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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the inflatable region" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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, 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goetz et al., US 12077270. Goetz discloses a structure for carrying payloads of a UUV (unmanned underwater vehicle), comprising: an outer membrane (cover #510 can be interpreted to be an outer membrane) constructed and arranged to (i) extend around an outer surface of the UUV along a length of the UUV, (ii) contain a payload (See Fig. 1, #160A, #160B), and (iii) form a streamlined shape around the UUV.
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.
Claims 4-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goetz in view of Mundon et al., US 20210354799. Goetz discloses the invention set forth above which details the structure of a UUV including an outer membrane #510. Goetz does not disclose the membrane is inflatable with a fluid. Mundon discloses a UUV with an outer membrane 212 (Fig. 5b) forming an enclosed region and inflatable with air. Mundon appears to show the membrane is comprised of multiple panels connected together which taper at longitudinal side edges of the membrane forming a streamlined predetermined shape when inflated with fluid. The examiner considers the air bag of Mundon to include an inner membrane attached to the UUV and an enclosed region between the inner membrane and outer membrane which forms a water impermeable seal forming a watertight container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UUV structure of Goetz by replacing the outer cover #510 with the outer membrane structure #212 of Mundon. Goetz only provides a UUV structure but does not explicitly disclose a way to alter the buoyancy of the UUV. By using the outer membrane structure of Mundon a means for altering the buoyancy of the UUV is achieved.
Claims 1, 3, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cardenas et al., US 11346690 (disclosed by applicant).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Cardenas discloses a structure for carrying payloads of a UUV (unmanned underwater vehicle), comprising: an outer membrane (#120) constructed and arranged to (i) extend around an outer surface of the UUV along a length of the UUV, (ii) contain a payload (See Fig. 2, compressed gas constitutes a payload), and (iii) form a streamlined shape around the UUV. Cardenas further discloses that the outer membrane (#120) is a variable buoyancy module that includes control circuitry to release the payload (compressed gas) to allow alternately ascending and descending in the water column by tuning the buoyancy.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 11-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00.
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.
/ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615