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) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Mitsubishi (JP H07 223589 A; cited by Applicant). With respect to claim 1, Mitsubishi discloses the underwater charging arrangement with first and second connectors, the first connector 37 coupled to a daughter craft 31 and the second connector 16 coupled to a mother craft 1, the first and second connectors arranged to couple underwater to facilitate the transfer of energy from the mother ship to the daughter ship. With respect to claims 2, 6, 8, note Mitsubishi, Figure 1.
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) 3-7, 12-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP H07 223589 A; cited by Applicant) in view of Clabburn et al (WO 2022/254184 A1; cited by Applicant). With respect to claims 3-7, 12-14,16-19, Mitsubishi does not disclose a tether. Clabburn et al show a tether and drogue (Figure 4). 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 Mitsubishi with a tether deployed from the mother craft and drogue as taught by Clabburn et al with a high likelihood of success for ease of remote connection. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive underwater marine systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious. With respect to claims 5, 7, note Clabburn et al, Figure 7.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP H07 223589 A; cited by Applicant) in view of Coats et al (US 2010/0010703). With respect to claim 9, Mitsubishi does not disclose sonar. Coats et al teach sonar (paragraph 0017). 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 Mitsubishi with a sonar system as taught by Coats et al with a high likelihood of success for ease of connection. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive underwater marine systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP -H07 223589 A; cited by Applicant) in view of Phielipeit-Spiess et al (WO 2017/153580). With respect to claims 10-11, Mitsubishi does not disclose an actuator and wet mate connector. Phielipeit-Spiess et al teach an actuator and wet mate connectors (paragraph 0027). 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 Mitsubishi with an actuator and wet mate connector as taught by Phielipeit-Spiess et al with a high likelihood of success for ease of connection. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive underwater marine systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP -H07 223589 A; cited by Applicant) in view of Apostolides (EP 2972170). With respect to claim 15, Mitsubishi does not disclose an oil purge connector. Apostolides teaches an oil purge connector (column 2, line 31). 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 Mitsubishi with an oil purge connector as taught by Apostolides with a high likelihood of success for ease of connection. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive underwater marine systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi (JP H07 223589 A; cited by Applicant) in view of Clabburn et al (WO 2022/254184 A1; cited by Applicant), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Coats et al (US 2010/0010703). With respect to claim 20, Mitsubishi does not disclose sonar. Coats et al teach sonar (paragraph 0017). 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 Mitsubishi with a sonar system as taught by Coats et al with a high likelihood of success for ease of connection. The combination combines known features to achieve predictable results. Further, it is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art of designing complex and expensive underwater marine systems would have years of experience and advanced degrees. Such a person would have found the combination to have been obvious.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huntsman (US 2003/0167998) show an underwater vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN AVILA whose telephone number is (571)272-6678. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
STEPHEN AVILA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3617
/STEPHEN P AVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights