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 .
Claims 67-81 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/22/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because most figures are not proper black and white line drawings, and comprise 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.
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 USBL Transponder, INS system, depth sensor, two altimeters, ultrawide camera, multibeam sonar, mechanical sonar, air reservoirs (multiple) (claim 58), “double helices” (claim 82) and “height adjustment with a spring system” (claim 83) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Please note that the locations of many of these features are “shown” as a highlighted spot on the overall robot (figure 11), but the recited components are not properly depicted.
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 Objections
Regarding claim 58:
Line 4 recites “characterized in that comprising.” This should be rephrased as –comprising--.
Line 7 recites “the INS system.” As INS stands for “Inertial Navigation System,” the “system” is redundant.
Seemingly random words such as “Ultrawide” and “Thrusters” are capitalized.
Claims 60, 61 and 85-94 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims not been further treated on the merits.
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 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, 82, 83 and 84 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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.
Regarding claim 58:
The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Line 5 recites the limitation "the non-georeferential location system." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 7 recites “a set of cameras,” while line 8 recites “Ultrawide camera.” It is unclear if the ultrawide camera is part of the set of cameras. Additionally, the term “ultrawide” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultrawide” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Line 17 recites “set of cameras.” It is unclear if this is the same set recited in line 7.
Claim 58 recites the limitations "the fluid transport piping,” “the open chassis,” “each tensioning wheel,” “the metallic surface” and “the thrusters.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Line 9 recites “wherein, through the fusion of data, it is possible to map the position and allows perceiving the environment through a computational architecture.” It is unclear if this is intended use, or how this limits the recited physical limitations.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "active cylinders" in line 2. It is unclear if these are the same “active cylinders” recited in line 12 of parent claim 58.
Claim 62 recites the limitation "the pressure housings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 62 recites that “the third module, rear part of the robot, contains the…electronic components and other location systems.” It is unclear what electronic components and/or location systems are included, as these are depicted in all regions of the robot. It is further unclear if the “other location systems” are in addition to the non-georeferential location system.
Claim 64 recites that “the dynamic buoyancy system is embodied by mobile weights.” It is unclear if this is in addition or an alternative to the “air reservoirs” recited in line 22 of parent claim 58. Claim 64 is also written as an action, and should be rephrased as –mobile weights configured to shift the center of mass—or similar.
Claim 65 recites “at least one tensioning wheel,…ultrawide camera and altimeter.” It is unclear if these are the same tensioning wheel, ultrawide camera and altimeter recited in parent claim 58.
Claim 82 recites “A system for cleaning bio-scales in hulls of floating units, as defined in the inventive concept of claim 58.” This phrase is unclear. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as -- A system for cleaning bio-scales in hulls of floating units, according to claim 58.—
Claim 82 recites the limitation "the space" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 83 recites the limitation "the channels" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 84 is unclear for reasons including, but not limited to:
Line 2 recites that the holes are misaligned, but does not state what they are misaligned to.
It is unclear what “upon removal” applies to- the preceding limitations, the following limitations or both.
It is unclear what the opposite movement of suction is.
It is unclear what materials are being expelled- materials that have been previously removed?
The claim appears to recite method steps, and it is unclear how these limit an apparatus claim.
Claim 84 is unclear to the degree that no art rejection can be made as this time.
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 58, 59, 62, 63 and 65 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoretich US 6,000,484 in view of Postic US 10,543,892, Runciman US 2019/0331778, Zernov US 2007/0242134, Hertel US 7,905,192, Chelaru US 11,505,297, Lyssy US 2019/0317235, Lovelace US 2014/0230711, Caduff US 4,890,567, Andersen US 9,308,977 and Erath US 3,952,349.
Regarding claim 58, Zoretich teaches an underwater robot for removal of marine bio-scaling from hulls of floating units, containing accessory components such as cameras, sonar sensors, acoustic systems, laser scanner, artificial light source (column 4, lines 7-8), set of wheels surrounded by magnetic tracks, thrusters, comprising:
the open chassis divided into multiple modules: front 4 and central 2, which are connected by active cylinders 120 to aid in the adaptability of the system on surfaces with large radii (column 6, lines 6-17);
a bio-scaling removal system 132 in the front module 4;
fluid transport piping 136.
Zoretich does not teach a set of sensors to compose the non-georeferential location system containing a transponder in USBL standards located on the outside, and on the inside of the robot there are the sensors of the INS, a depth sensor, two altimeters. Postic teaches an underwater autonomous vehicle comprising a non-georeferential location system containing a transponder in USBL standards located on the outside (column 6, line 23- column 7, line 15), and on the inside of the robot there are the sensors of the INS 118, a depth sensor (column 4, lines 59-62), and an altimeter (column 5, lines 38-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with the transponder, INS, depth sensor and altimeter as taught by Postic in order to give operators a more detailed reading of the operating environment.
If the applicant does not agree that the transponder is on the outside of the robot, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the transponder on the outside in order to reduce interference, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Postic does not teach two altimeters, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add duplicate sensors in order to increase redundancy, 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.
Zoretich does not teach a set of cameras and led illuminators, or an ultrawide camera. Zernov teaches an underwater autonomous vehicle comprising a set of cameras 10 [0016, 0088] and led illuminators 50, and an ultrawide camera (any of the cameras) creating a full-time 360° coverage [0148]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with the cameras and illuminators as taught by Zernov in order to obtain a better visual capture of the surrounding environment.
Zoretich does not teach multibeam sonar or mechanical sonar. Runciman teaches an underwater vehicle which comprises multibeam and mechanical sonar [0068-0070]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with multibeam and mechanical sonar as taught by Runciman in order to obtain a more detailed scan of the surrounding environment. Note that as taught, through the fusion of data, it is possible to map the position and allows perceiving the environment through a computational architecture.
Zoretich does not teach that the open chassis is divided into front, central and rear modules, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add additional sections in order to more efficiently remove fouling, 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. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to divide the chassis into more modules in order to better conform to the surface, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Zoretich does not teach that the bio-scaling removal system also captures contains and crushes the removed matter. Hertel teaches an underwater surface cleaning robot 120 which comprises a bio-scaling removal, capture 220, containment and crushing 255 system with fluid transport piping 130. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with capture, crushing and transport capability as taught by Hertel in order to more completely remove bio-scale without fouling the surrounding environment.
Zoretich does not teach a flow rate sensor arranged in the fluid transport piping. Chelaru teaches an underwater service vehicle 100 which conveys liquid through a line 450 which comprises a flow rate sensor 915. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with a flow rate sensor for the line as taught by Chelaru in order to verify that the fluid is being moved at a desired rate.
Zoretich does not teach a particle sensor arranged on the front of the robot. Lyssy teaches an underwater survey apparatus which comprises particle sensors [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with particle sensors as taught by Lyssy in order to obtain additional data about the surrounding environment.
Zoretich does not teach a track formed by electromagnets with a grading control in the imposition of the adhesion forces to the metallic surface. Caduff teaches an underwater cleaning robot 10 comprising a track 20 formed by electromagnets 72 with a grading control (the application of power) in the imposition of the adhesion forces to the metallic surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with electromagnetic tracks as taught by Caduff in order to provide the robot with better traction and adhesion to grip the surface to be cleaned.
Zoretich does not teach an individual suspension system for each tensioning wheel. Lovelace teaches an underwater servicing robot comprising magnetic tracks and a tensioning wheel (each individually suspended) (figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with magnetic tracks and a tensioning wheel as taught by Lovelace in order to ensure that the tracks are properly tightened and can be properly applied to the surface.
Zoretich does not teach thrusters. Andersen teaches an underwater cleaning robot 1 which comprises thrusters 2, 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with thrusters as taught by Andersen in order to apply or remove the robot from a surface or enable movement apart from the surface.
Zoretich does not teach a dynamic buoyancy system containing air reservoirs which allows a change in the dynamics of the robot movement when submerged. Erath teaches an underwater device which comprises a dynamic buoyancy system 10 containing air reservoirs 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with a dynamic buoyancy system as taught by Erath in order to selectively adjust the buoyancy of the robot, enabling more precise control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize multiple reservoirs in order to increase redundancy or make packaging easier, 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 59, Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen and Erath teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 58. Zoretich also teaches that the modules have mechanical attachments at one point and active cylinders 120 at another point to help adapt the robot to surfaces with large radii or keep it straight when it is in ROV mode.
Regarding claim 62, Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen and Erath teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 58. Zoretich does not teach specific locations for each component, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the pressure housings and electronics wherever it was desired and/or convenient in order to simplify manufacturing or maintenance, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 63, Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen and Erath teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 58. Neither Zoretich nor Lyssy teach a specific type of particle sensor, however it would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute an optical or acoustic particle sensor in order to use a well-know, commercially available sensor, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 65, Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen and Erath teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 58. As detailed above, Lovelace teaches tensioning wheels, Caduff teaches electromagnetic tracks, Zernov teaches an ultrawide camera, and Postic teaches an altimeter. Andersen also teaches side chassis and system fairings (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with side chassis and fairings as taught by Andersen in order to protect the internal components from damage.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoretich US 6,000,484 in view of Postic US 10,543,892, Runciman US 2019/0331778, Zernov US 2007/0242134, Hertel US 7,905,192, Chelaru US 11,505,297, Lyssy US 2019/0317235, Lovelace US 2014/0230711, Caduff US 4,890,567, Andersen US 9,308,977, Erath US 3,952,349 and Geiger US 5,947,051.
Regarding claim 64, Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen and Erath teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 58. Zoretich does not teach that the dynamic buoyancy system is embodied by mobile weights (ballast) configured to shift the center of mass and allow the rotation of the vehicle body. Geiger teaches an underwater cleaning robot comprising a dynamic buoyancy system comprising mobile weights 90 configured to shift the center of mass and allow the rotation of the vehicle body (column 14, lines 31-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with mobile ballast as taught by Geiger in order to enable precise control of the robots center of gravity.
Claims 66(58) and 66(65) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoretich US 6,000,484 in view of Postic US 10,543,892, Runciman US 2019/0331778, Zernov US 2007/0242134, Hertel US 7,905,192, Chelaru US 11,505,297, Lyssy US 2019/0317235, Lovelace US 2014/0230711, Caduff US 4,890,567, Andersen US 9,308,977, Erath US 3,952,349 and Ledda US 10,414,473.
Regarding claims 66(58) and 66(65), Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen and Erath teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claims 58 and 65. Neither Zoretich nor Lovelace teach that each tensioning wheel has installed encoders. Ledda teaches and underwater cleaning robot which comprises wheel encoders (column 4, lines 16-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich and Lovelace with wheel encoders as taught by Ledda in order to track the tread travel and better capture robot motion.
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoretich US 6,000,484 in view of Postic US 10,543,892, Runciman US 2019/0331778, Zernov US 2007/0242134, Hertel US 7,905,192, Chelaru US 11,505,297, Lyssy US 2019/0317235, Lovelace US 2014/0230711, Caduff US 4,890,567, Andersen US 9,308,977, Erath US 3,952,349 and Urakami US 4,809,383.
Regarding claim 82, Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen and Erath teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 58. Zoretich and Hertel also teach that the capture system comprises mechanical barriers 228 where the space conforms to the surface.
Zoretich does not teach that the removal system comprises rotating blades. Urakami teaches a cleaning robot which comprises blades 82 on the rotating component 72. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with blades as taught by Urakami in order to better remove solid fouling matter.
Neither Zoretich nor Urakami teach double helices, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the blades helical or of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient in order to achieve the desired function or appearance. 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. Urakami does not specifically teach three blades, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add more blades in order to make fouling removal more efficient, 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.
Neither Zoretich nor Hertel teach details of the crusher, however the examiner is taking official notice that crushing systems are known to contain rotating blades, filters and milling rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich and Hertel with rotating blades, filters and milling rollers in order to effectively reduce the size of removed debris before transporting it through the hose.
Claim 83 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zoretich US 6,000,484 in view of Postic US 10,543,892, Runciman US 2019/0331778, Zernov US 2007/0242134, Hertel US 7,905,192, Chelaru US 11,505,297, Lyssy US 2019/0317235, Lovelace US 2014/0230711, Caduff US 4,890,567, Andersen US 9,308,977, Erath US 3,952,349, Urakami US 4,809,383 and Fontaine US 2014/0116316.
Regarding claim 83, Zoretich, Postic, Runciman, Zernov, Hertel, Chelaru, Lyssy, Lovelace, Caduff, Andersen, Erath and Urakami teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 58. Urakami also teaches that the rotating blades 82 have a suction system 58, capturing the particles during the act of removal through holes 52 and directing them towards channels 54. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with suction and holes as taught by Urakami in order to efficiently remove detached fouling material.
Neither Zoretich nor Urakami teach that the rotating blades comprise a height adjustment with a spring system to have contact with the surface. Fontaine teaches an underwater cleaning robot in which the cleaning tool 16, 18 comprises a height adjustment with a spring system 194 to have contact with the surface [0044]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the robot of Zoretich with a spring contact system as taught by Fontaine in order to ensure that the cleaning tool maintains contact with the surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McCutchan 487,198 teaches a device for cleaning a ship’s hull comprising several spinning blades.
Johnson US 2021/0107138 teaches an articulated robot for cleaning a surface.
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