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 .
The present application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/054943 filed on February 26, 2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 12, 2026 has been entered.
An amendment was previously filed by the applicant on December 1, 2025.
Claims 4-7, 15, 25 have been cancelled.
Claim 34 has been added.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-14, 16-24 and 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersen et al. (US 10,751,872) in view of Hubner (DE 10 2015 121 769 A1).
Pettersen et al. discloses a robot underwater vehicle for cleaning, inspection and monitoring of underwater structures, as shown in Figures 1-10, which is comprised of at least one working equipment in the form of an inspection or manipulation tool, defined as Part #14, cameras or sensors, defined as Part #16, or a brush tool for cleaning, which is not shown but described in lines 1-4 of column 13, and several interconnected modules, each defined as Part #6, that can be articulated or oriented relative to each other with a plurality of joint modules, each defined as Part #2, and are arranged one behind the other, as shown in Figures 5-10, where said robot underwater vehicle is configured to be transitionable from an elongated movement configuration, as shown in Figure 6, into a substantially annular working configuration, as shown in Figure 5, and back to said elongated movement configuration, as shown in Figure 6. A coupling device in the form of a mechanical clamp, a magnetic device, or a suction device can allow said underwater vehicle to secure itself in a fixed position relative to another underwater structure, as shown in Figures 3-4. Said robot underwater vehicle can be configured with two modules having working equipment, as shown in Figure 5, or two modules having different working equipment, as shown in Figure 9. Said underwater vehicle is also transitionable into at least two different working configurations, as shown in Figures 7-8. A distance between two interconnected modules is adjustable, as demonstrated by said plurality of joint modules, as shown in Figures 5-6. Each of said interconnected modules has a cross-section transverse to a straight longitudinal section, as shown in Figure 6. Propulsion units in the form of individually controlled thruster modules, also defined as Part #6, are arranged between said interconnected modules, as shown in Figures 5-10, where at least two of said propulsion units can be individually oriented to be effective in different spatial directions, as shown in Figure 5, and are effective in a fully extended arrangement of said robot underwater vehicle with a stern thrust device, defined as Part #8, as shown in Figure 2. Said interconnected modules can be configured with ballast tanks to change and control buoyancy, as disclosed in lines 58-63 of column 4. Said robot underwater vehicle can also be connected by a cable or tether, as shown in Figures 9-10, to a tether management system that is coupled to a topside support vessel or a carrier vessel, where said cable or tether is configured to provide data transmission and electrical power to said underwater vehicle, as described in lines 1-10 of column 15. Said robot underwater vehicle can also be configured as a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) when connected to said cable or tether for power and data transmission, or as an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) when not connected to said cable or tether with a control unit and a battery for autonomous control of said underwater vehicle. Said carrier vessel can be in the form of another ROV/AUV with an energy storage means or battery that is tethered to said underwater vehicle for controlling said underwater vehicle, as described in lines 1-10 of column 15. Said carrier vessel can also have a plurality of interconnected modules in the same form as said underwater vehicle, allowing it to move between a substantially annular configuration and an elongated movement configuration, as described in lines 18-26 of column 15.
Pettersen et al., as set forth above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the use of an underwater vehicle with several interconnected modules which can be transitioned from an elongated movement configuration to an annular working configuration and back by being connectable to itself, modules having a concave shape in an area in which working equipment is arranged, and spacers that are arranged on at least two modules.
Hubner discloses a robot for the inspection and/or cleaning of pile foundations, as shown in Figures 1-2, which is comprised of an unmanned underwater vehicle, defined as Part #10, with a plurality of interconnected articulated modules, each defined as Part #20, with movable spacers, defined as Part #70, that are arranged between said modules, as shown in Figures 1-2, to allow for spacing of said unmanned underwater vehicle from a pile foundation, defined as Part #100. Said unmanned underwater vehicle is configured to be transitionable from an elongated movement configuration, as shown in Figure 1, to an annular working configuration and back with connecting means, defined as Parts #40a and 40b, so that said unmanned underwater vehicle is connectable to itself in said annular working configuration, as shown in Figure 1. Said unmanned underwater vehicle is further comprised of a cleaning device, defined as Part #30, and cleaning nozzle inspection means, defined as Part #32, when in said annular working configuration, as shown in Figure 1.
The use of an unmanned underwater vehicle with interconnected modules having a concave shape in an area in which working equipment is arranged would be considered by one of ordinary skill in the art to be an obvious design choice based upon the required shape of a module to accommodate a desired motion or operation of attached working equipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize an unmanned underwater vehicle with interconnected modules that can be transitioned between an elongated movement configuration and an annular working configuration and back with connecting means that allow said unmanned underwater vehicle to be attachable to itself, modules each having a specific shape in an area in which working equipment is arranged, and spacers that are arranged on at least two modules, as taught by Hubner, in combination with the robot underwater vehicle as disclosed by Pettersen et al. for the purpose of providing an unmanned underwater vehicle with means to connect to itself to allow for transitioning from an elongated movement configuration to an annular working configuration and back in order to facilitate the inspection and/or cleaning of an underwater structure with a circular cross-section, a shape to facilitate the operation of working equipment that is attached to said unmanned underwater vehicle, and means to maintain a desired distance away from an underwater structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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.
February 4, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615