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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 26 September 2023. Claims 1-30 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07 November 2023 and 29 January 2024 were considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Spec. para. [0028] recites “…a set a set of thrusters powered by the set of electric motors…” and should say “…a set of thrusters powered by the set of electric motors…”. Additionally, it is not clear if the thrusters are powered by the electric motors or the batteries when viewed with the rest of the spec. and fig. 2 (See at least: 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below) {The Examiner notes: this may be a typo where “the set of electric motors” should be “the set of batteries” however it is not clear if the Applicant is describing a different embodiment or not.}.
Spec. para. [0069] describes the embodiment of fig. 8. Drawings page 4 of 5 have figs. 7-8 where reference characters “700” and “800” are found in the spec. table of reference numerals on pages 19-20 and is not considered part of the “Detailed Description”. Fig. 7 is only recited in para [0043]. Therefore, “700”, “800” and fig. 7 are not discussed, in detail, in the “Detailed Description”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6 recites “…using a set a set of…” and should be “…using a set of…” {Examiner notes the marked up of this line is “…using a set …”}. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 24 lines 6-7 recite “…a set a set of thrusters powered by the set of electric motors…”. Drawings fig. 2 and spec. para(s). [0004] “…a set of thrusters powered by the batteries…”, [0006] “the set of thrusters receiving power from the set of batteries”, [0048] “set of thrusters powered by the batteries”, [0067] “The thrusters 610 (two thrusters shown) are provided on a thruster plate 612 and may be powered by one or more of the battery packs 220 (FIG. 2)…”. Spec. para. [0028] recite “…a set a set of thrusters powered by the set of electric motors…” and does match the claim 24 language; however, para. [0028] is not clear if there is an error or if para. [0028] is a different embodiment which is not further described in the spec. or drawings. Claims 25-30 are rejected as they are dependents of a rejected base claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets Claim 24 lines 6-7 recite “…a set …”.
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 11 and 24-30 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the skirting" in line 2. Where claim 9 recites “skirting” in line 1. Claim 11’s claim tree is 8-5-1 and therefore “skirting” is not known in the claim tree. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 11 to be at least a dependent of claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 lines 6-7 recite “…a set a set of thrusters powered by the set of electric motors…” and is not clear if there is an error or lack of antecedent basis in the claim language (See at least: the discussion above for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as to why claim 24 in view of the spec and the drawings is not clear.). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets Claim 24 lines 6-7 recite “…a set …”.
Claims 25-30 are rejected based on the independent claim 24 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12-13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kremkau et al. discloses an amphibious, submersible vehicle (modular submersible survey vehicle (“MSSV”), MSSV 10; See at least: fig. 1), comprising:
a chassis hull (chassis 68, exterior shell 12, center section 14, bow wedge-shaped section 16, stern wedge-shaped section 18; See at least: figs. 1-3 and figs. 24-25) that includes a watertight compartment (watertight modules or watertight enclosures; See at least: col. 5 lines 40-43 “The MSSV can have several watertight modules (also referred to herein as enclosures) depending on the nature of the deployment…”);
left and right tracks (port track 26 and starboard track 28; See at least:) disposed on left and right sides (port and starboard; See at least: col. 12 lines 17-20 “The MSSV 10 has two continuous tracks—a port track 26 and a starboard track 28—that allow the MSSV to move forward and backward and to turn left or right.”) of the chassis hull; and
a plurality of electrical components (electric motor, electronic components for wireless communication, global position system, inclinometer, laser distance measuring device, lightning arrestor equipment, one or more batteries; See at least: col. 13 lines 10-15 “The interior 82 of the MSSV 10 contains watertight modules that contain different mechanical and electrical components including the lightning arrester module 84, the control processing unit (“CPU”) module 86, the hydraulic fluid reservoir module 88 and the hydraulic pump unit (“HPU”) module 90.” Claim 21 “….a watertight hydraulic power unit (HPU) module comprising an electric motor and a hydraulic pump; a watertight control processing unit (CPU) module comprising a CPU for controlling the movement of the MSSV and/or for controlling surveying equipment, wherein the CPU module further comprises electronic components for wireless communication with a tablet computer or lap top computer, a global position system, an inclinometer, and/or a laser distance measuring device” and claim 29 “watertight modules comprises lightning arrestor equipment or one or more batteries.”) disposed within the watertight compartment, the plurality of electrical components including a set of electric motors (variable speed electric motors 118; See at least: figs. 16-17, and 21) and a set of batteries (batteries 112, 114; See at least: figs. 13-14), the set of electric motors configured to receive power from the set of batteries and to drive the left and right tracks (See at least: col. 13 lines 57-60 “The batteries 112, 114 are used for the lights 100, 102, the variable speed electric motors 118 that power the hydraulic pumps 120, the CPU, the communication equipment and the surveying equipment…” and col. 13 line 66-67 through col. 14 line 1 “The HPU module 90 contains two electrical motors 118 and two hydraulic pumps 120 that drive the tracks 26, 28, along with the motor controls 122.”), the watertight compartment enabling the vehicle to operate on land, on a water surface, or below the water surface (; See at least: col. 1 lines 6-8 “…a submersible vehicle for surveying underwater areas bordering the shoreline of a body of water, including oceans, rivers and lakes…”, col. 5 lines 31-36 “The MSSV is a remotely operated benthic vehicle designed to serve as a platform for surveying, mapping, and remote sensory data acquisition in marine environments and shallow seas. The MSSV vehicle system is categorized as a “Special Use Crawler Type, Heavy Weight, Working Class, Autonomous Underwater Vehicle” by the US Navy's UUV Master Plan (2004 edition, section 5.1.3).”, col. 9 lines 1-3 “…the MSSV with a hydrodynamic shape for operating through waves and under water…” and col. 10 lines 32-35 “…MSSV to use electricity supplied from the generator for land transits, which maximizes mission run time for underwater deployments.”).
Regarding claim 12, Kremkau et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kremkau et al. discloses further comprising a plurality of pairs of bottom wheels (See at least: fig. 2 showing port track 26 has three pairs of bottom wheels for a total of 6 bottom wheels.) engaged with each track, the bottom wheels of the plurality of pairs having uniform diameter (See at least: fig. 2 where all bottom wheels have the same diameter), and each pair of bottom wheels including two bottom wheels placed side-by-side (See at least: fig. 2 showing each pair next to each other, side by side and where there is a longer space between each pair when compared to the spacing between each bottom wheel that makes up a pair).
Regarding claim 13, Kremkau et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 12 as noted above. Additionally, Kremkau et al. discloses wherein the plurality of pairs of bottom wheels for each track is placed in a line such that a distance (See at least: fig. 2 for spacing distances between wheels) between any two consecutive pairs is less than 1.5 times the diameter of the bottom wheels (See at least: fig. 2 where spacing distances do not exceed a diameter of the wheels shown in the figure, and therefore are interpreted as less than 1.5 times the diameter of the fig. 2 wheels.).
Regarding claim 23, Kremkau et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Kremkau et al. discloses further comprising a flat top deck (center section 14, top wall 20; See at least: figs. 1-4 where the Examiner interprets flat as defined as smooth and even, and essentially flat as defined as having a continuous horizontal surface. The Examiner notes: the preferred embodiment of the MSSV has a pitch, slope or angle, where col. 12 lines 39-40 recite “a hydrodynamic shape that facilitates the movement of the MSSV 10 in the surf”.) having a plurality of removeable panels (top wall 20; See at least: figs. 7-8 showing top wall 20 removed) and supporting the attachment of equipment thereto (lifting gear; See at least: fig. 1, col. 13 line 9 “…apertures 78, 80 that are used for lifting…” and col. 14 lines 5-8 “Two or more lifting members 126 are located on the top of the module 90 and are used for installing and removing the module 90 from the chassis 68…” and therefore the Examiner interprets fig. 1 showing unlabeled apertures or lifting members that would be used in removing top wall 20 as shown in the removed views of fig. 7-8, where it is known that rigging or lifting gear would be attached to the top wall to perform safe lifting of heavy objects.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremkau (US 10011152 B1) in view of Li et al. (CN 112357023 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kremkau et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Kremkau et al. does not disclose further comprising a set of thrusters…
Li et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a set of thrusters (two propellers 3; See at least: fig. 1) at least partially disposed outside the watertight compartment (sealed cabin(s); See at least: text version page 3 of 6 “…a battery cabin; a control cabin; the load cabin is sealed” where sealed is interpreted by the Examiner to be watertight.) at a rear of the vehicle (See at least: figs. 1 and 4; and text copy page 3 of 6 “FIG. 4 is a hydroacoustic inertial navigation side structure schematic diagram of the present invention.”, where to the best of the Examiners understanding fig. 4 is a rear view), the set of thrusters receiving power from the set of batteries (lithium battery; See at least: text copy page 2 of 6 second to last para. “a driving battery cabin… is provided with a lithium battery…the driving battery cabin is connected with six propellers…” where MPEP § 2144.IV.B allows duplication of parts “…the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”) and configured to propel the vehicle both on a surface of a body of water and below the surface (See at least: text copy page 1 of 6, Abstract, “…six propeller drive makes the underwater movement more flexible…”, page 2 of 6, Background section second para “…lake, river…” and page 3 of 6, last full para, on the page “…underwater driving part is divided into a water bottom walking and water floating…”. Where the Examiner interprets water floating to be both on the surface of water and under the water’s surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the MSSV of Kremkau et al. with two propellers 3 of Li et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing horizontal motion while the vehicle is operated in the water (See at least: Li et al. text copy page 4 of 6, 3rd full para. “…two forward propellers 3 are horizontally arranged; four submerged propeller 4 are symmetrically arranged at two sides, so that it is good for the balance of motion in water…”).
Regarding claim 3, Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above.
However, Kremkau et al. does not disclose further comprising a set of water intakes…
Li et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches Li et al. teaches further comprising a set of water intakes (; See at least: Figs. 1 and 4-6, showing unlabeled shroud around propeller 3 where the unlabeled shroud forms a water intake and water exhaust path.) constructed and arranged to receive water from outside the vehicle and to provide the water to the set of thrusters for ejecting the water behind the vehicle, thereby propelling the vehicle through the water (See at least: text copy page 4 of 6, 3rd full para. “…two forward propellers 3 are horizontally arranged; four submerged propeller 4 are symmetrically arranged at two sides, so that it is good for the balance of motion in water…”).
Therefore, claim 3 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 24, Kremkau et al. discloses a method of operating an amphibious, submersible vehicle (modular submersible survey vehicle (“MSSV”), MSSV 10; See at least: fig. 1), comprising:
propelling the vehicle on land (See at least: col. 8 lines 65-66“…the MSSV is driven into a body of water it quickly floods and, when driven out…” where the Examiner interprets the driving out of water to the shore or beach as “on land”.) using left and right tracks (See at least: col. 13 lines 57-60 “The batteries 112, 114 are used for the lights 100, 102, the variable speed electric motors 118 that power the hydraulic pumps 120, the CPU, the communication equipment and the surveying equipment…” and col. 13 line 66-67 through col. 14 line 1 “The HPU module 90 contains two electrical motors 118 and two hydraulic pumps 120 that drive the tracks 26, 28, along with the motor controls 122.”) powered by a set of electric motors (variable speed electric motors 118; See at least: figs. 16-17, and 21) that receive electrical power from a set of batteries (batteries 112, 114; See at least: figs. 13-14), the set of electric motors and the set of batteries contained within a watertight compartment (watertight modules or watertight enclosures; See at least: col. 5 lines 40-43 “The MSSV can have several watertight modules (also referred to herein as enclosures) depending on the nature of the deployment…”, col. 13 lines 10-15 “The interior 82 of the MSSV 10 contains watertight modules that contain different mechanical and electrical components including the lightning arrester module 84, the control processing unit (“CPU”) module 86, the hydraulic fluid reservoir module 88 and the hydraulic pump unit (“HPU”) module 90.” Claim 21 “….a watertight hydraulic power unit (HPU) module comprising an electric motor and a hydraulic pump; a watertight control processing unit (CPU) module comprising a CPU for controlling the movement of the MSSV and/or for controlling surveying equipment, wherein the CPU module further comprises electronic components for wireless communication with a tablet computer or lap top computer, a global position system, an inclinometer, and/or a laser distance measuring device” and claim 29 “watertight modules comprises lightning arrestor equipment or one or more batteries.”) of a chassis hull (chassis 68, exterior shell 12, center section 14, bow wedge-shaped section 16, stern wedge-shaped section 18; See at least: figs. 1-3 and figs. 24-25) of the vehicle…
However, Kremkau et al. does not disclose and propelling the vehicle in a body of water at least in part using a set of thrusters powered by the set of electric motors, the set of thrusters receiving water from outside the vehicle and ejecting the water behind the vehicle.
Li et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches and propelling the vehicle in a body of water at least in part using a set of thrusters (two propellers 3; See at least: fig. 1) powered by the set of electric motors ({Examiner notes: this is interpreted as the set of batteries, see 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections above.}; See at least: text copy page 2 of 6, second to last para. on the page “…a driving battery cabin… is provided with a lithium battery… the driving battery cabin is connected with six propellers…”), the set of thrusters receiving water from outside the vehicle and ejecting the water behind the vehicle (See at least: figs. 1 and 4-6.).
Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 25, Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. Additionally, Kremkau et al. discloses wherein propelling the vehicle in the body of water is further performed using the left and right tracks (See at least: col. 2 lines 35-39 “The open structure of the chassis, the open bottom portion of the shell and the one or more vents in the shell allow water to freely flow into and out of the interior when the MSSV moves into and out of a body of water…” and col. 8 lines 11-12 “…a continuous track system is the preferred form of locomotion for the MSSV…”; therefore tracks 26, 28 propel the vehicle in a body of water.) .
Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 26, Li et al. disclose Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al. teaches s all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. Additionally, Kremkau et al. discloses further comprising propelling the vehicle on a floor of the body of water using the left and right tracks powered by the set of electric motors (See at least: col. 14 line 1 “The HPU module 90 contains two electrical motors 118 and two hydraulic pumps 120 that drive the tracks 26, 28, along with the motor controls 122.”) but not using the set of thrusters.
Li et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising propelling the vehicle on a floor of the body of water using the left and right tracks (See at least: text copy page 3 of 6 last full para. on the page “the underwater driving part is divided into a water bottom walking and water floating. The underwater walking is using crawler device 1, crawler device 1 comprises a driving motor, a driving wheel, a load wheel and multiple wheels.”) powered by the set of electric motors (track driving motor 8; See at least: fig. 8) but not using the set of thrusters (two propellers 3; See at least: fig. 1).
Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1) in view of Li et al. (CN 112357023 A) and in further view of Timothy (GB 2548444 A).
Regarding claim 4, Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above.
However, Li et al. does not teach wherein the set of thrusters is part of a thruster kit installed as an upgrade to the vehicle.
Timothy in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the set of thrusters (at least one waterjet 40; See at least: fig. 4) is part of a thruster kit (watercraft propulsion system; See at least: Abstract) installed as an upgrade (adapt or retrofitted; See at least: text copy page 6 of 9, second to last full para. “It is possible to adapt the watercraft propulsion system to a variety of marine and amphibious vessels such as boats, ships, offshore ships, pilot ships, search and rescue ships, recreational ships, military ships, ferries, submarines, remote operated vehicles, UUVs, and other amphibious vessels. In one or more embodiments, the waterjet propulsion system is designed to interface with existing steering and drive mechanisms on the vessel. This allows existing vessels to be retrofitted with the disclosed watercraft propulsion system…” and last para. on the page “This allows pre-existing vessels to be retrofitted with the waterjet propulsion system…”.) to the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified MSSV of Kremkau et al. with two propellers 3 of Li et al. as part of a watercraft propulsion system retrofitted to pre-existing vessels as taught by Timothy with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of retrofitting and customizing pre-existing vessels with a waterjet propulsion system that can be easily removed or accessed for maintenance, repair, or replacement, while providing the necessary thrust and propulsion for the applicable task (See at least: Timothy text copy page 3 of 9 “…a waterjet propulsion system in AAV applications that, in one or more embodiments, is capable of being retrofitted and customized, can withstand vibrational fatigue, and can be easily removed or accessed for maintenance, repair, or replacement, while providing the necessary thrust and propulsion for the applicable task.”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1) in view of Lewis (US 2726577 A).
Regarding claim 9, Kremkau et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Kremkau et al. does not disclose further comprising skirting that at least partially covers the tracks along at least one side of the vehicle.
Lewis. in a different field of endeavor (CPC F41H “Armoured Vehicles”), teaches further comprising skirting (vertically movable side shields 11 and 12; See at least: figs. 1-4) that at least partially covers the tracks (caterpillar treads 14 and 15; See at least: figs. 2-4) along at least one side of the vehicle (See at least: fig. 4 showing vertically movable side shields 11 and 12 on both sides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified MSSV of Kremkau et al. with side shields 11 and 12 of Lewis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of adding protection to the MSSV without impairing maneuverability of the caterpillar treads (See at least: Lewis col. 1 lines 20-22 “to disclose protection of such a nature that the maneuverability of the tank is substantially unimpaired”).
Regarding claim 10, Kremkau et al. in view of Lewis discloses all the limitations of claim 9 as noted above.
Lewis. in a different field of endeavor, teaches wherein the skirting includes armor plating (armored material; See at least: col 1 lines 69-70 “Each vertically movable side shield 11 and 12 is similar and is made of armored material.”).
Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 9 above.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1) in view of Lewis (US 2726577 A) and further in view of Amrein et al. (US 5113779 A).
Regarding claim 11, Kremkau et al. in view of Lewis discloses all the limitations of claim 8 {Examiner notes: interpreted as claim 9, See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above.}as noted above.
However, neither Kremkau et al. disclose or Lewis teach further comprising a set of buoyancy devices attached to or integral with the skirting to enable buoyancy of the vehicle to be varied.
Amrein et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a set of buoyancy devices (flotation device 12 with a set of air bags 18; See at least; figs. 3-4) attached to or integral with the skirting (vertical plates 24; See at least; fig. 4) to enable buoyancy of the vehicle to be varied (See at least: col. 2 lines 28-34 “The inflated volume of the air bags and their height on the vehicle are chosen to assure that this occurs. By this arrangement, all, or essentially, all of the volume of inflated bags 18 will be submerged during vehicle flotation so that none of the bags' buoying capacity will be wasted.” Where buoyancy is varied by the placement and volume of the air bags.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified MSSV of Kremkau et al. with side shields 11 and 12 of Lewis with flotation device 12 of Amrein et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a flotation device that does not interfere with the vehicles vision and does not interfere with additional equipment on the top of the vehicle (See at least: Amrein et al. col. 1 lines 36-39 “The new device is located along the lower lateral edges of vehicle so as not to interfere with operation of the turret gun or interfere with the vehicle crew's vision from within the vehicle.”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1) in view of Stockford (US 20100237579 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kremkau et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Kremkau et al. does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of pairs of bottom wheels (See at least: fig. 2) is coupled to a respective suspension assembly via a respective dogleg member, each dogleg member coupled to the chassis hull via a hinge joint or a ball joint.
Stockford in a different field of endeavor (CPC B60G “vehicle suspension arrangements”), teaches wherein each of the plurality of pairs of bottom wheels (See at least: fig. 1, wheel-supporting shaft 6 and para [0002] “guide wheels”) is coupled to a respective suspension assembly (See at least: figs. 3-6 which show detailed resilient damping arrangement accommodated within the suspension arm 2) via a respective dogleg member(suspension arm 2; See at least: fig. 1), each dogleg member coupled to the chassis hull (chassis or hull 19; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0021] “…a vehicle hull or chassis (represented diagrammatically at 19)…”.) via a hinge joint (spigot 22 and cylindrical bore 24; See at least: fig. 1 and para [0022] “The hub 4 is located on the connecting element 8 by means of a spigot 22 which extends from the flange 16 and is a close fit in a cylindrical bore 24 in the hub 4. A dowel 25 (FIG. 5) projects from the hub 4 into a plain hole 26 in the flange 16 to locate the hub 4 rotationally with respect to the connecting element 8.” ) or a ball joint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified port track 26 and starboard track 28 of Kremkau et al. with suspension arm 2 of Stockford with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using a cost-effective replacement unit which can be retro-fitted to existing vehicles in place of suspension units of different types (See at least: Stockford para. [0036] “The present invention thus provides a compact suspension unit which can be adapted, by appropriate design of the flange 16 of the connecting element 8, to fit a wide variety of existing fastening hole patterns. The present invention therefore provides a cost-effective replacement unit which can be retro-fitted to existing vehicles in place of suspension units of different types.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1) in view of Stockford (US 20100237579 A1) and in further view of Coast (US 4433634 A).
Regarding claim 17, Kremkau et al. in view of Stockford discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as noted above. However, Kremkau et al. does not disclose nor does Stockford teach further comprising a first plurality of top wheels engaged with each track, one top wheel for each of the plurality of pairs of bottom wheels.
Coast in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a first plurality of top wheels (guide wheels 27; See at least: figs. 2-3) engaged with each track (endless tracks 14, 15; See at least: figs. 1-3), one top wheel (guide wheels 27; See at least: figs. 2-3) for each of the plurality of pairs of bottom wheels (lower bogie wheels 25, 26; See at least: figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified port track 26 and starboard track 28 of Kremkau et al. with suspension arm 2 of Stockford with the guide wheels 27 and lower bogie wheels 25, 26 arrangement of Coast with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of preventing problems associated with the track from disengaging or sagging (See at least: Coast col. 1 lines 50-58 “But such vehicles face another problem when traveling on the ground, this problem being commonly known as "chain" or "track throw," which arises from the inability of many such designs to provide efficient means for securing a chain or a belt in its place over the driving sprockets or wheels. Additionally, many "marsh buggies" have had the problem of "track sag," which further adds to the problem of track throw.”).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1) in view of Li et al. (CN 112357023 A) and in further view of He et al. (CN 112223964 A).
Regarding claim 29, Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 24 as noted above. However, Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al does not teach further comprising varying a buoyancy of the vehicle when propelling the vehicle in the body of water.
He et al in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising varying a buoyancy (See at least: fig. 1 and text copy page 2 of 12, last para. on the page “…the sinking and floating and attitude adjusting mechanism comprises a right ballast tank; a left ballast tank and a hydraulic integrated valve group box; the hydraulic integrated valve group box comprises a 2 D attitude control valve and a hydraulic pipeline; the hydraulic integrated valve group box is connected with the right ballast tank and the left ballast tank through a hydraulic pipeline…”) of the vehicle (submersible robot; See at least: fig. 1 and text copy page 1 of 12, abstract.) when propelling the vehicle in the body of water (underwater moving ability; See at least: fig. 1 and text copy page 1 of 12, abstract.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the MSSV of Kremkau et al. with two propellers 3 of Li et al. with sinking and floating and attitude adjusting mechanism of He et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a fast and stable method to sink , float or adjust the vehicle while in water (See at least: He et al. text copy page 3 of 12 “a sinking-floating and posture adjusting mechanism integrated with… amphibious robot sinking-floating adjusting function and posture adjusting function; the mechanism is provided with only two ballast tanks; but because the inner special piston spring cavity structure makes it can satisfy the buoyancy adjusting and robot front and back left and right and four corners of the side inclined attitude adjustment; and the posture adjusting reaction is fast and flexible and accurate; at the same time, when adjusting the posture, the ballast tank is isolated from the external water to ensure the whole weight of the robot remains unchanged; the stability of the adjusting process is good. Compared with the traditional floating and posture adjusting mechanism, it has structure and function integration; the sinking and posture adjusting are two-in-one; the ballast tank number is small; the adjusting precision is high; the adjusting process has good stability and so on.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 15-16 and 18-22 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 27-28 and 30 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…to provide cooling for the plurality of electrical components…”. The closest prior art of Kremkau et al. (US 10011152 B1) in view of either Ikeda et al. (WO 2019016975 A1) or Park (KR 101747228 B1) does not teach that the cooling system(s) provide cooling to electrical components. Kremkau et al. discloses “two radiators 92 that are used for cooling the hydraulic fluid…” (See at least: col. 13 lines 23-24 and figs. 4 and 9.). Ikeda et al. teaches a cooling system that cools “engine 14” where the background section discusses that “…amphibians have heat sources such as power sources such as internal combustion engines and motors…” and are not interpreted as electrical components (See at least: fig. 1 and “BACKGROUND-ART” section). Park teaches a cooling system for an amphibious armored vehicle which cools “engine 20” which is not interpreted as electrical components (See at least: figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…wherein each respective suspension assembly includes a coil-over-shock assembly…”. The closest prior art of Kremkau et al. in view of Stockford does not teach a coil-over-shock assembly. Stockford teaches a resilient damping arrangement which uses a piston/cylinder combination (See at least: figs. 3-4). The Examiner considered the prior art of Sheldon (US 4513833 A) which teaches “suspension arms 26 are equipped with hydraulic shock absorber units 30” however a coil spring was not taught (See at least: Fig. 1 and col. 3 lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 18, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…wherein each of the plurality of pairs of bottom wheels is coupled to an axle of a respective top wheel of the first plurality of top wheels via the respective suspension assembly.” The closest prior art of Kremkau et al. in view of Stockford and in further view of Coast does not teach above arrangement.
Regarding claim 19, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “further comprising a second plurality of top wheels engaged with each track, the second plurality of top wheels having different diameter than the first plurality of top wheels.” The closest prior art of Kremkau et al. in view of Stockford and in further view of Coast does not teach the second plurality of top wheels.
Regarding claim 21, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…the deployable bow plane including multiple panels and having a deployed position in which the panels are substantially upright and locked into place and a stowed position in which the panels are folded down and secured. …”. The closest prior art of Kremkau et al. in view of either Sato et al. (US 20200223269 A1) or Choi et al. (US 20020022415 A1). Sato et al. teaches multiple flaps (32, 31, 22, 21) however when deployed as shown in fig. 2 it is about 45 degrees between vertical and horizontal (See at least: figs. 1-2 showing the vehicle in land and water configurations). Choi et al. also teaches as similar deployed position as shown in fig. 10 (See at least: figs. 9-10). Additionally, the combination with the base reference of Kremkau et al. would teach away the use of a bow plane as the bow wedge-shaped section 16 and a stern wedge-shaped section 18 are designed to take on water (See at least: col. 12 lines 27-49).
Regarding claim 27, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…further comprising: deploying a bow plane disposed at a front of the vehicle; and propelling the vehicle on a surface of the body of water using the set of thrusters.…”. The closest prior art of Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of either Sato et al. (US 20200223269 A1) or Choi et al. (US 20020022415 A1) would make an improper combination as discussed in the reasons for claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 28, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…further comprising: cooling the set of electric motors and the set of batteries using ambient air when propelling the vehicle on land; and cooling the set of electric motors and the set of batteries using ambient water when propelling the vehicle in the body of water.…”. Therefore, claim 28 is would be allowed for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 5 above (Examiner note: adding in view of Li et al. to that of claim 5).
Regarding claim 30, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration’s element “…further comprising: driving the vehicle into the body of water such that the vehicle is completely submerged; placing the vehicle in a standby mode, in which the vehicle is quiescent; and upon receiving an instruction to deploy, exiting the standby mode and driving the vehicle out of the body of water and onto adjacent land…”. The closest prior art of Kremkau et al. in view of Li et al. in further view of Hanson et al. (US 20170300054 A1). Hanson et al. in para. [0163] describes a nonlimiting example of “…if a sensor (payload) detects in a video image an identified kind of vessel in a given area, the mission control system 1505 may operate to send the image over a given communication channel (for external processing), and to direct the other vehicle 100 systems (e.g., multi-mode navigation control system 470) to submerge and proceed to a pre-set waypoint. This capability may include autonomous payload control based on mode. For example, and without limitation, a multi-mode vessel may submerge for part of a mission and, when the vessel systems 1600 may interoperate to sense the vehicle 100 is underwater, and may enable a communication channel (first payload) using an acoustic modem and may disable a communication channel (second payload) that does not work underwater…” along with figs. 15-23 showing the algorithm and computer 810, processing unit 820 and system memory 830 to perform such functions. However, the invention of Hanson does not drive on land therefore would not have any mission planning, program or algorithms to drive the unmanned vehicle onto adjacent land.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Ikeda et al. (WO 2019016975 A1) is applicable to the Applicant’s claims 5-8 and 28. See discussion in “allowable subject matter” above.
Park (KR 101747228 B1) is applicable to the Applicant’s claims 5-8 and 28. See discussion in “allowable subject matter” above.
Sheldon (US 4513833 A) is applicable to the Applicant’s claim 15. See discussion in “allowable subject matter” above.
Sato et al. (US 20200223269 A1) is applicable to the Applicant’s claims 21-22. See discussion in “allowable subject matter” above.
Choi et al. (US 20020022415 A1) is applicable to the Applicant’s claims 21-22. See discussion in “allowable subject matter” above.
Hanson et al. (US 20170300054 A1) is applicable to the Applicant’s claim 30. See discussion in “allowable subject matter” above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST).
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 (571) 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615