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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application EP 24197290 on 29 August 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 19 August 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawker (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0206460) in view of Carvalho-Ruehle (U.S. Patent No. 12,662,229).
For claim 1, Hawker discloses a computer system for mapping surroundings of a marine vessel, the computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain, at a first location of the marine vessel, first distance data from a set of distance sensors (see para. 0070), the set of distance sensors comprising a bow-mounted sensor (see para. 0243) arranged to monitor a first area at least involving surroundings adjacent to the bow and a first side of the marine vessel (see paras. 0243, 0100), and a stern-mounted sensor arranged to monitor a second area at least involving surroundings adjacent to the stern and a second side, opposite the first side, of the marine vessel (see Fig. 2A, #210, paras. 0100-0101), wherein the bow-mounted sensor is arranged at a first edge portion between the first side and the bow (see para. 0243), wherein the stern-mounted sensor is arranged at a second edge portion between the second side and the stern (see Fig. 2A, #216, paras. 0100-0101), and generate a surroundings map based on the first distance data (see Fig. 2A, #210, Fig. 2J; paras. 0111, 0113), the surroundings map comprising at least two unmapped areas (see Fig. 2J), each unmapped area indicating blind spots of at least partially incomplete surroundings representations (see Fig. 2J); obtain, at a second location of the marine vessel, different from the first location, second distance data from the set of distance sensors (see para. 0111, prior image data implies different locations); and cause one or more updates to the unmapped areas of the surroundings map based on the second distance data (see para. 0111).
Hawker does not explicitly disclose the arrangement of the sensors. However, Hawker teaches that the number of sensors and distance ranging apparatus that may be incorporated is open to numerous different configurations that are dependent on the requirements of the vessel and/or manufacturer (see paras. 0100-0103, 0110-0114). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to be modified to only include a bow-mounted sensor and the stern-mounted sensor based on the specifications of the vessel and reasonable expectation of success along with the motivation to improve an autopilot assistance may include monitoring control signals communicated between a manual user interface and a navigation control system for a mobile structure, identifying maneuvering signals generated by the manual user interface based, at least in part, on the monitored control signals, and determining a maneuvering protocol corresponding to the manual user interface based, at least in part, on the identified maneuvering signals (see para. 0011).
A teaching from Carvalho-Ruehle discloses active sensors that are diagonal from each other and each sensor having a diagonal view of the vessel (see Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hawker to include the teachings of Carvalho-Ruehle based on the open flexibility disclosed by Hawker, a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve controlling an imaging system for a marine vessel, and more particularly to systems and methods for selecting images from the imaging system that are displayed on a display device (see col. 1:7-10).
Regarding claim 3, Hawker further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain positioning data from a positioning sensor, and cause said updates to the unmapped areas based on the positioning data (see para. 0111, un-imaged areas; see paras. 0066-0069, position).
Pertaining to claim 4, Hawker further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain IMU data from an IMU, and cause said updates to the unmapped areas based on the IMU data (see paras. 0066-0069, equivalent to IMU, used in para. 0247).
With reference to claim 5, Hawker further discloses obtain navigational data from a navigation system, and cause said updates to the unmapped areas based on the navigational data (see paras. 0246, 0247).
With regards to claim 6, Hawker further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to present the surroundings map at a display device of the marine vessel (see Figs. 2J, 2K).
For claim 7, Hawker further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control a navigational operation of the marine vessel based on the surroundings map where said one or more updates have been caused (see paras. 0246, 0247).
Regarding claim 8, Hawker further discloses wherein the navigational operation is an assisted docking maneuver (see abstract).
Referring to claim 9, Hawker further discloses wherein the navigational operation is a collision avoidance maneuver (see para. 0134).
Pertaining to claim 10, Hawker further discloses wherein the navigational operation is an autopilot maneuver (see para. 0135).
With reference to claim 11, Hawker further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control an input device of the marine vessel based on the surroundings map where said one or more updates have been caused (see para. 0135).
For claim 12, Hawker further teaches wherein the control of the input device is a force feedback control (see paras. 0065, 0190).
With regards to claim 13, Hawker further discloses wherein the unmapped areas depend on physical properties of the marine vessel and the location of the first and second edge portion (see para. 0111).
Claim 14 contains elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to elements and subject matter defined in claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
For claim 15, Hawker does not explicitly disclose the sensors FOV. However, Hawker teaches that the sensor field-of-view may be “relatively wide” (see para. 0099). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to be modified to include a relatively wide FOV of 270 degrees based on the specifications of the vessel and reasonable expectation of success along with the motivation to improve an autopilot assistance may include monitoring control signals communicated between a manual user interface and a navigation control system for a mobile structure, identifying maneuvering signals generated by the manual user interface based, at least in part, on the monitored control signals, and determining a maneuvering protocol corresponding to the manual user interface based, at least in part, on the identified maneuvering signals (see para. 0011).
Referring to claim 16, Hawker further discloses wherein the first and second edge portions are disposed at a main body or a roof of the marine vessel (see Fig. 2A; see Also Carvalho-Ruehle, Fig. 5).
Pertaining to claim 17, Hawker further teaches further comprising a display device configured to present the surroundings map (see paras. 0060, 0111).
Claims 18-20 contain elements and subject matter that is substantially similar to elements and subject matter defined in claim 1. Claims 18-20 are is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
