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 .
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 30, 41, 43 and 48-51 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.
Regarding claim 30, line 1 recites “wherein the vessel has a hull.” It is unclear if this is the same hull recited in line 3 of parent claim 28.
Regarding claim 41, line recites “the ramp member… comprising at least one aperture or gap therethrough.” It is unclear if these are the same “at least one aperture or gap penetrating through the ramp structure” recited in parent claim 28.
Regarding claim 43, line 2 recites “a ramp frame.” It is unclear if this is the same ramp frame recited in line 2 of parent claim 42.
Claims 48-51 all recite limitations of the unmanned surface vessel in relation to “the underwater vehicle.” Because the underwater vehicle is unclaimed, it is unclear how the suitability to a particular (unclaimed) underwater vehicle limits the apparatus (size, weight, etc.). For the purposes of this action, these references will be interpreted as “an” underwater vehicle.
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 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witbeck US 6,843,198 in view of Waldock US 7,137,350 and Collins US 5,253,605.
Regarding claim 45, Witbeck teaches a launch and recovery apparatus for a surface vessel on water, the apparatus comprising:
at least one ramp member 39 for providing an underwater ramp structure under the water for facilitating launch or recovery of an underwater unit from the surface vessel, the ramp structure comprising an incline for the underwater unit; the ramp member to be movable with respect to a hull 20 of the unmanned surface vessel, in use, to obtain an operational position;
a winch 60; and
a tether 62.
Witbeck does not teach at least one actuator to be arranged between the hull and the ramp member for moving the ramp member into the operational position with respect to the hull. However, Witbeck does teach at least one actuator between the hull 31 and the well deck 30 for moving the well deck into the operational position with respect to the hull. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an actuator to move the ramp member relative to the well deck as taught by Witbeck in order to ensure easy operation with an established system architecture.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Witbeck Figure 1
Witbeck does not teach at least one aperture or gap penetrating through the ramp structure for communicating a flow of water in the aperture or gap relative to the surface vessel. Waldock teaches a surface vessel 10 with a ramp 62 which deploys under the water, wherein the ramp comprises at least one aperture or gap penetrating through the ramp structure for communicating a flow of water in the aperture or gap relative to the surface vessel (column 6, line 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ramp of Witbeck with apertures as taught by Waldock in order to improve movement performance with the ramp deployed (column 6, lines 27-47).
Witbeck does not teach a guide rail to extend along the vessel; a frame configured to be coupled to the guide rail; a sheave configured to be mounted on the frame, the tether configured to pass through the sheave in use between the winch and the underwater vehicle; the frame configured to be movable on the guide rail forward or rearward along the vessel in use for positioning the sheave relative to the ramp member and/or the underwater vehicle; the frame configured to obtain a position along the guide rail in which the sheave is positioned in use above the water rearward of the hull and above the underwater ramp structure when the ramp member is in the operational position.
Collins teaches a method of launching and recovering a vessel comprising:
a winch;
a tether 20;
a guide rail 18 to extend along the vessel;
a frame 16 configured to be coupled to the guide rail;
a sheave configured to be mounted on the frame, the tether configured to pass through the sheave in use between the winch and an underwater vehicle 24;
the frame configured to be movable on the guide rail forward or rearward along the vessel in use for positioning the sheave relative to the hull 14 and/or the deployable vehicle;
the frame configured to obtain a position along the guide rail in which the sheave is positioned in use above the water rearward of the hull.
PNG
media_image2.png
179
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Collins Figure 6
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Witbeck by running the tether through a movable sheave as taught by Collins in order to more accurately control the position of the vehicle being launched/recovered. Note that Collins does teach that the frame can be positioned rearward of the hull and above the water, which as taught would be above with underwater ramp structure.
Claims 28-32, 35-37, 39-44 and 46-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witbeck US 6,843,198 in view of Waldock US 7,137,350, Bailey US 2012/0160143 and Collins US 5,253,605.
Regarding claims 28 and 36, Witbeck teaches a surface vessel 100 for use on water comprising:
a hull 30, 31; and
a launch and recovery apparatus comprising:
at least one ramp member 39 for providing an underwater ramp structure under the water for facilitating launch or recovery of an underwater vehicle, the ramp structure comprising an incline for moving the underwater up the incline for recovery of the underwater vehicle from the water and down the incline for launch of the underwater vehicle into the water;
a winch 60; and
a tether 62.
Witbeck does not teach at least one actuator to be arranged between the hull and the ramp member for moving the ramp member into the operational position with respect to the hull. However, Witbeck does teach at least one actuator between the hull 31 and the well deck 30 for moving the well deck into the operational position with respect to the hull. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an actuator to move the ramp member relative to the well deck as taught by Witbeck in order to ensure easy operation with an established system architecture.
Witbeck does not teach at least one aperture or gap penetrating through the ramp structure for communicating a flow of water in the aperture or gap relative to the surface vessel. Waldock teaches a surface vessel 10 with a ramp 62 which deploys under the water, wherein the ramp comprises at least one aperture or gap penetrating through the ramp structure for communicating a flow of water in the aperture or gap relative to the surface vessel (column 6, line 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ramp of Witbeck with apertures as taught by Waldock in order to improve movement performance with the ramp deployed (column 6, lines 27-47).
Witbeck does not teach a guide rail to extend along the vessel; a frame configured to be coupled to the guide rail; a sheave configured to be mounted on the frame, the tether configured to pass through the sheave in use between the winch and the underwater vehicle; the frame configured to be movable on the guide rail forward or rearward along the vessel in use for positioning the sheave relative to the ramp member and/or the underwater vehicle; the frame configured to obtain a position along the guide rail in which the sheave is positioned in use above the water rearward of the hull and above the underwater ramp structure when the ramp member is in the operational position.
Collins teaches a method of launching and recovering a vessel comprising:
a winch;
a tether 20;
a guide rail 18 to extend along the vessel;
a frame 16 configured to be coupled to the guide rail;
a sheave configured to be mounted on the frame, the tether configured to pass through the sheave in use between the winch and an underwater vehicle 24;
the frame configured to be movable on the guide rail forward or rearward along the vessel in use for positioning the sheave relative to the hull 14 and/or the deployable vehicle;
the frame configured to obtain a position along the guide rail in which the sheave is positioned in use above the water rearward 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 vessel of Witbeck by running the tether through a movable sheave as taught by Collins in order to more accurately control the position of the vehicle being launched/recovered. Note that Collins does teach that the frame can be positioned rearward of the hull and above the water, which as taught would be above with underwater ramp structure.
Witbeck does not teach that the surface vessel is unmanned. Bailey teaches an unmanned surface vessel 10 for use on water [0027], the unmanned surface vessel having a hull 24, 26 and at least one ramp member 51 for providing a ramp structure under the water for facilitating launch or recovery of an underwater unit 52. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the vessel of Witbeck to be unmanned as taught by Bailey in order to enable longer duration operations while needing fewer human operators.
PNG
media_image3.png
169
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Witbeck Figure 6
Specifically with regard to claim 36, The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 29, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches that the ramp member 39 is movably coupled to the hull so as to be hingeable about a pivot on the hull 30 with the pivot in use submerged below water.
Regarding claim 30, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches that the vessel has a hull 30 and the ramp member 39 is arranged to protrude outboard rearwardly from a rear end portion of the hull.
Regarding claim 31, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches that the ramp member 39 is arranged to have an extent underwater in use, the ramp member extending to a depth underwater lower than an underside of the hull.
Regarding claim 32, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches at least one sloped deck section 33, wherein the ramp member 39 together with the sloped deck section provides a slipway for the underwater vehicle.
Regarding claim 35, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches that the tether 62 comprises either an umbilical cable for a remotely operated underwater vehicle, or a launch or recovery tether for an autonomous underwater vehicle.
Regarding claim 37, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 36. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such (positioning the sheave to vary an angle of attack between the underwater vehicle and the sheave; positioning the ramp member using the actuator to vary an angle of incline of the ramp structure) would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 39 as best understood, Witbeck, Waldock and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 36. Witbeck also teaches pulling the underwater unit up the incline of the ramp structure to bring the underwater vehicle onboard to recover the underwater vehicle (column 2 line 60-column 3 line 6).
Regarding claim 40, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches that the ramp member 39 in the operational position is fully submerged in the water.
Regarding claim 41, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Waldock also teaches that the ramp comprises a structure that is rigid, the structure comprising at least one aperture or gap therethrough (column 6, line 27-32).
Regarding claim 42, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 41. Waldock also teaches that the structure 62 comprises a frame comprising at least one pair of parallel bars or parallel bar sections extending in a first direction and having at least one aperture between one parallel bar of the pair of parallel bars and another parallel bar of the pair of parallel bars. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to shape the ramp out of parallel bars with apertures therebetween, as this is a well-known method of making a platform with apertures. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 43, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 42. Waldock also teaches that the structure 62 comprises a ramp frame comprising at least one pair of parallel bars extending in a second direction, transverse to a first direction, and having at least one aperture between one parallel bar of the pair of parallel bars and another parallel bar of the pair of parallel bars. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to shape the ramp out of crossing sets of parallel bars with apertures therebetween, as this is a well-known method of making a platform with apertures. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 44, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 41. Waldock also teaches that the structure 62 comprises a panel, and a plurality of apertures comprising holes through the panel, wherein the plurality of apertures includes the at least one aperture or gap. If applicant disagrees, then it would have been obvious to shape the ramp out of panel with apertures, as this is a well-known method of making a platform with apertures. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 46, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches that the launch and recovery apparatus is operable to control tension of the tether 62 through means of positioning the ramp member using the actuator to determine an angle of incline of the ramp. In this case, if the underwater vehicle was on the ramp and connected to the tether, actuation of the ramp would change the tension.
Regarding claim 47, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. As taught, the launch and recovery apparatus is operable to control tension of the tether further through means of positioning the sheave to determine an angle of attack between the underwater vehicle and the sheave.
Regarding claim 48, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 28. Witbeck also teaches a storage region (anywhere on the deck 30) for storing the underwater vehicle on the unmanned surface vessel (column 2, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 49, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 48. Witbeck also teaches that the ramp member 39 is configured to be movable between an upright, stowed position and the operational position, wherein the underwater vehicle is storable in the storage region on the vessel with the ramp member in the upright, stowed position (column 2, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 50, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 49. Witbeck also teaches that the ramp member 39 in the upright position provides a rear fence for the stored underwater vehicle (column 2, lines 13-22).
Regarding claim 51, Witbeck, Waldock, Collins and Bailey teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 49. Witbeck also teaches at least one sloped deck section (aft end of 33), wherein the ramp member 39 together with the sloped deck section provides a slipway for the underwater vehicle, and wherein the launch and recover apparatus is operable to move the underwater vehicle for recovery up the ramp member and then onto the at least one sloped deck section and then into the storage region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Nowhere does Witbeck disclose or suggest that an incline provided by hinged stern gate 39 plays any role in launching or recovering cargo” (page 12), the examiner responds that it must. Simply by being in the open position shown in Witbeck figures 1 and 6 it provides an inclined surface over which a launched vessel travels during launch and recovery.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the ramp of Witbeck to have the apertures as taught by Waldock.
Where applicant argues that “there is no indication in Witbeck that hinged stern gate 39 would substantially hamper movement performance of marine craft 100” (page 13), the examiner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that dragging a solid panel through the water will always impact handling of a watercraft. This is a benefit recognized by Waldock.
Where applicant argues that “Witbeck do(es) not appear to contemplate deployment of cargo 110 while marine craft 100 is moving forward, let alone while marine craft 100 is moving backward” (page 13), the examiner responds that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the surface vessel will often require maneuvering in order to align the vehicles for a recovery operation. It would not be unexpected in these scenarios to have the ramp down in preparation. As such, the situation described by Waldock would be in play and the benefits of a ramp with apertures would be obvious.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the surface vessel of Witbeck “is intended to be a manned vessel, as it's [sic] purpose is to transport and deploy a crewed SDV, and could not serve that purpose if it were modified to be unmanned” (page 14), the examiner disagrees. First, transporting an SDV is taught as a function of Witbeck “in yet other embodiments,” signifying that there are other uses as well. Even if it is used with an SCV, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that even if the SDV is inhabited, there are always advantages to be realized by automating other functions. That is, the manned SDV could be transported by an unmanned carrier vessel in order to reduce manpower requirements and/or endanger fewer crewmembers.
Where applicant argues that “the Examiner has not explained how modifying craft 100 to be unmanned would extend this already substantial range” and therefore “has not provided a proper motivation to modify Witbeck based on Bailey” (page 14), the examiner did not suggest that making the vessel unmanned would increase range. In the first action (and above), the motivation was “in order to enable longer duration operations (by eliminating human endurance limitations) while needing fewer human operators (self-explanatory).”
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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