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 Objections
Claims 21 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 21, line 1) “A pressure vessel for an buoyancy system” should be changed to “A pressure vessel for a buoyancy system”.
(claim 26, line 1) “wherein radial support plates” should be changed to “wherein the radial support plates”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "a circumference of the cylindrical shell" in lines 2-3. It is unclear, based on the claim language, whether applicant is referring to the circumference of the cylindrical shell in claim 1 or introducing an additional circumference. Clarification is needed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the axial support members are disposed lengthwise the cylindrical shell and the radial support plates are disposed on a circumference of the cylindrical shell”. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the axial support members extend lengthwise along the length of the cylindrical shell and are spaced along the circumference of the cylindrical shell; and radial support plates between the axial support members”. In other words, claim 1 recites wherein the radial support plates are disposed between the axial support members, which are disposed on the circumference of the cylindrical shell. Thus, the radial support plates are disposed on the circumference of the cylindrical shell. Therefore, it does not appear that claim 4 further limits the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 25-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertens (US 3,760,753) alone.
As concerns claim 21, Mertens shows a pressure vessel (1), the pressure vessel comprising: a cylindrical body (5) with a domed top portion (7) and a domed bottom portion (9), the cylindrical body with the domed top and bottom portions defining a volume of the pressure vessel (Fig. 1 & 3); spaced apart axial support members (25) positioned lengthwise along an inner surface of the cylindrical body (Fig. 3); and a column of radial support plates (13) disposed on the inner surface (col 2, ln 21-24) of the cylindrical body between the axial support members (Fig. 1 & 3). Mertens discloses the claimed invention except for columns of radial support plates. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, and it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the pressure vessel with columns of radial support plates for the expected benefit of further reinforcing the cylindrical body. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using columns of radial support plates in the pressure vessel would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mertens to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claims 22 and 23, Mertens discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the spaced apart axial support members are metal extrusions, and wherein the metal extrusions are made of titanium. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the axial support members from metal extrusions for the expected benefit of using known structural materials to reinforce the cylindrical body. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the axial support members from metal extrusions would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mertens to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 25, Mertens shows wherein the spaced apart axial support members occupy at least 8% of the inner surface of the cylindrical body (Fig. 3).
As concerns claim 26, Mertens shows wherein the radial support plates (13) have an outer diameter that matches an inner diameter of the body (col 2, ln 21-24).
As concerns claim 27, Mertens shows wherein a spacing between two adjacent radial support plates is based on a total length of the support members (Fig. 1 & 3).
As concerns claim 30, Mertens shows wherein the axial support members and the support plates are configured to distribute water-pressure induced stress across an external surface of the pressure vessel when the vessel is submerged (Fig. 1 & 3).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagley et al. (US 2007/0186837) and further in view of Mertens (US 3,760,753).
As concerns claim 1, Bagley shows a buoyancy system (1) for an underwater autonomous vehicle (AUV; paragraph 0031), the buoyancy system comprises: one or more pressure vessels (5); a primary pump (34) connected to each of the one or more pressure vessels, wherein the primary pump is configured to pump liquid out of the one or more pressure vessels during operation of the buoyancy system (Fig. 1; paragraph 0034); a controller (35) communicatively coupled to the primary pump and configured to operate the primary pump (Fig. 1; paragraph 0034 & 0035); and a power source (31) configured to provide power to the controller and the primary pump (Fig. 1; paragraph 0029). Bagley discloses the claimed invention except for each pressure vessel comprising: a cylindrical shell; spaced apart axial support members disposed on an inner surface of the cylindrical shell; and radial support plates between the axial support members. Mertens teaches one or more pressure vessels (1), each pressure vessel comprising: a cylindrical shell (5) having a length and a circumference (Fig. 1 & 3); spaced apart axial support members (25) disposed on an inner surface of the cylindrical shell (Fig. 3), wherein the axial support members extend lengthwise along the length of the cylindrical shell and are spaced along the circumference of the cylindrical shell (Fig. 3); and radial support plates (13; col 2, ln 21-24) between the axial support members (Fig. 1 & 3). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bagley, as taught by Mertens, to construct the pressure vessel with a cylindrical shell, spaced apart axial support members disposed on an inner surface of the cylindrical shell, and radial support plates between the axial support members for the expected benefit of reinforcing the pressure vessel against internal and external forces. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that constructing the pressure vessel with a cylindrical shell, spaced apart axial support members disposed on an inner surface of the cylindrical shell, and radial support plates between the axial support members would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the buoyancy system design.
As concerns claim 3, Bagley shows wherein a volume of a liquid within each of the one or more pressure vessels is independently controlled via operation of the primary pump (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 4, the combination teaches wherein the axial support members (Mertens: 25) are disposed lengthwise the cylindrical shell (Mertens: Fig. 3) and the radial support plates (Mertens: 13; col 2, ln 21-24) are disposed on a circumference of the shell (Mertens: Fig. 1 & 3).
As concerns claim 5, Bagley shows wherein the one or more vessels contain a first volume (6) of a liquid and a second volume (7) of a gas at a ratio adjusted by operation of the primary pump (Fig. 1).
As concerns claim 6, Bagley shows wherein the liquid is at least one of sea water, filtered sea water, desalinated water, or de-ionized water (paragraph 0024) and the gas is at least one of air or filtered air (paragraph 0031).
As concerns claim 7, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the axial support members and the radial support plates comprise aluminum. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the axial support members and the radial support plates from aluminum for the expected benefit of using known structural materials to reinforce the cylindrical body. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that forming the axial support members and the radial support plates from aluminum would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claim 9, Bagley shows wherein the primary pump is a high-pressure hydraulic piston pump (34) with a pumping rate proportional to a payload collection rate of the underwater autonomous vehicle so that for every net kilogram of payload collected by the underwater autonomous vehicle, an equal mass of liquid is pumped out of the one or more pressure vessels (Fig. 1; paragraph 0034-0037).
As concerns claim 10, Bagley shows wherein the buoyancy system is configured to operate at underwater depths between about 5 km and about 6 km (paragraph 0045).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagley et al. and Mertens as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Handa et al. (US 2016/0017859).
As concerns claim 2, the combination of Bagley and Mertens discloses the claimed invention except for a first pump connected to each of the one or more pressure vessels via a liquid inlet valve, the first pump configured to pump liquid into each of the one or more pressure vessels when commanded by the controller; and a second pump connected to each of the one or more pressure vessels via a gas inlet valve, the second pump configured to pump in gas to each of the one or more pressure vessels when commanded by the controller. Handa teaches a first pump (water supply pump) connected to a pressure vessel (11) via a liquid inlet valve (25), the first pump configured to pump liquid into the pressure vessel when commanded by a controller (paragraph 0078); and a second pump (42) connected to the pressure vessel (11) via a gas inlet valve (32), the second pump configured to pump in gas to the pressure vessel when commanded by the controller (Fig. 4; paragraph 0048 & 0049). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bagley and Mertens, as taught by Handa, to include a first pump connected to the pressure vessel via the liquid inlet valve, and a second pump connected to the pressure vessel via the gas inlet valve for the expected benefit of controlling and replenishing the supply of water and air into the pressure vessel. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that including a first pump connected to the pressure vessel via the liquid inlet valve, and a second pump connected to the pressure vessel via the gas inlet valve would have provided predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the expected result of this configuration improves versatility/adaptability/efficiency of the buoyancy system design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 24, 28 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate and/or render obvious:
a) a buoyancy system for an underwater autonomous vehicle, the buoyancy system comprises: one or more pressure vessels, each pressure vessel comprising: a cylindrical shell having a length and a circumference; spaced apart axial support members disposed on an inner surface of the cylindrical shell, wherein the axial support members extend lengthwise along the length of the cylindrical shell and are spaced along the circumference of the cylindrical shell; and radial support plates between the axial support members; a primary pump connected to each of the one or more pressure vessels, wherein the primary pump is configured to pump liquid out of the one or more pressure vessels during operation of the buoyancy system; a controller communicatively coupled to the primary pump and configured to operate the primary pump; and a power source configured to provide power to the controller and the primary pump, wherein the axial support members are metal extrusions with a hexagonal cross section.
b) a pressure vessel for an buoyancy system, the pressure vessel comprising: a cylindrical body with a domed top portion and a domed bottom portion, the cylindrical body with the domed top and bottom portions defining a volume of the pressure vessel; spaced apart axial support members positioned lengthwise along an inner surface of the cylindrical body; and columns of radial support plates disposed on the inner surface of the cylindrical body between the axial support members, wherein each of the radial support plates and axial support members contain drain holes to allow trapped liquid to drain freely when a level of the liquid inside the pressure vessel drops.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the previous rejection 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 MATTHEW R BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-5.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/MATTHEW R BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights