20 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. 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)(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. Claim(s) 1 , 6 , 10-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by August (US 7028631) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon" \d "[ 3 ]" . With respect to claim s 1 , 11 , 19, August discloses the claimed apparatus and method including a glider 10 to operate in an aqueous medium with a fuselage 12 in a shape of a body of revolution, a ring wing 20 (Figure 8) lifting surface coupled to a stern of the fuselage and a buoyancy engine disposed within the fuselage, the buoyancy engine (including ballast tanks; column 1, lines 30-40) configured to adjust a buoyancy and a center of gravity (inherently) of the glider in the aqueous medium to propel the glider through the aqueous medium by leveraging lift from the ring wing lifting surface. With respect to claim s 6 , 10 , note August, Figure 8. 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) 2-4 , 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over August (US 7028631) in view of Rikoski et al (US 20140261138) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon" \d "[ 3 ]" . With respect to claim s 2-4 , 8, 20, August does not disclose the claimed movement of the ring via an actuator and sensor . Rikoski et al teach an actuator and sensor (paragraphs 0024, 0030). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of August with an actuator and sensor as taught by Rikoski et al with a high likelihood of success for improved device control, steering and stability. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have years of experience and advanced degrees in designing complex and expensive gliders. Such a person would be familiar with various actuation systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious. Claim (s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over August (US 7028631) in view of Lake (US 803174 ) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon" \d "[ 3 ]" . With respect to claims 7, 9 , August does not disclose the claimed pump and power source . Lake teach es a ballasting pump 11 and power source 12 . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of August with a pump and power source as taught by Lake with a high likelihood of success for improved device ballasting . The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have years of experience and advanced degrees in designing complex and expensive gliders. Such a person would be very familiar with various ballasting systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious. Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over August (US 7028631) in view of Carrol, III et al (US 5666900) FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon" \d "[ 3 ]" . With respect to claim 12 , August does not disclose the claimed launch container . Carroll III et al teach a launch container 50 . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device of August with a launch container as taught by Carroll III et al with a high likelihood of success for improved device deployment . The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have years of experience and advanced degrees in designing complex and expensive gliders. Such a person would be very familiar with various deployment systems and would have found the combination to have been obvious. Claims 5 and 13 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. Claims 14-18 are allowed. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schill et al (US 9227709) show a pivoting system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6678 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thu 6-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Marc Q. Jimenez can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN AVILA Primary Examiner Art Unit 3617 /STEPHEN P AVILA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615