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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not proper black and white line drawings, and comprise impermissible 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In this case, the disclosure does not explain what is meant by “all process variables of the effluent treatment system are correlated with process data from the bio scale removal robot.” The closest the specification comes to an explanation appears to be in paragraph [0054], but this does not enable one of ordinary skill to replicate the invention or understand the intent of the claim.
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 2, 19 and 22 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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.
Claim 2 recites several limitations on the bioscale removal robot, however the robot is never positively recited. It is therefor unclear if the bioscale removal robot is part of the claimed invention. For the purposes of this action, it will be treated as a claimed component.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “balloons” in claim 2 is seemingly used by the claim to mean “section with a thruster attached,” while the accepted meaning is “an inflatable buoyant object.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how the electric, hydraulic, and pneumatic energy generating units are connected to the rest of the recited elements.
Claim 22 recites a series of method steps- it is unclear how the recited steps further limit the claimed apparatus. It is unclear if the supervisory system is part of the claimed invention. It is further unclear if steps (such as “process variables of the effluent treatment system are correlated with process data”) are intended to be performed by the apparatus, or if this is done separately.
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.
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 support vessel 20 comprising:
one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to remotely operate a 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.
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.
Regarding claim 8, Østervold and Lee teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 2, Østervold and Lee 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 balloons positioned in an intermediate position between the connection portion and engagement portion; and one or more thrusters coupled to each of the one or more balloons. Corgnet teaches an underwater articulated arm 205 which comprises one or more balloons 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 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 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 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 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.
Regarding claim 9, Østervold, Lee, Sandell and Corgnet teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. 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 and Højer US 9,434,456.
Regarding claim 15, Østervold and Lee 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 identifiers, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to mark the garage with handling instructions, maker’s marks or other decorations in order to simplify use or achieve the desired appearance, since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)
Regarding claim 16, Østervold, Lee and Højer 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.
Regarding claim 19, Østervold and Lee 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.
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).
Claim 22 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 D'Amaddio US 6,317,387.
Regarding claim 22, Østervold and Lee teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Østervold also teaches that the effluent treatment system is controlled by a supervisory system (column 5, lines 27-32), but does not teach graphic elements, or that all process variables of the effluent treatment system are correlated with process data from the bio scale removal robot.
D'Amaddio teaches a remotely operated hull robot controlled by a supervisory system with graphic elements 194, wherein all process variables of the effluent treatment system are correlated with process data from the bio scale removal robot (see figure 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bio-scaling treatment system/robot of Østervold with graphic elements and data tracking as taught by D'Amaddio in order to enable users to view reports and summarize operation data to increase efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Rompay US 10,179,634 teaches a hull cleaning system with a crane for deploying a robot.
Fond US 4,011,827 teaches an arm with a cleaning attachment, which is moved via a thruster on the arm.
Lundberg US 4,279,212 teaches a service vessel that cleans hull with a tool at the end of an arm.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615