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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) entries submitted on 6/7/2024, 8/20/2024 and 11/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement submissions are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 8 appears to include a scanned color photograph/illustration that fails to convey relevant details in its current monotone format. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
- In line 4, the word “that” should be deleted.
- In line 14, the recitation “a first single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometers” appears grammatically incorrect. It appears the recitation should recite the singular “magnetometer” instead of the plural “magnetometers”. The issue is also present in lines 16 and 17.
- In lines 20-21, the recitation: “to enable measuring electric and/or magnetic field in one of more planes/directions.” appears to be missing the articles “a” and “an”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the claim as reciting: “to enable measuring an electric and/or a magnetic field in one of more planes/directions.”
Claims 2-4 are also objected as they inherit the deficiencies noted above.
In claim 5:
- In line 15, the recitation “the first and second electrode” should be corrected to “the first and second electrodes”
In claim 9:
- In lines 4-5, the recitation “the first and second electrode” should be corrected to “the first and second electrodes”
- In line 5, the recitation “the first and second single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometer” is grammatically incorrect and should be amended to “the first and second single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometers”
Claims 6-10 are also objected as they inherit the deficiencies in claims 5 or 9 noted above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 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 6, the claim introduces “a first gradiometer” and “a second gradiometer” in lines 3 and 4 respectively. The claim also recites "configuring a first and a second gradiometers" in line 7. Thus, it’s not clear if the first and second gradiometers recited in line 7 refer to the same gradiometers introduced in lines 3 and 4, or if they are meant to be additional gradiometers in the sensor arrangement. For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the recitation in line 7 to read: “configuring the first and second gradiometers”
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and inherits the deficiencies noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Publication titled: “An Underwater Reconfigurable Robot with Bioinspired Electric Sense” by Mintchev et al. (Mintchev hereafter). A copy of the Publication is provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 5, Mintchev teaches a method of measuring electric and/or magnetic field of an object with an underwater vehicle comprising:
a plurality of links (9 independent modules, see page 1149, section II, and Figure 1) that are connected to one another by joint modules for generating a flexural motion of the underwater vehicle (see page 1149, section II, line 5, discussing undulatory swimming), wherein flexural motion devices enable movement of the underwater vehicle and control of an orientation and/or a location of the underwater vehicle (see page 1149, Section I: “After computation by tailored algorithms depending on the robot mission, it is possible to achieve navigation with obstacle avoidance”. See also section II. B discussing propulsion: “Each Angel module is able to move in water by means of three propellers), and wherein the plurality of the links define a hull having a first end and a second end (interpreted as the front and rear of the Angel Robotic Platform, which make up the “hull” of the navigation system); and
a sensor arrangement (discussed in page 1152, section F) comprising:
a first electrode mounted on the first end of the hull (one of the 2x4 receiving electrodes discussed in section F, lines 4-5, which is mounted on the first of the nine independent modules making up the angels robotic platform), and a second electrode mounted on the second end of the hull (one of the 2x4 receiving electrodes discussed in section F, lines 4-5, which is mounted on the last of the nine independent modules making up the angels robotic platform), wherein the method comprises:
measuring electric field data from an object with the first and second electrode while moving the underwater vehicle perpendicular to its longitudinal form along the object (each of the electrodes senses an electric field disturbance in the water, which is generated by emitting electrodes as the vehicle moves in the water; see Section F: “A dedicated circuit measures the vector of the currents flowing across the receiving electrodes. When an object is placed near the sensor, it modifies the electric fields, thus the measured currents.” Also, see section B in page 1153, “Object Detection” lines 7-18 and Figure 11); and/or
altering a relative position between the first end of the hull and the second end of the hull for measuring an electric field in one or more plane directions using measured electric field data to determine an estimate of a position of the object in relation to the underwater vehicle (as the Angel Robotic platform moves in the water, it configures itself in an eel-like shape, bending its body and changing the spatial layout of the electric emitters and transmitters as it navigates the water, thus adjusting the distance between the front and rear independent modules. See page 1149, Section I, second paragraph).
** The examiner notes that the alternative “and/or” preceding the recitation: “a first and a second single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometer mounted inside the second end” makes the inclusion of the recited magnetometers optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintchev in view of the US Patent US 5,315,232 by Stewart (Stewart hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mintchev teaches a system for measuring electric and/or magnetic field of an object, the system comprising an underwater vehicle (Angel Robotic Platform discussed in the Abstract and shown for example, in Figure 1, page 1149), wherein the underwater vehicle comprises:
a plurality of links (9 independent modules, see page 1149, section II, and Figure 1) connected to one another by joint modules for generating a flexural motion of the underwater vehicle (see page 1149, section II, line 5, discussing undulatory swimming), wherein flexural motion devices enable movement of the underwater vehicle and control of an orientation and/or a location of the underwater vehicle (see page 1149, Section I: “After computation by tailored algorithms depending on the robot mission, it is possible to achieve navigation with obstacle avoidance”. See also section II. B discussing propulsion: “Each Angel module is able to move in water by means of three propellers), and wherein the plurality of the links define a hull having a first end and a second end (interpreted as the front and rear of the Angel Robotic Platform, which make up the “hull” of the navigation system); and
a sensor arrangement (discussed in page 1152, section F) comprising: a first electrode mounted on the first end of the hull (one of the 2x4 receiving electrodes discussed in section F, lines 4-5, which is mounted on the first of the nine independent modules making up the angels robotic platform), and a second electrode mounted on the second end of the hull (one of the 2x4 receiving electrodes discussed in section F, lines 4-5, which is mounted on the last of the nine independent modules making up the angels robotic platform), the first and the second electrode configured to measure an electric field of an object (each of the electrodes senses an electric field disturbance in the water, which is generated by emitting electrodes; see Section F: “A dedicated circuit measures the vector of the currents flowing across the receiving electrodes. When an object is placed near the sensor, it modifies the electric fields, thus the measured currents”); and/or
wherein a distance and a relative position between the first end of the hull and the second end of the hull are adjustable to enable measuring electric and/or magnetic field in one or more planes/directions (as the Angel Robotic platform moves in the water, it configures itself in an eel-like shape, bending its body and changing the spatial layout of the electric emitters and transmitters as it navigates the water, thus adjusting the distance between the front and rear independent modules. See page 1149, Section I, second paragraph).
** The examiner notes that the alternative “and/or” preceding the recitation: “a first single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometer mounted inside the first end of the hull and a second single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometer mounted inside the second end of the hull, the first or the second single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometer configured to measure a magnetic field of the object,” makes the inclusion of the recited magnetometer optional.
Mintchev substantially teaches all of the elements discussed above, except for explicitly mentioning the electric field being sampled at sampling frequencies between 1 and 300Hz. However, such optimization of the sampling rate amounts to obvious routine experimentation in a manner so as to optimize the conditions of the apparatus disclosed by the prior art. As MPEP 2144.05, section II explains:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”)
Hence, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a preferred sampling rate that is ideal for the proper operation of the sensor arrangement.
Nevertheless, Stewart teaches a method for measuring electric fields including the step of sampling at 50 samples per second (50hz of sampling frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of sampling frequencies as taught by Stewart, in the device of Mintchev, and sample the electrical fields at 50 samples per second (50hz of sampling frequency) in order to ensure the electric field variations are sampled with enough frequency so as to provide as accurate a representation of the measured electrical fields.
As to claims 3 and 4, Mintchev teaches the sensor arrangement further comprises a processing unit (dedicated circuit in the Angel modules, see page 1152, col. 2, paragraph 2, lines 9-11) and an acquisition electronics unit (although not explicitly shown, the modules inherently include electrically conductive means within each module that connect the electrodes to the dedicated circuit) located inside the underwater vehicle, the acquisition electronics unit connected to the sensor arrangement and configured to receive data from the sensor arrangement, the processing circuit configured to receive data from the acquisition electronics unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a method comprising the step of configuring the first and the second gradiometers for measuring gradients of the magnetic field from the object, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 7, the claim would be allowable as it inherits the allowable subject matter in claim 6 noted above.
Claims 2, 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a sensor comprising a first gradiometer mounted inside the underwater vehicle; a second gradiometer mounted inside the underwater vehicle and separated by a distance form the first gradiometer; the first and the second gradiometers configured to measure gradients of the magnetic field of the object, in combination with all other elements recited.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a method including the step of measuring a gradient of the magnetic field from the object with a first and the second gradiometers while moving the underwater vehicle perpendicular to its longitudinal form along the object; using the measured electric field data, the measured gradient of the magnetic field, and the measured magnetic field to determine an estimate of a position of the object in relation to the underwater vehicle, in combination with all other elements recited.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a method comprising configuring the processor using measurements from the first and second electrodes, the first and second single-, 2-, or 3-axes magnetometers, and a first and a second gradiometers for creating a conductivity structure of the object, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 10, the claim is also objected as it inherits the allowable subject matter in claim 9 noted above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 12,365,431 by Stunk et al., directed to an underwater vehicle control system configured to output a target physical underwater vehicle signal to an underwater vehicle within a physical environment indicative of instructions to move the underwater vehicle to a target physical position. See figure below:
PNG
media_image1.png
834
1131
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent US 11,465,718 by Christ et al., directed to autonomous underwater vehicles operated by a single host surface vehicle by configuring the AUVs with intermediate nodes. The intermediate nodes act as a relay for communications between the HSV and the AUVs allowing the HSV to scale to higher numbers of vehicles thus simultaneously operating the entire fleet of AUVs. See figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
804
1043
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2023/0113290 by Meneses et al., directed to an underwater vehicle is provided for cleaning, inspection and/or monitoring of underwater structures and interconnected modules provided which can be oriented relative to each other. The modules are arranged one behind the other, and the underwater vehicle can be transitioned from an elongated movement configuration into a U-shaped, C-shaped, spiral and/or an annular working configuration. See figure below:
PNG
media_image3.png
769
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 January 23, 2026