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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks”, filed June 24th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Latham (US 11485461 B2) in view of Borodavkin (RU 2732039 C1) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Latham discloses the lift bail assembly as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the lift bail frame extends at least half of a body length of the unmanned underwater vehicle where at least 2/3 of a weight of the unmanned underwater vehicle is directly supported by the lift bail; and the lift bail frame includes a plurality of stop attachment points configured to allow the two stops to be positioned at different locations along the lift bail frame to accommodate stop cutout positions on different unmanned underwater vehicles.
However, Borodavkin teaches an apparatus for release and reception of an underwater instrument wherein the lift bail frame extends at least half of a body length of the unmanned underwater vehicle where at least 2/3 of a weight of the unmanned underwater vehicle is directly supported by the lift bail; and the lift bail frame includes a plurality of stop attachment points configured to allow the two stops to be positioned at different locations along the lift bail frame to accommodate stop cutout positions on different unmanned underwater vehicles.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teaching, motivation or suggestion to combine is to completely protect the clamps from corrosion during life of the attached anodes, which is found in the prior art reference, and is also in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Latham (US 11485461 B2) in view of Borodavkin (RU 2732039 C1).
Regarding claim 1, Latham discloses a lift bail assembly comprising: a lift bail frame (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the lift bail frame includes an attachment cutout to attach the lift bail frame to a lifting device (see annotated Fig. 4); two distal lift clamps (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the two distal lift clamps are positioned opposite each other at each end of the lift bail frame (see annotated Fig. 4); two or more proximal lift clamps (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the two or more proximal lift clamps are positioned anywhere on the lift bail frame between the two distal lift clamps (see annotated Fig. 4); and two stops (50; see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the two stops fit into two stop cutouts on the unmanned underwater vehicle and are centered on the lift bail frame adjacent to the attachment cutout (see Col. 5, lines 45-50); wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps encompass the unmanned underwater vehicle and are rigidly fixed to the lift bail frame (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Latham fails to disclose wherein the lift bail frame extends at least half of a body length of the unmanned underwater vehicle where at least 2/3 of a weight of the unmanned underwater vehicle is directly supported by the lift bail; and the lift bail frame includes a plurality of stop attachment points configured to allow the two stops to be positioned at different locations along the lift bail frame to accommodate stop cutout positions on different unmanned underwater vehicles.
However, Borodavkin teaches an apparatus for release and reception of an underwater instrument, wherein the lift bail frame (see Page 4, Para. 8) extends at least half of a body length of the unmanned underwater vehicle where at least 2/3 of a weight of the unmanned underwater vehicle is directly supported by the lift bail (see Fig. 1; lift bail is at least half of the body length of the UUV; so, it is capable of supporting 2/3 of the weight of the UUV); and the lift bail frame (see Page 4, Para. 8) includes a plurality of stop attachment points configured to allow the two stops to be positioned at different locations along the lift bail frame to accommodate stop cutout positions on different unmanned underwater vehicles (see Page 6, Para. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the lift bail frame extends at least half of a body length of the unmanned underwater vehicle where at least 2/3 of a weight of the unmanned underwater vehicle is directly supported by the lift bail; and the lift bail frame includes a plurality of stop attachment points configured to allow the two stops to be positioned at different locations along the lift bail frame to accommodate stop cutout positions on different unmanned underwater vehicles on the lift bail assembly of Latham, as taught by Borodavkin, to increase versatility and expand operational capabilities of the device (see Page 6, Para. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Latham, in view of Borodavkin, discloses the lift bail assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein the lift bail frame is composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Col. 4, lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 11485461 B2) in view of Borodavkin (RU 2732039 C1), further in view of Hooper (US 20190241239 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Latham, in view of Borodavkin, discloses the lift bail assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Latham, as modified by Borodavkin, fails to disclose wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof.
However, Hooper teaches a torpedo clamp wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0024).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof on the lift bail assembly of Latham, as modified by Borodavkin, as taught by Hooper, in order to have varying stiffness or hardness (see Para. 0024).
Regarding claim 4, Latham, in view of Borodavkin, discloses the lift bail assembly as claimed in claim 1.
Latham, as modified by Borodavkin, fails to disclose wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are rigidly fixed to the lift bail frame by bolts, screws, rivets, welding or a combination thereof.
However, Hooper teaches an open water transport system wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are rigidly fixed to the lift bail frame by bolts, screws, rivets, welding or a combination thereof (see Para. 0047).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are rigidly fixed to the lift bail frame by bolts, screws, rivets, welding or a combination thereof on the lift bail assembly of Latham, as modified by Borodavkin, as taught by Hooper, so that the system may be modular and composed of system modules (see Para. 0047).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebo (US 20210371067 A1) in view of Britton (GB 2171143 A).
Regarding claim 5, Lebo discloses a load-bearing frame structure for UUV, comprising: a backing plate (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the backing plate is rigidly fixed to an internal wall of the unmanned underwater vehicle (see annotated Fig. 17A below); a top mounting bracket (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the top mounting bracket is rigidly fixed to the backing plate (see annotated Fig. 17A below); a starboard bracket and a port bracket (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the starboard bracket and port bracket are rigidly fixed to the top mounting bracket and a top cap (see annotated Fig. 17A below); two bottom braces (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the two bottom braces are located on a port side and a starboard side of the backing plate rigidly fixed to the backing plate (see annotated Fig. 17A below); wherein the structural member is located internally within the unmanned underwater vehicle at one distal side or both distal sides of the unmanned underwater vehicle (see Fig. 10-14D); and wherein the structural member is positioned to reinforce the unmanned underwater vehicle at locations corresponding to attachment points of a lift bail assembly on an exterior of the unmanned underwater vehicle (see Para. 0106-0109; the primary frame structure provides load bearing support).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lebo fails to disclose two environmental anodes, wherein one environmental anode each is rigidly fixed to the starboard bracket and the port bracket.
However, Britton teaches a self-actuating clamp two environmental anodes (32; see Fig. 1-4); wherein one environmental anode each is rigidly fixed to the starboard bracket and the port bracket (see Fig. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce two environmental anodes, wherein one environmental anode each is rigidly fixed to the starboard bracket and the port bracket on the load bearing frame structure of Lebo, as taught by Britton, in order to completely protect the clamps from corrosion during life of the attached anodes (see Page 13, Para. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Lebo, in view of Britton, discloses the load-bearing frame structure for UUV as claimed in claim 5, further disclosing wherein the starboard bracket and port bracket are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0109).
Regarding claim 7, Lebo, in view of Britton, discloses the load-bearing frame structure for UUV as claimed in claim 5, further disclosing wherein the backing plate, the top mounting bracket, the two bottom braces, and the top cap are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0109).
Regarding claim 8, Lebo, in view of Britton, discloses the load-bearing frame structure for UUV as claimed in claim 5, further disclosing wherein the backing plate, the top mounting bracket, the starboard bracket, the port bracket, the two environmental anodes, and the two bottom braces are rigidly fixed with bolts, screws, rivets, welding, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0109).
Claim(s) 9-10, 12 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 11485461 B2) in view of Borodavkin (RU 2732039 C1), Lebo (US 20210371067 A1), and Britton (GB 2171143 A).
Regarding claim 9, Latham discloses a lift attachment system for a UVV comprising: a lift bail assembly (see Fig. 4), wherein the lift bail assembly includes: a lift bail frame (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the lift bail frame includes an attachment cutout to attach the lift bail frame to a lifting device (see annotated Fig. 4) and the lift bail frame extends at least half of a body length of the unmanned underwater vehicle where at least 2/3 of a weight of the unmanned underwater vehicle is directly supported below the lift bail (see annotated Fig. 4); two distal lift clamps (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the two distal lift clamps are positioned opposite each other at each end of the lift bail frame (see annotated Fig. 4); two or more proximal lift clamps (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the two or more proximal lift clamps are positioned anywhere on the lift bail frame between the two distal lift clamps (see annotated Fig. 4); and two stops (50; see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the two stops fit into two stop cutouts on the unmanned underwater vehicle and are centered on the lift bail frame adjacent to the attachment cutout (see Col. 5, lines 45-50); wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps encompass the unmanned underwater vehicle and are rigidly fixed to the lift bail frame (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Latham fails to disclose wherein the lift bail frame includes a plurality of stop attachment points configured to allow the two stops to be positioned at different locations along the lift bail frame to accommodate stop cutout positions on different unmanned underwater vehicles; one or more structural members, wherein the one or more structural members include: a backing plate, wherein the backing plate is rigidly fixed to an internal wall of the unmanned underwater vehicle; a top mounting bracket, wherein the top mounting bracket is rigidly fixed to the backing plate; a starboard bracket and a port bracket, wherein the starboard bracket and port bracket are rigidly fixed to the top mounting bracket and a top cap; two bottom braces, wherein the two bottom braces are located on a port side and a starboard side of the backing plate rigidly fixed to the backing plate; and two environmental anodes, wherein one environmental anode each is rigidly fixed to the starboard bracket and the port bracket; wherein the structural member is located internally within the unmanned underwater vehicle at one distal side or both distal sides of the unmanned underwater vehicle; and is positioned to reinforce the unmanned underwater vehicle at locations corresponding to attachment points of the lift bail assembly on an exterior of the unmanned underwater vehicle.
However, Borodavkin teaches an apparatus for release and reception of an underwater instrument, wherein the lift bail frame (see Page 4, Para. 8) includes a plurality of stop attachment points configured to allow the two stops to be positioned at different locations along the lift bail frame to accommodate stop cutout positions on different unmanned underwater vehicles (see Page 6, Para. 1-4). See motivation of claim 1.
Further, Lebo discloses a load-bearing frame structure for UUV, comprising: one or more structural members (see Fig. 17), wherein the one or more structural members include: a backing plate (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the backing plate is rigidly fixed to an internal wall of the unmanned underwater vehicle (see annotated Fig. 17A below); a top mounting bracket (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the top mounting bracket is rigidly fixed to the backing plate (see annotated Fig. 17A below); a starboard bracket and a port bracket (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the starboard bracket and port bracket are rigidly fixed to the top mounting bracket and a top cap (see annotated Fig. 17A below); two bottom braces (see annotated Fig. 17A below), wherein the two bottom braces are located on a port side and a starboard side of the backing plate rigidly fixed to the backing plate (see annotated Fig. 17A below); wherein the structural member is located internally within the unmanned underwater vehicle at one distal side or both distal sides of the unmanned underwater vehicle (see Fig. 10-14D) and is positioned to reinforce the unmanned underwater vehicle at locations corresponding to attachment points of the lift bail assembly on an exterior of the unmanned underwater vehicle (see Para. 0106-0109; the primary frame structure provides load bearing support).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce one or more structural members, wherein the one or more structural members include: a backing plate, wherein the backing plate is rigidly fixed to an internal wall of the unmanned underwater vehicle; a top mounting bracket, wherein the top mounting bracket is rigidly fixed to the backing plate; a starboard bracket and a port bracket, wherein the starboard bracket and port bracket are rigidly fixed to the top mounting bracket and a top cap; two bottom braces, wherein the two bottom braces are located on a port side and a starboard side of the backing plate rigidly fixed to the backing plate; and two environmental anodes, wherein one environmental anode each is rigidly fixed to the starboard bracket and the port bracket; wherein the structural member is located internally within the unmanned underwater vehicle at one distal side or both distal sides of the unmanned underwater vehicle and is positioned to reinforce the unmanned underwater vehicle at locations corresponding to attachment points of the lift bail assembly on an exterior of the unmanned underwater vehicle on the lift attachment system of Latham, as modified by Borodavkin, as taught by Lebo, in order to reduce overall weight of the frame, while providing load bearing support (see Para. 0109).
Further, Britton teaches a self-actuating clamp two environmental anodes (32; see Fig. 1-4); wherein one environmental anode each is rigidly fixed to the starboard bracket and the port bracket (see Fig. 1-4). See motivation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, Latham, in view of Borodavkin, Lebo and Britton, discloses the lift bail assembly as claimed in claim 9, wherein the lift bail frame is composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Col. 4, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 12, Latham, in view of Borodavkin, Lebo and Britton, discloses the lift bail assembly as claimed in claim 9, wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are rigidly fixed to the lift bail frame by bolts, screws, rivets, welding, or a combination thereof (see Abstract for arm being attached to frame at a pivot).
Regarding claim 13, Lebo further discloses wherein the starboard bracket and port bracket are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0109). See motivation of claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Lebo further discloses wherein the backing plate, the top mounting bracket, the two bottom braces, and the top cap are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0109). See motivation of claim 9.
Regarding claim 15, Lebo further discloses wherein the backing plate, the top mounting bracket, the starboard bracket, the port bracket, the two environmental anodes, and the two bottom braces are rigidly fixed with bolts, screws, rivets, welding, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0109). See motivation of claim 9.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham (US 11485461 B2), in view of Borodavkin (RU 2732039 C1), Lebo (US 20210371067 A1) and Britton (GB 2171143 A), further in view of Hooper (US 20190241239 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Latham, in view of Borodavkin, Lebo and Britton, discloses the lift bail assembly as claimed in claim 9.
Latham, as modified by Borodavkin, Lebo and Britton, fails to disclose wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof.
However, Hooper teaches a torpedo clamp wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof (see Para. 0024).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the two distal lift clamps and the two or more proximal lift clamps are composed of aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, or a combination thereof on the lift bail assembly of Latham, as modified by Borodavkin, Lebo and Britton, as taught by Hooper, in order to have varying stiffness or hardness (see Para. 0024).
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 REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights