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 .
A preliminary amendment was filed by applicant on 03/08/2023.
Claims 1-18 are amended.
The amended Specification is accepted, except as otherwise noted.
5. Claims 1-18 are remaining in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
7. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
8. The claimed feature “the movement item” (claim 1, line 13) lacks sufficient antecedent basis as recited in independent claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims 2-18.
9. It is not clear if the claimed “subject matter station” is the same feature as the previously claimed “autonomous station” as presented in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 3-6 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1: WO 2019/113137 A2 (GJT II), cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses: an autonomous station [300] for providing an accommodation of unmanned vehicles [24, 48] comprising unmanned air vehicles [24] and/or unmanned underwater vehicles [48] on water, wherein a subject matter station [300] comprises a floating platform; a plurality of accommodation mechanism [18, 46, *] for associating said unmanned vehicles [24, 48] provided in the floating platform [300] in order to be charged [**] and fixed; a plurality of movement items [38, 40, 42] for providing a movement of the floating platform [300] on water; an energy supply [104] stores an energy for providing electrical energy to the plurality of movement items [38, 40, 42] and to the plurality of accommodation mechanisms [18, 46, *]; an energy generation unit [62, 70, 72, 80] for charging the energy supply [104]; a processor unit [102] connected to the movement item [38, 40, 42] in a manner controlling the plurality of movement items [88, 40, 42]; a communication unit [96, 97] for providing a communication of the processor unit [102] to a main control center [122, ***]. *See §0049: "[...] one or more landing decks (18) [...]". **See §0061: "[...] auto-aligning landing deck [18] would be sloped as to guide a drone [24] to the center of the deck and align it with an electrical conductor's couplers [22] enabling said drone [24] to recharge its batteries. [...]" and §0065: "[...] the energy storage system [104] of the underwater ROV [48] could be charged through a tethered cable [52], and or optional permanent magnetic charging drogue coupler [60] on the docking port [46] that can recharge batteries onboard the Underwater ROV [48] [...]". ***See Fig. 23, "Control Communications Overview". Regarding claims 3-6 & 10-17, see Figs. 1-24 and corresponding written description, especially; paras. [0049, 0050, 0064, 0065 & 0069].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. As best understood by the examiner, claims 2, 7-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: WO 2019/113137 A2 (GJT II), cited by applicant, in view of D2: US 2011/006164 A1 (MJ [SE] et al.), also cited by applicant.
D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the specific subject matter of claims 2, 7-9 and 18. Regarding claims 2 and 7-9, such features are considered obvious design selections known in the art based on desired performance considerations, especially in view of D1: Figs. 1-24 and corresponding written description, especially; paras. [0049, 0050, 0064, 0065 & 0069], and D2: Figs. 1-4 and corresponding written description, including para. [0004]. Specifically, D2 discloses a lift assembly with moveable platform [30, 130, 903] that includes lifting mechanism and orientation/inclination adjustment/control, enclosure with cover and solar power capability. Providing such features would have facilitated improved control and power options, as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 18, capacitors, including supercapacitors for storing electrical energy, are well-known in the art and providing such would facilitate storage of energy, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such known features to improve upon the reliability and performance of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
14. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited by the examiner disclose various floating platform vehicle carriers.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
16. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
09/04/2025