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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, and 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zumberge et al. (US 2010/0153050 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zumberge teaches a first autonomous vehicle having a first sensor package ([0029] “ a gravity sensing system (i.e., sensor package) can be incorporated into an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)”), wherein the first sensor package is translocated to obtain a plurality of measurements of an area or a volume of space while the first autonomous vehicle is stationary, hovering or moving in a first predetermined path ([0054] “FIGS. 2a and 2b show an example AUV-borne gravimeter system. The system 200 includes an AUV 210, such as the Bluefin 21 vehicle with a gravimeter sensor system 250 as a payload. The aft section of the AUV 210 includes propulsion systems and vehicle control electronics. For example, the AUV 210 can include, in the aft section, a gimbal duct thruster 212, a emergency acoustic abort & locator unit 214, a fin antenna (e.g., RF model, RDF beacon, GPS, etc.) 216, a strobe light 218, a tail section service panel 220, an aft junction box 222, a doppler velocity log 224, a navigation system 226, a standard joining ring interface 228 and a main electronics pressure housing 230.” Where all the different locations of sensors is shown in fig 2a; [0160] “ The AUV can be designed to stop its forward motion to take the gravity data, either by: 1) automatically navigating to a benchmark and parking on it while it makes the measurement, or 2) hover in place during the gravity measurement. Some AUVs already have hovering capability (Ron Walrod, personal communication), and others could be modified using special adaptive navigation electronics and software to achieve hovering.”, [0097] “In addition to the tilt tests, the gravity sensors are tested for vertical acceleration characteristics.”); at least a second autonomous vehicle having a second sensor package ([0126] “Use of multiple AUVs launched from a single support ship can allow greater area coverage rate and continuous operation by staggering battery recharging periods.”), wherein the second sensor package is translocated to obtain a plurality of measurements of the area or the volume of space while the at least second autonomous vehicle is stationary, hovering and/or moving in a second predetermined path ([0054] “FIGS. 2a and 2b show an example AUV-borne gravimeter system. The system 200 includes an AUV 210, such as the Bluefin 21 vehicle with a gravimeter sensor system 250 as a payload. The aft section of the AUV 210 includes propulsion systems and vehicle control electronics. For example, the AUV 210 can include, in the aft section, a gimbal duct thruster 212, a emergency acoustic abort & locator unit 214, a fin antenna (e.g., RF model, RDF beacon, GPS, etc.) 216, a strobe light 218, a tail section service panel 220, an aft junction box 222, a doppler velocity log 224, a navigation system 226, a standard joining ring interface 228 and a main electronics pressure housing 230.” Where all the different locations of sensors is shown in fig 2a; [0160] “ The AUV can be designed to stop its forward motion to take the gravity data, either by: 1) automatically navigating to a benchmark and parking on it while it makes the measurement, or 2) hover in place during the gravity measurement. Some AUVs already have hovering capability (Ron Walrod, personal communication), and others could be modified using special adaptive navigation electronics and software to achieve hovering.”, [0097] “In addition to the tilt tests, the gravity sensors are tested for vertical acceleration characteristics.”), wherein the first autonomous vehicle and the at least the second autonomous vehicle are motion isolated autonomous vehicle platforms ([0060] “The gravity sensor system 250 can include a sensor package housing (e.g., a glass sphere) 252, a gimbal 260, a gimbal motor 258, at least two tilt sensors 262, a gravity sensor 256, and a insulating unit, such as a temperature controlled casing 257 to insulate the gravity sensor 256.”, and [0062] “The motion of the AUV 210 is translated to the gravity sensor. To at least partially negate or compensate for the effects of the AUV 210 movement, the motorized 258 gimbal 260 can provide active motion compensation by moving the gimbal 260 in such as way to negate the movement of the AUV 210.”); and a data processing system for processing data received from the first sensor package and the second sensor package to generate a survey model of the area or the volume of space ([0060] “The gravity sensor system 250 can communicate with a computing system 270 to communicate the recorded gravity and tilt data.” Where [0126] “Use of multiple AUVs launched from a single support ship can allow greater area coverage rate and continuous operation by staggering battery recharging periods.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge further teaches wherein the first predetermined path and the second predetermined path are the same ([0093] “ FIG. 7 shows example navigation tracks 700 from a deployment of an AUV, such as a Bluefin 21 vehicle. During the deployment, the AUV spirals down to a series of depths and travels along a straight track at each one. The horizontal scale is expanded by a factor of about 20 to accentuate cross track motions.” Where [0126] “Use of multiple AUVs launched from a single support ship can allow greater area coverage rate and continuous operation by staggering battery recharging periods.”, the AUVs follow the same downward path trajectory each time they are deployed).
Regarding Claim 4, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge further teaches wherein the first autonomous vehicle and the at least second autonomous vehicle hover in a lateral two-dimensional formation at a first altitude above the ground ([0126] “Use of multiple AUVs launched from a single support ship can allow greater area coverage rate and continuous operation by staggering battery recharging periods.”, where [0037] “FIG. 1 shows gravity data 100 and depth data 110 recorded near the cap of the salt dome. The depth above the source determines the ideal resolution limit of gravity measurements, with practical limitations being also determined by the noise floor of the measurement and the spatial sampling of the measurements. Thus, for marine gravity measurements, higher resolution can be achieved by 1) sampling closer to the ocean floor (i.e., sampling above the ground level, ocean floor), 2) increasing the sampling rate, and 3) reducing the sensor noise.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Zumberge further teaches wherein the lateral two-dimensional formation is moved to an altitude higher or lower than the first altitude ([0093] “FIG. 7 shows example navigation tracks 700 from a deployment of an AUV, such as a Bluefin 21 vehicle. During the deployment, the AUV spirals down to a series of depths and travels along a straight track at each one. The horizontal scale is expanded by a factor of about 20 to accentuate cross track motions.”, Fig. 7).
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(s) 8-11, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zumberge in view of Vasilevich (RU 2697474 C1).
Regarding Claim 8, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge further teaches wherein the first sensor package includes one or more gravity gradiometry sensors selected from the group of: an accelerometer ([0006] “an accelerometer.”), a gravimeter ([0006] “the gravimeter sensor”), an electromagnetic sensor ([0158] “AUV-based magnetics data using an onboard scalar magnetometer, 3) Electromagnetics (either magnetotellurics or controlled-source EM)”), a magnetic sensor ([0158] “AUV-based magnetics data using an onboard scalar magnetometer, 3) Electromagnetics (either magnetotellurics or controlled-source EM)”).
Zumberge does not teach an electromechanical sensor, and a radiometric sensor.
Vasilevich teaches an electromechanical sensor ([0002] “relative gravimeter CG-6 Autograv™”), and a radiometric sensor ([0002] “a modern serially produced innovative system of electronic three-axis stabilization of the camera (gravimeter)” where a radiometric sensor is a sensor that measures the intensity of electromagnetic radiation (light, infrared, UV) from an object or source, i.e., a camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the list of sensors discussed in Vasilevich to the list of sensors discussed in Zumberge to have a complete list of the different types of gravimeter that could be used in measurements. This is advantageous because each type of gravimeter measures the gravity via a different type of measurement, ensuring there is a type of gravimeter for all possible situations presented during measurements.
Regarding Claim 9, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge does not teach wherein the first sensor package includes a plurality of gravity gradiometry sensors of the same type.
Vasilevich teaches wherein the first sensor package includes a plurality of gravity gradiometry sensors of the same type ([0008] “the device contains two gravimeters in a spacesuit, two devices for determining absolute heights (i.e., the gravimeters record the same type of measurement, sensors of the same type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a plurality of sensors in the sensor package as discussed in Vasilevich to the gradiometry system discussed in Zumberge for the purpose of having multiple recordings of the environment in a singular UAV run. This is advantageous because it allows for more accurate measurements, i.e., the error in the measurements can be quantified, while optimizing the time and cost of running the UAV at specific measurement locations.
Regarding Claim 10, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge teaches a plurality of gravity gradiometry sensors having different sensitivities ([0070] “For example, the LaCoste & Romberg S-meter system and a Bell BGM-3 system can be modified to operate with power of order 100 watts and fit in a spherical volume with at least a 22'' ID.” And [0071] “The sensors from the Scintrex CG-3 land gravimeter can be mounted on a simple gimbal to collect gravity data aboard an AUV (www.scintrexltd.com)” where the sensors are all from different companies so they have different sensitivities).
Zumberge does not teach wherein the first sensor package includes a plurality of gravity gradiometry.
Vasilevich teaches wherein the first sensor package includes a plurality of gravity gradiometry ([0008] “the device contains two gravimeters in a spacesuit, two devices for determining absolute heights (i.e., the gravimeters record the same type of measurement, sensors of the same type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a plurality of sensors in the sensor package as discussed in Vasilevich to the gradiometry system discussed in Zumberge for the purpose of having multiple recordings of the environment in a singular UAV run. This is advantageous because it allows for more accurate measurements, i.e., the error in the measurements can be quantified, while optimizing the time and cost of running the UAV at specific measurement locations.
Regarding Claim 11, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge does not teach wherein the first sensor package further comprises one or more of: a RADAR, a LIDAR, a camera, and other measurement instruments.
Vasilevich teaches wherein the first sensor package further comprises one or more of: a RADAR ([0004] “radio, barometric and laser altimeters” where radio altimeters is a specific type of RADAR sensor), a LIDAR ([0004] “laser altimeters”, where a laser altimeter is a specific LIDAR sensor type), a camera ([0002] “a modern serially produced innovative system of electronic three-axis stabilization of the camera (gravimeter)” where a radiometric sensor is a sensor that measures the intensity of electromagnetic radiation (light, infrared, UV) from an object or source, i.e., a camera), and other measurement instruments ([0004] “radio, barometric and laser altimeters” a barometric altimeter is a type of other measurement instruments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a plurality of sensors in the sensor package as discussed in Vasilevich to the gradiometry system discussed in Zumberge for the purpose of having control over the UAV while measurements are being taken. This is advantageous because it allows for the UAV to have precise movement both vertically and horizontally ensuring that the gradiometry measurements are accurate to both location and sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 15, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge does not teach wherein the data processing system comprises: one or more algorithms configured for cross referencing the data received from the first sensor package with the data received from the second sensor package to validate data points in the survey model
Vasilevich teaches one or more algorithms configured for cross referencing the data received from the first sensor package with the data received from the second sensor package to validate data points in the survey model ([0027] “. The next flight (i.e., first flight was performed and now another starts, [0027]) starts again from KOGP1, follows the second profile (Profile 2), completes each point, and returns along the third profile (Profile 3), completing all points back to KOGP1. In this way, the entire area will be covered twice, which will increase the accuracy of observations. During gravimetric observations at the field base, observations are recorded from the GPS base reference station, synchronized with the GPS of the gravimeter and the UAV, allowing for data processing in differential mode to take into account the normal field and the Bouguer correction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a plurality of sensor package data as discussed in Vasilevich to the gradiometry system discussed in Zumberge for the purpose of having accurate models fit of the area undergoing measurement. This is advantageous because the use of multiple sensor package data sets it allows for more accurate measurements, i.e., the error in the measurements can be quantified, while optimizing the time and cost of running the UAV at specific measurement locations with multiple UAVs running.
Regarding Claim 16, Zumberge and Vasilevich teach the limitations of claim 11.
Zumberge does not teach wherein the data processing system is on board the first autonomous vehicle and comprises one or more algorithms configured for computer vision and autonomous control of the first autonomous vehicle.
Vasilevich wherein the data processing system is on board the first autonomous vehicle and comprises one or more algorithms configured for computer vision and autonomous control of the first autonomous vehicle ([0014] “The UAV body with lithium-polymer batteries, a control unit including three gyroscopes for hovering over the shooting point and holding the UAV and, accordingly, the gravimeter in a horizontal position and triple redundancy of all control systems (a GPS receiver that allows you to pre-record the flight route, with a return to the starting point mode, a system for analyzing the charge state of the batteries required to return to the starting point; an accelerometer for setting an absolutely horizontal position of the device; a barometer for fixing the UAV at the desired altitude; a video link with the transmission of "pictures" and control signals in real time at a distance of up to 80 km, a sonar for automatic landing and maintaining a low altitude and for flying around obstacles).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a plurality of sensors in the sensor package as discussed in Vasilevich to the gradiometry system discussed in Zumberge for the purpose of having control over the UAV while measurements are being taken. This is advantageous because it allows for the UAV to have precise movement both vertically and horizontally ensuring that the gradiometry measurements are accurate to both location and sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 18, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Zumberge does not teach where the data processing system is a cloud- based system in connection with the first autonomous vehicle and the at least second autonomous vehicle over a network.
Vasilevich teaches where the data processing system is a cloud- based system in connection with the first autonomous vehicle and the at least second autonomous vehicle over a network ([0027] “. The next flight (i.e., first flight was performed and now another starts, [0027]) starts again from KOGP1, follows the second profile (Profile 2), completes each point, and returns along the third profile (Profile 3), completing all points back to KOGP1. In this way, the entire area will be covered twice, which will increase the accuracy of observations. During gravimetric observations at the field base, observations are recorded from the GPS base reference station (i.e., observations are sent via a cloud-based system to the reference station to be recorded), synchronized with the GPS of the gravimeter and the UAV, allowing for data processing in differential mode to take into account the normal field and the Bouguer correction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine a plurality of sensor package data as discussed in Vasilevich to the gradiometry system discussed in Zumberge for the purpose of having accurate models fit of the area undergoing measurement. This is advantageous because the use of multiple sensor package data sets it allows for more accurate measurements, i.e., the error in the measurements can be quantified, while optimizing the time and cost of running the UAV at specific measurement locations with multiple UAVs running.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zumberge in view of Kerecsen, et al. (CN 111149141 A) hereinafter Kerecsen.
Regarding Claim 7, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge further teaches wherein the first autonomous vehicle is one of: a ship ([0033] “shipboard sensors, the ship heave and horizontal velocity degrades the measurement accuracy to several tenths of a mGal” the gravitometer on the ship is being discussed), an underwater vehicle ([0011] “Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)”).
Zumberge does not teach a fixed wing vehicle, a rotary wing vehicle, a hybrid fixed-rotary wing vehicle, an airship, a train, a mobile platform, a satellite and a spacecraft.
Kerecsen teaches a fixed wing vehicle (“aircraft” pg. 5 paragraph 4), a rotary wing vehicle (“such as helicopters” pg. 6 paragraph 2), a hybrid fixed-rotary wing vehicle (“Some rotorcraft, such as helicopters, have powered rotor wings or rotors in which the rotor disks may be tilted slightly forward so that a portion of their lift is directed forward (i.e., hybrid fixed-rotary vehicles have this ability).” Pg 6 paragraph 2), an airship (“airship,” pg. 5 paragraph 4), a train (“railed vehicles (trains, trams),” pg. 5 paragraph 4), , a mobile platform (“a scooter, a bus, a subway” types of mobile platforms, pg. 5 paragraph 5) a satellite (“information collected from fixed infrastructure (such as satellites)” pg. 9 paragraph 1) and a spacecraft (“spacecraft.” pg. 5 paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the list of possible vehicles as discussed in Kerecsen to the gradiometry system discussed in Zumberge for the purpose of having a method for collecting and analyzing data from a vehicle or group of vehicles within an area. This is advantageous because the ability to use different types of vehicles with sensor packages can allow for more vast ground/land/water/air to be covered and adjustments that the measurements would need due to terrain can be met.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zumberge in view of Johnson (US 2017/0293302 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Zumberge teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zumberge does not teach wherein each sensor in the first sensor package is attached to the first autonomous vehicle by a tether configured to be lengthened or shortened to vary a distance between each sensor and the first autonomous vehicle.
Johnson teaches, wherein each sensor in the first sensor package is attached to the first autonomous vehicle by a tether configured to be lengthened or shortened to vary a distance between each sensor and the first autonomous vehicle ([0005] “Autonomous towing further comprises a mechanical connection between the autonomous vehicle and the towed object, which may further comprise a metal cable, wire, or tow rope or a tow line or a chain, or any other suitable linkage including rigid or semi-rigid elements. A tow cable may be part of a winch system for controlling the separation between boat and in-water object. Monitoring and controlling the tow cable is essential for proper control and towing operation, and is described further in a subsequent section.” Where the towed object in this case would be the sensor package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the tether discussed in Johnson to the gradiometry system in Zumberge for the purpose of being able to adjust the height (length) of the sensor package as connected to the autonomous vehicles. This is advantageous because it allows for adjustments to optimize measurements using the sensor system, or optimize the movement capabilities of the autonomous vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma L. Alexander whose telephone number is (571)270-0323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8am-5pm 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/EMMA ALEXANDER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863