DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 1-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the creation";
claim 11 recites the limitation "the diver's depth"; and
claim 21 recites the limitation "the diver's depth".
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(d).
The term "enhance" in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "easier" in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "to help" in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "to distinguish" in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "improve" in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "clarity" in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "narrow" in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "more precise" in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "enhance" in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "easier" in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "to help" in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "to distinguish" in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "improve" in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "clarity" in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "narrow" in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The term "more precise" in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
The terms are not defined by the claims, 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.
References
D1: US5579285 Hubert November 26, 1996
D2: US20080046139 Basilico February 21, 2008
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2.
With regards to claim 1 the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a system comprising: at least one hardware processor (15); and one or more software modules that are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (15), receive one or more inputs (14) related to the creation of a mission file (column 10, lines 8-43) for an underwater mission (Fig. 5). The difference between the D1 reference and claim 1 is that the claim recites the utilization of specific databases. It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize any known database to enable the D1 system to enhance a mission probability of success.
With regards to claim 2, the D1 reference discloses download the mission to an underwater computer (26, 29). The difference between the D1 reference and claim 2 is that the claim recites the utilization of a handheld device. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize handheld underwater navigation devices (10). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize a handheld underwater navigation device as motivated by the D2 reference to enable the D1 system to assist individual drivers to complete missions.
With regards to claim 3, it would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize any known database to enable the D1 system to enhance a mission probability of success.
With regards to claim 4, it would have been obvious in view of the increasing computing power and compactness to integrate all to processing into one smaller handheld device.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Isam Alsomiri, can be reached on 571-272-6970.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645