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 .
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 11, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by English (US 6484660). With respect to claim 1, English discloses a modular hydrodynamic subsea vehicle 10 with a main body portion 12 extending fore and aft and a number of self-contained propulsion pods coupled to the main body portion, the main body portion has an exterior housing for supporting a plurality of functional modules (Figures 1-2; column 2, lines 27-35), with an upper section with a first 14 upper primary module and a separate second 46 upper primary module, a lower section operatively connected to the upper section with a first 22 and second 28 modules and a control interface 40, 42, 44 operatively connected to the upper section. With respect to claim 5, note English, 46, 140, 144, 14, 46; Figures 1, 3. With respect to claim 7, note English, note 14, 140; Figures 1-3. With respect to claim 11, note English, 14, 146, 140; Figures 1, 3. With respect to claims 15-18, note English, 22, 28, 142, 24, 26, 142, 42, 44; Figures 1-3. With respect to claim 19, the method follows inherently from the English disclosure if the intermediate set is zero.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English (US 6484660). With respect to claim 4, English discloses an umbilical interface 30A but does not disclose a control interface. It would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of English with the control interface comprising an umbilical interface with a high likelihood of success for improved umbilical control. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive undersea marine systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English (US 6484660) in view of Daley et al (US 2019/0031308). With respect to claims 6, 8-10 , English does not disclose foam blocks and a row of holes. It would have been an obvious choice of engineering design to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of English with a row of holes with a high likelihood of success for improved accessory attachment. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of English with foam blocks as taught by Daley et al with a high likelihood of success to increase the overall buoyancy of the device. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive undersea marine systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious. With respect to claim 9, English discloses a payload bay cover 14/46 (Figure 1), top 140 (Figure 3) and panel (divider between 14 and 46; Figure 1).
Claims 15-16 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. With respect to claims 15-16 the use of “standardized” is unclear.
Claims 2-3 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. King et al (US 6854410) show a modular device. Marion et al (US 2008/0127878) show a modular device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-4.
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 J. Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615