Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/694,092 and the amendments filed on 11/19/2025.
3. Claims 1, 27-28, 32, 35-42, 44, 47, and 51 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/9/2024 has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see page 16, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the objections to claims 1, 27-28, 32, 35-44, 47, and 51 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 8/19/2025 has been withdrawn.
The Examiner notes, that while all of the previous objections of 8/19/2025 have been overcome, the amendments of 11/19/2025 have introduced new objections to the claims for minor informalities, in which will be described later.
6. Applicant’s arguments, see page 16, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 27-28, 32, 35-44, 47, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of 8/19/2025 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is made in view of the amendments to the claims filed 11/19/2025, in which will be described later.
7. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-23, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the applied closest prior art to the claims, the Applicant argues that none of the provided references fully teach the claims. The Examiner notes that independent claim 1 was not previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 due to the scope of the invention previously being unclear. The Examiner submits that while none of the provided prior art references fully teach all of the limitations of claim 1, nonetheless, they are all relevant in some capacity to the invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Claim Objections
8. Claims 1, 28, 47, and 51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A) and the UAV cable organizer (11) to keep the cables or hoses suspended in the air,” recited in lines 8-10 of step f) of claim 1 should read “where the UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A) and the UAV cable organizer (11) are configured to keep the cables or hoses suspended in the air.”
Regarding Claim 1, the term “a series of batteries (1.6.4), an induction battery charger (1.6.5),” recited in lines 2-3 of step l) of claim 1 should read “a series of batteries (1.6.4), and an induction battery charger (1.6.5).”
Regarding Claim 1, the term “wherein the UUV includes at least: in an artificial vision unit (1.8),” recited in lines 1-2 of step r) of claim 1, should read “wherein the UUV includes at least: an artificial vision unit (1.8).”
Regarding Claim 1, the term “wherein the UUV cable organizer (18) comprises a body (17.1) including at least: sonar electronics at least one of the robotic arms,” recited in lines 1-3 of step s) of claim 1 should read “wherein the UUV cable organizer (18) comprises a body (17.1) including at least: sonar electronics, at least one of the robotic arms.”
Regarding Claim 1, the term “wherein the monitoring station (19) includes at least: a location unit, sonar electronics and a series of induction battery charges an artificial vision unit a high-power LED spotlight (19.2),” recited in lines 1-3 of step t) of claim 1 should read “wherein the monitoring station (19) includes at least: a location unit, sonar electronics, and a series of induction battery charges, an artificial vision unit, a high-power LED spotlight (19.2).”
Regarding Claim 1, the term “having a carousel (20.4) holds tools for assembly,” recited in lines 2-4 of step aa) of claim 1 should read “having a carousel (20.4) holding tools for assembly” or “having a carousel (20.4) to hold tools for assembly.”
Regarding Claim 1, the term “oft” recited in line 2 of step ac) of claim 1 should read “of.”
Regarding Claim 1, the term “comprises” recited in line 1 of step af) of claim 1 should read “comprise.”
Regarding Claim 1, there is currently no punctuation at the end of the final step ah). The appropriate punctuation is required for the end of this step.
Regarding Claim 28, the left over parentheses “(“ recited in line 4 of claim 28 should be removed.
Regarding Claim 47, the terms “monitor and supervise” recited in lines 4, 6, and 8 of claim 47 should read “monitoring and supervising.”
Regarding Claim 47, the term “transport and arrange” recited in line 10 of claim 47 should read “transporting and arranging.”
Regarding Claim 47, the terms “move, arrange and install” recited in lines 24 and 28 of claim 47 should read “moving, arranging, and installing.”
Regarding Claim 51, the term “engaging at least one of the vehicle, equipment or device the UAV,” recited in lines 10-11 of claim 51 should read “engaging at least one of the vehicle, equipment or device by the UAV,” or something of the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
9. 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.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “means to orient said container,” recited in line 4 of step j) of claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In view of this, the Examiner interprets the “means to orient said container” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as a linear actuator and rotation unit. Support for this interpretation can be found on page 14 step A17) of the specification.
11. In addition, the Examiner has identified a number of terms throughout the claims that are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but lists out these terms to provide the Examiner’s clear interpretation of these terms for the record. There terms are:
The term “organizes cables” is being interpreted as a structure to hold up cables coming from the cable reel, as these structures are depicted within the figures.
The term “feeding equipment” and any subsequent related term to feeding, is interpreted as supplying energy/matter, as this term is described within at least pages 2 and 5 of the specification of the instant application.
The item number range (6 to 8) is interpreted as containing item numbers 6, 7, and 8.
The structure of lifting ear (25) is interpreted to be a coupling joint with a round structure, as it is depicted in Figure 25 of the drawings.
The cleaner (32) is interpreted to be an end effector that is able to clean surfaces, as this item is depicted in Figures 2 and 3 of the drawings.
The rotation unit (3.4) is interpreted to be a structural joint, as this item is depicted in Figure 5 of the drawings.
The vision unit is interpreted to be a camera, as the vision unit is described on page 33 of the specification of the instant application.
The type spider system drive is interpreted to be a spider coupling within a motor drive system.
The supply or extraction recited in claim 36 is interpreted as referencing the supply or extraction of fluids, as introduced within claim 1.
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.
12. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17)” recited in lines 9-13 of step a) of claim 1, is deemed to fail the written description requirement for containing new matter. By the originally specification and drawings, all three vehicles (the UPV, UAV, and UUV) appear to be required in the system, with no mention of any one or more of them being optional.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the support equipment (1020) comprises at least one of: an UAV cable organizer (11), an UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A), an UUV cable organizer (18), an UGV tool holder (20), an UGV vehicle carriers (31) and a USV cable organizer (33),” recited in lines 18-21 of step a) of claim 1, is deemed to fail the written description requirement for containing new matter. By the originally specification and drawings, all of these items (the UAV cable organizer, the UGV cable organizer, the UUV cable organizer, the UGV tool holder, the UGV vehicle carriers, and the USV cable organizer) appear to be required in the system, with no mention of any one or more of them being optional.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the feeding equipment (1021) comprises at least one of: UGVs wireless feeder (6 to 8), an USV feeder (14), an UUVs feeder (28 and 29), a monitoring station (19) and one or more mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B),” recited in lines 20-23 of step a) of claim 1, is deemed to fail the written description requirement for containing new matter. By the originally specification and drawings, all of these items of the feeding equipment (1021) (the UGVs wireless feeders, the USV feeder, the UUVs feeders, the monitoring station, and the one or more mobile reel centralized units) appear to be required in the system, with no mention of any one or more of them being optional.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “an actuator which locates at least one of the robotic arms,” recited in lines 1-2 of step j) of claim 1, is deemed to fail the written description requirement for containing new matter. By the originally filed specification and drawings, no mention of an actuator comprising the ability to locate a robotic arm is made.
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.
13. Claims 1, 27-28, 32, 35-42, 44, 47, and 51 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “the UPV (1C),” recited in line 3 of step c) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. Specifically, due to the range of multiple UPVs (1A – 1J) being removed from earlier within claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “the UPV additionally includes at least the conveyor belt (1.19),” recited in line 4 of step c) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Line 26 of step a) of claim 1 recites the devices (1025) comprise a conveyor belt (1.19). However, step c) appears to state that the UPV comprises this same conveyor belt (1.19). As the UPV is not listed as one of the devices (1025), but rather, is part of the main multitasking equipment (1017), it is unclear whether the conveyor belt (1.19) belongs as a part of the main multitasking equipment (1017), the devices (1025), or both.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “the UPV additionally includes at least: … the UAV (10),” recited in lines 4-5 of step c) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 4-5 of step c) appear to state that the UPV and UAV (10) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “for operation on the ground and in flight, the system (1000), comprises at least one UPV (1),” recited in line 1 of step f) of claim 1. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, line 1 of step f) appears to state that the UPV is required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “the UPV (1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1H),” recited in line 4 of step f) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. Specifically, due to the range of multiple UPVs (1A – 1J) being removed from earlier within claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the UAV reviewer (2) in the air and the UGV reviewer (3) on the ground … are configured to supervise and inspect tasks executed by the UPV (1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1H) and the UAV (10),” recited in lines 2-4 of step f) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 2-4 of step f) appear to state that the UPVs and UAV (10) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the UGV feeder (8) and the mobile reel centralized unit (700A) are configured to,” recited in lines 5-6 of step f) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 21-23 state “where the feeding equipment (1021) comprises at least one of: UGVs wireless feeder (6 to 8), an USV feeder (14), an UUVs feeder (28 and 29), a monitoring station (19) and one or more mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B),” rending some but not all of the feeding equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 5-6 of step f) appear to state that the UGV feeder (8) and the mobile reel centralized unit (700A) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the feeding equipment (1021) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the UGVs (4, 5, 12 and 13) and UAVs multitasking (10) are configured to support the execution of tasks,” recited in lines 7-8 of step f) in claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 7-8 of step f) appear to state that the UAV (10) is required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the term “where the UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A) and the UAV cable organizer (11) to keep the cables or hoses suspended in the air,” recited in lines 8-10 of step f) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 18-21 recite “where the support equipment (1020) comprises at least one of: an UAV cable organizer (11), an UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A), an UUV cable organizer (18), an UGV tool holder (20), an UGV vehicle carriers (31) and a USV cable organizer (33),” rending some but not all of the support equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 7-8 of step f) appear to state that the UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A) and the UAV cable organizer (11) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the support equipment (1020) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “comprises at least the autonomous UPV (1E),” recited in lines 1-2 of step g) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. Specifically, due to the range of multiple UPVs (1A – 1J) being removed from earlier within claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “for operation on the sea surface and in flight, the system (1000), comprises at least the autonomous UPV (1E),” recited in lines 1-2 of step g) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 1-2 of step f) appear to state that the UPV is required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “UPVs (1E, 1F, 1G and 1H),” recited in line 4 of step g) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. Specifically, due to the range of multiple UPVs (1A – 1J) being removed from earlier within claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the USV self-stabilized buoy (15) on the sea surface and the UAV reviewer (2) in the air, are configured to supervise and inspect tasks executed by UPVs (1E, 1F, 1G and 1H) and UAV (10),” recited in lines 2-4 of step g) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 2-4 of step f) appear to state that the UPVs and UAV (10) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the USV self-stabilized buoy (15) and UAV (10) are configured to support the execution of tasks,” recited in lines 7-8 of step g) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 7-8 of step g) appear to state that the UAV (10) is required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “for underwater operation, the system (1000), comprises at least the UPV, where the UUV (16) is configured to supervise and inspect tasks executed by the UPV and UUV,” recited in lines 1-3 of step h), is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 1-3 of step h) appear to state that the UPV and UUV (16) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the USV feeder (14), UUV feeder (28) and the mobile reel centralized unit (700B) are configured to supply or extract fluids through cables, hoses or supply ducts to the effectors of the robot arm (1.2),” recited in lines 4-6 of step h) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 21-23 state “where the feeding equipment (1021) comprises at least one of: UGVs wireless feeder (6 to 8), an USV feeder (14), an UUVs feeder (28 and 29), a monitoring station (19) and one or more mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B),” rending some but not all of the feeding equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 4-6 of step h) appear to state that the USV feeder (14), UUV feeder (28), and the mobile reel centralized unit (700B) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the feeding equipment (1021) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the USV self-stabilized buoy (15), the UUV (17), the UUV feeder (29) and the monitoring station (19), are configured to support the execution of tasks,” recited in lines 6-7 of step h) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 6-7 of step h) appear to state that the UUV (17) is required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the USV self-stabilized buoy (15), the UUV (17), the UUV feeder (29) and the monitoring station (19), are configured to support the execution of tasks,” recited in lines 6-7 of step h) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 21-23 state “where the feeding equipment (1021) comprises at least one of: UGVs wireless feeder (6 to 8), an USV feeder (14), an UUVs feeder (28 and 29), a monitoring station (19) and one or more mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B),” rending some but not all of the feeding equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 6-7 of step h) appear to state that the UUV feeder (29) and the monitoring station (19) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the feeding equipment (1021) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where the UUV cable organizer (18) is configured to keep cables or hoses free of interference,” recited in lines 8-9 of step h) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 18-21 recite “where the support equipment (1020) comprises at least one of: an UAV cable organizer (11), an UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A), an UUV cable organizer (18), an UGV tool holder (20), an UGV vehicle carriers (31) and a USV cable organizer (33),” rending some but not all of the support equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 8-9 of step h) appear to state that the UUV cable organizer (18) is required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the support equipment (1020) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “wherein the UGV loader (5) comprises at least: a guide for the cable from the mobile reel centralized unit (700A),” recited in lines 1-3 of step j) of claim 1. Claim 1 step a) lines 21-23 state “where the feeding equipment (1021) comprises at least one of: UGVs wireless feeder (6 to 8), an USV feeder (14), an UUVs feeder (28 and 29), a monitoring station (19) and one or more mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B),” rending some but not all of the feeding equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 1-3 of step j) appear to state that the mobile reel centralized unit (700A) is required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the feeding equipment (1021) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “a sea stabilization base (51) that comprises three actuators (50.1) arranged radially, and that allows the sea stabilization base to be brought closer and further away, relative to the hull,” recited in lines 4-6 of step q) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. Amended step q) of claim 1 recites the hull comprising the sea stabilization base. However, no mention of them being distanced from each other is made. It is unclear how the sea stabilization base is able to be brought closer or further away from the hull if the hull comprises the sea stabilization base.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “where at least one of the robotic arms (33.3) is projected,” recited in lines 5-6 of step w) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. Specifically, due to the term “a robot arm (33.3)” being removed from this section of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the ordering of steps y) and ah) are indefinite. Previously, the steps of claim 1 were ordered alphabetically a) – z), and then aa) – ah) when the amount of remaining unique letters were exhausted. However, steps x) and ag) have been amended out, such that claim 1 now goes from step w) to step y) and from step af) to step ah). Due to the gaps in between steps, it is unclear within the current format whether there are necessary steps absent from claim 1 or not.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “at least one of the robotic arms (22.7),” recited in line 2 of step z) of claim 1, is deemed to be indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term. Specifically, due to the term “a robot arm (22.7)” being removed from this section of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, there is no conjunction (i.e., and, or, etc.) between the final two limitations, steps af) and ah) in this case. Due to the lack of an ‘and’ or ‘or’ between these limitations, the metes and bounds of the invention of claim 1 cannot be determined because it is indefinite whether or not all of the limitations of claim 1 are required or not. The Examiner requests the appropriate conjunction be inserted between the final two limitations to clarify which steps are a part of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the term “a Fi link” recited in line 1 of step ah) is deemed to be indefinite. It is unclear what a ‘Fi’ link is. None of the claim language nor specification explains what this term means. The Examiner notes that step ah) of claim 1 previously claimed the use of a WiFi link, but the ‘Wi’ in WiFi has been amended out, simply leaving ‘Fi’ link. The Examiner notes that the trademarked name ‘WiFi,’ is not an acronym of any sorts. Put another way, in the term ‘WiFi,’ neither ‘Wi’ nor ‘Fi’ have any standalone meanings. While in the related acronym ‘Hi-Fi’ the ‘Fi’ stands for fidelity, this is not true for ‘WiFi.’ Nor does the specification of the instant application support ‘Fi’ in step ah) of claim 1 meaning ‘fidelity.’ Therefore, the metes and bounds of this limitation cannot be determined.
Regarding Claim 47, the term “transport and arrange operating vehicles on land, over and under water (1014); that comprise at least: the UPV gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (1), the UAV (10) and the UUV (16 and 17) … and the UUV (16),” recited in lines 10-15 of claim 47, are deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 9-13 states “where the main multitasking equipment (1017) comprises at least one of: a gantry-type multi-task autonomous unmanned vehicle (UPV) (1), an autonomous unmanned arial vehicle (UAV) (10) and an autonomous underwater vehicle (UUV) (16 and 17),” rending some but not all of the vehicles listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 10-15 of claim 47 appear to state that the UPV, UAV, and UUV are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the main multitasking equipment (1017) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 47, the term “transport and arrange operating vehicles on land, over and under water (1014); that comprise at least: … the UAV cable organizer (11), the UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A), the UUV cable organizer (18), the UGV tool holder (20), the UGV vehicle carriers (31) and the USV cable organizer (33),” recited in lines 10-18 of claim 47, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 18-21 recite “where the support equipment (1020) comprises at least one of: an UAV cable organizer (11), an UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A), an UUV cable organizer (18), an UGV tool holder (20), an UGV vehicle carriers (31) and a USV cable organizer (33),” rending some but not all of the support equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 10-18 of claim 47 appear to state that the UAV cable organizer (11), the UGV cable organizer (9 and 9A), the UUV cable organizer (18), the UGV tool holder (20), the UGV vehicle carriers (31), and the USV cable organizer (33) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the support equipment (1020) are required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 47, the term “transport and arrange operating vehicles on land, over and under water (1014); that comprise at least: … the UGV wireless feeders (6 to 8), the USV feeder (14), the UUV feeder (28 and 29), the monitoring station (19), the mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B),” recited in lines 10-20 of claim 47, is deemed to be indefinite. Claim 1 step a) lines 21-23 state “where the feeding equipment (1021) comprises at least one of: UGVs wireless feeder (6 to 8), an USV feeder (14), an UUVs feeder (28 and 29), a monitoring station (19) and one or more mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B),” rending some but not all of the feeding equipment listed above as optional for the claim. However, lines 10-20 of claim 47 appear to state that the UGV wireless feeders (6 to 8), the USV feeder (14), the UUV feeder (28 and 29), the monitoring station (19), and the mobile reel centralized units (700A and 700B) are required by the claim. This conflicts with step a) of claim 1, and it is therefore unclear which items of the feeding equipment (1021) are required by the claim.
The Examiner notes that dependent claims 27-28, 32, 35-42, 44, 47, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite for the same reasons as independent claim 1 is, as since all of these dependent claims depend from claim 1, inherit all of the limitations of claim 1, and thus, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for these additional reasons.
Prior Art
14. Due to the large number of rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness, the meets and bounds of the claims cannot be determined at this time. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, relevant prior art to the claims has been found and is listed below, with a brief description on why the prior art reference is relevant to the claims.
US 20140111332 A1 to Przybylko teaches the coordinated communication and control of multiple autonomous vehicles of different vehicle types (ground, air, and water) to complete a mission.
WO 2015051436 A1 to De Silva teaches a central “mother” UAV capable of deploying, controlling, and communicating with smaller autonomous UAV vehicles, wherein the smaller UAV vehicles are coordinated so as to complete a task.
US 20120152877 A1 to Tadayon teaches various mobile robots that perform cleaning and maintenance tasks on a solar farm, wherein the robots are coordinated with each other and all communicate via a central hub.
US 20210379757 A1 to Schneider teaches multiple mobile robots coordinating tasks around a solar farm, each robot having unique structures relevant to the task.
US 11235890 B1 to Dahlstrom teaches a UAV tethered via a cable to a mobile ground vehicle that each comprise unique structures in order to complete a relevant and coordinated task.
Conclusion
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657