DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A response to Election/Restriction was received from applicant on 01/28/2026.
3. Claims 1-14 remain in the application for examination on the merits (see below).
Election/Restriction
4. Applicant has elected, without traverse, the invention of Group I drawn to claims 1-14; therefore, the elected claims 1-14 are examined on the merits for this Office Action and claims 15-20 are withdrawn and canceled by applicant as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature: “bell shaped wire frame” must be shown (it is suggested that such be shown with an appropriate reference character corresponding to this feature in the specification) or the feature canceled from the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature consistent with the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claimed feature “bell shaped wire frame” is not found in the Specification as is recited in the claims. Claim limitations should be consistent with features found in and described in the Specification. In addition, terminology and/or nomenclature should be consistent throughout the disclosure including Abstract, Specification and Claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality:
The claimed feature limitation “is bell shaped wire frame” appears to contain a grammatical and/or typographical error as recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
12. Claims 1-14 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, regards as the invention.
13. The claimed feature “the system” and “The system” lack sufficient antecedent basis as recited in the claims (independent claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims); it appears that such should be replaced with -the/The launch and recovery system- as appropriate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: EP 2969734 B1 (Hadal Inc), cited by applicant, in view of D2: CN 112896472 A (China Ship Scient Res CT), also cited by applicant. Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses a launch and recovery system (para. [0005]) comprising: a launch system (para. [0018]) comprising a crane (paras. [0010], [0018] - a first of the multiple cranes) operable to lower an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) (para. [0010]) from a deck level [402] (Fig. 4) of a ship [400] (Fig. 4) to a sea level (para. [0010] -- a crane for lowering the AUV into the water) below the deck level (a sea level below a deck level of a ship is well known in the art); a recovery system (para. [0020], "Recovery may comprise a reverse process as deployment or any other suitable recovery system, such as a crane capture or a net capture system") configured to collect the AUV from the sea level (para. [0020] --* the recovery process is the reverse of the launching process), the recovery system comprising a weight-bearing lifting crane (paras. [0010], [0018] - a second of the multiple cranes); and a rail system (para. [0060] – [408], Fig. 4) comprising a network of rails (para. [0021] - multiple rail sections to connect the launch and recovery system to multiple corridors of shipping containers) on which the AUV can travel once collected by the recovery system (para. [0019] the rail system includes B cart for transporting the AUV along the rail system). D1 does not disclose one or more stabilizing arms and a funnel. However, in similar art, D2 discloses a recovery system (see abstract of the machine translation) including one or more stabilizer arms [30] (Figs. 1 and 6) and a funnel [201] (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
have utilized the stabilizer arms and funnel of D2 with the recovery system of D1 for the purpose of assisting in recovering an autonomous underwater vehicle. Regarding claim 11, D1 also discloses further comprising a control center [310] (para. [0053]) configured to supervise operations of the launch system, the recovery system, and the rail system (paras. [0053], [0058], [0068], [0069] - deploying vehicles includes the rail system since deploying the AUV includes the full cycle from the shipping containers to the launch and recovery system). Regarding claim 12, D1 discloses wherein the control center is further configured to enable the autonomous operation of the launch and recovery system (para. [0058] - "controller may include programming to enable automatic deployment and recovery of a vehicle"). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate improved launch and recovery of an AUV with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D3: DE 102012112333 A1 (UBT), cited by applicant, in view of D1: EP 2969734 B1 (Hadal Inc), cited by applicant, and further in view of D2: CN 112896472 A (China Ship Scient Res CT), also cited by applicant. Regarding claim 1, D3 discloses a launch and recovery system (see abstract of the machine translation and Figs. 1 and 2), comprising: an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV [6], Fig 1; see abstract of the machine translation) from a deck level [15] (Fig. 1) of a ship [1] (Fig. 1) at sea level (upon which [13] floats in Fig. 1 -- see the first paragraph on page 2 of the machine translation) below the deck level (see Fig. 1); a recovery system (as shown in Fig. 1) configured to collect the AUV from the sea level (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2), the recovery system comprising a weight-bearing lifting crane [16] (Figs. 1 and 2), one or more stabilizing arms [9a and 9b] (Fig. 1). D3 does not disclose (separately) a launch system comprising a crane operable to lower an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) from a deck level of a ship to a sea level below the deck level; a funnel; and a rail system comprising a network of rails on which the AUV can travel once collected by the recovery system. However, D1 discloses a launch and recovery system (see para. [0005]), comprising: a launch system (para. [0018]) comprising a crane (paras. [0010], [0018] *** a first of the multiple cranes) operable to lower an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) (see para. [0010]) from a deck level [402] (Fig. 4) of a ship [400] (Fig. 4) to a sea level (para. [0010] - a crane for lowering the AUV into the water) below the deck level (a sea level below a deck level of a ship is well known in the art); and a rail system (para. [0060] - 408, Fig. 4) comprising a network of rails (para. [0021] multiple rail sections to connect the launch and recovery system to multiple corridors of shipping containers) on which the AUV can travel once collected by the recovery system (para. [0019] the rail system includes a cart for transporting the AUV along the rail system). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the separate launch system having a separate crane along with the rail system taught by D1 with the system of D3 for the purpose of launching and recovering multiple AUV's simultaneously to improve efficiency while also increasing the ease at which the AUV's are transported on the deck of the ship. Additionally, D2 discloses a recovery system (see abstract of the machine translation) including a funnel [201] (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the funnel of D2 with such a recovery system for the purpose of safely and effectively recovering an autonomous underwater vehicle. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate improved launch and recovery of an AUV with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 1, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D4: US 2006/0191457 A1 (Murphy), cited by applicant, in view of D2: CN 112896472 A (China Ship Scient Res CT), also cited by applicant, and further in view of D1: EP 2969734 B1 (Hadal Inc), cited by applicant. Regarding claim 1, D4 discloses a launch and recovery system (abstract), comprising: a launch system (cranes [8] as shown in the figures may be used to either launch or recover) comprising a crane (upper-most [8], Fig. 9) operable to lower an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) [4] (para. [0080], see Fig. 9) from a deck level (upon which crane [8] is attached to ship [6], Fig. 9) of a ship [6], Fig. 9) to a sea level (indicated by a horizontal line extending from left to right in Fig. 9 and below the deck level) below the deck level (see Fig. 9); a recovery system (cranes [8] as shown in the figures may be used to either launch or recover) configured to collect the AUV from the sea level (as shown in Fig. [9]), the recovery system comprising a weight-bearing lifting crane (lower-most [8], Fig. 9). D4 does not disclose one or more stabilizing arms, and a funnel: and a rail system comprising a network of rails on which the AUV can travel once collected by the recovery system. However, in similar art, D2 discloses a recovery system (see abstract of the machine translation) including one or more stabilizer arms [302], Figs. 1 and 6) and a funnel [201] (Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the marine handling craft [2] (Fig. 9) of D4 with the stabilizer arms and wire frame funnel of D2 for the purpose of safely recovering an autonomous underwater vehicle. Additionally, D1 discloses a launch and recovery system (see para. [0005]), comprising: a launch system (para. [0018]) comprising a crane (paras. [0010], [0018] - a first of the multiple cranes) operable to lower an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) (see para. [0010]) from a deck level [402] (Fig. 4) of a ship [400] (Fig. 4) to a sea level (para. [0010] --- a crane for lowering the AUV into the water) below the deck level (a sea level below a deck level of a ship is well known In the art); and a rail system (para. [0060] – [408], Fig. 4) comprising a network of rails (para. [0021] multiple rail sections to connect the launch and recovery system to multiple corridors of shipping containers) on which the AUV can travel once collected by the recovery system (para. [0019] - the rail system includes a cart for transporting the AUV along the rail system). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the rail system taught by D1 with such a system for the purpose of launching and recovering multiple AUV's simultaneously to improve efficiency while also increasing the ease at which the AUV's are transported on the deck of the ship. Regarding claim 13, D4 in view of D2 further in view of D1 discloses the system of claim 1, including wherein the funnel Is bell shaped wire frame (as shown in Fig. 1 of D2) comprising sensors (lower-most [56] – para. [0107], Fig. 17 of D4 disposed on a bottom end of the funnel (as modified – D4 teaches sensors on the bottom end of the marine handling craft [2] (Fig. 17). Regarding claim 14, D4 in view of D2 further in view of D1 discloses the system of claim 13, and also discloses wherein the sensors comprise a combination of acoustic, optical, and magnetic sensors (para. [0107] --- "sensors forming the array [56] need not all be the same type of sensor so that different environmental conditions or threats may be monitored"; para. [0086] - sonar, optical vision range finders, magnetometers). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate improved launch and recovery of an AUV with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: EP 2969734 B1 (Hadal Inc), cited by applicant, in view of D2: CN 112896472 A (China Ship Scient Res CT), also cited by applicant, and further in view of D5: CN 111959729 A (SU of S&T of China), also cited by applicant. Regarding claim 2, D1 in view of D2, discloses the system of claim 1, and D1 discloses further comprising a trolley system (paras. [0019], [0060] -- cart system) configured to receive the AUV from the recovery system and to transfer the AUV on the network of rails (para. [0019] - the rail system includes a cart for transporting the AUV along the rail system), but does not specifically disclose a recovery pad. However, D5 discloses a system (see abstract of the machine disclosure and Fig. 1 - a ship for launching and recovering unmanned vehicles) comprising a recovery pad (see planar surface with the rectangular frame at the rear of the ship with the transportation system on the recovery pad and connecting to a storage compartment of the ship in Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the recovery pad of D5 with such a system for the purpose of providing a designated location for the AUV to be placed after recovery to increase system efficiency by maintaining orderly layout of the system. Regarding claim 3, D1 in view of D2 further in view of D5 discloses the system of claim 2, and D1 as modified by D5 discloses wherein the recovery pad and trolley system comprises a trolley on which the AUV is secured (para. [0019] - cart of D1) and a recovery pad (see planar surface with the rectangular frame at the rear of the ship in Fig. 1 of D5). Regarding claim 4, D1 in view of D2 further in view of D5 discloses the system of claim 3, and D1 in view of D5 discloses wherein the recovery pad comprises a rail section configured to receive the trolley (para. [0019] - the rail system includes a cart for transporting the AUV along the rail system of D1). Regarding claim 5, D1 in view of D2 further in view of D5 discloses the system of claim 4, and D1 in view of D5 discloses wherein a track width of the rail section of the recovery pad matches a track width of the rail system (see the matching widths of the transportation system connecting the recovery pad with the storage compartment of the ship of D5 in Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate improved launch and recovery of an AUV with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D3: DE 102012112333 A1 (UBT), cited by applicant, in view of D1: EP 2969734 B1 (Hadal Inc), cited by applicant, and further in view of D2: CN 112896472 A (China Ship Scient Res CT), also cited by applicant, and additionally in view of D6: US 2021/0331771 A1 (Guangzhou Bureau, CSG EHV Power Transmission Company), also cited by applicant. Regarding claim 6, D3 in view of D1 further in view of D2 discloses the system of claim 1, and D3 discloses wherein the crane comprises an A-frame crane [16], Figs. 1 and 2; para. [0034], "The deck crane can be for example a so-called A-frame of the watercraft"), but does not specifically disclose with at least one hydraulic piston that allows the A-frame crane to lean forward about a pivot point when the AUV is to be lowered to the sea level. However, D6 discloses a system (abstract) comprising a similar crane frame [2, 21], (Fig. 1) with at least one hydraulic piston (shown attached to frame leg [2] in Fig.1) that allows the frame crane to lean forward (as shown in Fig. 1) about a pivot point (located near the base of frame leg) when an AUV [3]; (paras. [0002], [0023], Fig. 1) is to be lowered to the sea level (as shown in Fig. 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the hydraulic piston taught D6 for the purpose of utilizing a well-known mechanical part to operate the A-frame crane in the technique as taught by D3. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate improved launch and recovery of an AUV with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: EP 2969734 B1 (Hadal Inc), cited by applicant, in view of D2: CN 112896472 A (China Ship Scient Res CT), also cited by applicant, further in view of D5: CN 111959729 A (SU of S&T of China), also cited by applicant, and additionally in view of D7: US 2021/0291947 A1 (LTAG Systems LLC), also cited by applicant. Regarding claim 9, D1 in view of D2 further in view of D5 discloses the system of claim 1, and D1 discloses further comprising a service area (para. [0022] - refueling station), and battery stations (para. [0022] battery charging station within shipping containers), but does not disclose a nodule collection area. However, D7 discloses a system (abstract) comprising an AUV [100]; para. [0035] - AUV – para. [0043] -- for collecting nodules, and including a buoyancy volume [136] to return the AUV to the surface, Fig. 1B). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the nodule collecting capability of the AUV discloses by D7 with the AUV taught by D1 for the purpose of collecting a valuable resource, and thus making the storage container receiving the AUV after recovery the nodule collection area (para. [0064] - the AUV is stored in a shipping container and the recovery process is the reverse of deployment and the deployment stage begins with removing the AUV from a shipping container). Regarding claim 10, D1 in view of D2 further in view of D7 discloses the system of claim 9, and D1 as modified by D7, and D7 discloses wherein the rail system comprises 3 series of tracks (para. [0021] multiple sections to connect the launch and recovery system to multiple corridors of shipping containers) in a grid pattern (not specifically shown in Fig. 4, but discussed in para. [0021] in the shipping containers [404, 406] are arranged in a grid pattern and thus the series of tracks are also in a grid pattern) that connects the recovery pad and trolley system to the service area, the nodule collection area, the battery stations, and the launch system (see shipping containers [404, 406] in Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate improved launch and recovery of an AUV with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood by the examiner, claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
22. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited by the examiner disclose various AUV launch & recovery systems.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
24. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
02/18/2026