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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 5/20/2026 is acknowledged and has been considered. Examiner appreciates Applicant’s view regarding the application of the prior art and the asserted differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. In response, Examiner emphasizes that the examination of the claims was completed with an emphasis on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the included language. With respect to claim 1, Examiner maintains that a reasonable reading of the claim language encompasses, in general, an underwater snake robot comprised of a series of connected links allowing flexural motion, including one or more thrust devices and with a length to diameter ratio of less than 25 meters to 1 meter. The rejection of claim 1 shows that the Pettersen invention includes an underwater snake robot comprised of multiple connected links allowing flexural motion (see figure 1) and multiple “thrust devices” (par. 12) and fundamentally with “a length that is at least 10 times its maximum or average width”. Pettersen asserts that a snake robot, with its greater length and range of motion, may provide additional advantages (par. 10). Examiner strongly contends that the Pettersen teaching does not discourage more extreme length to width ratios and in fact may encourage or suggest an inherent benefit from this concept. Additionally, Examiner asserts that nothing in Pettersen would suggest that increasing the length to width ratio might hinder or prevent the invention from functioning in the intended manner. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art might be motivated from another prior art reference to modify the Pettersen invention and Holmes (secondary teaching) describes a submarine type vessel with multiple linking compartments (see figures of Holmes) and encompassing a wide-ranging possible length to width dimension to include lengths from 50-200 meters and diameters from 2-10 meters (col. 3, lines 1-6). Examiner remains convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art may look to Holmes in modifying the Pettersen invention to arrive at the instant claimed invention (i.e. increasing the L/D).
Examiner’s Response to Arguments from Final Office Action dated 2/4/2026
Applicant’s response dated 8/4/2025 is acknowledged and appreciated. The arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Pettersen prior art (US 2018/0021945) only teaches an underwater snake robot with a length that is at least five times its maximum or average width or more preferably, at least ten times its maximum or average width and that it would not merely be an obvious design modification to require a length-to-diameter ratio of at least 25:1 as claimed. Applicant indicates “that the claimed L:D ratio is not an arbitrary dimensional parameter, but rather yields demonstrable and non-obvious improvements in endurance and energy efficiency”. In response, Examiner asserts that the Petersen specification alludes to benefits related to a larger length-to-diameter ratio where it is stated that it is preferable to increase the overall length relative to width to “at least” ten times (par. 10) providing “greater length and range of movement”. In other words, it appears that the Petersen disclosure is indicating that a longer and narrower snake robot is desirable and will provide benefits. Examiner asserts that those of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to decrease hydrodynamic form drag to increase efficiency of an underwater vehicle and streamlining or narrowing a vehicles shape is well known and common and would have been an obvious design modification. Examiner maintains that taking an existing underwater robot snake and making it more streamlined or narrower does not constitute being new and novel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 16, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0021945) in view of Holmes et al. (U.S. Patent 6,973,893).
In regards to claim 1, Pettersen et al (henceforth referred to as Pettersen) disclose an underwater snake robot for performing subsea operations, the robot comprising:
a series of links that are connected to one another by one or more joint modules for allowing a flexural motion of the robot. Pettersen teaches multiple links (items 6 of Pettersen); an
one or more thrust devices for applying thrust to the robot for propulsion and/or guidance. Pettersen teaches multiple types and locations of thrusters (par. 13 and tunnel or side thrusters, items 6 and 18);
wherein the flexural motion and/or thrust device(s) enable movement of the robot and control of the orientation and/or location of the links, and wherein the robot has a length to diameter ratio of at least 25:1. The snake robot of Pettersen is capable of flexural motion using the thrusters and joints and although the length and/or ratio of length to width of the Pettersen device is not explicitly disclosed. However, Pettersen as well as other prior art discloses various lengths and widths except for the specifics of the claims. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the ratio of the Pettersen snake robot’s length to width of any of various values including 25:1 as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955);
Petersen does not explicitly disclose that the cross-section of the robot, links of the robot and/or thrust devices fit within a diameter of less than 1 meter. However, Holmes et al (henceforth referred to as Holmes) teaches a snake-like submersible vehicle with dimensions similar to that claimed with lengths in the 80-200 meter range and with a 2 meter with and fabrication of the snake robot underwater vehicle of Petersen to various lengths and diameters including those claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claims 2 and 26, Pettersen as modified additionally does not explicitly disclose that the robot has a length to diameter ratio of at least 50:1, or 100:1. However, as modified with the Holmes teaching, a wide ranging length to width ratio including lengths from 50-200 meters and diameters from 2-10 meters (col. 3, lines 1-6 of Holmes). Again, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the ratio of the Pettersen snake robot’s length to width of any of various values including those claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 3, Pettersen does not explicitly disclose that the robot has length of at least 10m, preferably at least 15m and more preferably at least 20m. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the ratio of the Pettersen snake robot’s length of any of various values including 10, 15 or 20 meters as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 4, Pettersen discloses that the robot comprises an accessory, or a connection point for an accessory, attached to the robot. Note that Pettersen teaches that the robot may include different tools or accessories including sensors, cameras or manipulators (items 14).
In regards to claim 7, Pettersen teaches a battery connected to the snake robot, but fails to disclose that the robot comprises multiple battery modules located at different points along the length the of the robot. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide any number of batteries in/on the Pettersen device to allow for additional power and, 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. Pettersen as modified teaches that the length to diameter ratio of the robot is at least 25:1 such that additional space for the multiple battery modules is provided along the length of the robot without making the diameter of the robot larger. Note that Pettersen teaches a minimum of 2 meters in diameter and a maximum of 200 meters in length.
In regards to claim 9, Pettersen discloses that the battery modules(s) are interchangeable so that it can be replaced with another battery module when necessary, since the battery or batteries of the device are capable of being replaced/exchanged.
In regards to claim 10, Pettersen discloses that the diameter of the robot is substantially constant across the joint modules, wherein the diameter of the series of links and joint modules are preferably approximately equal and wherein the diameter of the robot is preferably substantially constant along its length. Pettersen illustrates embodiments with substantially consistent diameter through the modules and joints as shown in figure 5.
In regards to claim 11, Pettersen discloses one or more shrouds that ensure the diameter of the robot is substantially constant across the joint modules. Figure 10 illustrates shrouds joining modules to maintain constant diameter.
In regards to claim 12, Pettersen discloses a connector for connecting one end of the robot to a winch system. The Pettersen snake robot includes a grasper that constitutes a connector that is capable of connecting to a winch system.
In regards to claim 14, Pettersen discloses a method for control of an underwater snake robot as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising:
controlling the thrust device(s) and/or the joint modules in order to move the robot into a required orientation and/or location;
wherein the thrust device(s) and/or the joint modules are used to generate a flexural motion and adjust the shape and configuration of the robot; and wherein the thrust device(s) are used to move all of or parts of the robot in translation and/or in rotation. Pettersen teaches controlling the snake robot of previous claims in the manner claimed.
In regards to claim 15, Pettersen discloses a method for control of an underwater snake robot as claimed in claim 14, wherein the method comprises:
adjusting the shape of the robot into a linear configuration for reduced drag parallel to its axis; and applying thrust along the length of the robot parallel to its axis using the thrust device(s) in order to move the entire robot in translation. Pettersen illustrates at least a time when the snake robot has its modules aligned to form a linear shape (see figure 2.
In regards to claim 16, Pettersen discloses a computer programme product comprising instructions that when executed on a data processing device will configure the data processing device to control an underwater snake robot claimed in claim 1 comprising: controlling the thrust device(s) and/or the joint modules in order to move the robot into a required orientation and/or location; wherein the thrust device(s) and/or the joint modules are used to generate a flexural motion and adjust the shape and configuration of the robot; and wherein the thrust device(s) are used to move all of or parts of the robot in translation and/or in rotation. Pettersen teaches a computer program that instructs the snake robot to perform the previously claimed maneuvers.
In regards to claim 27, Pettersen discloses that said one or more joint modules are passive joint modules, and wherein said one or more thrust devices are configured to generate the flexural motion of the robot and to control the orientation and location of the links. The components between the sections of the Pettersen snake constitute joint modules and allow flexural motion and orientation of the robot.
In regards to claim 28, Pettersen does not explicitly disclose that the cross-section of the robot, links of the robot and/or thrust device(s) fit within a diameter of less than 75 centimetres. However, Pettersen as modified with the dimensional configuration of Holmes teaches relatively narrow snake robot hull diameter down to 2 meters with a relatively long overall length and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further narrow the snake robot hull diameter to that claimed ¾ meter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0021945) and Holmes et al. (U.S. Patent 6,973,893) as applied to claim 12, and in further view of Jun et al. (Korean Patent Document KR20130068430).
In regards to claim 13, Pettersen fails to disclose that the connector comprises a rope, line or tether that is configured to float when it is released from the robot. However, Jun et al (henceforth referred to as Jun) teaches a remote underwater vehicle connected via a tether that is capable of floating and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide a tether connected to the snake robot of Pettersen as taught by Jun, to allow the snake robot to be easily retrieved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 17, the closest prior art fails to teach or make obvious, including all the limitations of claim 17 and the base claim, that the robot is coiled around the rotatable drum when in a stored configuration.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-16 are rejected and claims 17-20 are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights