasts accuracy (“from past information indicating a prediction value of weather regarding transport of the power generation fuel and delay of the arrival time due to weather, a prediction model by learning a relationship between the weather and the delay, and predicts a change width of the arrival time from an original ship allocation plan on the basis of the prediction model and sequentially updated prediction values of weather, in which the adjustment range calculation unit generates the course candidate on the basis of the change width of power demand or the change width of the arrival time estimated by the imbalance estimation unit to calculate the transport cost” (para 0125)).
However, Kinoshita does not explicitly teach
… a power-generating floating body that generates electricity while sailing on the sea,
Zhou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
… a power-generating floating body that generates electricity while sailing on the sea (“FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 show a universal offshore platform, and the universal offshore platform comprises a truss body (01) forming a supporting system of the platform” (para 0045)),
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Kinoshita with the teachings of Zhou in order to provide a stable power generation system based on the universal offshore platform, which can make full use of sea waves to generate electricity and can greatly reduce the cost normally used on the universal offshore platform; see Zhou at least at [0005].
Regarding claim 2, Kinoshita discloses the route planning system according to claim 1. Additionally, Kinoshita discloses wherein the route planning system comprises an adjuster configured to adjust the meeting point and time at which the power-generating floating body and the transport ship meet (“By using these long-term predictions of hydrographic and meteorological phenomena in each location at each time that have a great impact on the travel time period of a fuel ship as an input, the arrival time from port to port is predicted by the prediction model of Formulae (4) to (7). Incidentally, assume that the relationship between hydrographic and meteorological phenomena data and arrival time is learned by Formulae (4) to (7) in advance by past data to construct a prediction model” (para 0084)) when energy stored in the power-generating floating body reaches an upper limit before the power-generating floating body meets the transport ship (“one candidate course for each fuel ship is selected from among the plurality of course candidates generated by combining the speed adjustment and destination change of the fuel ship within the range satisfying the operational constraints of power generation operation and fuel utilization such as the fuel tank level” (para 0046)).
Regarding claim 3, Kinoshita discloses the route planning system according to claim 1. Additionally, Kinoshita discloses wherein the planner increases the number of laps compared to when both the weather forecast accuracy and the sea condition forecast accuracy are high, when at least one of the weather forecast accuracy and the sea condition forecast accuracy is low (“from past information indicating a prediction value of weather regarding transport of the power generation fuel and delay of the arrival time due to weather, a prediction model by learning a relationship between the weather and the delay, and predicts a change width of the arrival time from an original ship allocation plan on the basis of the prediction model and sequentially updated prediction values of weather, in which the adjustment range calculation unit generates the course candidate on the basis of the change width of power demand or the change width of the arrival time estimated by the imbalance estimation unit to calculate the transport cost” (para 0125)).
Regarding claim 4, Kinoshita discloses the route planning system according to claim 1. Additionally, Kinoshita discloses wherein the planner changes the turning point so that the number of laps changes on the basis of at least one of the weather forecast accuracy and the sea condition forecast accuracy (“from past information indicating a prediction value of weather regarding transport of the power generation fuel and delay of the arrival time due to weather, a prediction model by learning a relationship between the weather and the delay, and predicts a change width of the arrival time from an original ship allocation plan on the basis of the prediction model and sequentially updated prediction values of weather, in which the adjustment range calculation unit generates the course candidate on the basis of the change width of power demand or the change width of the arrival time estimated by the imbalance estimation unit to calculate the transport cost” (para 0125)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00AM – 7:30PM EST.
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 on (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 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 PAIR. 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 571-272-1000.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights