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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references on pages 20-21 of the specification is not a proper IDS. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Figures 13 and 14 include the following reference characters that are not mentioned in the description: 130, 132, 133, 134.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
an independent power source (claim 24)
the power source including means of converting water flow to electricity (claim 24)
a processor mounted in the body of the towed underwater vehicle (claim 24)
a towing vessel (claim 24)
a second processor mounted on the towing vessel (claim 24)
a tether cable connected to the towing vessel (claim 24)
the left side and right side forward wings connected to the same actuator (claim 29)
third sensors on the towing vessel (claim 32)
other underwater vehicles are towed from a common towing vessel (claim 34)
the towing vessel being an aerial drone (claim 35)
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following reasons:
On page 11 (¶0044), change “Fig 12” to – Fig 12(a)-12(h) –
The disclosure is objected to because of the following reasons:
reference number 71 has been used in the specification to identify a connection assembly (see ¶0062); an axis rod (¶0064); and connection points (¶0066)
reference number 72 has been used in the specification to identify quick release fittings (see ¶0064); and connection points (¶0066)
Applicant is requested to amend the specification to employ consistent description for each reference character.
The disclosure is objected to because pages 20-21 contain an embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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:
an independent power source including one or more of a storage cell, a storage cell requiring contact with seawater, and/or a means of converting water flow to electricity (claim 24)
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. In the present case, the means of firmly connecting a single tether to the semi-autonomous towed underwater vehicle has been interpreted in accordance with the description provided in ¶0058-¶0059 (as depicted by ref number 19) in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 24 (line 5) sets forth at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a horizontal angle, and at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a vertical angle (emphasis added). However, the disclosure fails to conclusively describe as to where exactly do the two actuated portions belong, with the drawings providing conflicting information and the specification failing to provide sufficient clarity. Specifically, Fig 5 shows a horizontal actuated portion disposed on the front wing 16, while Fig 6 shows a vertical actuated portion positioned on the same front wing 16. On the other hand, Fig 8 suggests that while the horizontal actuated portion is disposed on the front wing 16, the vertical actuated portion is, in fact, positioned on the angled rearward wing 17. Additionally, the specification also does not provide sufficient explanation as to where exactly do such actuated portions belong, and therefore, fails to resolve this conflicting information.
Claim 24 (lines 13-17) sets forth an independent power source including one or more of a storage cell requiring contact with seawater and/or a means of converting water flow to electricity. However, the disclosure is silent on what such storage cells are that require contact with seawater, or what mechanism is employed for converting water flow to electricity
Claim 29 sets forth the moveable portions of the left and right side forward wings as being connected to the same actuator. However, the disclosure does not provide sufficient information as to how such connection is achieved.
Therefore, in absence of sufficient guidance in the disclosure, a person skilled in the art would not be able to make and/or use any of the above recited claimed matter.
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 24-35 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.
In claim 1
On line 3, the limitation “with at least one wing oriented” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. It is not sufficiently clear of such wing is same or different from the forward wings set forth earlier in the claim. Did the applicant intend this limitation to be “with at least one of the forward wings oriented”?
On line 5, the limitation “at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a horizontal angle, and at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a vertical angle” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. It is not sufficiently clear if the independently operated actuator recited in the second instance is same or different from the independently operated actuator recited in the first instance. Did the applicant intend such recitation in the second instance to be “and at least another
On line 5, the limitation “at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a horizontal angle, and at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion oriented substantially at a vertical angle” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite for being vague and confusing. Because the disclosure has not provided sufficient information, it is not sufficiently clear from the claim language whether the actuated portion belong to the same wing or different wings. Did the applicant intend this limitation to be “at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion on the front wings oriented substantially at a horizontal angle, and at least one independently operated actuator connected to an actuated portion on the one or more rearward wings oriented substantially at a vertical angle”? Applicant is requested to provide a clarification and/or correction.
On line 18, the limitation “a processor” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if such processor is same or different from the processors (line 15) set forth earlier in the claim.
On line 18, the limitation “receives data from sensors” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if such sensors are same or different from the first sensors (line 9) and second sensors (line 11) set forth earlier in the claim.
On line 19, the limitation “the towing vessel” (emphasis added) lacls proper antecedent basis in the claim, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
On line 22, the limitation “a second independently powered processor” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if such processor is same or different from the second processors (line 19) set forth earlier in the claim.
In claim 30
On line 2, the limitation “the forward wings of the underwater vehicle include portions oriented at a substantially vertical angle” (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite. It is not sufficiently clear if such portions are same or different from the actuated portions set forth on lines 6 and 7, respectively.
In claim 34
On line 2, the limitation “a common towing vessel” renders the claim indefinite. It is not sufficiently clear if such common towing vessel is same or different from the towing vessel set forth in claim 24 (line 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-35 would be allowable if they are amended and able to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) set forth in this Office action without changing the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO Form 892, but not yet relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of the cited art shows a towed underwater vehicle comprising front and rear movable wings, and independently operated actuators for moving such wings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY VASUDEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6689. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 am - 3:00 pm.
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, Samuel J. Morano can be reached at 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 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.
/AJAY VASUDEVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615