DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 10/30/2025. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 14-21 were canceled.
Claims 1-13 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5, filed “Each of claims 1-13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly indefinite for failing to particularly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. With this Response, the Applicant amends the claims to remove recitations of "the structure" and to instead recite the "vessel." The Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of these rejections” on 10/30/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
As to point (A), the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112 of Claims 1-13 has been withdrawn.
(B) Applicant's arguments filed “As the Applicant argued previously, the claimed system differs from the subject matter of the cited references as it provides a swimming, not crawling, underwater robotic vehicle. The swimming configuration does not require being attached to and driven on wheels along a vessel to enable cleaning, such as described by Holappa, or to enable vessel inspection, such as described by Rodocker. Instead, the claimed vehicle moves freely through three-dimensional space underwater to navigate to the vessel, and about the vessel while operating the cleaning elements to clean the vessel, without being driven along the vessel on wheels (or similar). This configuration greatly enhances the range of geometries which can be cleaned by the vehicle as its progress around the vessel is not limited by the geometry of the vessel. The limited motion provided by wheeled crawling type robots is explicitly acknowledged by Holappa, noting [in relation to the "MARS" sonar sensors] at para [0062]: "With just a single sensor in front of each wheel 29, any holes on the surface can be detected before the wheel can fall in."” on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Rodocker disclosed a plurality of thrusters operable to move the vehicle freely in three-dimensional space through the water in para 48 “Vehicle 10 preferably includes a plurality of thrusters 15 that enable the vehicle to maneuver through open water, such as when approaching and returning from a target vessel. In the embodiment of FIGS. 2 and 3, thrusters 15 are arranged to provide forward motion and vertical motion, and to roll the vehicle about its longitudinal axis. Additional thrusters may be included to provide additional degrees of translation or rotation” while Holappa disclosed a plurality of thrusters operable to move the vehicle against and along the vessel to clean the vessel in Para 48 “the cleaning system attaches to the surface 19 through the use of thrusters 24 that accelerate the fluid from a first side of the thruster 25 to a second side of the thruster 26 as shown in FIG. 7”. The combination of Rodocker and Holappa would fully teach the amended limitations.
(C) Applicant's arguments filed “Furthermore, as amended, the claimed system navigates underwater based on analysis of video footage recorded by a plurality of optical cameras. This approach can advantageously simplify construction of the vehicle and/or processing requirements, while enhancing navigational accuracy. The Office should appreciate that the vast majority of underwater vehicles do not operate in this way, instead relaying on acoustic-based navigation, such as sonar. Generally, acoustic-based navigation is preferable when travelling through open water due to the absence of visible features to guide navigation, and/or the short range achievable with optical cameras in an underwater environment, which is often hazy and/or turbulent. The claimed system has surprisingly achieved reliable and accurate optical-based navigation which enables travel to/from the vessel, mapping cleaning paths on to the vessel, driving the vehicle along the cleaning paths, and real-time monitoring and positional adjustment to maintain accurate motion - all based on assessing video footage recorded by cameras.” on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (C), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Holappa disclosed assessing the footage to determine geometry of the structure, and, responsive to determining the geometry, execute a mapping process to define cleaning paths to drive the vehicle along to clean the structure in Para 60 “a structured laser light (“SLL”) sensor, which includes a laser line generator 60 and an imaging sensor 61, is mounted on the periphery of the cleaning system and used to detect any feature in the path of the HullBUG cleaning system as illustrated in FIG. 17. In operation, laser line generator 60 projects a line onto the surface of the hull 19. The laser is at a shallow angle to the surface such that irregularities from a smooth straight surface will cause the line to become irregular or discontinuous. The miniature video sensor 61 images the line and signal processing techniques are used to determine the extent of the surface irregularity. The acquired surface information is analyzed by the controller 4, which makes a decision to go over or around the discovered irregularity”, Para 64 “geometrically complex features such as anodes and cavities may be disposed on surface 19. An imaging or bathymetric SONAR 74 may be implemented and used to detect these features and the previously described features as shown in FIG. 21” and Para 65 “The use of an intelligent camera system 81 may assist in maintaining the positional accuracy as the HullBUG cleaning system navigates along an underwater surface. A camera system 81 or a SONAR system 74 enables feature recognition and thereby allows the absolute position to be updated”. Holappa would fully teach the amended limitations.
(D) Applicant's arguments filed “the Applicant further refines the scope of claim 1 to recite additional novel and non-obvious features, including the cleaning elements carried at the top of the vehicle, the positions of at least two of the cameras at the front and top of the vehicle and their relationship to the cleaning elements, and the lighting elements associated with the cameras.” on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (D), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Holappa operating at the bottom of the vessel would be upside down with the cleaning elements at the top of the vehicle. Holappa further disclosed two of the cameras at the front and top of the vehicle with miniature video sensor 61 and camera system 81. Lastly, Rodocker included details regarding “Lights 22 are mounted on frame 11 to provide illumination for camera 18” which would fully encompass the claimed limitations.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing unit” in claim 1-9, 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Base on applicant’s remark “The Applicant declares that the "processing unit" as recited in the amended claims is a central processing unit/digital processing unit, which is a well-known component with sufficient structure that is not a means-plus-function limitation” filed on 6/23/2025, the “processing unit” in claim 1-9, 13 is interpreted as a central processing unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-3, 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLAPPA (US20130298817A1) in view of YOUB (KR20160027586A) and Rodocker (US20070276552A1).
In regards to claim 1, HOLAPPA teaches A system for removing fouling from underwater structures of a non-static vessel carried on a body of water, the system comprising:
a vehicle operable to move through the water and clean the vessel(HOLAPPA: Fig. 1; Para 6 “A cleaning system is disclosed that includes a chassis supporting a propulsion system for propelling the cleaning system across a surface. At least one sensor of a first type is coupled to the chassis, and a surface engagement mechanism is configured to maintain the cleaning system coupled to the surface as the propulsion system propels the cleaning system across the surface. A cleaning device is coupled to the chassis and configured to abrade the fouling from the surface, and a controller coupled to the chassis and in signal communication with the propulsion system and the first sensor. The controller is configured to receive a signal from the at least one sensor of the first type and control the propulsion system in response to the signal”; Para 9 “A method of cleaning a surface of a hull disposed under a surface of a liquid is also disclosed in which a cleaning device is coupled to a chassis and maintains in contact with the surface of the hull using a surface engagement mechanism supported by the chassis. The chassis is propelled across the surface of the hull by a propulsion system supported by the chassis. The surface of the hull is abraded by a cleaning device coupled to the chassis”), the vehicle having:
a body housing a plurality of thrusters … operable to move the vehicle against and along the vessel to clean the vessel(HOLAPPA: Fig. 7 Element 24; Fig. 15; Para 48 “the cleaning system attaches to the surface 19 through the use of thrusters 24 that accelerate the fluid from a first side of the thruster 25 to a second side of the thruster 26 as shown in FIG. 7. An example of such commercially available thruster is the Model HPDC 1509 available from SeaRobotix Inc. of San Diego Calif. One skilled in the art will understand that other thrusters for use on Remote Operated Vehicles and utilize propellers 27 to accelerate the fluid and provide an axial force 28 may be implemented”);
a plurality of cleaning elements arranged at a top surface of the body, each cleaning element rotatable to clean the vessel(HOLAPPA: Fig. 1 Element 7; Fig. 10 Element 37; Para 51 “the cleaning device includes multiple vertical axis brushes 7 as shown in FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 10, the rotary brushes are positioned so that there is overlap 33 of the cleaning action in the direction of forward motion 34. A motor 35 drives the brushes through a gear system 36 so that each brush spins about its respective central axis. The bristles 37 are positioned such that they are in contact with the surface of the ship 19 and remove any biofilm 38 (see FIG. 13) that may be on the surface”; i.e. the plurality of cleaning elements (multiple vertical axis brushes 7) arranged at a top surface of the body(the cleaning system in operation at the bottom of the vessel would be upside down with multiple vertical axis brushes at the top of the system);
a plurality of cameras operable to record video footage, the cameras carried by the body so that at least one camera is arranged at an operatively front surface of the body(HOLAPPA: Fig. 21 Element 74; Para 65 “The use of an intelligent camera system 81 may assist in maintaining the positional accuracy as the HullBUG cleaning system navigates along an underwater surface. A camera system 81 or a SONAR system 74 enables feature recognition and thereby allows the absolute position to be updated”), and at least one camera is arranged at the top surface of the body to record footage of the vessel being cleaned by the cleaning elements(HOLAPPA: Fig. 17 Element 61; Para 60 “The miniature video sensor 61 images the line and signal processing techniques are used to determine the extent of the surface irregularity. The acquired surface information is analyzed by the controller 4, which makes a decision to go over or around the discovered irregularity” i.e. at least one camera (The miniature video sensor 61) arranged at a top surface of the body(the cleaning system in operation at the bottom of the vessel would be upside down with the miniature video sensor 61 at the top of the system);
a tether connectable between the vehicle and a fixed position(HOLAPPA: Fig. 3 Element 11; Para 44 “In another embodiment a remotely coupled controller 10 is connected to the cleaning system through a tether 11 as shown in FIG. 3. In the tethered configuration the HullBUG is connected to the surface support station through a tether 11 to an operator interface system as shown in FIG. 2”);
a deployment mechanism securable relative to the vessel(HOLAPPA: Fig. 3 Element 12; Para 44 “The long tether cable is managed using a Tether Management System (“TMS”) 12. The TMS uses a slip-ring assembly 13 to allow for reeling the cable in and out”)…;
a processing unit configured to communicate with each of the vehicle and the deployment mechanism(HOLAPPA: Fig. 3 Element 10; Para 44 “a remotely coupled controller 10 is connected to the cleaning system through a tether 11 as shown in FIG. 3. In the tethered configuration the HullBUG is connected to the surface support station through a tether 11 to an operator interface system as shown in FIG. 2. This configuration may be used for development purposes and when operator feedback is desirable for inspection and or guidance purposes. The long tether cable is managed using a Tether Management System (“TMS”) 12. The TMS uses a slip-ring assembly 13 to allow for reeling the cable in and out. The TMS cable drum has a wireless communication system 14 for transferring commands to the TMS from the topside computer and then down the tether to the vehicle”), and to analyze video footage recorded by the cameras to control navigating the vehicle(HOLAPPA: Fig. 17 Element 61; Para 60 “The miniature video sensor 61 images the line and signal processing techniques are used to determine the extent of the surface irregularity. The acquired surface information is analyzed by the controller 4, which makes a decision to go over or around the discovered irregularity”), and the processing unit further configured to execute a repeating cleaning schedule, the cleaning schedule defining a cycle period(HOLAPPA: Para 38 “A multiprocessor computer system provides an autonomous cleaning capability. On-board computers control the wheel drive system or propulsion system, the attraction mechanism, monitor system health, and provide for vehicle guidance”; Para 7 “a method of cleaning a surface of a hull disposed under a surface of a liquid. The method includes a) determining a first frequency with which to clean a surface of the hull, b) coupling a cleaning system according to claim 1 to the surface of the hull, and c) powering on the cleaning system. Steps b) and c) are repeated in accordance with the first frequency”),
wherein responsive to the cycle period elapsing(HOLAPPA: Para 7 “a method of cleaning a surface of a hull disposed under a surface of a liquid. The method includes a) determining a first frequency with which to clean a surface of the hull, b) coupling a cleaning system according to claim 1 to the surface of the hull, and c) powering on the cleaning system. Steps b) and c) are repeated in accordance with the first frequency”), the processing unit executes the schedule to:
communicate with the deployment mechanism(HOLAPPA: Para 44 “The TMS cable drum has a wireless communication system 14 for transferring commands to the TMS from the topside computer and then down the tether to the vehicle”)…
assess the video footage to determine geometry of the vessel(HOLAPPA: Fig. 17 Element 61; Para 60 “The miniature video sensor 61 images the line and signal processing techniques are used to determine the extent of the surface irregularity. The acquired surface information is analyzed by the controller 4, which makes a decision to go over or around the discovered irregularity”; Para 64 “additional and somewhat more geometrically complex features such as anodes and cavities may be disposed on surface 19. An imaging or bathymetric SONAR 74 may be implemented and used to detect these features and the previously described features as shown in FIG. 28”), and, responsive to determining the geometry, determine a position of the vehicle relative to the vessel(HOLAPPA: Para 65 “The use of an intelligent camera system 81 may assist in maintaining the positional accuracy as the HullBUG cleaning system navigates along an underwater surface. A camera system 81 or a SONAR system 74 enables feature recognition and thereby allows the absolute position to be updated”), and execute a mapping process to define cleaning paths to drive the vehicle along to clean the vessel(HOLAPPA: Para 35 “The HullBUG cleaning system described herein encompasses technology for a cleaning device, surface adhesion, cleaning capability, hull navigation, path planning, data telemetry, internal power, power replenishment, and operations support (i.e., launch and recovery, monitoring status and recharging); Para 58 “The depth information is provided to controller 4, which uses the provided data to make the cleaning system navigate along a series of parallel paths 49 with each path following an isobar as shown in FIG. 15”; Para 64 “geometrically complex features such as anodes and cavities may be disposed on surface 19. An imaging or bathymetric SONAR 74 may be implemented and used to detect these features and the previously described features as shown in FIG. 21. FIG. 22 is a flow chart illustrating the logic that the controller will use to implement the SONAR sensor and biofilm sensor. As shown in FIG. 22, the mission begins with the operator placing the cleaning system on the side of the ship at the waterline 75. The HullBUG drives in a direction (in some embodiments and arbitrary direction) 76 until the SONAR detects some obstruction to the progress of the mission leg 77. The cleaning system then turns at an arbitrary or fixed angle 79 and proceeds until once again the SONAR detects some obstruction 77. The HullBUG continues in the same fashion repeatedly until the biofilm sensor 43 no longer detects the presence of a biofilm 38 on the hull surface 19 and the mission is completed 72 at which point the HullBUG turns and drives up back to the waterline and waits for recovery 80 or the start of a new section”);
communicate with the vehicle … to autonomously move the vehicle along the cleaning paths simultaneously with rotating the cleaning elements to clean at least a portion of the vessel (HOLAPPA: Para 38 “A multiprocessor computer system provides an autonomous cleaning capability. On-board computers control the wheel drive system or propulsion system, the attraction mechanism, monitor system health, and provide for vehicle guidance”; Para 7 “a method of cleaning a surface of a hull disposed under a surface of a liquid. The method includes a) determining a first frequency with which to clean a surface of the hull, b) coupling a cleaning system according to claim 1 to the surface of the hull, and c) powering on the cleaning system. Steps b) and c) are repeated in accordance with the first frequency”; Para 58 “The depth information is provided to controller 4, which uses the provided data to make the cleaning system navigate along a series of parallel paths 49 with each path following an isobar as shown in FIG. 15”; Para 44 “The TMS cable drum has a wireless communication system 14 for transferring commands to the TMS from the topside computer and then down the tether to the vehicle”; Para 69 “the HullBUG may periodically navigate the underwater surface based on a predetermined schedule to determine if cleaning is necessary. The predetermined schedule may be based on fouling pressure, ambient water temperature, available sunlight, surface coating type, amount of time a ship or surface to be cleaned is mobile, speed of ship, speed of surrounding water currents, and the like. The article “The use of proactive in-water grooming to improve the performance of ship hull antifouling coatings”, by Tribou et al., the entirety of which is herein incorporated by reference, describes how such factors may be taken into account to determine a cleaning schedule. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG may clean the surface as described above”), whereby the vehicle continuously monitors its position relative to the vessel, based at least partially on the video footage, and adjusts its position to optimize cleaning of the vessel(HOLAPPA: Fig. 17 Element 61; Para 60 “The miniature video sensor 61 images the line and signal processing techniques are used to determine the extent of the surface irregularity. The acquired surface information is analyzed by the controller 4, which makes a decision to go over or around the discovered irregularity”); and
communicate with the deployment mechanism(HOLAPPA: Para 44 “The TMS cable drum has a wireless communication system 14 for transferring commands to the TMS from the topside computer and then down the tether to the vehicle”)…
Yet HOLAPPA do not explicitly teach the vehicle having a body housing a plurality of thrusters operable to move the vehicle freely in three dimensional space through the water… the thrusters positioned about the body to rotate the body about a pitch axis, roll axis, and yaw axis, and translate the body in a forward, reverse, and sideways directions;
first and second lighting elements carried by the body and associated with the cameras, the first lighting elements arranged to illuminate in front of the body and the second lighting elements arranged to illuminate above the body;
a deployment mechanism … configured to move the vehicle into, and out of, the water;
…the deployment mechanism to cause the mechanism to operate to move the vehicle into the water;
communicate with the vehicle to cause the vehicle to operate the thrusters to move the vehicle through the water to be spaced from the structure, and operate the cameras to record video footage;
communicate with the vehicle to operate the thrusters to autonomously move the vehicle …
…the deployment mechanism to cause the mechanism to operate to remove the vehicle from the water.
However, in the same field of endeavor, YOUB teaches … the deployment mechanism to cause the mechanism to operate to move the vehicle into the water (YOUB: Fig. 11A-B; Para 71 “by adjusting the output of the winch (152) of the elevator (150), the mobile carriage (110) and the ship bottom cleaning robot (10) are moved toward the ship bottom at a predetermined speed”).
the deployment mechanism to cause the mechanism to operate to remove the vehicle from the water(YOUB: Fig. 11 C-D; Para 76 “The ship bottom cleaning robot (10) is coupled to a mobile cart (110), and a winch (152) pulls a cable (151) to raise the mobile cart (110) along the outer surface of the hull (1) to complete the recovery operation of the ship bottom cleaning robot (10)”)
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 system for cleaning a structure submerged in a body of water of HOLAPPA with the feature of a deployment mechanism … configured to move the vehicle into, and out of, the water; … the deployment mechanism to cause the mechanism to operate to move the vehicle into the water; … the deployment mechanism to cause the mechanism to operate to remove the vehicle from the water. disclosed by YOUB. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “stably launching and recovering a ship bottom cleaning robot that cleans foreign substances attached to the outer surface of a ship while running along the bottom or side of the ship” (YOUB: Para 1).
Yet the combination of HOLAPPA and YOUB do not explicitly teach the vehicle having a body housing a plurality of thrusters operable to move the vehicle freely in three dimensional space through the water… the thrusters positioned about the body to rotate the body about a pitch axis, roll axis, and yaw axis, and translate the body in a forward, reverse, and sideways directions;
first and second lighting elements carried by the body and associated with the cameras, the first lighting elements arranged to illuminate in front of the body and the second lighting elements arranged to illuminate above the body;
communicate with the vehicle to cause the vehicle to operate the thrusters to move the vehicle through the water to be spaced from the structure, and operate the cameras to record video footage;
communicate with the vehicle to operate the thrusters to autonomously move the vehicle ….
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rodocker teaches the vehicle having a body housing a plurality of thrusters operable to move the vehicle freely in three dimensional space through the water… the thrusters positioned about the body to rotate the body about a pitch axis, roll axis, and yaw axis, and translate the body in a forward, reverse, and sideways directions (Rodocker: Fig. 3A-3B Element 15; Para 48 “Vehicle 10 preferably includes a plurality of thrusters 15 that enable the vehicle to maneuver through open water, such as when approaching and returning from a target vessel. In the embodiment of FIGS. 2 and 3, thrusters 15 are arranged to provide forward motion and vertical motion, and to roll the vehicle about its longitudinal axis. Additional thrusters may be included to provide additional degrees of translation or rotation”);
first and second lighting elements carried by the body and associated with the cameras, the first lighting elements arranged to illuminate in front of the body and the second lighting elements arranged to illuminate above the body(Rodocker: Fig. 2 Element 22; Para 58 “Illumination system 32 is an optional component, and is provided, for example, when a video or still camera is employed to obtain image data. Illumination unit 17 may comprise LEDs, Quartz Halogen lamps, infrared lamps, or other light sources. In a preferred embodiment, illumination system 17 is configured to track the movement of steerable camera 18, thereby directing the illumination to the site under examination by the camera”).
communicate with the vehicle to cause the vehicle to operate the thrusters to move the vehicle through the water to be spaced from the structure(Rodocker: Fig. 3A-3B Element 15; Para 42 “Operator 5 directly and continuously controls and monitors the movement of ROV 4 using thrusters, impellers, or propellers attached to the exterior of the ROV”; Para 48 “Vehicle 10 preferably includes a plurality of thrusters 15 that enable the vehicle to maneuver through open water, such as when approaching and returning from a target vessel. In the embodiment of FIGS. 2 and 3, thrusters 15 are arranged to provide forward motion and vertical motion, and to roll the vehicle about its longitudinal axis. Additional thrusters may be included to provide additional degrees of translation or rotation”), and operate the cameras to record video footage (Rodocker: Fig. 2 Element 18; Para 50 “vehicle 10 includes steerable video camera 18 and sonar 20. Camera 18 is preferably suitable for high resolution imaging in low-light situations, which may be a commercially available Sony CCD or similar camera. Camera 18 preferably is disposed within optically clear watertight housing 19 formed, for example, of polycarbonate, acrylic or glass, which is in turn coupled to chassis 12. Camera 18 preferably is rotatable within housing 19 to provide a variety of perspectives. Housing 19 preferably provides a 180° field of view (i.e., from approximately straight down to straight up). It is contemplated that this configuration may provide 270° field of view when combined with a 90° view from the camera lens”; Para 63 “As vehicle 10 follows its inspection path, sensor system 16 acquires one or more types of data, including sonar, ultrasound or infrared scans, audio records or video images”);
communicate with the vehicle to operate the thrusters to autonomously move the vehicle (Rodocker: Fig. 3A-3B Element 15; Para 42 “Operator 5 directly and continuously controls and monitors the movement of ROV 4 using thrusters, impellers, or propellers attached to the exterior of the ROV”; Para 48 “Vehicle 10 preferably includes a plurality of thrusters 15 that enable the vehicle to maneuver through open water, such as when approaching and returning from a target vessel. In the embodiment of FIGS. 2 and 3, thrusters 15 are arranged to provide forward motion and vertical motion, and to roll the vehicle about its longitudinal axis. Additional thrusters may be included to provide additional degrees of translation or rotation”; Para 63 “Onboard console 24 may be programmed to direct autonomous or semi-autonomous operation of vehicle 10. Alternatively or in addition, vehicle 10 may be programmed to direct autonomous or semi-autonomous operation. Vehicle 10 may be programmed to follow a predetermined search pattern, based on the nature of the submerged surface 35, or other factors”)….
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 system for cleaning a structure submerged in a body of water of the combination of HOLAPPA and YOUB with the feature of the vehicle having a body housing a plurality of thrusters operable to move the vehicle freely in three dimensional space through the water… the thrusters positioned about the body to rotate the body about a pitch axis, roll axis, and yaw axis, and translate the body in a forward, reverse, and sideways directions; first and second lighting elements carried by the body and associated with the cameras, the first lighting elements arranged to illuminate in front of the body and the second lighting elements arranged to illuminate above the body; communicate with the vehicle to cause the vehicle to operate the thrusters to move the vehicle through the water to be spaced from the structure, and operate the cameras to record video footage; communicate with the vehicle to operate the thrusters to autonomously move the vehicle disclosed by Rodocker. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “enable the vehicle to maneuver through open water, such as when approaching and returning from a target vessel” (Rodocker: Para 48).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 1, and HOLAPPA further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust the cycle period responsive to assessing one or more factors relating to at least one of the vessel and an environment local to the vessel(HOLAPPA: Para 69 “the HullBUG may periodically navigate the underwater surface based on a predetermined schedule to determine if cleaning is necessary. The predetermined schedule may be based on fouling pressure, ambient water temperature, available sunlight, surface coating type, amount of time a ship or surface to be cleaned is mobile, speed of ship, speed of surrounding water currents, and the like. The article “The use of proactive in-water grooming to improve the performance of ship hull antifouling coatings”, by Tribou et al., the entirety of which is herein incorporated by reference, describes how such factors may be taken into account to determine a cleaning schedule. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG may clean the surface as described above. If the HullBUG determines that cleaning is not necessary, then it may return to its replenishment station and schedule a follow-up inspection after a certain time interval, e.g., in another few hours, days, weeks, etc. When the HullBUG performs its follow-up inspection, it will determine if cleaning is necessary by measuring a fouling level, which may be based on a chlorophyll level detected by the sensors described above. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG cleaning system may update its time between scheduled inspection/cleaning times”).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 2, and HOLAPPA further teaches the processing unit is configured to adjust the cycle period(HOLAPPA: Para 69 “the HullBUG may periodically navigate the underwater surface based on a predetermined schedule to determine if cleaning is necessary. The predetermined schedule may be based on fouling pressure, ambient water temperature, available sunlight, surface coating type, amount of time a ship or surface to be cleaned is mobile, speed of ship, speed of surrounding water currents, and the like. The article “The use of proactive in-water grooming to improve the performance of ship hull antifouling coatings”, by Tribou et al., the entirety of which is herein incorporated by reference, describes how such factors may be taken into account to determine a cleaning schedule. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG may clean the surface as described above. If the HullBUG determines that cleaning is not necessary, then it may return to its replenishment station and schedule a follow-up inspection after a certain time interval, e.g., in another few hours, days, weeks, etc. When the HullBUG performs its follow-up inspection, it will determine if cleaning is necessary by measuring a fouling level, which may be based on a chlorophyll level detected by the sensors described above. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG cleaning system may update its time between scheduled inspection/cleaning times”), while Rodocker further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to compare the one or more factors with corresponding historical one or more factors, and wherein responsive to the processing unit determining a difference between the one or more factors and the historical one or more factors (Rodocker: Para 59 “Communications unit 31 transfers data to and from vehicle 10, and may comprise hardware and software to facilitate the transfer of data from the various subsystems to control unit 26 and onboard console 24. Communications unit 31 comprises an umbilical interface, with associated hardware and software coupled to control unit 26. This configuration enables vehicle 10 to transmit and receive information via umbilical cord 23 to onboard console 24. Onboard console may compare the data generated by the sensor system to normative values of a historical record, and generate an alert if an anomaly is discovered”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker as in Claim 1above.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 2, and HOLAPPA further teaches wherein the vehicle includes one or more sensors configured to detect a fouling condition of the vessel, and wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust the cycle period responsive to receiving sensed fouling condition information from the vehicle(HOLAPPA: Para 38 “Through the combination of iso-barometric transit, surface-fouling monitoring, gravity vector monitoring, optical flow sensing and intelligent vision, the system's intelligent controller is able to optimize the cleaning rate and provide efficient full hull coverage”; Para 69 “the HullBUG may periodically navigate the underwater surface based on a predetermined schedule to determine if cleaning is necessary. The predetermined schedule may be based on fouling pressure, ambient water temperature, available sunlight, surface coating type, amount of time a ship or surface to be cleaned is mobile, speed of ship, speed of surrounding water currents, and the like. The article “The use of proactive in-water grooming to improve the performance of ship hull antifouling coatings”, by Tribou et al., the entirety of which is herein incorporated by reference, describes how such factors may be taken into account to determine a cleaning schedule. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG may clean the surface as described above. If the HullBUG determines that cleaning is not necessary, then it may return to its replenishment station and schedule a follow-up inspection after a certain time interval, e.g., in another few hours, days, weeks, etc. When the HullBUG performs its follow-up inspection, it will determine if cleaning is necessary by measuring a fouling level, which may be based on a chlorophyll level detected by the sensors described above. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG cleaning system may update its time between scheduled inspection/cleaning times”).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 2, and HOLAPPA further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust the cycle period (HOLAPPA: Para 38 “A multiprocessor computer system provides an autonomous cleaning capability. On-board computers control the wheel drive system or propulsion system, the attraction mechanism, monitor system health, and provide for vehicle guidance. One or more pressure sensors, proximity sensors, and various optical sensors provide feedback allowing the cleaning system to transit in an optimum manner. Through the combination of iso-barometric transit, surface-fouling monitoring, gravity vector monitoring, optical flow sensing and intelligent vision, the system's intelligent controller is able to optimize the cleaning rate and provide efficient full hull coverage”) responsive to determining a geometry of the vessel (HOLAPPA: Para 64 “additional and somewhat more geometrically complex features such as anodes and cavities may be disposed on surface 19. An imaging or bathymetric SONAR 74 may be implemented and used to detect these features and the previously described features as shown in FIG. 28”; i.e. intelligent vision detects features such as anodes and cavities (geometry of the structure) and is utilized to optimize the cleaning rate(adjust the cycle period)).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 9, and HOLAPPA further teaches wherein the vehicle includes one or more sensors configured to detect spatial information, and wherein determining the geometry includes assessing sensed spatial information(HOLAPPA: Para 64 “additional and somewhat more geometrically complex features such as anodes and cavities may be disposed on surface 19. An imaging or bathymetric SONAR 74 may be implemented and used to detect these features and the previously described features as shown in FIG. 28”).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 1, and YOUB further teaches a garage configured to at least partially receive and enclose the vehicle, and wherein the deployment mechanism is operable to move the vehicle into, and out of, the garage(YOUB: Fig. 2, 9-10, Element 50; Para 41 “Referring to FIG. 2, a ship bottom cleaning robot (10) according to an embodiment of the present invention can be supported and installed on a container (50) provided on the deck of a hull (1). The ship bottom cleaning robot (10) can be accommodated in a container (50) together with the ship bottom cleaning robot (10), and the ship bottom cleaning robot (10), the recovery device (100), and the container (50) accommodating them can be operated as a single ship bottom cleaning system” ). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Regev as in Claim 1above.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 1, and YOUB further teaches wherein the tether is fixed between the vehicle and the deployment mechanism, and wherein the deployment mechanism includes a windlass drivingly engaged with a motor such that operation of the motor adjusts an effective length of the tether(YOUB: Fig. 9-10, Element 150; Para 64 “A pair of cables (151) can be connected to the rear of the launching frame, and a winch (152) can be installed on the deck of a container (50) or a hull (1) to raise or lower the launching frame by pulling or releasing the cable (151)”; Para 71 “by adjusting the output of the winch (152) of the elevator (150), the mobile carriage (110) and the ship bottom cleaning robot (10) are moved toward the ship bottom at a predetermined speed”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Regev as in Claim 1above.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 11, and HOLAPPA further teaches wherein the processing unit is housed within the garage(HOLAPPA: Para 39 “In the totally autonomous configuration a controller can be located inside or otherwise coupled to the chassis of the HullBUG while in the tethered and wireless configurations the controller may be remotely located”; Para 44 “In another embodiment a remotely coupled controller 8 is connected to the cleaning system through a wireless communication link 9 as shown in FIG. 2. … In the tethered configuration the HullBUG is connected to the surface support station through a tether 11 to an operator interface system as shown in FIG. 2”; i.e. remotely coupled controller 8 (processing unit) could be housed in the surface support station(the garage)).
Claim 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLAPPA (US20130298817A1) in view of YOUB (KR20160027586A) and Rodocker (US20070276552A1), further in view of Oftedahl (US20220194532A1).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claim 2, wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust the cycle period (HOLAPPA: Para 69 “the HullBUG may periodically navigate the underwater surface based on a predetermined schedule to determine if cleaning is necessary. The predetermined schedule may be based on fouling pressure, ambient water temperature, available sunlight, surface coating type, amount of time a ship or surface to be cleaned is mobile, speed of ship, speed of surrounding water currents, and the like. The article “The use of proactive in-water grooming to improve the performance of ship hull antifouling coatings”, by Tribou et al., the entirety of which is herein incorporated by reference, describes how such factors may be taken into account to determine a cleaning schedule. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG may clean the surface as described above. If the HullBUG determines that cleaning is not necessary, then it may return to its replenishment station and schedule a follow-up inspection after a certain time interval, e.g., in another few hours, days, weeks, etc. When the HullBUG performs its follow-up inspection, it will determine if cleaning is necessary by measuring a fouling level, which may be based on a chlorophyll level detected by the sensors described above. If cleaning is necessary, then the HullBUG cleaning system may update its time between scheduled inspection/cleaning times”).
Yet the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker do not explicitly teach adjust the cycle period responsive to determining a location of the vessel.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Oftedahl teaches adjust the cycle period responsive to determining a location of the vessel (Oftedahl: Para 27 “cleaning performed by the robot is to be restarted based on determining that the fouling risk value has increased above the predetermined threshold, and in response, outputting the restart cleaning signal indicating that cleaning by the robot is to be restarted”; Para 73 “The sensor(s) configured to output a sensor signal indicative of a risk of fouling on the hull of the vessel may comprise one or more of: (i) a chlorophyll sensor configured to sense an amount of chlorophyll in an aquatic environment of the vessel; (ii) a pH sensor configured to sense a pH level of the aquatic environment of the vessel; (iii) a nutrients sensor configured to sense a nutrient level in the aquatic environment of the vessel; (iv) a light intensity sensor configured to sense a light intensity in the aquatic environment of the vessel; (v) a salinity sensor (e.g. a conductivity sensor) configured to sense a saline level of the aquatic environment sensed of the vessel; (vi) a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of the aquatic environment of the vessel; (vii) a carbon dioxide sensor configured to sense an amount of carbon dioxide in the aquatic environment of the vessel; (viii) a location sensor (e.g. a GPS sensor) configured to sense a geographical location of the vessel; (ix) a dissolved oxygen sensor configured to sense an amount of gaseous oxygen dissolved in the water in the aquatic environment of the vessel; and (x) a depth sensor (e.g. a pressure sensor) configured to sense a depth of the aquatic environment of the vessel”; i.e. the robot is to be restarted based on the fouling risk (adjust the cycle period) which is based on the a geographical location of the vessel(determining a location of the structure)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the system for cleaning a structure submerged in a body of water of the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker with the feature of adjust the cycle period responsive to determining a location of the vessel disclosed by Oftedahl. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “controlling a robot that is configured to clean a hull of a vessel whilst travelling over the hull” (Oftedahl: Para 1).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Oftedahl teaches The system according to claims 4, and Oftedahl further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to receive a meteorological data feed(Oftedahl: Para 71 “the monitoring module 206 may receive wave information from a computing device external to the robot 102 (e.g. computer device 106 on the vessel, a computer device on shore e.g. at a meteorological station, or a computing device in the waters e.g. from a computing device on a weather buoy or on a semi-submersible platform”), and wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust the cycle period responsive to assessing meteorological data relating to the location(Oftedahl: Para 113 “The signal indicative that the robot is at risk of damage may comprise wave information relating to the degree of waves in the aquatic environment of the vessel. The signal comprising wave information may be received by the monitoring module 206 from a wave sensor on the robot, a wave sensor on the vessel, the computing device 106 or a computing device on shore (e.g. at a meteorological station). During high waves the robot is at risk of being damaged or lost and thus the monitoring module 206 may take action to pause the cleaning to prevent this. In these embodiments, the monitoring module 206 is configured to detect that the robot is no longer at risk of damage based on receiving the signal comprising wave information”; i.e. pausing and restarting the cleaning (adjust the cycle period) is based on the wave information from a meteorological station(meteorological data relating to the location)). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Oftedahl as in Claim 1 and 4 above.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, and Rodocker teaches The system according to claims 2, and Oftedahl further teaches one or more motion sensors arranged to detect motion of at least one of the water and the vessel (Oftedahl: Para 17 “The at least one sensor may comprise one or more of: a speed sensor and the sensor data comprises speed data indicating the speed of the vessel; a vibration sensor and the sensor data comprises vibration data indicating the speed of the vessel”) while HOLAPPA further teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to communicate with the one or more motion sensors and adjust the cycle period responsive to receiving sensed motion information from the one or more motion sensors(HOLAPPA: Para 69 “the HullBUG may periodically navigate the underwater surface based on a predetermined schedule to determine if cleaning is necessary. The predetermined schedule may be based on fouling pressure, ambient water temperature, available sunlight, surface coating type, amount of time a ship or surface to be cleaned is mobile, speed of ship, speed of surrounding water currents, and the like”). The Examiner supplies the same rationale for the combination of references HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Oftedahl as in Claim 1 and 4 above.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLAPPA (US20130298817A1) in view of YOUB (KR20160027586A), Rodocker (US20070276552A1), and Oftedahl (US20220194532A1) further in view of Turpin (US20190380547A1).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Oftedahl teaches The system according to claim 4, wherein the processing unit is configured to adjust the cycle period (HOLAPPA: Para 69 “the HullBUG may periodically navigate the underwater surface based on a predetermined schedule to determine if cleaning is necessary. The predetermined schedule may be based on fouling pressure, ambient water temperature, available sunlight, surface coating type, amount of time a ship or surface to be cleaned is mobile, speed of ship, speed of surrounding water currents, and the like”).
Yet the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Oftedahl do not explicitly teach adjust the cycle period responsive to determining at least one of a current date and time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Turpin teaches adjust the cycle period responsive to determining at least one of a current date and time (Turpin: Para 58 “the trigger manager 520 may detect a debris level for the first surface region using one or more sensors after each traversal, where a final traversal of the set of traversals is based on the corresponding debris level. In some examples, the trigger manager 520 may identify an activation interval corresponding to a periodic activation schedule”; Para 43 “Robotic device 115-a may determine to move about operating environment 200 according to time and/or date information. For example, robotic device 115-a may determine that a certain time of day correlates with a greater debris build up than other times of the day…Robotic device 115-a may thus adjust its movement patterns within operating environment 200 according to such time and/or date information (e.g., may adjust aerial path 220, may traverse aerial path 220 more frequently)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the system for cleaning a structure submerged in a body of water of the combination of HOLAPPA, YOUB, Rodocker, and Oftedahl with the feature of adjust the cycle period responsive to determining at least one of a current date and time disclosed by Turpin. One would be motivated to do so for the benefit of “support an autonomous debris collection process within the operating environment 200” (Turpin: Para 41).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667