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 14 is 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.
As to claim 14, “generating a second primary control signal to the first water sample device” (line 4 from last) is uncertain in its mean. Should “to the first” read - - for the first - - to be consistent with line 4? Please understand “generating a second primary control signal to the first water sample device” (line 4 from last) must have a meaning different from generating from; but what this is, is not apparent.
Note: As to claim 1, the “first water measurement device” (line 8, claim 1) corresponds to “a first sensor 115” (Para 53, Publication) which is separate from “”a first water testing part” 113 (Para 53, Publication). As such, the 35 USC 112(a) was overcome on that issue.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yu CN 107290182 B in view of Wei et al CN 206670981.
Yu teaches a method of obtaining samples from a body of water by a marine vessel in a body of water, the marine vessel comprising an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining a predefined model data of a first water sample device (storing set sampling depth for comparison; or obtaining criteria for what is environment is deemed to be bad for use with a camera);
generating a first primary control signal for the first water sample device and performing a first movement of a first testing part in a first position relative to the body of water (i.e. lower the sampler/camera into the water via a winch);
receiving a first sensor data from the first water sample device (underwater camera sensor on the bottom of the platform is used to inspect if sample environment is bad (due to reef or plants) or good (for sampling);
generating first comparison data where the first sensor (camera) data will be compared with the predefined model data (i.e. what is a bad environment, thus not a good location to sample at) of the first water sample device;
generating a second primary control signal to the first water sample device based on the first comparison (i.e. continuously moving the mother ship until a proper sampling position is found by navigating signal that control the vessel), and
performing a second movement of the first water testing part relative to the body of water (i.e. activate the sampler at its designated depth by opening and closing valve to receive and trap sample).
The sampler is that of a Niskin sampler, and thus employs valves that open (to receive sample) and close (to trap sample when done).
Wei et al ‘981 teaches:
“For collection of dangerous waters, in order to avoid the casualties to reach the purpose of automation. most are made unmanned boat automatic acquisition. sending instructions to the unmanned boat reach the appointed place, then fixing the sample collected by the sampling in the kettle via the centrifugal pump.” and that
“The invention can be completely automatic control and satisfy various demands of sample collection. sampling controllable depth improves the representativeness and scientificty of the collecting sample and avoids the boat caused by floating of the sampling error.”
As to claim 14, it would have been obvious to employ a controller to operate the method of Yu because Wei teaches marine sampler/sensor use of a controller to automate such sampling/sensing in dangerous waters.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855