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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on January 19, 2023. Claims 1-22 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Application Data Sheet and this Application's disclosure both show no claim of a Provisional U.S. Patent Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed for this application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. [0023] second line recites “…sensors 220, , inertial…” with a typo of double commons (,).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a/the controller in claims 1 and 2 are interpreted as a general purpose computer as shown in the spec. para. [0022] “computing/processing systems” and “computing device”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 20 and 21 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.
Claims 20 and 21 both recites the limitation “…for a drift buoy…” in line 1. Claim 19 line 1 already recites “…for a drift buoy…” and therefore is unclear if this is a new drift buoy or the same as the claim 19 one. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this as “…for the drift buoy…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 8, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Graham et al. (US 20220227463 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Graham et al. discloses a drift buoy (sonobuoy 10) comprising: (See at least: fig. 1)
a body (canister 100) defining a payload cavity (interior cavity 110); (See at least: fig. 1)
a float (launch float 462); (See at least: fig. 8L)
and a controller (processor, sensors, electronics control unit (ECU), one or more batteries), wherein the controller is configured to cause the drift buoy to release a payload (unmanned vehicle 160) when one or more predetermined conditions (receives a launch command signal) are satisfied. (See at least: fig. 1, para. [0036], [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Graham et al. discloses further comprising a parachute (parachute 316), wherein the parachute facilitates a controlled landing of the drift buoy in water when dropped from an aircraft. (See at least: Figs. 3A-3B; para. [0037]-[0038] which defines the vehicle (e.g., an airplane) 300 illustrated in fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 13, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Graham et al. discloses wherein the float defines a cavity (inside of pressure vessel 501) closed to atmosphere (hermetic seal 506) with one or more plugs (lower cavity 480), wherein the cavity is opened to the atmosphere in response to removal of the one or more plugs on command (launch command signal) by the controller. (See at least: Figs. 8K-8L; where fig. 8K shows the lower cavity 480 split into a first portion 482 and a second portion 484; para. [0062] for launch command signal that starts the process to release the compressed gas filling the float, and para. [0063] hermetic seal 506)
Regarding claim 16, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Graham et al. discloses wherein the body defines an elongate, cylindrical shape, and wherein the float defines a cylindrical shape encircling a portion of the body. (See at least: Figs. 3A-3B and 8L; para. [0038] “…the sonobuoy canister 310 is substantially cylindrical…” and para [0064] “…Once fully inflated, the launch float 462 may include a top portion 464 and a bottom portion 466, where the top and bottom portions 464, 466 may both be substantially doughnut shaped…”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-7, 10-11 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20220227463 A1) in view of Qu et al. (CN 111637918 A).
Regarding claim 2, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to establish a location of the drift buoy.
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller (control unit 3) is configured to establish a location (drift location) of the drift buoy (drifting buoy). (See at least: figs. 1-2; Machine translation copy page 1 of 8 Abstract for drifting buoy and drift location, page 5 of 8, 4th para. starting with “As shown in Fig. 2…” and 7th para. starting with “the position module 32…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the processor, sensors, electronics control unit (ECU), one or more batteries of Graham et al. with position module 32 of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Regarding claim 3, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the one or more predetermined conditions comprise a location condition, wherein in response to the location of the drift buoy being within a target location, the controller causes the drift buoy to release the payload from the payload cavity. (See at least para. [0036] Where the communication device 180 receives a launch command signal… (and) instruct, or relay the launch signal to, the launch mechanism 170…).
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more predetermined conditions comprise a location condition (step S5), wherein in response to the location of the drift buoy being within a target location, the controller causes the drift buoy to release the payload from the payload cavity. (See at least: fig. 4 step S5; machine translation copy page 7 of 8, where it the microcontroller obtains data from all sensors).
Where it would be obvious to change the invention Graham et al. from a remote-controlled sonobuoy where an operator/user would command the launch to an autonomous sonobuoy using the fig. 4 algorithm and position module 32 of Qu et al. and block decision tree to check found data position of step S5 and add one of a preprogrammed launch command position or conditional range of launch command positions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy 10 of Graham et al. with position module 32 and algorithm of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of making the decision when to launch the unmanned vehicle in advance without the constant supervision of an operator or user. Further benefit is that of long operational life of the autonomous sonobuoy through the use of low power consumption control algorithm, most of the time system is in low power consumption mode Standby Mode, when it is needed to work through low power consumption timer wake-up, so as to obviously improve the endurance time after floating label distribution. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(1) the drift buoy of the invention…”).
Regarding claim 4, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Claim 4 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above as claim 4 adds a conditional range of launch command positions over a predetermined period of time. Where Qu et al. teaches a predetermined period of time (timer awake) (See at least: fig. 4 step S8-S9 where the there is a timer and standby mode, as best understood by the Examiner the timer will awake the drifting buoy to connect and take data starting at fig. 4 step S1).
Regarding claim 5, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the controller comprises a communication interface (antenna or beacon 324), and wherein the communication interface transmits a location where the payload is released from the payload cavity to a service provider (remote device). (See at least: fig. 4A and para. [0040] “…awaiting to receive a launch command signal from a remote device via the antenna 324...”).
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller comprises a communication interface (data communication module 33), and wherein the communication interface transmits a location (fig. 4 Step S7) where the payload is released from the payload cavity to a service provider (cloud platform). (See at least: fig. 4; Claim 7; machine translation copy page 7 of 8, 3rd para. starting with “S7”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy 10 of Graham et al. with position module 32, data communication module 33, algorithm, with cloud platform of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Regarding claim 6, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Claim 6 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. Claim 7 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 10, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose further comprising one or more sensors (sensors) and a communication interface, wherein the communication interface transmits readings from the one or more sensors. (See at least: fig. 4A and para. [0040] and para [0053] last sentence).
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising one or more sensors (plurality of types of sensors) and a communication interface, wherein the communication interface transmits readings from the one or more sensors. (See at least: machine translation copy page 6 of 8, 3rd para. starting with “the expandable sensor interface 36” and 6th para. starting with “the microcontroller of the drifting buoy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy 10 of Graham et al. with plurality of types of sensors, data communication module 33, algorithm, with cloud platform of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Regarding claim 11, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a temperature sensor, a light sensor, an image sensor, or a depth sensor.
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a temperature sensor (a temperature sensor), a light sensor, an image sensor, or a depth sensor. (See at least: machine translation copy page 6 of 8, 3rd para. starting with “the expandable sensor interface 36… comprising a temperature sensor, a water quality sensor, a chlorophyll sensor, a salinity sensor, a default loading temperature sensor…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy 10 of Graham et al. with plurality of types of sensors to include a temperature sensor, data communication module 33, algorithm, with cloud platform of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Regarding claim 19, Graham et al. discloses A system (figs. 1-2) for a drift buoy (sonobuoy 10) comprising: (See at least: figs. 1-2)
a drift buoy having a controller (processor, sensors, electronics control unit (ECU), one or more batteries) and a communication interface (antenna or beacon 324), the drift buoy defining a payload cavity (interior cavity 110) holding a payload (unmanned vehicle 160), wherein the payload is released in response to a command (launch command signal) from the controller; (See at least: figs. 1 and 4A, para. [0033] where the interior cavity 110 houses the payload unit 150, para. [0036], para. [0040] and para. [0053]).
service provider (remote device), wherein the service provider is in communication with the drift buoy via the communication interface; (See at least: figs. 5B, para. [0043]).
However, Graham et al. does not disclose;
and a user interface, wherein the user interface provides information associated with the drift buoy received by the service provider including a location where the payload is released.
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches and a user interface (theme), wherein the user interface provides information associated with the drift buoy received by the service provider (cloud platform) including a location (fig. 4 Step S7) where the payload is released. (See at least: figs. 3-4; machine translation copy page 6 of 8, para. 7-9 starting with “the data sent by the drifting buoy…” along with the next two para.(s)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy system of Graham et al. with buoy system including, position module 32, data communication module 33, algorithm, with cloud platform, and themes of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Regarding claim 20, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as noted above. However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the user interface comprises a map, and wherein the map depicts a path of the drift buoy over time.
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the user interface comprises a map, and wherein the map depicts a path of the drift buoy over time. ((See at least: figs. 3-4; machine translation copy page 6 of 8, para. 7-9 starting with “the data sent by the drifting buoy…” along with the next two para.; where it is obvious to a person skilled in the art that the client would select a theme to show data in a visual format on a map with a travel path of location over time as the buoy system of Qu et al. collects location data during the sleep and wake cycle (time) as shown in fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy system of Graham et al. with buoy system including, position module 32, data communication module 33, algorithm, with cloud platform, and themes of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Regarding claim 21, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as noted above. However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the drift buoy further comprises one or more sensors (sensors), wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a temperature sensor, a light sensor, an image sensor, or a depth sensor. (See at least: fig. 4A and para. [0040] and para [0053] last sentence).
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches disclose wherein the drift buoy further comprises one or more sensors (plurality of types of sensors), wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least one of a temperature sensor (a temperature sensor), a light sensor, an image sensor, or a depth sensor. (See at least: machine translation copy page 6 of 8, 3rd para. starting with “the expandable sensor interface 36… comprising a temperature sensor, a water quality sensor, a chlorophyll sensor, a salinity sensor, a default loading temperature sensor…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy system of Graham et al. with buoy system including, position module 32, data communication module 33, temperature sensor, algorithm, with cloud platform, and themes of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Regarding claim 22, Graham et al. in view of Qu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the user interface presents information from the one or more sensors.
Qu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the user interface presents information from the one or more sensors. (See at least: figs. 3-4; machine translation copy page 6 of 8, para. 7-9 starting with “the data sent by the drifting buoy…” along with the next two para.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sonobuoy system of Graham et al. with buoy system including, position module 32, data communication module 33, algorithm, with cloud platform, and themes of Qu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of connecting a marine internet of things drifting buoy system with communication architecture, the collected sensing data uniformly through the cloud platform for data storage and forwarding, data collecting is stable, software interface specification, easy to be developed. (See at least: Qu et al. machine translation copy page 4 of 8, 9th para. on the page starting with “(4) the marine internet of things…”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20220227463 A1) in view of Cook et al. (GB 2514582 A).
Regarding claim 9, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the parachute is made from a biodegradable material that dissolves in water.
Cook et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the parachute (parachute 20) is made from a biodegradable material (biodegradable material) that dissolves in water. (See at least: Fig. 1; Claims 9-12 where the material is paper, another woodpulp derivative or biodegradable plastic material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified parachute 316 of Graham et al. with parachute 20 of Cook et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a parachute comprising a material made from woodpulp can be designed to be single-use without being expensive, an inefficient use of resources or harmful to the environment (See at least: Cook et al. spec page 5 lines 12-14). Further motivation is the benefit if the parachute is left unrecovered, it will quickly degrade (See at least: Cook et al. spec page 5 lines 15-17).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20220227463 A1) in view of Ozgokmen et al. (US 20180031733 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the float is formed of a biodegradable material that loses buoyancy after a predetermined period of time.
Tamay et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the float (toroidal buoy 104) is formed of a biodegradable material (biodegradable material) that loses buoyancy after a predetermined period of time. (See at least: para. [0008] and [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified launch float 462 of Graham et al. with a fixed toroidal buoy 104 of Tamay et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of to save costs from recapturing the buoy for reuse and minimizing the environmental impact from releasing many buoys (See at least: Tamay et al. para. [0006] “…when researchers deploy large numbers of water drifters, they do so conceding that a large environmental impact is inevitable, or a lofty expensive effort to recapture as many drifters as practicable must be used. In either case, there is a desire to have better water drifter design, one that is environmentally sound and instrumentally accurate…”). Further motivation is the benefit is that test show that the biodegrading process can occur in a matter of months and not years (See at least: Tamay et al. para. [0030]).
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20220227463 A1) in view of Kluchert et al. (US 4155307 A) and farther view of Cheng et al. (CN 109159876 A).
Regarding claim 14, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the one or more plugs are formed of a wax material with a resistive element disposed therein, and wherein the command by the controller comprises application of current to the resistive element to melt the wax material.
Kluchert et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches plugs (fusible plug) are formed of a wax material (bees wax, paraffin wax) (See at least: col. 1 lines 64-68 and col. 2 lines 1-4; where it is known in the art to use wax plugs as a fusible plug for marine markers).
Chen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more plugs (plastic block 5) are formed of a wax material (plastic) with a resistive element (resistance wire 7) disposed therein (fig. 1), and wherein the command by the controller (main control board) comprises application of current to the resistive element to melt the wax material. (See at least: fig. 1; claim 1 for main control board, page 3 of 4 of the machine translation copy last para. “…the main control program sends a control signal to the normally open relay 12, an alkaline battery 13 7 loop is connected with the resistance wire, resistance wire 7 heats and starts melting in contact with the plastic block 5…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pressure vessel 501 of Graham et al. to include an additional plug which is the plastic block 5 (modified to wax as it is known in the art by Kluchert et al.), spring 8, resistance wire 7 and main control program of Chen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a simple small, simple control, high reliability, fast leading seawater into the buoy, reach the aim of self-destruction/scuttling, (See at least: Chen et al. Abstract).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20220227463 A1) in view of Bonang et al. (US 20200400804 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Graham et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the buoyancy of the drift buoy is altered to cause scuttling of the drift buoy in response to a command from the controller.
Bonang et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the buoyancy of the drift buoy (aerostat buoy 600) is altered to cause scuttling (scuttle) of the drift buoy in response to a command (commands) from the controller (processor 636). (See at least: para. [0037] last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified processor, sensors, electronics control unit (ECU), one or more batteries of Graham et al. with processor 636 with scuttle function/algorithm of Bonang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of disposing of the buoy once the vehicles leave the theater of operations (See at least: Bonang para [0040] “RF horizon extends to approximately 12 nautical miles to… 39 nautical miles away…”). Further motivation is the benefit is the buoy is nearing the end of its operating lifespan and requires disposal to keep the technology out of enemy use (See at least: Bonang para. [0031] “…advantageously provides the battery with trickle charging to extend the operating lifespan of the aerostat buoy 400…”).
Regarding claim 18, Graham et al. in view of Bonang et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above.
However, Graham et al. does not disclose wherein the command from the controller to cause scuttling of the drift buoy is initiated in response to a determined location of the drift buoy.
Bonang et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the command from the controller to cause scuttling of the drift buoy is initiated in response to a determined location (RF horizon) of the drift buoy. (See at least: fig. 7; para [0040] “RF horizon extends to approximately 12 nautical miles to… 39 nautical miles away…”).
Where it would be obvious to change the inventions Graham et al. and Bonang et al. from a remote-controlled sonobuoy/aerostat buoy where an operator/user would command the scuttle operation to a preprogramed response to scuttle based on the sonobuoy/aerostat buoy and the search vehicles (ships, helicopters, planes, submarines) are outside the RF horizon limit from each other. This would mean the search vehicles have moved on to a new search zone or target leaving the deployed buoy in the previous zone or that the buoy has drifted to far from the search vehicles to be useful in the search operations. (See at least: Bonang et al. fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified processor, sensors, electronics control unit (ECU), one or more batteries of Graham et al. with processor 636 with scuttle function/algorithm and RF horizon of Bonang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of disposing of the buoy once the vehicles leave the theater of operations (See at least: Bonang para [0040] “RF horizon extends to approximately 12 nautical miles to… 39 nautical miles away…”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
Regarding dependent claim 15, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…cause release of the payload…”. The combination of Graham et al. (US 20220227463 A1) in view of Kluchert et al. (US 4155307 A) and farther view of Cheng et al. (CN 109159876 A) would cause water/seawater to enter the buoy thereby scuttling it and not release the unmanned vehicle 160 of Graham et al.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
LeBlanc (CA 2997440 A1) teaches a smart buoy including GPS, wind speed/direction monitoring, LED lighting, wireless communications system configured to communicate with a remote user via a wireless link which conveys information to a cloud computing system or remote server farm which can then be accessed by the remote user (See at least: figs. 9-10).
Pierik et al. (US 20200209429 A1) teaches real time sensor arrays of floating instruments with geolocation, motion, acoustic and hydrophone capabilities connected to a satellite communication network with cloud-based system for data gathering and analyzation. (See at least: figs. 1 and 10).
Xu et al. (CN 110375720 A) teaches a drifting buoy monitoring method and system monitoring in real time to simulate the drifting buoy location a map (See at least: figs. 2-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at (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 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3615 /S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615