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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP24205319.7, filed on 10/08/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
Claims 2-12 and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on claim 1.
Claim 6 further recites the limitation "obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
Claim 9 further recites the limitation "the obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
Claim 11 further recites the limitation "the obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
Claim 18 further recites the limitation "the obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the obstacles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In a previous recitation the claim recites “at least one obstacle”, this includes the alternative where there is only one obstacle, whereas “the obstacle” does not include that alternative.
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 because
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human behavior, and/or c) mental processes.
Regarding claim 1, the claim incudes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute “abstract ideas”. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for generating a path for a marine vessel, the method comprising:
acquiring wind data indicating strength and direction of wind with respect to the marine vessel,
acquiring sea current data indicating strength and direction of current with respect to the marine vessel,
detecting positions of at least one obstacle ahead of the marine vessel,
determining constraints related to passing distance from the obstacles for the marine vessel,
generating a path for the marine vessel for counteracting the wind and current calculated based on the wind data and sea current data while respecting the constraints,
wherein the constraints are adjusted based on the wind data and the current data to ensure a buffer distance to the obstacles, and
providing output data of the generated path.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites determining constraints related to passing distance from the obstacles, generating a path for the marine vessel for counteracting the wind and current calculated based on the wind data and sea current data while respecting the constraints, and adjusting the constraints based on the wind data and the current data to ensure a buffer distance to the obstacles, are all abstract ideas which can be performed in the human mind. For example a captain sees an object such as a dock and determines based on the wind and current that is pushing the boat toward the dock that the boat needs to travel backwards (generate a path backwards) to avoid hitting the dock (buffer).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for generating a path for a marine vessel, the method comprising:
acquiring wind data indicating strength and direction of wind with respect to the marine vessel,
acquiring sea current data indicating strength and direction of current with respect to the marine vessel,
detecting positions of at least one obstacle ahead of the marine vessel,
determining constraints related to passing distance from the obstacles for the marine vessel,
generating a path for the marine vessel for counteracting the wind and current calculated based on the wind data and sea current data while respecting the constraints,
wherein the constraints are adjusted based on the wind data and the current data to ensure a buffer distance to the obstacles, and
providing output data of the generated path.
Whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional limitation (or combination of limitations) 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.
It is clear that Applicant’s claim does not comprise any of the above additional limitations that, individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application.
While the PEG 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 PEG 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f));
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); 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 (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements of “acquiring wind data”, “acquiring sea current data”, and “detecting positions” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of “providing output data of the generated path” amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution (pre-solution activity and/or post-solution activity) activity in Step 2A should be re- evaluated in Step 2B. Here, some the additional elements above were considered to be pre- solution activity and post-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus these additional elements are re- evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional elements are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. 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 additional elements above of acquiring and detecting. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
The providing of the generated path is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data), and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not eligible.
Claims 13-15 are also rejected under the same analysis as claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 2 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 2 recites:
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the generated path is determined such that it minimizes the energy required for counteracting the wind and current.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites minimizing energy which involves an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 3 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 3 recites:
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the path includes using an objective function that includes minimizing the energy required for counteracting the wind and current.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites using an objective function involves an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 4 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 4 recites:
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, the objective function further including minimizing the required propulsion energy of the marine vessel while travelling the path.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites using an objective function including minimizing the required propulsion energy of the marine vessel while travelling the path involves an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 5 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 5 recites:
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein a mathematical model for environmental forces caused by the wind and current on the marine vessel is included in the objective function.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a mathematical model for environmental forces caused by the wind and current on the marine vessel is included in the objective function that involves a mathematical concept.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 6 recites:
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the buffer distance is selected such that it allows an operator to manually avoid obstacles in case of unpredicted events that affect a present path compared to the generated path.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a selection of a buffer distance which is a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 7 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 7 recites:
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment of the constraints depends on the strengths and directions of the wind and current.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites an adjustment of a buffer distance which is a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 8 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 recites:
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the constraints are dynamically adjusted as the wind and current change.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a dynamic adjustment of a buffer distance which is a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 recites:
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the obstacles include moving and static obstacles.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas and what types of objects are in the environment.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 10 recites:
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the method being continuously performed as the marine vessel is operated.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites that the method is performed continuously when the vessel is on, the method was determined to be an abstract idea according to the analysis to claim 1. Therefore, the method is performed continuously in the human mind, and is still an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 11 recites:
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the adjustment includes virtually moving the obstacles in opposite direction to environmental forces calculated based on the wind data and the current data.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites an adjustment which is a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 12 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 12 recites:
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the method being autonomously performed for an at least partly autonomous marine vessel.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, the method being autonomously performed for an at least partly autonomous marine vessel.
The additional element “autonomously performed” 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above -noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional element(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. The claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 16 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 16 recites:
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein generating the path includes using an objective function that includes minimizing the energy required for counteracting the wind and current.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites using an objective function involves an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 17 recites:
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the adjustment of the constraints depends on the strengths and directions of the wind and current.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites an adjustment of a buffer distance which is a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 18 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 18 recites:
18. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the constraints are dynamically adjusted as the wind and current change.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites a dynamic adjustment of a buffer distance which is a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 19 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 19 recites:
19. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the obstacles include moving and static obstacles.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas and what types of objects are in the environment.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 recites:
20. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, the method being continuously performed as the marine vessel is operated.
In the claims broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claim recites that the method is performed continuously when the vessel is on, the method was determined to be an abstract idea according to the analysis to claim 1. Therefore, the method is performed continuously in the human mind, and is still an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of Step 2A analysis in the PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 determined that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above mentioned abstract ideas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2016/0001856 A1 is directed at acquiring wind data indicating strength and direction of wind with respect to the marine vessel [see Paragraph 0040 - discusses sensing wind direction and speed], acquiring sea current data indicating strength and direction of current with respect to the marine vessel [see Paragraph 0040 - discusses sensing ocean current direction and speed], and detecting positions of at least one obstacle ahead of the marine vessel [see Paragraph 0040 - discusses sensing objects (110A-110G)].
U.S. Publication No. 2024/0367765 A1 is directed at determining constraints related to passing distance from the obstacles for the marine vessel [see Paragraph 0042 - discusses determining a preferred distance to an object based on wind and current data].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights