DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Non-Final Office Action dated 28 January 2026. It is further noted that the instant Office action is also a Non-Final Office Action, hereby replacing the previously sent one.
The rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the prior office action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claim 7.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 28 April 2026, with respect to the prior art rejection of record have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the deficiencies of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0180740 (Christ and Selby, hereinafter, Christ) with respect to Claim 1 are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Christ for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments that U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0137098 (Valsvik et al., hereinafter, Valsvik) does not teach “surveying an area, using the at least one sonar device,… to determine a location of one or more of the plurality of vehicles” is not persuasive. Applicant only argues “the forward-looking sonar device taught in Valsvik also does not determine a location of the single underwater vehicle”; however, other components meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sonar device” do teach this limitation (see claim mapping below).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “simultaneously or concurrently using that map to localize the vehicle”; “communicate directly…without an intermediary surface communication device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 1: the period appears to have been deleted from the end of the claim and should be readded.
Claim 4: “a global satellite network” should be “[[a]]the global satellite network”.
Claim 7: “the secure communication network” should be “the secure communications network”.
Claim 9: “wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles further comprises: submerging a first vehicle to a first depth; and submerging a second vehicle to a second depth” should be “comprising submerging a first vehicle to a first depth; and submerging a second vehicle to a second depth” (Claim 1 recites “submerging one or more of a plurality of vehicles” not “submerging each of the plurality of vehicles”).
Claim 16: “wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles is performed without removable weights” should be “wherein submerging one or more of the plurality of vehicles is performed without removable weights”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and for being indefinite. Firstly, the claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Secondly, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Applicant’s disclosure, would find the limitation “the sonar data comprises a low bandwidth message” as both indefinite and as not being sufficiently supported within the specification. The only mention of “low bandwidth” found in the specification is in paragraph [0046] which states “The vehicle may transmit a low bandwidth message over the global satellite network to a remote server, for example, a computer associated with the global satellite network, using a second communication device”. In other words, the low bandwidth is only mentioned in conjunction with transmitting the message rather than being a part of the sonar data. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume “wherein the sonar data comprises a low bandwidth message” is instead “further comprising transmitting a low bandwidth message”, thus removing the unsupported condition for the message to be a part of the sonar data from the limitation. Additionally, examiner notes that they are not considering “low” used within “low bandwidth message” as indefinite relative subjective terminology because the specification at least describes “high bandwidth” as well (see for example, Paragraph 45), so the examiner is interpreting “low bandwidth” as merely being lower than an inherent threshold that designates the cutoff between low bandwidth and high bandwidth. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Applicant’s disclosure and the claims, would find the metes and bounds of “generating a virtual model in real time based on the generated map” indefinite. Claim 1 recites “processing the transferred sonar data to generate a map based on the sonar data”, so “based on the generated map” is claiming antecedent basis from the map made based on the transferred sonar data. However, paragraph [0034] of the specification discloses the virtual map is on a specific vehicle and Applicant has claimed / described that the transferring is often not real-time: in fact, Applicant provides motivation to avoid real-time transferring (see paragraph [0038] of the specification: “In some embodiments, the vehicles 105 only communicate on the surface to avoid acoustic communication since acoustic communication is a very inefficient form of communication that typically drains significant amounts of power”). For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume the limitation recites “generating a virtual model in real time
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, and 8-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,110,086. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as shown in the table below, every limitation in the application under examination claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences between the claims are bolded below.
Application 18/829,650
(Instant Application)
U.S. Patent No. 12,110,086 (Reference Patent)
Claim 1: A method for surveying a body of water, the method comprising:
providing a plurality of vehicles to a body of water, each of the plurality of vehicles comprising:
a vehicle body;
an electric-propulsion motor system mounted on the vehicle body;
a rechargeable battery configured to provide electrical power to the electric-propulsion motor system;
at least one sonar device attached to the vehicle body; and
a communication device;
submerging one or more of the plurality of vehicles below a surface of the body of water;
surveying an area, using the at least one sonar device, to map the body of water and to determine a location of one or more of the plurality of vehicles;
determining, based on the surveying, that a target object is detected within the area;
transferring sonar data, using the communication device, from one or more of the plurality of vehicles to another vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, a global satellite network, or a remote server; and
processing the transferred sonar data to generate a map based on the sonar data.
Claim 1: A method for surveying a body of water, the method comprising:
providing a plurality of vehicles to a body of water, each of the plurality of vehicles comprising:
a vehicle body;
an electric-propulsion motor system mounted on the vehicle body;
a rechargeable battery configured to provide electrical power to the electric-propulsion motor system;
at least one sonar device attached to the vehicle body; and
a first communication device;
submerging each of the plurality of vehicles below a surface of the body of water;
surveying an area, using the at least one sonar device, to map the body of water and to determine a location of each of the plurality of vehicles;
determining, based on the surveying, that a target object is detected within the area;
resurfacing each of the plurality of vehicles to the surface;
transferring sonar data, using the first communication device, between at least two of the plurality of vehicles at the surface of the body of water; and
processing the sonar data transferred between the at least two of the plurality of vehicles to:
generate point data based on the sonar data; and
generate a map based on the point data.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, further comprising, before transferring sonar data, resurfacing the one or more of the plurality of vehicles to the surface of the body of water.
See underlined portion of Claim 1 above
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning a location to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; and
deploying a subset of vehicles at a specific water depth.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
assigning a location to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; and
deploying a subset of vehicles at a specific water depth.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles further comprises:
submerging a first vehicle to a first depth; and
submerging a second vehicle to a second depth.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles further comprises:
submerging a first vehicle to a first depth; and
submerging a second vehicle to a second depth.
Claim 10: The method of claim 1, wherein each sonar device attached to the plurality of vehicles, includes a plurality of transducer elements spaced apart at one or more distances and configured to receive respective sonar signals for conversion into the sonar data.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of vehicles comprises:
a processor; and
a memory comprising a plurality of program instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive the sonar data from the at least one sonar device disposed on each of the plurality of vehicles, wherein the at least one sonar device includes a plurality of transducer elements spaced apart at one or more distances and configured to receive respective sonar signals for conversion into the sonar data;
generate the point data based on the received sonar data; and
generate the map based on the point data, wherein the map includes a depth line representing an underwater floor of the body of water.
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a virtual model in real time based on the generated map.
Claim 10: The method of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to generate a virtual model in real time based on the generated map
Claim 12: The method of claim 1, where each of the plurality of vehicles is one of an autonomous underwater vehicle or a remotely operated underwater vehicle.
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, where at least one of the plurality of vehicles is one of an autonomous underwater vehicle or a remotely operated underwater vehicle.
Claim 13: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises an autonomous underwater vehicle.
Claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of vehicles comprises an autonomous underwater vehicle.
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling a roll, a pitch, or a yaw of each of the plurality of vehicles such that sound waves produced from the one or more sonar device are oriented towards a floor of the body of water.
Claim 13: The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling a roll, a pitch, or a yaw of each of the plurality of vehicles such that sound waves produced from the at least one sonar device are oriented towards a floor of the body of water.
Claim 15: The method of claim 1, wherein providing the plurality of vehicles to the body of water comprises air-dropping the plurality of vehicles from an aircraft or an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein providing the plurality of vehicles to the surface of the body of water comprises air-dropping the plurality of vehicles from an aircraft or an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Claim 16: The method of claim 1, wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles in the body of water is performed without removable weights.
Claim 15: The method of claim 1, wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles in the body of water is performed without removable weights.
Claim 17: The method of claim 1, further comprising, after resurfacing, charging the rechargeable battery of each of the plurality of vehicles.
Claim 16: The method of claim 1, further comprising, after resurfacing, charging the rechargeable battery of each of the plurality of vehicles.
Claim 18: The method of claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of vehicles comprises one or more solar panels operable to recharge the rechargeable battery.
Claim 17: The method of claim 16, wherein each of the plurality of vehicles comprises one or more solar panels operable to recharge the rechargeable battery.
As shown in the mapping above, Claim 1 of the reference patent includes all the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations (note: “from one or more of the plurality of vehicles to another vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, a global satellite network, or a remote server” from the instant application, due to the “or”, has the broadest reasonable interpretation of “from one or more of the plurality of vehicles to another vehicle of the plurality of vehicles” without requiring a global satellite network / a remote server). Claim 1 of the reference patent also includes all of the limitations of Claim 3 of the instant application, the only differences are that Claim 1 of the reference patent includes additional limitations. Claims 8-18 of the instant application, as shown above, are each anticipated by one of Claims 7-17 of the reference patent; the differences are merely that the reference patent includes additional limitations and/or minor adjustments in wording that do not result in patentably different limitations to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,110,086. The table above compares Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of the reference patent. Claim 2 of the instant application merely recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the sonar data is transferred from one or more of the plurality of vehicles to the remote server”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious that the second vehicle that data is transferred to in the reference patent could be “the remote server”, therefore there is not patentable distinction between Claim 2 of the instant Applicant and Claim 1 of the reference patent.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,110,086. The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are compared in the table below, see also the table / rejection above which compares Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of the refence patent and shows that Claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 1 of the reference patent, (differences are bolded below).
Application 18/829,650
(Instant Application)
U.S. Patent No. 12,110,086 (Reference Patent)
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of vehicles is associated with a global satellite network.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of vehicles further comprises a second communication device.
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, further comprising, after resurfacing each of the plurality of vehicles, sending a data set from the one or more of the plurality of vehicles to a satellite network using the second communication device, wherein the second communication device is a satellite communication device.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would consider “global satellite network” obvious in view of “satellite network” of the reference patent.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,110,086 in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0348414 (Donly and Trantham, hereinafter, Donly). The table above compares Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of the reference patent. Claim 5 of the instant application merely recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the sonar data comprises a low bandwidth message”, which as noted above, has been interpreted by the Examiner for the purposes of compact prosecution as “The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a low bandwidth message”. Donly teaches the low bandwidth transmission (see at least [0032]). Combining the low bandwidth transmission of Donly with the reference patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to establish relative distance and time between underwater vehicles (see at least Donly [0032]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,110,086 in view of Christ. The table above compares Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of the reference patent. Claims 6-7 of the instant application merely recite “The method of claim 1, wherein the communication device is configured to communicate using a secure communications network” (Claim 6) and “The method of claim 6, wherein the secure communication network comprises a satellite communications system comprising low-earth orbit satellites” (Claim 7). Christ teaches using the Iridium satellite network (see at least [0121]), a network based on secure communication with low-earth orbit satellites. Combining the Iridium satellite network communication of Christ with the reference patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a back-up communication option (see at least Christ [0121]).
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, 4-5, 8-9, 11-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donly in view of Valsvik.
Regarding Claim 1, Donly discloses A method for surveying a body of water (see at least FIG. 2), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of vehicles to a body of water (see at least FIG. 1: AUVs 1081 and 1082 are deployed in body of water 102), each of the plurality of vehicles comprising:
a vehicle body (see at least [0041] and FIG. 2: each AUV 108 includes a vehicle body);
at least one sonar device attached to the vehicle body (see at least [0025]: each AUV 108 includes a sonar system); and
a communication device (see at least [0041]: each AUV 108 includes a communication system);
submerging one or more of the plurality of vehicles below a surface of the body of water (see at least FIG. 1: AUVs 1081 and 1082 are deployed in body of water 102);
surveying an area, using the at least one sonar device, to map the body of water (see at least [0025] and FIG. 1: sonar pulses 112 are mapping feature 106)…;
determining, based on the surveying, that a target object is detected within the area (see at least [0025] and FIG. 1: sonar pulses 112 find feature 106);
transferring sonar data, using the communication device, from one or more of the plurality of vehicles to another vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, a global satellite network, or a remote server; and processing the transferred sonar data to generate a map based on the sonar data (see at least [0024]-[0027], [0032], [0040]-[0044], and FIG. 2: “Communication between the AUVs is on communication network 220”; “In another embodiment, each AUV 108 sends information about its received data stream, along with position, relative distance, and time to a separate graphics processing unit 250, over a communication connection 222”; “the multiple data streams are then combined to create a 3D resolved output via geometric triangulation in one embodiment”).
While Donly discloses there is a propulsion system (see at least [0004] and [0041]). Donly does not explicitly disclose the details of the propulsion system and instead understands one of ordinary skill in the art would find determining a specific propulsion system (an electric-propulsion motor system mounted on the vehicle body; a rechargeable battery configured to provide electrical power to the electric-propulsion motor system) obvious. In general, Donly is not specific with the structural description of the AUVs, understanding that one of ordinary skill in the art would find using known structural elements obvious.
Furthermore, while Donly discloses the importance of knowing the position of the AUVs and provides examples of methods of determining position (see at least [0027]-[0028], [0032], and [0034]-[0038]). Donly does not appear to explicitly disclose using sonar for the positioning determination (surveying an area, using the at least one sonar device,…to determine a location of one or more of the plurality of vehicles).
Valsvik, in the same field of autonomous underwater vehicles, and therefore analogous art, teaches propulsion system details: an electric-propulsion motor system mounted on the vehicle body (see at least [0013], [0030], and FIG. 1: motor 106 on body 102); a rechargeable battery configured to provide electrical power to the electric-propulsion motor system (see at least [0030], [0048], [0071], and FIG. 1: battery 114 powers components and is charged).
Furthermore, Valsvik also teaches surveying an area, using the at least one sonar device,… to determine a location of one or more of the plurality of vehicles (see at least [0031]-[0034], [0037], [0050], and [0068]: “As noted above, alternative systems may be used, as, for example, acoustic positioning”; “acoustic Doppler Velocity Log (DVL)…can also be employed as part of the AUV, which provides bottom-tracking capabilities for the AUV. Sound waves bouncing off the seabed can be used to determine the velocity vector of the AUV, and combined with a position fix, compass heading, and data from various sensors on the AUV, the position of the AUV can be determined”; “Acoustic system 130 may be an Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) system, also sometimes known as Super Short Base Line (SSBL). This system uses a method of underwater acoustic positioning. A complete USBL system includes a transceiver or acoustic positioning system mounted on a pole under a vessel or ROV (such as Hi-PAP or μPAP, commercially available by Kongsberg) and a transponder on the AUV. In general, a hydro-acoustic positioning system consists of both a transmitter and a receiver, and any Hi-PAP or μPAP or transponder system acts as both a transmitter and a receiver. An acoustic positioning system uses any combination of communications principles for measurements and calculations, such as SSBL. In one embodiment, the acoustic positioning system transceiver comprises a spherical transducer with hundreds of individual transducer elements. A signal (pulse) is sent from the transducer (such as a Hi-PAP or μPAP head on the surface vessel), and is aimed towards the seabed transponder located on the AUV. This pulse activates the transponder on the AUV, which responds to the vessel transducer after a short time delay. The transducer detects this return pulse and, with corresponding electronics, calculates an accurate position of the transponder (AUV) relative to the vessel based on the ranges and bearing measured by the transceiver. In one embodiment, to calculate a subsea position, the USBL system measures the horizontal and vertical angles together with the range to the transponder (located in the AUV) to calculate a 3D position projection of the AUV relative to a separate station, cage, ROV, or vessel. An error in the angle measurement causes the position error to be a function of the range to the transponder, so an USBL system has an accuracy error increasing with the range. Alternatively, a Short Base Line (SBL) system, an inverted short baseline (iSBL) system, or an inverted USBL (iUSBL) system may be used, the technology of which is known in the art. For example, in an iUSBL system, the transceiver is mounted on or inside the AUV while the transponder/responder is mounted on a separate vessel/station and the AUV has knowledge of its individual position rather than relying on such position from a surface vessel (as is the case in a typical USBL system). In another embodiment, a long baseline (LBL) acoustic positioning system may be used. In a LBL system, reference beacons or transponders are mounted on the seabed around a perimeter of a work site as reference points for navigation. The LBL system may use an USBL system to obtain precise locations of these seabed reference points. Thus, in one embodiment, the reference beacon may comprise both an USBL transponder and a LBL transceiver. The LBL system results in very high positioning accuracy and position stability that is independent of water depth, and each AUV can have its position further determined by the LBL system. The acoustic positioning system may also use an acoustic protocol that utilizes wideband Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) signals, which provides for a greater communications range in the water”; “The AUV may also comprise a guidance system configured to guide the AUV to a particular location/destination in a body of water and/or a navigation system configured to determine the position of the AUV within a body of water. In one embodiment, the guidance system may comprise and/or be coupled to transducer 243”; “acoustic device 343 (such as a transducer)”; “Based on communications with a separate device, the location of the AUV may be communicated to the AUV and/or determined by a navigation system of the AUV”; “In one example, the obstacle avoidance system includes a forward-looking sonar”).
Combining the teachings of Valsvik (including the specific propulsion system / other specific details of the structure and one or more of the acoustic positioning systems) with Donly, would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with the motivation of substituting known, specific elements (including the propulsion system and acoustic position system of Valsvik) into Donly to obtain the predictable result of a well-defined, functional UAV with propulsion and locating capabilities with the motivation of substituting components from a known cost effective and easy to repair solution (see at least Valsvik [0008]).
Regarding Claim 2, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses wherein the sonar data is transferred from one or more of the plurality of vehicles to the remote server (see at least [0027] and [0042]: “In another embodiment, each AUV 108 sends information about its received data stream, along with position, relative distance, and time to a separate graphics processing unit 250, over a communication connection 222”).
Regarding Claim 4, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses wherein one or more of the plurality of vehicles is associated with a global satellite network (see at least [0034]: “establishing AUV and/or feature location with global positioning system (GPS) before diving”).
Regarding Claim 5, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses wherein the sonar data comprises a low bandwidth message (see at least [0032]: “Low bandwidth communication between AUVs 108 is initiated and takes place to establish relative distance and time between the sonar sensors of the AUVs 108 (e.g., AUV 1081, 1082, 1083, . . . , 108n). This distance is then used in the postprocessing of the sonar data”).
Regarding Claim 8, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses further comprising: assigning a location to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; and deploying a subset of vehicles at a specific water depth (see at least [0028]: “In one embodiment, multiple AUVs 108 can be arranged in different orientations (e.g., different vertical positions, different horizontal distances from a feature or the seafloor, or the like) to resolve desired information from features 106”).
Regarding Claim 9, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles further comprises: submerging a first vehicle to a first depth; and submerging a second vehicle to a second depth (see at least [0028]: “In one embodiment, multiple AUVs 108 can be arranged in different orientations (e.g., different vertical positions, different horizontal distances from a feature or the seafloor, or the like) to resolve desired information from features 106”).
Regarding Claim 11, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses further comprising generating a virtual model in real time based on the generated map (see at least [0042] and [0050]: “multiple data streams are then combined to create a 3D resolved output”; “Graphics processing on each underwater platform allows for the generation of at least low resolution stereoscopic imaging in real time, or substantially in real time, that is, in a few seconds or minutes, as opposed to hours of post-processing to generate images. Higher resolution images may be created when platform resources are available, or may be offloaded to a separate graphics processing system for generation of enhanced resolution imaging”).
Regarding Claim 12, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses where each of the plurality of vehicles is one of an autonomous underwater vehicle or a remotely operated underwater vehicle (see at least [0012] and [0045]: “In one embodiment, the platforms are autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).”).
Regarding Claim 13, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises an autonomous underwater vehicle (see at least [0012]: “In one embodiment, the platforms are autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).”).
Regarding Claim 14, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Donly further discloses further comprising controlling a roll, a pitch, or a yaw of each of the plurality of vehicles such that sound waves produced from the one or more sonar device are oriented towards a floor of the body of water (see at least [0028]: “In one embodiment, multiple AUVs 108 can be arranged in different orientations (e.g., different vertical positions, different horizontal distances from a feature or the seafloor, or the like) to resolve desired information from features 106”).
Regarding Claim 16, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Valsvik further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles in the body of water is performed without removable weights (see at least [0009], [0032], [0035], and [0047]: “In one embodiment, the AUV is specifically designed to be heavier in seawater to allow prolonged deployment on the seabed. In other words, the AUV is not neutrally buoyant in a body of water, and to compensate for this negative weight, the AUV is configured with a vertical thruster located near the nose of the AUV (such as vertical thruster 233) and a form lift is created by the AUV body as it travels through the water at a cruising speed under power from the horizontal thrusters (such as horizontal thrusters 231a, 231b). Thus, the form lift shape (such as body 201 or body 301) allows a permanently negatively buoyant AUV in a water column to be suspended during horizontal transit without additional vertical thrusters/power. If horizontal speed is decreased, the upwards lift decreases and the negatively buoyant AUV sinks; if horizontal speed is increased, the upwards lift increases to overcome the negative buoyancy and the AUV rises. To maintain level flight, the AUV control algorithm may slightly change the vehicle pitch angle. This is in contrast to existing AUV devices, which typically have some type of buoyancy change device (water expulsion, inflatable bag, weight release, etc.) to alter the buoyancy of the AUV to move it from one position to another position (such as from the water surface to the seabed).”).
Claims 3, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donly in view of Valsvik in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0226174 (hereinafter, Parks).
Regarding Claim 3, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. The Donly and Valsvik combination does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising, before transferring sonar data, resurfacing the one or more of the plurality of vehicles to the surface of the body of water.
Parks, in the same field of unmanned submersible vessels, and therefore analogous art, teaches further comprising, before transferring sonar data, resurfacing the one or more of the plurality of vehicles to the surface of the body of water (see at least [0032], [0034],: “According to another embodiment, flying submarine 100 can hover at or near the surface to gather energy, communicate, obtain a GPS fix, and perform near-surface ISR”).
Combining the teachings of Parks (specifically, solar panels and determinations of where to position the UAV to charge the solar panels / communication at the surface) with the Donly and Valsvik combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. This combination applies uses the known technique of charging solar panels at the surface and communicating while in that position that allows charging (of Parks), to improve a similar method (the method of the Donly and Valsvik combination) in the same way with the motivation of providing a solution to charge batteries onboard the UAVs.
Regarding Claim 15, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. The Donly and Valsvik combination does not appear to explicitly teach wherein providing the plurality of vehicles to the body of water comprises air-dropping the plurality of vehicles from an aircraft or an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Parks, in the same field of unmanned submersible vessels, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein providing the plurality of vehicles to the body of water comprises air-dropping the plurality of vehicles from an aircraft or an unmanned aerial vehicle (see at least [0033]: “ The flying submarine may be deployed from aircraft, surface vessels, submarine vessels, or launched from shore facilities. Deployment may be in single units, or ripple-deployed in multiple unit salvos, using canisters, racks, tubes, etc.”).
Combining the teachings of Parks (specifically, air-dropping an underwater vehicle at a deployment location) with the Donly and Valsvik combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. This combination applies the known technique of deploying an underwater vehicle from an aircraft (of Parks), to improve a similar method (the method of the Donly and Valsvik combination) in the same way, with the motivation of deploying the UAVs in locations that are best reached by an aircraft.
Regarding Claim 17, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. The Donly and Valsvik combination does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising, after resurfacing, charging the rechargeable battery of each of the plurality of vehicles.
Parks, in the same field of unmanned submersible vessels, and therefore analogous art, teaches further comprising, after resurfacing, charging the rechargeable battery of each of the plurality of vehicles (see at least [0032], [0039], and Claim 33: “According to another embodiment, flying submarine 100 can hover at or near the surface to gather energy, communicate, obtain a GPS fix, and perform near-surface ISR”; “Each wing 102 may also include one or more solar panels 124 to recharge batteries 126 while the vehicle is in flight or loitering on the surface”; “solar cells that is carried on the front and rear wings to recharge while loitering at the water's surface”).
The motivation to combine is the same as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 17. Furthermore, Parks further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 17 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 3) wherein each of the plurality of vehicles comprises one or more solar panels operable to recharge the rechargeable battery (see at least [0032], [0039], and Claim 33: “Each wing 102 may also include one or more solar panels 124 to recharge batteries 126 while the vehicle is in flight or loitering on the surface”; “solar cells that is carried on the front and rear wings to recharge while loitering at the water's surface”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donly in view of Valsvik in further view of Christ.
Regarding Claim 6, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. The Donly and Valsvik combination does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the communication device is configured to communicate using a secure communications network.
Christ, in the same field of underwater exploration, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein the communication device is configured to communicate using a secure communications network (see at least [0121]: uses Iridium which provides secure communications).
Combining the teachings of Christ (specifically, using the Iridium network for backup communications) with the Donly and Valsvik combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. This combination uses the known technique of back-up communication over the Iridium network (of Christ), to improve a similar method (the method of the Donly and Valsvik combination) in the same way, with the motivation of having a secondary communication option in the event the primary communications are not functioning (see at least Christ [0121]).
Regarding Claim 7, the Donly, Valsvik, and Christ combination teaches Claim 6. Furthermore, Christ further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 6 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 6) wherein the secure communication network comprises a satellite communications system comprising low-earth orbit satellites (see at least [0121]: Iridium is a communications network using low-earth orbit satellites).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donly in view of Valsvik in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0071345 (Chiang and Broadstone, hereinafter, Chiang).
Regarding Claim 10, the Donly and Valsvik combination teaches Claim 1. The Donly and Valsvik combination (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) suggests wherein each sonar device attached to the plurality of vehicles, includes a plurality of transducer elements spaced apart at one or more distances and configured to receive respective sonar signals for conversion into the sonar data (due to the vast descriptions of different types of sonar / acoustic systems, see at least mapping from Claim 1); however, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein each sonar device attached to the plurality of vehicles, includes a plurality of transducer elements spaced apart at one or more distances and configured to receive respective sonar signals for conversion into the sonar data.
Chiang, in the same field of underwater exploration, and therefore analogous art, teaches wherein each sonar device attached to the plurality of vehicles, includes a plurality of transducer elements spaced apart at one or more distances and configured to receive respective sonar signals for conversion into the sonar data (see at least FIG. 1 and Claim 9: “a forward-looking sonar having a transmit and receive transducer array and a beamforming device; and at least one side-looking sonar having a second transducer array and a beamforming device”).
Combining the teachings of Chiang (specifically, the transducer arrangement) with the Donly and Valsvik combination would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. This combination uses the known technique positioning transducer elements on multiple portions of an underwater vehicle (of Chiang), to improve a similar method and device (the method / device of the Donly and Valsvik combination) in the same way with the motivation of providing an arrangement known to work for mapping (see at least Chiang [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights