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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of docking stations on the first unmanned vehicle (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16-18 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 16-18 recite method steps/actions such as “the…vehicle transmits the image data,” “the image data…is transmitted,” and “transmission of the image…is performed independently.” It is unclear how method steps limit an apparatus claim. These should be rephrased as –the vehicle is configured to transmit the image data—or similar.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa US 8,757,083 in view of Nohmi US 2020/0070941.
PNG
media_image1.png
149
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Kalwa Figure 1
Regarding claim 1, Kalwa teaches an underwater inspection assembly comprising:
a first unmanned underwater vehicle 2 which comprises:
at least a first propeller 14,
at least a first camera (column 10, lines 55-67), and
at least a first optical transceiver (communication channel 20 between vehicles can be optical, column 10, lines 32-37);
a tether 10, a first end of which is connected to the first unmanned underwater vehicle, and a second end of which is connected to a terminal which can be positioned above water when the first unmanned underwater vehicle is submerged; and
wherein the tether is configured to pass inspection data captured to the terminal (column 14, lines 1-17);
a docking station 46 which is attached to the first unmanned underwater vehicle, and wherein the docking station is configured to receive docking means mounted on at least a second unmanned underwater vehicle (column 13, lines 9-23);
at least a second unmanned underwater vehicle 4 comprising,
at least a second propeller which can be operated independently of the first propeller,
at least a second camera 44, and
at least a second optical transceiver (for communication channel 20),
wherein said at least first and second optical transceivers are configured to selectively optically communicate with one another; and
a docking means 46 which is attached to the at least second unmanned underwater vehicle, wherein the docking means is configured so that it can be selectively docked in the docking station;
wherein the second interface 18 is configured to receive inspection data captured by the second vehicle and to transmit said received inspection data, to the first interface 8; and wherein the first interface is configured to transmit said received image data, along the tether, to the terminal (column 14, lines 1-17).
Note that Kalwa teaches that the docking system comprises a “two-part coupling mechanism 46, of which the first part is arranged on the coupling head 8 and the second part on the rendezvous head 18” (column 13, lines 10-13). As such, either component can be considered the docking means or the docking station. In an alternate interpretation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the orientation of the bracket and catch in order to optimize the form factor of both vehicles, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
If applicant does not agree that Kalwa teaches that the second unmanned underwater vehicle comprises a second propeller, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a propeller to drive the second vehicle as taught by Kalwa in relation to the first vehicle in order to use a well-established, reliable means of underwater propulsion.
Kalwa does not explicitly teach that the cameras on the vehicles are used for inspection, or that the inspection data is image data. Nohmi teaches a system of underwater inspection drones which comprise inspection cameras [0099]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the cameras on the underwater vehicles of Kalwa (or install additional cameras) for inspection purposes as taught by Nohmi in order to utilize visual data for a greater understanding of the object being inspected.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Kalwa Figure 3
Kalwa does not explicitly teach that the second optical transceiver is configured to receive image data captured by the second camera and to transmit said received image data, in the form of an optical signal, to the first optical transceiver. Nohmi also teaches that in a system of underwater inspection drones, a second unmanned underwater vehicle 1B can wirelessly transmit inspection results to a first unmanned underwater vehicle 1A, which then relays this data through a tether 4 to a surface terminal 5 [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wireless (optical) communication of Kalwa to transmit inspection results to be relayed to the terminal while apart as taught by Nohmi in order to decrease the delay in receiving data (because it would not be necessary to dock the vehicles) and/or increase range beyond the tether. As modified, the image data would be transmitted via the optical transceivers.
Regarding claim 2, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa also teaches that the docking station comprises a female element and the docking means comprises a male element which can selectively cooperate with the female element to dock the docking means in the docking station (column 13, lines 9-23).
Regarding claim 8, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa also teaches that the first unmanned underwater vehicle and the second unmanned underwater vehicle are the same type of unmanned underwater vehicle in that they are both digital electric unmanned underwater vehicles.
Regarding claim 9, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa also teaches that the tether 10 is mechanically attached to the first unmanned underwater vehicle 2 via an attachment means; and wherein the attachment means and tether are configured so that the tether can be used bear the combined weight of the first unmanned underwater vehicle, docking station, docking means, and at least a second unmanned underwater vehicle 4, so that the tether can be used to raise or lower the first unmanned underwater vehicle, docking station, docking means, and at least a second unmanned underwater vehicle from/into water (column 14, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 10, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa does not teach a plurality of docking stations which are attached to the first unmanned underwater vehicle; and a plurality of first and second unmanned underwater vehicles each having a respective docking means, wherein each docking means is configured so that it can be selectively docked in a respective docking station. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more docking stations and more underwater vehicles in order to rapidly inspect a greater area, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 11, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa also teaches that
the assembly further comprises one or more visual markers; and wherein second unmanned vehicle comprises at least one camera which is operably connected to a processor so that the processor can receive images of the visual markers captured by the camera (column 12, lines 20-38); and
wherein the processor is configured to determine the position of the docking means relative to visual markers using the images received from the camera; and
wherein the processor is configured to compute, at regular intervals, a misalignment of the docking means relative to the docking station, using said determined position of the docking means relative to the visual markers captured; and wherein the processor is further configured to sends commands to the propellers of the second unmanned underwater vehicle to move the second unmanned underwater vehicle to minimize the misalignment (column 12, line 39-column 13, line 8).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. All limitations of claims 12 and 13 are covered by the explanation of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Nohmi also teaches that the second unmanned underwater vehicle 1B transmits the image data to the first unmanned underwater vehicle 1A wirelessly. As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the wireless (optical) communication of Kalwa to transmit inspection results to be relayed to the terminal while apart as taught by Nohmi in order to decrease the delay in receiving data and/or increase range beyond the tether (because it would not be necessary to dock the vehicles).
Regarding claim 17, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Nohmi also teaches that the image data captured by the second camera is transmitted to the terminal in real time or substantially in real time via the first unmanned underwater vehicle 1A and the tether 4. As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the wireless (optical) communication of Kalwa to transmit inspection results to be relayed to the terminal while apart in real time as taught by Nohmi in order to decrease the delay in receiving data and/or increase range beyond the tether (because it would not be necessary to dock the vehicles).
Regarding claim 18, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Nohmi also teaches that transmission of the image data from the second unmanned underwater vehicle to the first unmanned underwater vehicle is performed wirelessly (independently of whether the second unmanned underwater vehicle is docked in a docking station). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the wireless (optical) communication of Kalwa to transmit inspection results to be relayed to the terminal while apart as taught by Nohmi in order to decrease the delay in receiving data and/or increase range beyond the tether (because it would not be necessary to dock the vehicles).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa US 8,757,083 in view of Nohmi US 2020/0070941 and Watt US 6,390,012.
Regarding claim 2, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. In an alternate interpretation, Kalwa does not explicitly teach that the docking station comprises a female element and the docking means comprises a male element which can selectively cooperate with the female element to dock the docking means in the docking station. Watt teaches a connecting means for underwater vehicles wherein a tethered vehicle 20 comprises a docking station 22 comprising a female element and an untethered vehicle 60 comprises a docking means 62 comprising a male element which can selectively cooperate with the female element to dock the docking means in the docking station (column 6, lines 41-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was modify the docking connection of Kalwa with a male-female connection as taught by Watt in order to ensure the vehicles can dock even in the case of slight misalignment and remain securely attached.
Regarding claim 3, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa does not explicitly teach that the docking means comprises a shaft member which is attached to the first unmanned underwater vehicle via a rack; and wherein the docking station comprises a channel which can receive at least a portion of the shaft member. Watt teaches a connecting means for underwater vehicles wherein an untethered vehicle 60 comprises a docking means 62 comprising a shaft member which is attached to the first unmanned underwater vehicle via a rack; and a tethered vehicle 20 comprises a docking station 22 comprising a channel which can receive at least a portion of the shaft member (column 6, lines 41-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was modify the docking connection of Kalwa with a male-female connection as taught by Watt in order to ensure the vehicles can dock even in the case of slight misalignment and remain securely attached.
Regarding claim 4, Kalwa, Nohmi and Watt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Watt also teaches that the docking station 22 comprises a mouth portion which defines a receiving channel, and an end portion which has a pocket defined therein, and wherein the channel is a guide channel which extends from the mouth portion to the end portion, and wherein the receiving channel tapers towards the guide channel. In this case, the docking channel “22 can be a funnel-shaped female type receptacle” (column 6, lines 41-53) which has portions that can be interpreted as a mouth, guide channel and pocket.
Regarding claim 5, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa does not explicitly teach that the docking station comprises first and second opposing side panels; wherein the first side panel has an inner surface which has a first channel defined therein, and the second side panel has an inner surface which has a second channel defined therein. Watt teaches a connecting means for underwater vehicles wherein an untethered vehicle 60 comprises a docking means 62; and a tethered vehicle 20 comprises a docking station 22 comprising first and second opposing side panels; wherein the first side panel has an inner surface which has a first channel defined therein, and the second side panel has an inner surface which has a second channel defined therein (column 6, lines 41-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was modify the docking connection of Kalwa with a male-female connection as taught by Watt in order to ensure the vehicles can dock even in the case of slight misalignment and remain securely attached. In this case, the docking channel “22 can be a funnel-shaped female type receptacle” (column 6, lines 41-53) which has portions that can be interpreted as opposing side panels with a channel therein.
In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the docking station in the form of two distinct panels with channels or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to draw the vehicles into a specific alignment when docking. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 6, Kalwa, Nohmi and Watt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Watt also teaches that a first mouth portion is defined in the inner surface of the first side panel, wherein the first mouth potion comprises a channel which tapers from an edge of the first side panel towards the first channel; and wherein a second mouth portion is defined in the inner surface of the second side panel, wherein the second mouth potion comprises a channel which tapers from an edge of the second side panel towards the second channel. As above, the docking channel “22 can be a funnel-shaped female type receptacle” (column 6, lines 41-53) which has portions that can be interpreted as mouth portions and tapering channels.
In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the docking station in the form of mouth portions and tapering channels or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to draw the vehicles into a specific alignment when docking. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 7, Kalwa, Nohmi and Watt teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Watt also teaches that the docking means 62 comprises a first wing member and a second wing member, wherein the dimensions of the first wing member are such that the first wing member can slide along the first channel of the first side panel, and the dimensions of the second wing member are such that the second wing member can slide along the second channel of the second side panel. In this case, the “receptor 62 is a bullet-shaped male type connector” (column 6, lines 41-53) which has portions that can be interpreted as wing members.
In an alternate interpretation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the docking station in the form of wing members or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to draw the vehicles into a specific alignment when docking. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claims 5-7, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa US 8,757,083 in view of Nohmi US 2020/0070941 and Grall US 2024/0092463.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3- Grall Figure 5 (excerpt))]
PNG
media_image3.png
173
196
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kalwa does not explicitly teach that the docking station comprises first and second opposing side panels; wherein the first side panel has an inner surface which has a first channel defined therein, and the second side panel has an inner surface which has a second channel defined therein. Grall teaches a watercraft docking system in which the docking station 3 comprises first and second opposing side panels 6; wherein the first side panel has an inner surface which has a first channel defined therein, and the second side panel has an inner surface which has a second channel defined therein. Note that the Grall teaches an elongated groove configured to match docking means 22 [0183-4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was modify the docking connection of Kalwa with a male-female groove/wing connection as taught by Grall in order to ensure the vehicles can dock even in the case of slight misalignment and remain securely attached in the desired orientation.
Regarding claim 6, Kalwa, Nohmi and Grall teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Grall also teaches that a first mouth portion 4 is defined in the inner surface of the first side panel, wherein the first mouth potion comprises a channel which tapers from an edge of the first side panel towards the first channel; and wherein a second mouth portion is defined in the inner surface of the second side panel, wherein the second mouth potion comprises a channel which tapers from an edge of the second side panel towards the second channel (see Grall figure 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kalwa, Nohmi and Grall teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Grall also teaches that the docking means 22 comprises a first wing member and a second wing member, wherein the dimensions of the first wing member are such that the first wing member can slide along the first channel 6 of the first side panel, and the dimensions of the second wing member are such that the second wing member can slide along the second channel of the second side panel (see Grall figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Kalwa and Nohmi teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. The combination renders the following method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination:
when the docking means which is attached to the at least second unmanned underwater vehicle is docked in the docking station which is attached to the first unmanned underwater vehicle, using the tether to lower the first unmanned underwater vehicle and a second unmanned underwater vehicle into water (Kalwa column 14, lines 41-46, column 17, lines 61-62);
transmitting the signals along the tether which control the movement of the first propeller so as to drive the first unmanned underwater vehicle to a first location;
moving the second unmanned underwater vehicle relative to the first unmanned underwater vehicle to cause the docking means to become undocked from the docking station;
moving the second unmanned underwater vehicle to a second location where the second camera can capture images of the structure to be inspected (step 60);
capturing images using the first camera, and transmitting said images captured by the first camera over the tether to a terminal to which the tether is attached (as modified);
capturing images of the structure using the second camera; transmitting said images captured by the second camera in the form of an optical signal from the second optical transceiver to the first optical transceiver (as modified); and
transmitting the image data received at the first transceiver along the tether to the terminal (column 14, lines 1-17).
Kalwa does not explicitly teach that moving of the first propeller so as to drive the first unmanned underwater vehicle and second unmanned underwater vehicle to a first location. Grall teaches a system for deployment of an untethered/second underwater vehicle 4 from a tethered/first underwater vehicle 3, wherein the system commands the first propeller so as to drive the first unmanned underwater vehicle and second unmanned underwater vehicle to a first location (column 16, lines 3-13). Note that if applicant does not agree that Kalwa transmits the signals along the tether which control the movement of the first propeller so as to drive the first unmanned underwater vehicle to a first location, Grall also teaches that the first unmanned underwater is controlled via the tether 5 (column 16, lines 3-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was modify the system of Kalwa by using the first underwater vehicle to transport the second underwater vehicle via the tether as taught by Grall in order to ensure that communications are rapid and uninterrupted, and to save the second vehicle’s power supply.
Regarding claim 15, Kalwa, Nohmi and Grall teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. As detailed above, Kalwa teaches that the underwater vehicles communicate via optical signals (column 10, lines 32-37), but does not explicitly teach that the step of moving the second unmanned underwater vehicle to a second location comprises transmitting the optical signals from the first transceiver to the second transceiver which control the movement of the second propeller so that the second unmanned underwater vehicle is moved to the second location. Nohmi teaches that commands to move the second underwater vehicle 1B are relayed wirelessly from the first underwater vehicle 1A [0078]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was modify the system of Kalwa by using the first underwater vehicle to relay movement commands to the second underwater vehicle as taught by Nohmi in order to enable real-time updates or control while the second underwater vehicle conducts the inspection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the specification’s description of the multiple docking stations is sufficient to support the claimed recitation, please see above. 37 CFR 1.83(a) clearly states “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” See MPEP 608.02(d). It is however appreciated that the applicant concedes that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how to implement a plurality of docking stations based on the illustrated docking station, which may simply be replicated on the first unmanned underwater vehicle” (page 8).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the second vehicle transmits images while undocked) are not recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Note that this feature is now recited in newly added claims 16 and 18, which are addressed above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, piecemeal analysis of the teachings of Kalwa and Nohmi make up the bulk of the applicant’s arguments- specifically that Kalwa does not teach transmission of images while undocked, while Nohmi does not teach that the vehicles dock together. The examiner replies that this is the basis for the analysis above- that while Kalwa teaches the overall physical architecture of an underwater inspection assembly comprising two vehicles that can dock together, Nohmi teaches that an underwater inspection assembly comprising two vehicles can utilize remote transmissions between the vehicles. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the addition of Nohmi’s remote transmission would improve the performance of Kalwa’s system. Not only would this increase the range and decrease the delay at which real-time images are received, but Kalwa’s docking connection remains for physical handling and simpler data transmission when docked.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case (as stated above), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the addition of Nohmi’s remote transmission would improve the performance of Kalwa’s system, both in increasing the range and decreasing the delay at which real-time images are received.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). See above.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kalwa does not teach that the docking mechanism comprises a female and male component, see above. Kalwa teaches “the coupling mechanism 46 has a snap-in catch, wherein e.g. a movable snap-in bracket of the snap-in catch in the first part of the coupling mechanism 46 engages behind a second part of the coupling mechanism 46 matched thereto, where it latches in place and thereby produces a positive-fitting connection of the coupling head 8 to the rendezvous head 18” (column 13, lines 17-23). A snap-in catch that engages a coupling mechanism is a male-female mating arrangement.
Further, this limitation is taught more explicitly by Watt, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the funnel-type arrangement would advantageously allow for misalignment.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the first and second unmanned vehicles of Kalwa are not the “same type” (claim 8), the applicant appears to again be reading more intention into the claim than what is recited. Given that they are both digital electric unmanned underwater vehicles, they can definitely be said to be the “same type” of vehicle.
Where applicant argues that Kalwa does not teach that the tether can bear the weight of both vehicles and the docking apparatus (claim 9), the examiner disagrees. Kalwa explicitly states “when the underwater vehicle 4 is to be recovered by means of the cable 10, this cable 10 is designed to withstand tensile strain, so that the underwater vehicle 4 can also be towed by the cable 10 above the water surface and e.g. lifted upwards onto the deck of the above mentioned support vessel or up to the above mentioned helicopter” (column 14, lines 41-46). Note that if vehicle 4 is being raised by the cable 10, then vehicle 2 and the docking apparatus must be as well.
Where the applicant argues that adding a plurality of docking stations (claim 10) is not “mere duplication” (page 12) the examiner disagrees. As stated above, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8) and one of ordinary skill in the art would easily understand what changes would be required to maintain the communication architecture. Please note that on page 8 of applicant’s response, the applicant states that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how to implement a plurality of docking stations based on the illustrated docking station, which may simply be replicated on the first unmanned underwater vehicle” to justify why they do not feel that the multiple docking stations need to be depicted in the current application.
The applicant argues that Kalwa’s visual location system (claim 11) does not function by “marker-based position determination -> misalignment computation -> propeller commands to minimize misalignment” (page 12), but this is precisely how Kalwa describes its system. Kalwa teaches that:
Cameras and/or optical sensors determine position (column 12, lines 27-33);
The relative positions (misalignment) are computed (column 12, lines 33-38); and
The vehicles are commanded to align (column 12, lines 39-45).
The remaining arguments are further piecemeal analysis and restatement of previous arguments as they pertain to the other independent claims. The examiner’s response is the same as above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 517 272-4530. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights