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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: “two or more smart wireless sensor devices,” “a plurality of sensor devices,” and “a plurality of smart wireless device.” There appears to be a disagreement in the number associated with the device or devices. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 has several typographical errors such as “a first coil coupled to the coupled to at last one cable” and “an auxiliary winding or application of a nulling signal, tuning in both amplitude and phase it in the absence of a target cable” which appear to be redundant run on clauses or incomplete phrases or clauses. The word “last” appears as if it should be “least.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
The term “low power” in claims 1 & 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low power” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines low power in this instance? Is 1 micro-Watt low power? Is 1 milli-Watt low power? Is 1 Watt low power? Is 1 kilo-Watt low power? Clarification is required.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1 & 9 require “two or more smart wireless sensor devices,” “a plurality of sensor devices,” and “a plurality of smart wireless device(s)” but does not make it clear that these are not the same devices or different devices. As worded, these clauses can all refer to the same element or many different elements. Further, the claims make it impossible to discern if the sensors are elements of other sensors. Clarification is required.
Claims 1-20 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 9 requires “the first and second coils configured to overlap and distort to obtain a null and enhanced balanced induction is used.” It is not clear what the “enhanced balance induction” does in the context of this clause and appears to create an incomplete limitation. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1 & 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (Guo, Hongzhi, Zhi Sun, and Pu Wang. "Joint design of communication, wireless energy transfer, and control for swarm autonomous underwater vehicles." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 70.2 (2021): 1821-1835.) in view of Woolsey et al (Woolsey, Max, Christopher A. Kitts, and Finn Amend. "A diving autonomous surface vehicle for multi-robot research and development." OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE. IEEE, 2019.).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Guo teaches:
An underwater multi-sensor system, comprising:
two or more smart wireless sensor devices (Title, Abstract, Introduction, & elsewhere wherein swarms of AUVs are disclosed and discussed.);
a plurality of sensor devices, each having a processor (Fig. 2 Element “Motion Control.”), a source of energy (Fig. 2 Element “Wireless Energy transfer.”), an antenna (Fig. 2 Element “Wireless Comm & Netw.”), a coil that is not an antenna (Fig. 2 Element “Tri-axis coil.”),
wherein sensor data is transmitted over a low power wireless network between the smart wireless devices (Fig. 2 Element “Wireless Comm & Netw.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guo does not explicitly teach:
a sensor, and a housing that is waterproof and
a plurality of smart wireless device each coupled to a non-metallic saddle to improve the EM propagation path between the smart wireless devices, and
Woolsey teaches:
a sensor (Fig. 2 Element sensors.), and a housing that is waterproof (Section II Structure and Actuation paragraph 1 wherein it discloses “the hull is an off the-shelf cast acrylic tube, with 3D printed nose and tail fairings.” “Endcaps, thrusters, batteries, and thruster motor controllers are
commercial products produced by Blue Robotics.”) and
a plurality of smart wireless device (Fig. 2 Element sensors.) each coupled to a non-metallic saddle to improve the EM propagation path between the smart wireless devices (Section II Structure and Actuation paragraph 1 wherein it discloses “the hull is an off the-shelf cast acrylic tube, with 3D printed nose and tail fairings.”), and
PNG
media_image2.png
164
354
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Woolsey to the teachings of Guo such that the system of Guo would have a sensor, and a housing that is waterproof and a plurality of smart wireless device each coupled to a non-metallic saddle to improve the EM propagation path between the smart wireless devices because, although not explicitly stated, the device of Guo would fail to operate without being waterproof and because the saddle, if metallic or conductive, would interfere with communication elements of the system.
Regarding claim 3, Guo & Woolsey teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Gou teaches sensor data is transformed by a processor to information prior to transmission (Fig. 2 Element “Motion Control.”).
Regarding claim 4, Guo & Woolsey teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Gou teaches at least one of a subsea-enclosures is positioned perpendicular to another subsea enclosure (Fig. 1 Elements AUV & Mobile charger wherein the AUVs can have any orientation with respect to one another.).
Claims 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (Guo, Hongzhi, Zhi Sun, and Pu Wang. "Joint design of communication, wireless energy transfer, and control for swarm autonomous underwater vehicles." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 70.2 (2021): 1821-1835.) in view of Woolsey et al (Woolsey, Max, Christopher A. Kitts, and Finn Amend. "A diving autonomous surface vehicle for multi-robot research and development." OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE. IEEE, 2019.) & Teeneti et al (Teeneti, Chakridhar Reddy, et al. "Review of wireless charging systems for autonomous underwater vehicles." IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 46.1 (2019): 68-87.).
Regarding claim 2, Guo & Woolsey teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Guo & Woolsey do not explicitly teach at least one smart wireless device includes a loosely coupled transformer configured to establish a magnetic flux.
Teeneti teaches at least one smart wireless device includes a loosely coupled transformer configured to establish a magnetic flux (Abstract, Section D. IWPT-Theoretical Background, & elsewhere. See Fig. 5.).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Teeneti to the teachings of Guo & Woolsey such that at least one smart wireless device includes a loosely coupled transformer configured to establish a magnetic flux because “high-quality-factor coils at resonance enable efficient energy transfer to greater distances with more positional freedom.” See page 73 column 2 of Teeneti.
Regarding claim 8, Guo & Woolsey teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Gou & Woolsey do not explicitly teach energy is transferred using one or more loosely coupled transformers.
Teeneti teaches energy is transferred using one or more loosely coupled transformers (Abstract, Section D. IWPT-Theoretical Background, & elsewhere. See Fig. 5.).
PNG
media_image3.png
328
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Teeneti to the teachings of Guo & Woolsey such that energy is transferred using one or more loosely coupled transformers because “high-quality-factor coils at resonance enable efficient energy transfer to greater distances with more positional freedom.” See page 73 column 2 of Teeneti.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (Guo, Hongzhi, Zhi Sun, and Pu Wang. "Joint design of communication, wireless energy transfer, and control for swarm autonomous underwater vehicles." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 70.2 (2021): 1821-1835.) in view of Woolsey et al (Woolsey, Max, Christopher A. Kitts, and Finn Amend. "A diving autonomous surface vehicle for multi-robot research and development." OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE. IEEE, 2019.) & Sciortino (Sciortino, Dario Gaetano. Team PoliTOcean-ROV Prototypes and an Ultrasonic Underwater Triggering System. Diss. Politecnico di Torino, 2019.).
Regarding claim 5, Guo & Woolsey teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Gou & Woolsey do not explicitly teach the multisensory system incorporates a wireless release mechanism triggered by a pilot tone.
Sciortino teaches the multisensory system incorporates a wireless release mechanism triggered by a pilot tone (Section 4.1 pages 49-50 wherein “any device that transmits an acoustic pulse that is received by the lift bag release and results in the release of the lift bag.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sciortino to the teachings of Guo & Woolsey such that the multisensory system incorporates a wireless release mechanism triggered by a pilot tone because this is a cheap and effective means and because “acoustic waves better propagate in water with respect to the air.”
Regarding claim 6, Guo, Woolsey, & Sciortino teach all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Gou & Woolsey do not explicitly teach a wireless release mechanism incorporates at least two tones.
Sciortino teaches a wireless release mechanism incorporates at least two tones (Section 4.1 pages 49-52 wherein ultrasonic signals are disclosed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Sciortino to the teachings of Guo & Woolsey such that a wireless release mechanism incorporates at least two tones because this is a cheap and effective means and because this would assist in removing possible errors in transmission of signals.
Regarding claim 7, Guo, Woolsey, & Sciortino teach all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Guo, Woolsey, & Sciortino do not explicitly teach the wireless release mechanism has an independent power supply.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the wireless release mechanism have an independent power supply because it adds redundancy and because it would allow release even if the AUV were not working properly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Also, claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections made above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. Specifically, the requirement of claim 9 to have “a first coil coupled to the coupled to at last one cable; a second coil coupled to the at least one cable, the first and second coils are overlapped and configured so that a field in the second coil is zero unless there is a cable in a field of the first cable” along with “an auxiliary winding or application of a nulling signal, tuning in both amplitude and phase it in the absence of a target cable” would require impermissible hindsight to make any combination of references obvious if these structural and functional limitations were to be found. Clarification of these elements as discussed above is necessary and may null this allowable subject matter notice in further prosecution.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding claim 9, Guo teaches:
An underwater multi-sensor system, comprising:
two or more smart wireless sensor devices (Title, Abstract, Introduction, & elsewhere wherein swarms of AUVs are disclosed and discussed.);
a plurality of sensor devices, a processor (Fig. 2 Element “Motion Control.”), a source of energy (Fig. 2 Element “Wireless Energy transfer.”), an antenna (Fig. 2 Element “Wireless Comm & Netw.”), a coil that is not an antenna (Fig. 2 Element “Tri-axis coil.”),
wherein sensor data is transmitted over a low power wireless network between the smart wireless devices (Fig. 2 Element “Wireless Comm & Netw.”);
Guo does not explicitly teach:
each having a sensor, and a housing that is waterproof and
a plurality of smart wireless device each coupled to a non-metallic saddle to improve the EM propagation path between the smart wireless devices,
Woolsey teaches:
each having a sensor (Fig. 2 Element sensors.), and a housing that is waterproof (Section II Structure and Actuation paragraph 1 wherein it discloses “the hull is an off the-shelf cast acrylic tube, with 3D printed nose and tail fairings.” “Endcaps, thrusters, batteries, and thruster motor controllers are commercial products produced by Blue Robotics.”)and
a plurality of smart wireless device (Fig. 2 Element sensors.) each coupled to a non-metallic saddle to improve the EM propagation path between the smart wireless devices (Section II Structure and Actuation paragraph 1 wherein it discloses “the hull is an off the-shelf cast acrylic tube, with 3D printed nose and tail fairings.”),
Guo & Woolsey do not explicitly teach:
at least one of an ROV and an AOV;
a first coil coupled to the coupled to at last one cable;
a second coil coupled to the at least one cable, the first and second coils are overlapped and configured so that a field in the second coil is zero unless there is a cable in a field of the first cable, the first and second coils configured to overlap and distort to obtain a null and enhanced balanced induction is used, wherein a strong signal is generated and a very weak signal field at the same frequency is detected; and
an auxiliary winding or application of a nulling signal, tuning in both amplitude and phase it in the absence of a target cable.
Claims 10-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. All claims depend from claim 9 which, as discussed above, appears to contain allowable subject matter over the prior art and are thus allowable based on their subsequent dependence.
Regarding claim 10,
The system of claim 9, wherein the circuitry creates a high fidelity A.C.
Regarding claim 11,
The system of claim 9, wherein the circuitry creates a field up to 10 Gauss
Regarding claim 12,
The system of claim 11, wherein the circuitry creates a magnetic moment of 3kA.m2.
Regarding claim 13,
The system of claim 11, wherein the circuitry includes one or more receiving circuits with a sensitivity below pico-Tesla.
Regarding claim 14,
The system of claim 9, wherein when the cable carried live current the cable generates a signature magnetic field that is sensed by a magnetometer.
Regarding claim 15,
The system of claim 9, wherein the first and second loops are configured so that one loop is closer to the cable than the other and exploits properties inherent in cross-correlation and auto-correlation of the signals.
Regarding claim 16,
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one cable is a live cable.
Regarding claim 17,
The system of claim 9, further comprising: a single equipment component that detects both live and dead cables.
Regarding claim 18,
The system of claim 9, wherein detection is for live and dead cables and AC and DC excitations.
Regarding claim 19,
The system of claim 9, wherein in response to detecting a dead cable, a target cable creates an imbalance.
Regarding claim 20,
The system of claim 9, wherein A nulling signal is applied to the auxiliary winding on the second coil where a nulling signal is applied, tuning in amplitude and phase im am absence of the at least one cable being a dead cable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858