DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 11-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller (US PGPub 2022/0215657) in view of Griffith et al. (Griffith, US PGPub 2021/0135768).
Referring to Claim 1, Hiller teaches an aerial drone (Fig. 1 #114; [0034] and Fig. 3 [0054]) with a queen component disposed thereon, wherein the queen component comprises a laser steering component (Fig. 3, [0041] as well as Fig. 14-16 and associated text ) and is in electrical communication (Fig. 3 #336; [0068]) with the aerial drone; and an underwater robot (Fig. 1 #102; [0033]) with a worker component (component that sends #204/1420; [0042] and [0139]) disposed thereon, wherein the worker component is in electrical communication with the underwater robot; wherein the laser component of the queen component is configured to steer ([0041]) a laser beam to locate and track the worker component after refraction from a surface of a medium around the worker component (Fig. 2 and [0039-0040]); and wherein the queen component is configured to sense light from the laser beam reflected by the worker component; See Fig. 3 and associated text of the shape of the drone, particularly [0073], but does not explicitly disclose nor limit the worker component comprises an angle-of-arrival sensing component.
However, Griffith teaches using an optical communications system 102 that contains an angle of arrival sensor; [0052] that allows for communication from air to water; [0134].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller with the optical communications system as taught by Griffith so as to provide a communication system to efficiently and robustly acquire the location of one or more other nodes in a relatively short period of time.
Referring to Claims 2, 13 and 14 Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches wherein the queen component comprises a sensing component; See Fig. 3, [0041] as well as Fig. 14-16 and associated text; of Hiller and [0134] of Griffith teaches both platforms can contain the optical communication system and steerability in [0135].
Referring to Claim 8, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches wherein the queen component is configured to determine a position of the underwater robot in water using the aerial drone in air; [0041] of Hiller.
Referring to Claim 11, Hiller teaches deploying an aerial drone (Fig. 1 #114; [0034] and Fig. 3 [0054]) with a queen component disposed thereon in a first medium; and determining a location of a robot (Fig. 1 #102; [0033]) in a second medium with a worker component disposed thereon, using the aerial drone, wherein the second medium is different from the first medium; See citations of Claim 1 as well as Fig. 14 and associated text, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the worker component comprises an angle-of-arrival sensing component in the second medium.
However, Griffith teaches wherein the worker component comprises an angle-of-arrival sensing component in the second medium; [0052] and [0134].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller with the optical communications system as taught by Griffith so as to provide a communication system to efficiently and robustly acquire the location of one or more other nodes in a relatively short period of time.
Referring to Claim 12, Hiller teaches wherein the first medium is air and the second medium is water; Fig. 1 and 14.
Referring to Claim 20, Hiller teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to instruct a processor to execute the determining step in the method of claim 11; [0192].
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view of Antonelli et al. (Antonelli, US Pat. 6,813,218).
Referring to Claims 3 and 15, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches the worker component, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it comprises a retroreflective tag.
However, Antonelli teaches the worker component comprises a retroreflective tag (Col. 9 ln 13-26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the tag as taught by Antonelli so as to improve the accuracy of localizing the position of the submerged or buried objects.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view of Rosu et al. (Rosu, US PGPub 2022/0128654).
Referring to Claims 4 and 16, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein a scan point of the laser beam is delayed thereby enabling the laser beam to hit a plurality of underwater positions for a single outgoing angle.
However, Rosu teaches a wireless communication device wherein a scan point of the laser beam is delayed thereby enabling the laser beam to hit a plurality of underwater positions for a single outgoing angle; [0003].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the time delay generation as taught by Rosu to better control the direction the beam is aimed during scanning.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view of Raczkowski et al. (Raczkowski, DE102022102009).
Referring to Claim 5, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches the system, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it further includes a pinhole-based sensing mechanism.
However, Rackowski teaches the use of a pinhole-based sensing mechanism (“In one example, the lens 44 is configured to provide substantial collimation and/or confinement of light entering the sensor through the pinhole 40.” And Fig. 16A-D and associated text)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the pinhole as taught by Rackowski as it can be used to improve performance, such as quantum efficiency (QE), of a sensor system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view of Atsuhito et al. (Atsuhito, WO 2020/158485).
Referring to Claim 6, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches the system, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it further includes an optical fiber sensing ring.
However, Atsuhito teaches the use of an optical fiber sensing ring; See “Posture estimation technology” section.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the optical fiber sensor as taught by Atsuhito as it is shown to provide high-accuracy estimations.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view of Xu et al. (Xu, PassiveVLC: Enabling Practical Visible Light Backscatter Communication for Battery-free IoT Applications).
Referring to Claim 7, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches the system, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it further includes a backscatter communication design configured to maximize retroreflected energy.
However, Xu teaches a system that includes a backscatter communication design configured to maximize retroreflected energy; sections 2 and 3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the backscatter design as taught by Xu as it can improve the SNR of the received signal and potentially increase the communication distance.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view of Ichihara (US PGPub 2018/0370604).
Referring to Claim 9, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches determining the position but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the position is determined using a GPS location and altitude sensor reading of the aerial drone.
However, Ichihara teaches wherein the position is determined using a GPS location and altitude sensor reading of the aerial drone; [0036].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the flight control operations as taught by Ichihara as these are well known techniques for position determination and provide the predictable results of improving locating/positioning capabilities.
Claim(s) 10, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view of Hopewell et al. (Hopewell, US Pat. 9,490,911).
Referring to Claims 10 and 17, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches the laser beam, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it is generated by a blue/green laser.
However, Hopewell teaches the laser beam is generated by a blue/green laser; Col. 12 ln 8-19.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the blue/green wavelength as taught by Hopewell as the blue-green light is favors ocean water propagation.
Referring to Claims 18, Hiller as modified by Griffith and Hopewell teaches wherein the laser beam has a wavelength range configured to minimize attenuation in the first medium and the second medium; See background section and Col. 12 ln 8-19.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiller as modified by Griffith in view Raczkowski and Xu and Ichihara.
Referring to Claim 19, Hiller as modified by Griffith teaches the determining a location with depth data, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit sensing an incident angle of the worker component; sending angle-of-arrival data and depth data of the worker component from the worker component to the queen component via backscatter communication; and determining a location of the worker component in real time using the angle-of-arrival data, the depth data, a GPS location of the queen component, and altitude of the queen component.
However, Raczkowski teaches sensing an incident angle and angle of arrival data; (“In one example, angle-of-arrival devices, such as microlenses, light pipes, and collimators, can be used to improve performance, such as quantum efficiency (QE), of a sensor system by controlling the angle of incidence of light before it hits the integrated filters and light detection elements of the sensor system..” And Fig. 15 and 16A-D and associated text)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith with the pinhole as taught by Rackowski as it can be used to improve performance, such as quantum efficiency (QE), of a sensor system.
Further, Xu teaches using backscatter communication; sections 2 and 3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith and Raczkowski with the backscatter design as taught by Xu as it can improve the SNR of the received signal and potentially increase the communication distance.
And, Ichihara teaches wherein the position is determined using a GPS location and altitude sensor reading of the aerial drone; [0036].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hiller as modified by Griffith, Raczkowski and Xu with the flight control operations as taught by Ichihara as these are well known techniques for position determination and provide the predictable results of improving locating/positioning capabilities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646