DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 21-40 have been examined in this application. Claims 21-40 are new. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 21, 28, and 35, the claims recite one or more machine learning models trained to predict “future states” of the one or more ships, and a “first predicted state” and second “predicted state.” The disclosure as originally filed does not appear to use the term “future state.” The specification (e.g. ¶0049, 0053, 0163) recites various specific predictions or future values with respect to estimated times of arrival or positions, or courses of action taken by a ship, for example. However, the term “state” is broad enough to encompass any condition of being. The language in the new claims appears to broaden the scope of the claims as compared to the original claims, in a way that is not supported by the written description (see MPEP 2163.05). Therefore, the subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 21, 28, or 35 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 21-40, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 21, the claim recites a method comprising:
receiving (i) first data, from one or more ships navigating waterways, that indicates a current location of the ships and (ii) second data indicating weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating;
generating, using the received first data, the received second data, and one or more machine learning models trained to predict future states of the one or more ships, (i) a first predicted state based on a first action and (ii) a second predicted state based on a second action;
and transmitting, to the one or more ships, the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method comprising:
receiving (i) first data that indicates a current location of the ships (for example a person observing locations of one or two ships, or receiving a table of positions or map of the ships in a waterway) and (ii) second data indicating weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating (the person observing weather conditions or receiving written data of current or forecasted weather);
generating, using the received first data, the received second data, (i) a first predicted state based on a first action (for example the person predicting future risk of ships if they do not change course, due to bad weather) and (ii) a second predicted state based on a second action (for example the person predicting future risk in a case where the ships change course).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the receiving being from one or more ships navigating waterways, the generating using one or more machine learning models trained to predict future states of the one or more ships, and transmitting, to the one or more ships, the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships.
For the receiving from one or more ships navigating waterways and the transmitting, to the one or more ships, the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and the use of generic computer components in their ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For the generating using one or more machine learning models trained to predict future states of the one or more ships, this is recited broadly, without any particular detailed of the model or training other than the state function of predicting. Therefore, the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of machine learning, and does not limit the claim or abstract idea in a meaningful way. Therefore, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and output of data to/from a processor and use of machine learning at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the receiving being from one or more ships navigating waterways, the generating using one or more machine learning models trained to predict future states of the one or more ships, and transmitting, to the one or more ships, the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships.
For the receiving from one or more ships navigating waterways and the transmitting, to the one or more ships, the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are 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) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
For the generating using one or more machine learning models trained to predict future states of the one or more ships, for the same reasons as above, the machine learning model is recited broadly such that the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of machine learning, and does not limit the claim or abstract idea in a meaningful way. This does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20190065951A1 at [0003]).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and output of data to/from a processor and use of machine learning at a high level of generality, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US20190065951A1 at [0003]).
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claims 28 and 35, the claims recite the same abstract idea. The additional elements are the one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform the operations, in Claim 28, and the system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform the operations, in Claim 35. These additional elements are all recitations of generic computer components at a high level of generality, and therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 21.
Dependent Claims 22-27, 29-34, and 36-40 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 22-23, 29-30, and 36-37 further detail predicting of the state being based on an effect of the weather on the ship. This is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can predict future states such as risk or collision or drifting of the ship based on weather information. The claims do not add any new additional elements.
Claims 24-25, 31-32, and 38-39 further recite receiving delay data and predicting of the actions comprising generating predicted delay of a ship traveling through a port. This is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can receive or observe delay data and predict future delays such as by knowing expected delay time for particular ports. The claims do not add any new additional elements.
Claims 26, 33, and 40 recite predicting future state based on route adjustment and predicted weather impact. This is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process, as a person can evaluate forecasted weather and predict how it will affect state such as risk or how wind conditions will affect velocity or fuel usage. A person can also generate an instruction to adjust the route of the ship, such as by writing out course and speed or drawing waypoints. The transmitting is an additional element in the claims but has already been evaluated in the rejection of Claim 21 and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons.
Claims 27 and 34 recite generating an interface with the predicted states and providing the generated interface to a user device and receiving input indicating the first or second action. These are additional elements in the claims, but are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more, as they represent mere extra-solution activity after the abstract idea, and are determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (e.g. see US20080306682A1 at [0004]).
Thus the claims are not patent eligible.
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 21, 26-28, 33-35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication KR20220036593A (Jinhui) (English translation relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2010/0280750A1 (Chen et al.).
Regarding Claim 21, Jinhui discloses a method (see [0015-0016] functions implemented by computer) comprising:
receiving (i) first data, from one or more ships navigating waterways, that indicates a current location of the ships (see [0027] current location of a vessel based on GPS) and (ii) second data indicating weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating (see [0027] weather information);
generating, using the received first data, the received second data (see [0031] based on current location and weather), and one or more machine learning models trained to predict future states of the one or more ships (see [0031] machine learning unit learns to derive recommended routes), (i) a first predicted state based on a first action and (ii) a second predicted state based on a second action (see [0031] “one or more” recommended routes, i.e. the case of “more” including two states based on possible action of following each recommended route [0055] to be implemented);
Jinhui further discloses an input/output unit to output the first and second action (see [0059]) but does not explicitly recite:
transmitting, to the one or more ships, the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships.
Examiner’s note: understood as transmitting by some external component to the one or more ships.
However, Chen et al. teaches a technique for ship route generation (see e.g. [0012]), including:
transmitting, to the one or more ships, the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships (see Figure 3, [0067-0068] route data 314 transmitted to ship [0057, 0058] can be plural routes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Jinhui to be performed offboard with actions sent to a ship as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving convenience by allowing for management from remote locations (see Chen et al., [0061]).
Regarding Claim 26, Jinhui discloses the method of claim 21, wherein generating the first predicted state based on the first action comprises:
generating a predicted state of a ship based on a future adjustment to a route of the ship (see [0036] recommended route can be by appropriate change of course as opposed to without changing course) and a predicted weather impact along the adjusted route of the ship (see [0018] using weather conditions of remaining section of vessel operation as part of recommending routes) based on the second data indicating weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating (see [0018] using weather data, [0027] around vessel and across entire sea), wherein transmitting the first or the second action (see [0059] output of the route in view of the combination with Chen et al. in the rejection of Claim 21) comprises:
transmitting an instruction to the ship (see [0059] output of the route in view of the combination with Chen et al. in the rejection of Claim 21) to adjust the route of the ship to match the adjustment to the route on which the predicted state of the ship is based (see [0059] recommended route, which [0036] may be adjusted route).
Regarding Claim 27, Jinhui discloses the method further comprising:
generating an interface that indicates (i) the first predicted state based on the first action and (ii) the second predicted state based on the second action (see [0023, 0059], and Figure 3, display of plural possible routes);
providing the generated interface to a user device (see [0023] on display screen);
Jinhui does not explicitly recite the method of claim 21, comprising:
receiving, from the generated interface, input indicating the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships.
However, Chen et al. teaches the technique as above, comprising:
receiving, from the generated interface, input indicating the first or the second action to be performed by the one or more ships (see [0104-0105] display of selected route and (see Figure 6) accept button).
The motivation to combine Jinhui and Chen et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 21.
Regarding Claims 28, 33-35, and 40, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 21, 26, and 27. Claims 28, 33, and 34 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 21, 26, and 27, respectively. Claims 35 and 40 pertain to a system corresponding to the method of Claims 21 and 26, respectively. Claims 28, 33-35, and 40 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 21, 26, and 27 (other than the computer components which are addressed in the rejection of Claim 21 above), and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 22, 23, 29, 30, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication KR20220036593A (Jinhui) (English translation relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2010/0280750A1 (Chen et al.), further in view of Publication CN108154444A (Lu) (English translation relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 22, Jinhui further discloses the use of second data indicating the weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating (see [0018] weather data at current location and remaining section of vessel operation).
Jinhui does not explicitly recite the method of claim 21, wherein generating (i) the first predicted state and (ii) the second predicted state comprises:
generating a predicted delay of a ship along a waterway based on the second data indicating the weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating.
However, Lu teaches a technique of predicting future states of a ship (see [0005] for modes of transportation including ships), comprising:
generating a predicted delay of a ship along a waterway (see [0038] predictive model for determining probability of various delays [0005] as applied to ship) based on the second data indicating the weather data (see [0038] based on delay factor of weather data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the prediction of travel using weather of Jinhui to additional predict delay information as taught by Lu, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of further optimizing routes by improving prediction accuracy by incorporating delays and improving system marketability by providing integration with insurance services (see Lu, [0005-0009]).
Regarding Claim 23, as above, Jinhui discloses the use of second data indicating the weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating (see [0018] weather data at current location and remaining section of vessel operation).
Jinhui does not explicitly recite the method of claim 22, wherein generating the predicted delay of the ship comprises:
predicting an effect of weather on the ship along a predicted path of the waterway based on the second data indicating the weather data of the waterways where the ships are navigating.
However, Lu teaches the technique as above, wherein generating the predicted delay of the ship comprises:
predicting an effect of weather on the ship along a predicted path of the waterway (see [0038] predicting probability of different delay types/amounts, i.e. predicting effect in terms of hours [0005] as applied to ship travel) based on the second data indicating the weather data (see [0038]).
The motivation to combine Jinhui and Lu was provided in the rejection of Claim 22.
Regarding Claims 29, 30, 36, and 37, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 22 and 23. Claims 29 and 30 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 22 and 23, respectively. Claims 36 and 37 pertain to a system corresponding to the method of Claims 22 and 23, respectively. Claims 29, 30, 36, and 37 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 22 and 23, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 24, 25, 31, 32, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication KR20220036593A (Jinhui) (English translation relied upon for citations) in view of Publication US2010/0280750A1 (Chen et al.), further in view of Publication EP3879468A1 (Hilgenfeld).
Regarding Claim 24, Jinhui further discloses the predicted actions including an operating port section (see [0072]).
Jinhui does not explicitly recite the method of claim 21, comprising:
receiving third data indicating one or more delays at ports along the waterways, wherein generating (i) the first predicted state based on the first action and (ii) the second predicted state based on the second action comprises:
generating a predicted delay of a ship traveling through a port based on delay data of the port indicated by the third data indicating the one or more delays at ports along the waterways.
However, Hilgenfeld teaches a technique in predicting sea travel information (see e.g. [0001]) comprising:
receiving third data indicating one or more delays at ports along the waterways (see [0028] current delays or laytimes for terminals at seaports), wherein generating (i) the first predicted state based on the first action and (ii) the second predicted state based on the second action (see [0028] calculation of ETA and ETD of other vessels upcoming ports) comprises:
generating a predicted delay of a ship traveling through a port based on delay data of the port indicated by the third data indicating the one or more delays at ports along the waterways (see [0028] when delay is indicated, based on the current delay/laytime data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the route information of Jinhui to incorporate delay at ports as taught by Hilgenfeld, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy of expected routes and schedules and improving fuel efficiency (see Hilgenfeld, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 25, Jinhui does not explicitly recite the method of claim 24, wherein receiving the third data indicating the one or more delays at ports along the waterways comprises:
receiving data indicating one or more historical delays at the ports along the waterways, wherein generating the predicted delay of the ship traveling through the port based on delay data of the port indicated by the third data comprises:
generating the predicted delay of the ship traveling through the port based on historical delay of the one or more historical delays at the port along the waterways.
However, Hilgenfeld teaches the technique as above,
wherein receiving the third data indicating the one or more delays at ports along the waterways comprises:
receiving data indicating one or more historical delays at the ports along the waterways (see [0028] past laytimes at same terminal), wherein generating the predicted delay of the ship traveling through the port based on delay data of the port indicated by the third data comprises:
generating the predicted delay of the ship traveling through the port based on historical delay of the one or more historical delays at the port along the waterways (see [0028] based on current laytime significantly exceeding the past laytimes).
The motivation to combine Jinhui and Hilgenfeld was provided in the rejection of Claim 24.
Regarding Claims 31, 32, 38, and 39, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 24 and 25. Claims 31 and 32 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 24 and 25, respectively. Claims 38 and 39 pertain to a system corresponding to the method of Claims 24 and 25, respectively. Claims 31, 32, 38, and 39 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 24 and 25, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
