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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“underwater propulsion unit” in claims 1-17
“intermediate operating unit” in Claim 1
“sail propopulsion unit” in claims 1-18
“draft adjustment means” in claim 2.
“self-righting means” in Claim 4
“lower attachment element”, “upper attachment element” in Claim 10
“coupling element” in Claim 18
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-18 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the appositive phrase “which can be divided with respect to each other” is unclear if it applies to all the modules or just the “one underwater propulsion unit and/or a sail propulsion unit”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said adjustment means", Claim 5 recites the limitation "said self-righting means", Claims 3, 5, 7, 10 recite “the hull”. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. (Check claim dependency.)
Claim limitations “perimeter junction elements” (Claim 6)“upper attachment element”, “lower attachment element” (Claim 10) and “coupling element” (Claim 19) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No corresponding structure is identified, though specific corresponding structure for connecting the coupling element to the lower attachment element is identified in paragraph 82. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Seeley (US 12454338 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Seeley discloses a water drone, wherein it comprises a stern module, a main module, a bow module, at least one intermediate module and at least one underwater propulsion unit and/or a sail propulsion unit, which can be divided with respect to each other, wherein at least one of said intermediate modules is configured to connect in a continuous manner between said main module and said bow module or with at least one other of said intermediate modules and wherein said stern module is configured to connect in a continuous manner with the rear part of at least said main module, (See Fig. 1C) wherein each of said intermediate modules comprises an intermediate operating unit configured to perform a specific mission in an aquatic environment and/or in its neighboring zones, (C6, L41-45) and in that said water drone comprises a control unit configured at least to regulate the operation of one or more of either said underwater propulsion unit (Element 2209), said sail propulsion unit or said intermediate operating unit, as a function of the total number of intermediate modules and the specific mission to be performed.
Regarding Claim 2, Seeley discloses a water drone as in claim 1, wherein each of said modules is provided with draft adjustment means selectively drivable by said control unit on the basis of the draft required from the water drone in a given operating mode. (Element 2750. See C28, L41)
Regarding Claim 4, Seeley discloses a drone as in claim 1, wherein each of said modules is provided with a self-righting means to right said water drone in case of overturning and/or capsizing. (Elements 120, 122)
Regarding Claim 11, Seeley discloses a water drone as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a first intermediate module provided with a first intermediate operating unit configured to perform the analysis of the waters in said aquatic environment. (C17, L34-40)
Regarding Claim 12, Seeley discloses a drone as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a second intermediate module provided with a second intermediate operating unit configured to interface with said main module in order to obtain visual images related to the patrolling of said aquatic environment and of its neighboring zones, with the aim of identifying the presence of people and taking them to safety. (The camera of Seeley is capable of being operated in this manner. See MPEP 2114.)
Regarding Claim 15, Seeley discloses a drone as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a fifth intermediate module provided with a fifth intermediate operating unit comprising a ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle), remotely controlled by a user, which in a non-operating condition is secured to said fifth intermediate module, while in an operating condition it is released from said fifth intermediate module in order to perform a mission under the free surface of the water, remaining however connected by means of a cable configured to transfer data and to electrically power/recharge the ROV itself. (Fig. 11a)
Regarding Claim 16, Seeley discloses a drone as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a sixth intermediate module provided with a sixth intermediate operating unit configured to transport goods on the surface of an aquatic environment to and from its borders or in an intermediate position thereof. (C6, L43)
Claims 1,6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Williams (US 20200223518 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Williams discloses a water drone, wherein it comprises a stern module, a main module, a bow module, at least one intermediate module and at least one underwater propulsion unit and/or a sail propulsion unit, which can be divided with respect to each other, wherein at least one of said intermediate modules (Element 1200, Fig. 12) is configured to connect in a continuous manner between said main module (Element 1202) and said bow module (Element 1204) or with at least one other of said intermediate modules and wherein said stern module (Element 1206) is configured to connect in a continuous manner with the rear part of at least said main module, wherein each of said intermediate modules comprises an intermediate operating unit configured to perform a specific mission in an aquatic environment and/or in its neighboring zones, (paragraph 148) and in that said water drone comprises a control unit (paragraph 315) configured at least to regulate the operation of one or more of either said underwater propulsion unit, said sail propulsion unit or said intermediate operating unit, as a function of the total number of intermediate modules and the specific mission to be performed.
Regarding Claim 6, Williams discloses a drone as in claim 1, wherein each module comprises at least one connection junction comprising perimeter junction elements integral with, or forming part of, the structure of the modules (Fig. 15, Element 1300), one or more U-shaped connection profiles (Element 1804, Fig. 18) configured to secure respective junction elements of adjacent modules in position, and fastening elements (Element 1902, Fig. 19) configured to fasten the connection profiles to the junction elements.
Regarding Claim 7, Williams discloses a drone as in claim 1, wherein the hull of each module comprises internally a flat or inclined base wall (Element 1100 is inclined relative to gravity when the drone has its nose up) to promote the outflow of water that can inadvertently enter the water drone.
Regarding Claim 9, Williams discloses a water drone as in claim 7, wherein the hull of each module is made of a material comprising linen and/or fiber hemp or recycled material, epoxy and/or ecological resins, and ecological internal material sandwich-laminated between the fibers (This is descriptive of fiberglass, paragraph 120), the latter distributable in a non-homogeneous manner to act as a reinforcement in some parts in order to create thickness.
Regarding Claim 10, Williams discloses a water drone as in claim 1, wherein said main module, said bow module and each of said intermediate modules comprise a lower attachment element (Element 2112) and an upper attachment element located, respectively, in correspondence with the external wall of the bottom and of the top of the hull of said modules and configured to connect, respectively, with said underwater propulsion unit and with said sail propulsion unit. (Element 1108 Fig. 11 allows attachment to propulsion unit.)
Regarding Claim 14, Williams discloses a water drone as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a fourth intermediate module provided with a fourth intermediate operating unit configured to perform bathymetry operations, scanning the seabed of said aquatic environment in order to detect the depth and shape of the basin below the free surface of the water. (Sonar, paraph 131)
Regarding Claim 18, Williams discloses a water drone as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a plurality of underwater propulsion units, each comprising a coupling element (Element 1108) configured to connect, in an interchangeable manner, to a lower attachment element of one of said main, bow and intermediate modules, wherein said motorized propulsion units are selected from the group comprising at least one electric motor coupled to at least one propeller, a hydrofoil which comprises at least one electric motor coupled to at least one propeller (Element 710), an underwater glider.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Kinoshita (US 20100210155 A1)
Regarding Claim 8, Williams discloses a water drone as in claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the base wall there are one or more grooves lowered with respect to the plane of the base wall and inclined to promote the outflow of water toward suitable apertures that communicate with the outside
Kinoshita discloses a bilge wherein wherein in the base wall there are one or more grooves lowered with respect to the plane of the base wall and inclined to promote the outflow of water toward suitable apertures that communicate with the outside. (paragraph 23) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a groove aand overflow drain to the base wall of Williams the which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Williams is to drain water that may have been introduced.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Derencourt (US 20140183145 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Williams discloses a water drone as in claim 1, wherein it comprises a third intermediate module, but does not explicitly disclose the third intermediate module is provided with a third intermediate operating unit configured to perform the cleaning of said aquatic environment and its neighboring zones, so as to absorb and/or collect and store inside said third intermediate operating unit, for subsequent disposal, solid and/or liquid polluting substances and/or solid urban waste spilled into said aquatic environment.
Derenoncourt discloses a water drone provided with an operating unit configured to perform the cleaning of said aquatic environment and its neighboring zones, so as to absorb and/or collect and store inside said third intermediate operating unit, for subsequent disposal, solid and/or liquid polluting substances and/or solid urban waste spilled into said aquatic environment. (paragraph 10). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to provide the intermediate operating unit of Williams with the intermediate operating unit of Dernancourt which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. (According to the limited scope of Applicant’s disclose, the details of this operating unit is well-known.) The motivation to modify Williams is that there is a need for remote oil spill clean-up. (Darenoncourt, paragraph 7)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Schmidt (US 20190144090 A1)
Regarding Claim 17, Williams discloses a water drone as in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein it comprises a seventh intermediate module configured to allow the take-off and landing of at least one aircraft configured to perform patrol missions, wherein said seventh intermediate module comprises a seventh intermediate operating unit configured to automatically recharge said at least one aircraft.
Schmidt discloses a water drone operating unit configured to allow the take-off and landing of at least one aircraft configured to perform patrol missions (paragraph 11), wherein said seventh intermediate module comprises a seventh intermediate operating unit configured to automatically recharge said at least one aircraft. (autonomous is automatic, paragraph 19). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the operating unit of Schmidt to an intermediate module of Williams which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Williams is to “provide an autonomous and fully submersible low-cost “lily-pad” that surfaces when called” (Schmidt, paragraph 19) to extend the capability of Williams.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 13 Dec 2025