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 .
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.
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: “reaction structure” (using the nonce “structure” defined by the function “reaction” and not describing any generally accepted defined structure.) in claims 1-20 and “power take-out units” (using the nonce “unit” defined by the function “power take out” and not describing any generally accepted defined structure.) in claims 13-20
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 2, 7, 8, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundon (US 20210355906 A1) in view of Hine (US 20120285160 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mundon discloses A system comprising: an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV); a first reaction structure (Element 204) configured to deploy from a body of the UUV and one or more tendons (Element 208 ) connecting the first reaction structure to the body of the UUV but does not explicitly disclose a second reaction structure configured to deploy between the first reaction structure and the body of the UUV; and one or more tendons connecting the first and second reaction structures to the body of the UUV, wherein the first reaction structure deploys at a depth below the second reaction structure.
Hine discloses disclose a second reaction structure (Element 20b) configured to deploy between the first reaction structure and the body of the UUV; and one or more tendons connecting the first and second reaction structures to the body of the UUV (Element 30), wherein the first reaction structure deploys at a depth below the second reaction structure. (See Fig. 4.) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add a second reaction structure as a multiplicity of parts in the arrangement suggest by Hine which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mundon is to provide a desired or increased surface area of the reaction surface while still allowing for transport. (Hine paragraph 23)
Regarding Claim 2, Mundon in view of Hine discloses a system of claim 1, wherein a top major surface of the first reaction structure is configured to mate to a bottom major surface of the second reaction structure when the first reaction structure and the second reaction structure are undeployed from the body of the UUV. (Mondon, paragraph 51, also see modification claim 1 suggesting multiplicity of party.)
Regarding Claim 7, Mundon in view of Hine discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the first and second reaction structures are configured to move from an undeployed position to a deployed position. (Mondon, paragraph 51)
Regarding Claim 8, Mundon in view of Hine discloses a system of claim 7, wherein the undeployed position includes both reaction structures touching the body of the UUV, and wherein the deployed position includes the first and second reaction structures separated from the body of the UUV. (Mondon, Fig. 1, )
Regarding Claim 13, Mundon in view of Hine discloses a system comprising: a body; a first reaction structure configured to deploy from the body; a second reaction structure configured to deploy between the first reaction structure and the body; one or more tendons connecting the first and second reaction structures to the body, wherein the first reaction structure deploys at a depth below the second reaction structure (See rejection Claim 1 above.); one or more power take-out (PTO) units coupled to or between the first and second reaction structure and the body, the one or more power take-out (PTO) units configured convert energy from relative motion between the first and second reaction structures to the body. (See Mundon paragraph 17.)
Claims 14 (and 19) are a combination of Claims 13 and 2 (and 7) and are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 3, 9, 15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundon (US 20210355906 A1) in view of Hine (US 20120285160 A1) and further in view of Mundon (US 20160003214 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Mundon in view of Hine discloses system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first reaction structure comprises a plurality of perforations.
Mundon ’14 explicitly discloses wherein the first reaction structure comprises a plurality of perforations (paragraph 27). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add perforations to the reaction surface of Mundon which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mundon is that perforation ration is result-effective variable for heave force of heave plates. (paragraph 27)
Regarding Claim 9, Mundon in view of Hine discloses system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second reaction structure comprises a plurality of perforations.
Mundon ’14 explicitly discloses wherein the reaction structure comprises a plurality of perforations (paragraph 27). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add perforations to the second reaction surface of Mundon which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Mundon is that perforation ration is result-effective variable for heave force of heave plates. (paragraph 27)
Claims 15 (and 20) are a combination of Claims 13 and 3 (and 9) and are rejected on the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 10-12, 16-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 11 July 2026
Prosecution Insights