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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 21 is dependent on claim 20 which is cancelled.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 11, 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haire et al. (IEEE publication) in view of Alam et al. (2021/0099228)
With regards to claim 8, Haire teaches a system for underwater inspections comprising a line of unmanned underwater vehicles and a control station in optical communication with each other; and wherein each of said vehicles autonomously maintains a position relative to the surface to be inspected and relative to the nearest said vehicles in the line (See II. Methodology and Experimental Setup par. 1-2). However, Haire is silent as to whether the vehicles are untethered or in optical communication with each other and in line to maintain communication. Alam teaches these limitations (Fig. 1 & 2, UAVs are untethered and in optical communication with each other). Haire also fails to teach wherein the untethered underwater vehicle, except one at a free extremity of the line, receives a signal from another untethered underwater vehicle, amplifies the signal and sends the signal to the following untethered underwater vehicle until the signal reaches the control station. Alam (par 29 shown also in FIG. 2), the AUV's 18 are positioned at less than the maximum range of the laser of the nearest member. Each AUV preferably has a receiver 22 capable of receiving an optical signal 20, amplifying the signal and transmitting the amplified signal with laser transmitter 24 to one or more associated AUV's in the swarm that is at a position above, below or horizontal from the sender AUV. Haire also fails to teach a control station. In Alam the ship (16, Fig 2), preferably has a control station (see claim 12 and other sections of the specification). It would have been obvious to combine Haire with Alam to send amplified signals from the AUVs to the control station. The motivation would be for the AUVs to maintain high bandwidth communication between the AUVs and control station.
With regards to claim 11, Haire teaches a system according to claim 8 wherein the surface is a hull of a ship (See Abstract, I. Introduction par. 1-2)
With regards to claim 18, 20 Alam teaches a system wherein data from one of said vehicles are relayed along the line by a laser based optical communications system. (Alam Fig 1 & 2, optical links connecting each UAV, each UAV has a transceiver). It would be obvious to combine Haire with Alam for the same reasons as in claim 8
With regards to claim 19 Alam teaches a system wherein data are high resolution video data (Alam par. 17 streaming video). Haire and Alam are combined for the same reason as stated in claim 8.
With regards to claim 21, Alam teaches a system the data are relayed along the line to a relay station disposed ate the end of the line (par. 28). ). Haire and Alam are combined for the same reason as stated in claim 8
With regards to claim 22 Alam et al. teaches the system data from one of said vehicles disposed at one end of said line are relayed along the line to a control station disposed at the opposite end of the line (Fig 1the control station is on the ship at one end and the first UAV at the other end relays data via network of UAVs to the ship) What Alam et al. fails to teach is wherein data from the control station are relayed to said one vehicle disposed at the opposite end of the line. Fig 1 of Elam et al teaches communication in a single direction, however in par. 0027, Alam et al. teaches that even though Fig 1 depicts communication only in one direction i.e. from the submarine to the ship, optical communications typically go in both directions. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that data from the control station can be relayed to the last AUV. Hence this teaching suggests the use of optical communications ensures bidirectional communications. It would be obvious to have bidirectional communication so that the control station can communicate with the AUVs. The motivation being to relay data to the submarine.
With regards to claim 23, Alam et al. teaches that the AUVs are capable of sending video data (par 17 streaming video), but fails to teach that the data from the control station are remote control data. Official notice is taken that it is well known in the art that controlling the positions of the AUVs can be achieved via remote control to avoid drifting by AUVs due to water currents. The motivation being to control the positions of the AUVs.
With regards to claims 24-25, Alam et al., teaches the system wherein said line comprises at least four of said vehicles or at least 8 of said vehicles. (Fig. 1, AUVs). ). Haire and Alam are combined for the same reason as stated in claim 8.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haire et al. (IEEE publication) in view of Alam et al. (2021/0099228) and further in view of Hong et al. (In-water visual ship hull inspection using a hover-capable underwater vehicle with stereo vision, 1. Introduction par. 1) and Rodocker et al. (2007/0276552)
With regards to claim 12 Haire in view of Alam fail to teach the system of claim 11 wherein the hull is inspected for biofouling, corrosion, structural defects and contraband. However Hong teaches these defects in the Introduction. (1 Introduction par. 1, p. 531), It would have been obvious to combine Hong with Haire and Alam for the purpose of expanding the use of underwater vehicles for different types of hull repairs. Hong does not include contraband goods, Rodocker teaches hull inspections that include contraband goods (P.1, col. 1, par 002). It would have been obvious to combine Rodocker with Haire, Alam and Hong in order to inspect contraband goods to prevent smuggling.
Claim(s) 14, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alam et al. (2021/0099228) in view of Haire et al. (IEEE publication)
With regards to claim 14, Alam et al. teaches, a method comprising the steps of: Providing a plurality of unmanned, untethered underwater vehicles each equipped video and optical communication capabilities (see Fig. 1, 2, par 17 streaming video), allowing said plurality to establish a communications network allowing data to transmission to and from unmanned underwater vehicle to unmanned water vehicle and to a control station( see Fig 1, 2, par 28 control station on ship), establishing a line of said unmanned water vehicles wherein the control station is disposed at one end of the line
and using the line to relay video data to the control station (See Fig 1, 2, par 17, 28 streaming video). Alam also teaches controlling one of said plurality of UUVs remotely by an operator (par. 006 the ROVs in Alam are remotely controlled), but does not teach to performing an inspection of niche areas after sweeping the line along the hull of the ship. Alan also fails to teach sweeping the line along a hull of a ship. Haire teaches a population of UUVs perform hull inspections, namely a population of robots that are evenly distributed underneath a vessel forming a line and follows the curvature of the vessel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Alam with Haire in order to use ROVs that are remotely controlled and capable of performing underwater hull inspections.
With regards to claim 26, Alam et al. teaches a method wherein the step of using relays video data only from said unmanned underwater vehicle disposed at an end of the line opposite the control station (Fig 1, streaming video from first UAV to ship)
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alam et al. (2021/0099228) in view of Haire et al. (IEEE publication and further in view of Hong et al. (In-water visual ship hull inspection using a hover-capable underwater vehicle with stereo vision, 1. Introduction par. 1) and Rodocker et al. (2007/0276552)
With regards to claim 15 Alam in view of Haire fail to teach the system of claim 14 wherein the hull is inspected for biofouling, corrosion, structural defects and contraband. However Hong teaches these defects in the Introduction. (1 Introduction par. 1, p. 531), It would have been obvious to combine Hong with Haire and Alam for the purpose of expanding the use of underwater vehicles for different types of hull repairs. Hong does not include contraband goods, Rodocker teaches hull inspections that include contraband goods (P.1, col. 1, par 002). It would have been obvious to combine Rodocker with Alam, Haire and Hong in order to inspect contraband goods to prevent smuggling.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alam et al. (2021/0099228) in view of Haire et al. (IEEE publication) and further in view of Vaughan (2021/0303867)
With regards to claim 27 Alam et al. in view of Haire fails to teach the method further comprising the step of processing the video data with a machine language algorithm. Vaughan teaches processing video data with a machine language algorithm (par 0116). It would have been obvious to combine Vaughan with Alam and Haire for the purpose of enhancing overall quality and utility of video data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach…
A method for underwater inspections comprising … controlling a distal unmanned, untethered vehicle, of said plurality, remotely by an operator to perform an inspection of niche areas while the remaining underwater vehicles are in a different autonomous mode and are used to relay the signal from the distal unmanned, untethered underwater vehicle
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 KENNETH N VANDERPUYE whose telephone number is (571)272-3078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30am-2:30p.
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.
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.
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights