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 references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 09/30/2025 and 02/24/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 5, recites “identify the at least one anomaly where said one or more portions are identified” but should recite – identify the at least one anomaly where said one or more portions of the lidar data are identified –
Claim 20, line 2, recites “processing circuitry , cause the” but should recite – processing circuitry, cause the –
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the Examiner what a substantially flat surface includes and the specification does not provide any details as to what substantially flat means in the claims. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 2-17 and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said passengers" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-17 and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lidar data" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program product comprising program code, which is explicitly defined in the MPEP 21.06.03 as being NOT directed to one of the statutory categories (software per se).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are directed towards a system, i.e., machine. Claims 18-20 are directed towards a method, i.e., process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The system in claims 1-9 and 11-17 (also, the method in claims 18-20, respectively) is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claims 1 and 18, the method/system (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) identify at least one anomaly in an outer surface of the second marine vessel, the anomaly indicating a deviation in the outer surface from a substantially flat surface and being adapted to accommodate one or more of the first marine vessel and a passenger transported thereby and (b) based on the anomaly, determine an accommodating location adapted to accommodate the first marine vessel for a subsequent transport of said passengers from the first marine vessel to the second marine vessel. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person can identify an anomaly in an outer surface of the second marine vessel and based on the anomaly, determine an accommodating location adapted to accommodate the first marine vessel for a subsequent transport of said passengers from the first marine vessel to the second marine vessel, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that this is being performed by processing circuitry (i.e., a computer) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of a “processing circuitry”. The processing circuitry is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Generate one or more driving instructions adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, generate one or more driving instructions adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, displaying the driving instruction as visual guidance as recited in claim 11. The recitation “adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location” is an intended use of the driving instructions and not an actual use of the driving instructions (e.g., like claim 10 where autonomous control is occurring). As an intended use of the driving instructions, the claim does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 18 recites the additional element of a “processing circuitry of a computer system”. The processing circuitry is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Generating one or more driving instructions adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, generating one or more driving instructions adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, displaying the driving instruction as visual guidance as recited in claim 11. The recitation “adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location” is an intended use of the driving instructions and not an actual use of the driving instructions (e.g., like claim 10 where autonomous control is occurring). As an intended use of the driving instructions, the claim does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Generate one or more driving instructions adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location is transmitting data over a network (i.e., from one computing device networked to another computing device). Therefore, the limitation “generate one or more driving instructions adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 18 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 18 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 2-9, 11-17 and 19-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 2-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-12, 14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 20240142979 A1) in view of Rostrøm et al. (US 20210129952 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Tyers teaches a computer system for passenger transport management from a first marine vessel to a second marine vessel, the computer system comprising processing circuitry (¶[0024] “processor control unit”) configured to: identify at least one anomaly in an outer surface of the second marine vessel (¶[0037] “detects and transmits a set of distance and velocity information relating to the distance between the port side of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70”), the anomaly indicating a deviation in the outer surface from a substantially flat surface (¶[0037] “detects and transmits a set of distance and velocity information relating to the distance between the port side of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70”); and generate one or more driving instructions adapted to cause positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location (¶[0037]-[0044] “automatic docking” “automatic control of marine vessel positioning”).
Tyers does not explicitly teach the anomaly being adapted to accommodate one or more of the first marine vessel and a passenger transported thereby; based on the anomaly, determine an accommodating location adapted to accommodate the first marine vessel for a subsequent transport of said passengers from the first marine vessel to the second marine vessel. However, Rostrøm discloses methods and devices for predicting vessel bow motion and teaches the anomaly being adapted to accommodate one or more of the first marine vessel and a passenger transported thereby (¶[0007] “crew transfer vessel” “transferring a person between a crew transfer vessel and a structure”; ¶[0014] “floating structure”; ¶[0038] “dock”); based on the anomaly, determine an accommodating location adapted to accommodate the first marine vessel for a subsequent transport of said passengers from the first marine vessel to the second marine vessel (¶[0038] “prediction system may give an indication to the skipper as to how to approach and dock”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic location placement system of Tyers to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, the anomaly being adapted to accommodate one or more of the first marine vessel and a passenger transported thereby; based on the anomaly, determine an accommodating location adapted to accommodate the first marine vessel for a subsequent transport of said passengers from the first marine vessel to the second marine vessel, as taught by Rostrøm, to provide transferring a person between a crew transfer vessel and a structure. (Rostrøm at ¶[0007])
Regarding claim 2, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain sensing data of the outer surface from one or more sensors mounted to the first marine vessel (¶[0037] “transducers 41P, 42P, 44P and 45P detects and transmits a set of distance and velocity information relating to the distance between the port side of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70”); and identify the at least one anomaly by processing the sensing data (¶[0037] “distance and velocity information relating to the distance between the port side of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70”).
Regarding claim 5, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 2, the sensors comprising cameras (¶[0083] “cameras”), the sensing data comprising image data (¶[0083] “cameras”), the processing circuitry being further configured to process the image data to identify the anomaly (¶[0080]-[0081] “vision ranging photograph system”; ¶[0098] “relation between the marine vessel and the target location adjacent to an external object”).
Regarding claim 6, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 2, the sensors comprising positioning sensors (¶[0037] “detects and transmits a set of distance and velocity information relating to the distance between the port side of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70” “”), the sensing data comprising positioning data indicating a position of the accommodating location (¶[0080]-[0081] “vision ranging photograph system”; ¶[0098] “relation between the marine vessel and the target location adjacent to an external object”).
Regarding claim 7, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 2, the sensors comprising inertial measurement units, IMUs, the sensing data comprising IMU data (¶[0006] “inertial measurement unit”).
Regarding claim 9, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to automatically set a predefined speed based on the driving instructions (¶[0047] regarding maintaining a max velocity at five knots).
Regarding claim 10, Tyers teaches the computer system according to claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause autonomous control of the first marine vessel along a generated alignment path based on the generated driving instructions (¶[0108] “determining a path of travel”), the alignment path being generated from a current position of the first marine vessel to the accommodating location (¶[0108] “maintain the vessel's path of travel to the targeted location” “desired parking location relative to marine vessel”).
Regarding claim 11, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured control a display device of the first marine vessel to display the driving instruction as visual guidance (¶[0100]-[0108] “display the mapping of the environment (e.g., to an operator of the marine vessel 1001)”), wherein the visual guidance comprises a first visual cue at a visual representation of the first marine vessel and a second visual cue at a visual representation of the second marine vessel (¶[0100]-[0108] regarding updating mapping and overlays, incorporating any obstacle-related data, compute one or more paths, calculates a travel distance and angle to an obstacle (e.g., the closest obstacle) and generates a mapping of desired parking location relative to marine vessel location (x-position, y-position, relative angle)), wherein the aligning of the first and second visual cues indicating a correct positioning of the first marine vessel at the accommodating location (¶[0100]-[0108] regarding updating mapping and overlays, incorporating any obstacle-related data, compute one or more paths, calculates a travel distance and angle to an obstacle (e.g., the closest obstacle) and generates a mapping of desired parking location relative to marine vessel location (x-position, y-position, relative angle); ¶[0107] “automatically control at least one drive system of the marine vessel 1001 to steer the marine vessel 1001 into the targeted location”).
Regarding claim 12, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provide a plurality of suggestions of accommodating locations to the display device (¶[0093] “enabling an operator of the marine vessel to select a targeted location on the touch screen monitor”, i.e., from multiple options).
Regarding claim 14, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 1, the anomaly being indicative of one or more of: a reflective element attached to the outer surface; a transportation structure mounted to the second marine vessel, and an opening in the outer surface of the second marine vessel (¶[0037] “detects and transmits a set of distance and velocity information relating to the distance between the port side of the marine vessel 60 and an external object 70; in one embodiment, the external object 70, includes, but is not limited to a dock, another marine vessel, or other similar structure”).
Regarding claim 17, Tyers teaches a marine vessel comprising the computer system of claim 1 (¶[0006] “marine vessel” “central processing unit”).
Regarding claim 19, Tyers teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 18 (¶[0121]-[0123] “memory”).
Regarding claim 20, Tyers teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 18 (¶[0121]-[0123] “memory”).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 20240142979 A1) in view of Rostrøm et al. (US 20210129952 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Dake et al. (US 20210347449 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 2, the sensors comprising distance sensors (¶[0036]-[0037] “distance sensing transducers”), the sensing data comprising distance data (¶[0037] “distance and velocity information”).
The combination of Tyers and Rostrøm does not explicitly teach the processing circuitry being further configured to: identify one or more portions of the lidar data involving absence and/or deviations in distance measurements; and identify the at least one anomaly where said one or more portions are identified. However, Dake discloses an automatic docking device and teaches the processing circuitry being further configured to: identify one or more portions of the lidar data involving absence and/or deviations in distance measurements; and identify the at least one anomaly where said one or more portions are identified (¶[0047] “LiDAR 21 detects the presence or absence of an object in the surroundings and, if there is an object, detects the distance to the object on the basis of the time between the irradiation of the pulsed light and the receipt of the reflected light”; ¶[0077] “long-range measurement prepares the data necessary to automatically navigate and dock the ship”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic location placement system of Tyers as modified by Rostrøm to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, the processing circuitry being further configured to: identify one or more portions of the lidar data involving absence and/or deviations in distance measurements; and identify the at least one anomaly where said one or more portions are identified, as taught by Dake, to provide smoothly performing automatic docking with the use of the measured data. (Dake at ¶[0007])
Regarding claim 4, Tyers teaches the computer system of claim 3, wherein the distance sensors are one or more of lidar sensors and radar sensors (¶[0084] “LIDAR”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 20240142979 A1) in view of Rostrøm et al. (US 20210129952 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bangslund et al. (WO 2017167905 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tyers and Rostrøm does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry of the first vessel is in operative communication with (i) processing circuitry of second vessel, or (ii) processing circuitry of an external server, the first vessel being configured to obtain vessel properties of the outer surface of the second vessel from (i) the second vessel, or (ii) the external server, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the at least one anomaly based on the vessel properties of the outer surface. However, Bangslund discloses a boat or ship with a collision prevention system and teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry of the first vessel is in operative communication with (i) processing circuitry of second vessel, or (ii) processing circuitry of an external server, the first vessel being configured to obtain vessel properties of the outer surface of the second vessel from (i) the second vessel, or (ii) the external server, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the at least one anomaly based on the vessel properties of the outer surface (page 7 “wireless communication unit”, i.e., communication between vessels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic location placement system of Tyers as modified by Rostrøm to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry of the first vessel is in operative communication with (i) processing circuitry of second vessel, as taught by Bangslund, to provide broadcasting the intentions of the boat to other vessels. (Bangslund at page 7)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 20240142979 A1) in view of Rostrøm et al. (US 20210129952 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Kabel et al. (US 20120290200 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tyers and Rostrøm does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a 3D model of the second marine vessel; and cause the display device to display the generated 3D model. However, Kabel discloses a marine vessel navigation device and teaches the computer system of claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a 3D model of the second marine vessel (¶[0109] “three-dimensional representations of objects”); and cause the display device to display the generated 3D model (¶[0109] “display three-dimensional representations of objects detected by marine surface radar such as land, other vessels, buoys, lights, docks, bridges, or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic location placement system of Tyers as modified by Rostrøm to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate a 3D model of the second marine vessel; and cause the display device to display the generated 3D model, as taught by Kabel, to provide displaying visual aids to emphasize objects that are difficult to see due to their size or distance. (Kabel at ¶[0110])
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyers (US 20240142979 A1) in view of Rostrøm et al. (US 20210129952 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Carvalho-Ruehle et al. (US 12559212 B1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tyers and Rostrøm does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry further configured to: obtain historical anomaly data being indicative of previous aligning events; and identify said at least one anomaly based on the historical anomaly data. However, Carvalho-Ruehle discloses a system and method for controlling docking for a marine vessel and teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry further configured to: obtain historical anomaly data being indicative of previous aligning events (Col. 12, line 59 to Col. 13, line 54, regarding storing a database of previously successful docking executions); and identify said at least one anomaly based on the historical anomaly data (Col. 12, line 59 to Col. 13, line 54, regarding recognizing permitted docking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic location placement system of Tyers as modified by Rostrøm to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry further configured to: obtain historical anomaly data being indicative of previous aligning events; and identify said at least one anomaly based on the historical anomaly data, as taught by Carvalho-Ruehle, to provide reducing the time required for the control system to determine an appropriate docking location for the marine vessel. (Carvalho-Ruehle at Col. 15, lines 59-61)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tyers and Rostrøm does not explicitly teach the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to actuate an alert mechanism of the first marine vessel to cause a notification in response to an identification of said at least one anomaly. However, Carvalho-Ruehle discloses a system and method for controlling docking for a marine vessel and teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to actuate an alert mechanism of the first marine vessel to cause a notification in response to an identification of said at least one anomaly (Col. 11, lines 35-48, “the potential docking surfaces 105 may be bolded or otherwise highlighted on the display to indicate they are available for selection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic location placement system of Tyers as modified by Rostrøm to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to actuate an alert mechanism of the first marine vessel to cause a notification in response to an identification of said at least one anomaly, as taught by Carvalho-Ruehle, to provide reducing the time required for the control system to determine an appropriate docking location for the marine vessel. (Carvalho-Ruehle at Col. 15, lines 59-61)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arbuckle et al. (US 10429845 B2) is pertinent because it is a system and method for controlling a position of a marine vessel near an object.
Vandenworm (WO 2016137644 A2) is pertinent because it is a method using a floatable offshore depot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
