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 because figure 4 comprises improper shading. 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.
Claim 1 (and all claims that depend therefrom) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 2 recites “a plurality of cameras or sonars attached to a plurality of sides of the bioscale removal robot.” It is unclear if this includes the previously recited “plurality of front cameras arranged on a front of the bioscale removal robot” or if these are a completely different set of cameras.
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, 8, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Østervold US 8,794,251 in view of Lee US 9,335,172, and alternatively also in view of Højer US 9,434,456.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Østervold Figure 1
Regarding claim 1, Østervold teaches a system for removal and treatment of marine bio-scaling comprising:
a bioscale removal robot comprising a plurality of front cameras arranged on a front of the bioscale removal robot and a plurality of cameras or sonars attached to a plurality of sides of the bioscale removal robot (column 5, lines 18-32);
a support vessel 20 comprising:
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to remotely operate the bioscale removal robot;
a location system in communication with one or more processors (column 5, lines 27-32);
an effluent treatment system 220; and
an umbilical line 22 configured to connect to the bioscale removal robot, the umbilical line comprising a fluid line 22b and a communications line 22a;
wherein the plurality of cameras or sonars are configured such that information captured by the plurality of cameras or sonars can be compiled into a 360° image emulating an aerial view of the bioscale removal robot (please note that any images can be compiled into a 360° view).
PNG
media_image2.png
323
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Østervold Figure 4
Østervold does not teach that the location system is configured to determine a location of the bioscale removal robot using a non-georeferential system. Lee teaches an underwater hull robot comprising a location system configured to determine a location of the robot using a non-georeferential system (column 1, lines 26-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system of Østervold with a positioning system as taught by Lee in order to ensure that the precise location of the robot is known with respect to the ship being treated.
Østervold does not explicitly teach that the plurality of cameras are attached to a plurality of sides of the bioscale removal robot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the robot with several cameras in order to obtain sufficient optical coverage for steering and monitoring, 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the cameras on the front, sides and back in order to obtain a complete field of view, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In an alternate interpretation, Højer teaches a submersible cleaning system comprising a plurality of front cameras 44, 45 arranged on a front of the bioscale removal robot 35 and a plurality of cameras 45 or sonars 43 attached to a plurality of sides of the bioscale removal robot. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system of Østervold with several cameras and sonars as taught by Højer in order to obtain sufficient coverage for steering and monitoring. Note that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the robot with several cameras in any location/side in order to obtain sufficient optical coverage for steering and monitoring, 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 8, Østervold and Lee, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Østervold also teaches that the umbilical line further comprises a power line 22a, 22b, and wherein the power line is configured to supply power to the bioscale removal robot (column 5, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 17, Østervold and Lee, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Østervold also teaches that the support vessel 20 further comprises a pumping unit configured to pump raw effluent from the bioscale removal robot to the effluent treatment system 220 (column 5, lines 39-45).
Regarding claim 25, Østervold and Lee, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Lee also teaches that the location system comprises a plurality of sonar sensors and an ultra short baseline acoustic transceiver (column 1, lines 26-31).
Claims 2, 11, 12, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Østervold US 8,794,251 in view of Lee US 9,335,172, Sandell WO 2018/096214 and Corgnet US 3,961,490, and alternatively also in view of Højer US 9,434,456.
Regarding claim 2, Østervold and Lee, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Østervold also teaches that the bioscale removal robot comprises: a housing configured to connect to the umbilical line. Østervold does not teach an arm.
PNG
media_image3.png
268
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Sandell Figure 5b
Sandell teaches a bioscale removal robot comprising a housing 110 configured to connect to an umbilical line 180; and an elongated arm 403 comprising: a connection portion configured to connect to the housing; an engagement portion configured to couple to one or more cleaning tools 405; a plurality of rigid links coupled to a plurality of flexible joints extending between the connection portion and the engagement portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system/robot of Østervold with an arm connected to a cleaning tool as taught by Sandell in order to enable the robot to clean areas that the main robot body cannot reach.
Neither Østervold nor Sandell teach that the arm comprises one or more thrusters positioned in an intermediate position between the connection portion and engagement portion. Corgnet teaches an underwater articulated arm 205 which comprises one or more members 214 positioned in an intermediate position between the connection portion 207 and engagement portion 210; and one or more thrusters 216, 227, 239 coupled to each of the one or more balloons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system/robot of Østervold and Sandell with thrusters on the arm as taught by Corgnet in order to allow movement of the arm without needing a solid anchoring point for the robot.
PNG
media_image4.png
320
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Corgnet Figure 14
Regarding claim 11, Østervold, Lee, Sandell and Corgnet, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Østervold also teaches that the housing includes a plurality of actuators to actuate components of the bioscale removal robot comprising one or more of the following: are electromagnets, capture systems, cleaning tools, crushers, thrusters, linear actuators and rotary actuators. In this case, whatever enables the robot to move can be interpreted as a thruster. Also, the system which causes rotation of the cups 110 can be interpreted as a rotary actuator.
Regarding claim 12, Østervold, Lee, Sandell and Corgnet, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Østervold also teaches that the housing includes a plurality of sensors comprising one of more of the following: cameras (column 5, lines 27-32), sonars, flow rate sensors, particle sensors, depth sensors, inertial navigation system (INS) sensors, lighting sensors and transponder sensors.
Regarding claim 23, Østervold, Lee, Sandell and Corgnet, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Corgnet also teaches that the elongated arm 205 includes a plurality of actuators comprising one or more thrusters 216, 227, 239. Sandell also teaches that the elongated arm 403 includes cleaning tools 405.
Regarding claim 24, Østervold, Lee, Sandell and Corgnet, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Østervold also teaches that the housing includes sensors comprising cameras (column 5, lines 27-32). Østervold does not teach that the camera is on the arm (as modified by Sandell/Corgnet), however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate a camera on the arm in order to better see what the arm is cleaning or an angle not visible from the housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Østervold US 8,794,251 in view of Lee US 9,335,172, Sandell WO 2018/096214, Corgnet US 3,961,490 and Railey US 2015/0357845, and alternatively also in view of Højer US 9,434,456.
Regarding claim 9, Østervold, Lee, Sandell and Corgnet, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Østervold is silent as to batteries in the housing. Railey teaches a marine vehicle wherein the housing 1600 includes one or more intelligent batteries 7 which are configured to be charged and controlled [0059-0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system/robot of Østervold with intelligent batteries in the housing as taught by Railey in order to enable the device to continue functioning in the case of power supply interruption.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Østervold US 8,794,251 in view of Lee US 9,335,172, Højer US 9,434,456 and Gyland US 11,926,232.
Regarding claim 15, Østervold and Lee, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Østervold does not teach a launching system comprising: a crane; a garage marked with identifiers and configured to hold the bio scale removal robot; and an umbilical line controller. Højer a submersible cleaning system comprising:
a crane 54;
a garage (column 10, lines 51-53) configured to hold the cleaning robot 35; and an
umbilical line controller 56.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system/robot of Østervold with the crane, garage and line controller as taught by Højer in order to simplify launching and handling of the cleaning robot.
Neither Østervold nor Højer teach that the garage is marked with fiducial landmarks, wherein the bioscale removal robot is configured to identify the fiducial landmarks with the plurality of front cameras and automatically align with the garage. Gyland teaches a system for docking a submarine vessel 2 in which a docking port 3 comprises fiducial landmarks, wherein the vessel is configured to identify the fiducial landmarks with a plurality of front cameras and automatically align with the docking port (column 1, lines 63-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the docking garage of Østervold and Højer with fiducial landmarks as taught by Gyland in order to ensure proper alignment of the robot while docking.
Regarding claim 16, Østervold, Lee, Højer and Gyland teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. Højer also teaches that the crane is configured to dynamically adjust the height and lateral position of the bioscale removal robot, as that is what cranes do.
Claim 19 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Østervold US 8,794,251 in view of Lee US 9,335,172 and Crawford US 5,080,530, and alternatively also in view of Højer US 9,434,456.
Regarding claim 19, Østervold and Lee, together or in view of Højer teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Østervold does not teach a utilities generation center. Crawford teaches a marine vessel which comprises a utilities center comprising an electric energy generating unit, a hydraulic energy generating unit, and a pneumatic energy generating unit (column 1 line 68-cloumn 2, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system/robot of Østervold with electric, hydraulic and pneumatic energy generating units as taught by Crawford in order to ensure the craft can support a wide range of operations. As modified, the electric energy generating unit is in electrical communication with the bioscale removal robot via the umbilical line.
Neither Østervold nor Crawford teach that the electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic energy generating units are interconnected to a single control system, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to control all energy generation from a single system in order to simplify operation or reduce cost, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
If applicant does not agree that the electric energy generating unit is in electrical communication with the bioscale removal robot via the umbilical line, then Højer teaches that a cleaning ROV is supplied power from a support vessel (column 4, lines 36-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system/robot of Østervold by supplying power from the ship as taught by Højer in order to extend the service period and not rely on locally stored energy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 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