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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fuel cell (claims 10 and 36) and charging port (claims 11 and 37-39) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the internal energy supply comprising a battery" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that parent claim 1 only recites the internal energy supply, with no mention of a battery. The recitation in claim 14 appears to be formed as a reference to "the internal energy supply comprising a battery," not a further recitation explaining that the internal energy supply further comprises a battery.
Claim 34 line 1 recites that the submersible vehicle comprises a communication system configured to receive a first communication from the submersible vehicle. It is unclear how the vehicle receives a communication from itself. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the submersible vehicle can share communications with other vehicles.
Claim 34 line 5 recites “wherein the second submersible vehicle makes a navigational change in response to receiving the second communication.” As both claim 34 and parent claim 29 only positively recite a single submersible vehicle, it is unclear how these limitations affect the device as claimed. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the submersible vehicle can share communications with other vehicles.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11,161,753 in view of Cole US 2019/0389548 and Gerard US 11,912,382, and alternatively also in view of Wu US 2021/0309332.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a vehicle comprising:
a hull 220;
a propulsion system 214 coupled to the hull;
an opening in the hull to intake water;
a power system 204 including an internal energy supply internal to the submersible vehicle, the internal energy supply configured to be replenished by an external energy supply external to the submersible vehicle, wherein the power system is configured to electronically communicate with the propulsion system (column 5, line 55-column 6, line3); and
a first filter 601 positioned to receive the intake water.
Wang does not teach that the first filter has a first cross-sectional area at least 10% of a second cross-sectional area of the hull taken perpendicular to the length of the hull, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the intake, hull and filter of whatever relative sizes were desired in order to enable the desired filtering while maintaining the desired hull envelope, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
PNG
media_image1.png
148
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Wang Figure 9
Wang does not teach that the vehicle is submersible. Cole teaches a submersible vehicle 16 comprising: a hull 30; a propulsion system 62, 64 coupled to the hull; an opening 112 in the hull to intake water; a power system 54 including an internal energy supply internal to the submersible vehicle, the internal energy supply configured to be replenished by an external energy supply external to the submersible vehicle, wherein the power system is configured to electronically communicate with the propulsion system; and a first filter 118 positioned to receive the intake water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang by making it fully submersible as taught by Cole in order to access debris that is below the surface and/or along the bottom of the water body.
Wang does not teach that the internal energy supply configured to be replenished by an external energy supply external to the submersible vehicle while the submersible vehicle remains submerged. Gerard teaches a submersible vehicle 402 comprising an internal energy supply configured to be replenished by an external energy supply 410 external to the submersible vehicle while the submersible vehicle remains submerged (column 9, lines 29-35, figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang and Cole with the fully underwater charging configuration as taught by Gerard in order to enable longer-duration missions without the need to travel to the water surface.
Wang does not teach that an exterior of the submersible vehicle has a biomimetic appearance. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to given the exterior a biomimetic appearance in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
In an alternative interpretation, Wu teaches a watercraft with a biomimetic appearance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with a biomimetic appearance as taught by Wu in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment.
Regarding claim 2, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang also teaches a second filter 602 positioned to receive and filter the intake water that passes through the first filter 601; wherein the first filter catches a first set of particles larger than a second set of particles caught by the second filter (column 10, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 6, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As stated above, Wang does not teach that an exterior of the submersible vehicle has a biomimetic appearance comprising a fin and a tail. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to given the exterior a biomimetic appearance comprising a fin and a tail in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
In an alternative interpretation, Wu teaches a watercraft with a biomimetic appearance comprising a fin 42 and a tail 52. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with a biomimetic appearance comprising a fin and a tail as taught by Wu in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment.
Regarding claim 7, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang does not teach that internal energy supply is coupled to a battery (other than the battery 204 that was previously identified). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a secondary backup battery in order to provide redundancy in the case of failure of the first battery, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As modified, either battery can work alone, while the other battery can be considered part of the internal energy supply system.
Regarding claim 10, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang also teaches that the internal energy supply comprises at least one energy source selected from a fuel cell and a battery 204 coupled to deliver power to the propulsion system.
Regarding claim 11, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Gerard also teaches a charging port receiver 416 coupled to the internal energy supply, wherein the charging port receiver is configured to receive energy from the external energy supply 410 while the submersible vehicle remains submerged.
Regarding claim 27, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As stated above, Wang does not teach that an exterior of the submersible vehicle has a biomimetic appearance which mimics a manta ray. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to given the exterior a biomimetic appearance which mimics a manta ray in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
In an alternative interpretation, Wu teaches a watercraft with a biomimetic appearance which mimics a manta ray. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with a biomimetic appearance which mimics a manta ray as taught by Cole in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment.
Regarding claim 28, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang also teaches a sensor system comprising a plurality of sensors 208 configured to collect data for surveying a target area of water (column 6, lines 25-54).
As stated above, Wang does not teach that an exterior of the submersible vehicle comprises a first wing protruding from a first side of the hull; or a second wing protruding from a second side of the hull. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to given the exterior wings in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
In an alternative interpretation, Wu teaches a watercraft with a biomimetic appearance which comprises a first wing protruding from a first side of the hull; or a second wing protruding from a second side of the hull. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with a biomimetic appearance which comprises wings protruding from two sides of the hull as taught by Wu in order to increase the aesthetic appeal or reduce the visual impact of the device on the environment.
Wang does not teach a buoyancy system configured to control a buoyancy of the submersible vehicle. Wu also teaches a buoyancy system 14 configured to control a buoyancy of the submersible vehicle [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang (and Cole) with a buoyancy system as taught by Wu in order to more precisely control position and depth of the watercraft.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11,161,753 in view of Cole US 2019/0389548, Gerard US 11,912,382 and Slocum US 11,161,579 and alternatively also in view of Wu US 2021/0309332.
Regarding claim 3, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang also teaches a storage container 406 configured to store waste collected by the first filter 601, the storage container comprising a sealing opening (column 7, lines 45-47), but does not teach an inflatable flotation device coupled to the storage container.
Slocum teaches a submersible vehicle 200 with a storage container 230 configured to store items collected by the vehicle, and an inflatable flotation device 234 coupled to the storage container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang (and Cole) with an inflatable flotation device coupled to an external storage container as taught by Slocum in order to enable collected items to be sent to the surface while the vehicle remains in the work area, which can improve workflow.
Regarding claim 5, Wang, Cole, Gerard and Slocum, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Slocum also teaches that the inflatable flotation device is configured to inflate in response to a triggering condition comprising at least one of:…receiving an instruction to send waste for collection. Please note that any command that results in inflation can be considered an instruction to send waste for collection.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11,161,753 in view of Cole US 2019/0389548, Gerard US 11,912,382, Slocum US 11,161,579 and Bakke US 10,086,994, and alternatively also in view of Wu US 2021/0309332.
Regarding claim 4, Wang, Cole, Gerard and Slocum, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Neither Wang nor Slocum teach a beacon coupled to the storage container. Bakke teaches an underwater storage container 15 which comprises a beacon 53 so it can be located by the retrieving ship 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang (and Slocum) with a beacon as taught by Bakke in order to simply location of the container.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11,161,753 in view of Cole US 2019/0389548, Gerard US 11,912,382 and Chastan-Bagnis US 4,921,605, and alternatively also in view of Wu US 2021/0309332.
Regarding claim 8, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang does not teach that the propulsion system comprises a motor coupled to drive an impeller. Chastan-Bagnis teaches a water-cleaning vehicle comprising: a hull 1; a propulsion system coupled to the hull; an opening 12 in the hull to intake water; a first filter 11, 14 positioned to receive the intake water; wherein the propulsion system comprises a motor coupled to drive an impeller 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with a propulsion system that also draws water into the inlet as taught by Chastan-Bagnis in order to increase the efficiency of the cleaning, and to increase flow through the channel at a variety of speeds.
PNG
media_image2.png
134
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Chastan-Bagnis Figure 3
Regarding claim 9, Wang, Cole, Gerard and Chastan-Bagnis, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Chastan-Bagnis also teaches that the impeller 20 draws water through the first filter 11, 14 when the impeller turns.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11,161,753 in view of Cole US 2019/0389548, Gerard US 11,912,382 and Wilby US 2018/0356234, and alternatively also in view of Wu US 2021/0309332.
Regarding claim 12, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang also teaches a GPS receiver and other sensors for obstacle avoidance (column 6, lines 25-47). Wilby teaches an autonomous watercraft comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to collect data, including at least:
a GPS receiver [0023]; and
a sonar sensor [0028]; and
a processor configured to:
receive data from the plurality of sensors;
identify a topological feature; and
navigate the submersible vehicle in an area while avoiding the topological feature [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with sonar and topological mapping/recognition as taught by Wilby in order to provide more comprehensive obstacle avoidance and a redundant guidance method. Note that as Wang already avoids obstacles, the addition topographical monitoring would enable the avoidance of topological features as well.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11,161,753 in view of Cole US 2019/0389548, Gerard US 11,912,382, Wilby US 2018/0356234 and Corbett US 10,754,340, and alternatively also in view of Wu US 2021/0309332.
Regarding claim 13, Wang, Cole. Gerard and Wilby, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 12. Wang also teaches a GPS receiver and other sensors for obstacle avoidance (column 6, lines 25-47). As stated above, Wilby teaches an autonomous watercraft comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to collect data, including at least:
a GPS receiver [0023];
a SONAR sensor [0028]; and
a depth sensor 108.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with a depth sensor, sonar and topological mapping/recognition as taught by Wilby in order to provide more comprehensive obstacle avoidance and a redundant guidance method.
Neither Wang nor Wilby teach a lidar sensor or a processor configured to use an object recognition model to recognize objects based at least in part on sensor data from the plurality of sensors. Corbett teaches an autonomous vehicle comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to collect data, including at least:
a GPS receiver 640;
a depth sensor;
a LIDAR sensor; and
a SONAR sensor; and
a processor configured to use an object recognition model to recognize objects based at least in part on sensor data from the plurality of sensors (column 13, lines 1-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with a LIDAR and an object recognition model as taught by Corbett in order to comprehensively identify objects in the environment and allow more advanced and/or customizable control.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 11,161,753 in view of Cole US 2019/0389548, Gerard US 11,912,382 and Salters US 10,556,651, and alternatively also in view of Wu US 2021/0309332.
Regarding claim 14, Wang, Cole and Gerard, together or also in view of Wu teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Wang does not teach a damage sensor; a battery; or a processor configured to send a signal to deliver electricity from the battery to the hull based at least in part on response to the damage sensor detecting damage. Salters teaches a watercraft comprising:
a damage sensor (column 19, lines 10-13);
a power source 230; and
a processor configured to send a signal to deliver electricity from the battery to the hull based at least in part on response to the damage sensor detecting damage (abstract, column 3 lines 48-61).
In this case, Salters teaches a system that senses damage in the form of surface fouling, and then sends electricity from the battery to lights on the hull to “quickly kill (or render harmless) all micro-organisms that are close to, or attached to, the hull” (column 3, lines 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang with an anti-fouling system as taught by Salters in order to prevent buildup of organisms on the hull.
Claims 29, 31, 35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2021/0309332 in view of Gerard US 11,912,382.
Regarding claim 29, Wu discloses a submersible vehicle comprising:
a hull 6;
a propulsion system 27 coupled to the hull;
a buoyancy system 14 configured to control a buoyancy of the submersible vehicle; and
a plurality of sensors configured to collect data for surveying a target area of water [0072],
a power system including an internal energy supply 25 internal to the submersible vehicle, wherein the power system is configured to electronically communicate with at least one component selected from the group of the propulsion system, the buoyancy system, and the plurality of sensors [0060];
wherein an exterior of the submersible vehicle has a biomimetic appearance that mimics a manta ray (see Wu figure 1).
Wu does not teach that the internal energy supply configured to be replenished by an external energy supply external to the submersible vehicle while the submersible vehicle remains submerged. Gerard teaches a submersible vehicle 402 comprising an internal energy supply configured to be replenished by an external energy supply 410 external to the submersible vehicle while the submersible vehicle remains submerged (column 9, lines 29-35, figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wu with the fully underwater charging configuration as taught by Gerard in order to enable longer-duration missions without the need to travel to the water surface.
Regarding claim 31, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Wu also teaches that the vehicle comprises a first wing protruding from a first side of the hull; or a second wing protruding from a second side of the hull.
Regarding claim 35, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Wu also teaches that the internal energy supply comprises a battery 25 to deliver power to the propulsion system.
Regarding claim 37, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 35. Gerard also teaches a charging port receiver 416 coupled to the battery, wherein the charging port receiver is configured to receive energy from the external energy supply 410 to charge the battery while the submersible vehicle remains submerged.
Regarding claim 38, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 37. Gerard also teaches that the charging port receiver 416 is configured to receive the energy through a wired or wireless charging port coupled to the external energy supply 410 (column 9, lines 29-36, column 11, lines 53-63).
Regarding claim 39, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Gerard also teaches a charging port receiver 416 coupled to the internal energy supply, wherein the charging port receiver is configured to receive energy from the external energy supply 410 while the submersible vehicle remains submerged.
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2021/0309332 in view of Gerard US 11,912,382 and Cole US 2019/0389548.
Regarding claim 30, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Wu does not teach that the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of a lidar or sonar sensor. Cole teaches a submersible vehicle 16 comprising: a hull 30; a propulsion system 62, 64 coupled to the hull; and a sensor 48 configured to collect data for surveying a target area of water, wherein the sensor comprises a sonar sensor [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Wu with sonar sensors as taught by Cole in order to enable a more complete sense of the environment regardless of water clarity.
Regarding claim 32, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Wu does not teach that the propulsion system comprises a motor coupled to drive an impeller. Cole teaches a submersible vehicle 16 comprising: a hull 30; a propulsion system coupled to the hull; and a sensor 48 configured to collect data for surveying a target area of water, wherein the propulsion system comprises a motor 62 coupled to drive an impeller 64. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the watercraft of Wu with motors and impellers as taught by Cole in order to enable more precise, three-dimensional control where desired.
PNG
media_image3.png
275
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Wu Figure 1
Wu does not teach that the internal energy supply is configured to be replenished by an external energy supply external to the submersible vehicle while the submersible vehicle remains submerged. Gerard teaches a submersible vehicle 402 comprising an internal energy supply configured to be replenished by an external energy supply 410 external to the submersible vehicle while the submersible vehicle remains submerged (column 9, lines 29-35, figure 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wang and Cole with the fully underwater charging configuration as taught by Gerard in order to enable longer-duration missions without the need to travel to the water surface.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2021/0309332 in view of Gerard US 11,912,382 and Wilby US 2018/0356234.
Regarding claim 33, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Wu does not teach a communication system configured to send commands to the propulsion system based at least in part on data from the plurality of sensors detecting one or more of an object, terrain, or waste. Wilby teaches an autonomous watercraft comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to collect data, including at least:
a GPS receiver [0023]; and
a sonar sensor [0028]; and
a processor configured to:
receive data from the plurality of sensors;
identify a topological feature; and
navigate the submersible vehicle in an area while avoiding the topological feature [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wu with sonar and topological mapping/recognition and responsive navigation as taught by Wilby in order to provide more comprehensive obstacle avoidance and a redundant guidance method.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2021/0309332 in view of Gerard US 11,912,382 and Fikes US 2020/0130795.
Regarding claim 34, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Wu does not teach intervehicle communication. Fikes teaches a system of multiple underwater vehicles 10 that are configured to share data and communications, and operate in a coordinated manner [0062, 0078, 0087]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wu with the ability to share data between other vehicles as taught by Fikes in order to allow a more comprehensive, coordinated operation between several vehicles.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2021/0309332 in view of Gerard US 11,912,382 and Slocum US 11,161,579.
Regarding claim 36, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 35. Wu does not teach that the internal energy supply further comprises a fuel cell coupled to the battery, wherein the fuel cell is configured to deliver power to the propulsion system alone or in combination with the battery.
Slocum teaches a submersible vehicle 100 with a fuel cell 126 coupled to a battery 124, wherein the fuel cell is configured to deliver power to the propulsion system alone or in combination with the battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wu with a fuel cell and battery system as taught by Slocum in order to enable independent recharging of the vehicle when desired, or enable the use of alternative energy sources.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2021/0309332 in view of Gerard US 11,912,382, Wilby US 2018/0356234 and Fikes US 2020/0130795.
Regarding claim 40, Wu and Gerard teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 29. Wu does not teach sensor-based detection and navigation. Wilby teaches an autonomous watercraft comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to collect data, including at least:
a GPS receiver [0023]; and
a sonar sensor [0028]; and
a processor configured to:
receive data from the plurality of sensors;
identify a topological feature; and
navigate the submersible vehicle in an area while avoiding the topological feature [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wu with sonar and topological mapping/recognition as taught by Wilby in order to provide more comprehensive obstacle avoidance and a redundant guidance method.
Wu does not teach intervehicle communication. Fikes teaches a system of multiple underwater vehicles 10 that are configured to share data and communications, and operate in a coordinated manner [0062, 0078, 0087]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cleaning watercraft of Wu with the ability to share data between other vehicles as taught by Fikes in order to allow a more comprehensive, coordinated operation between several vehicles.
As modified, the system would be configured to share data and communications about detected objects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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 (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights