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 .
Priority
The effective filing date for this application is based on the provisional application 63/116,702 filed on 11/20/2020.
Double Patenting
No double patenting rejection is needed because 12,110,086 B2 has different dependent claims than those in the present application.
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.
Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name Iridium Satellite Communications. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a secure communication protocol and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 – 10 and 12 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valsvik et al. (US Pub No: 2017/0137098 A1, hereinafter Valsvik) in view of Christ et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0180740 A1, hereinafter Christ).
Regarding Claim 1:
Valsvik discloses:
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. Paragraph [0029] describes an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) that has a body that encompasses one or more sensors. Paragraph [0030] describes a motor 106 for activating a propeller 104, and that all components of the vehicle are powered by battery 114. Paragraph [0055] describes that the battery may be rechargeable.
at least one sonar device attached to the vehicle body; and a first communication device. Paragraph [0032] describes a communication device 126. Paragraph [0034] describes a forward-looking sonar.
submerging one or more of the plurality of vehicles below a surface of the body of water. Paragraph [0029] describes an AUV that goes underwater.
Valsvik does not disclose multiple vehicles, mapping a body of water, detecting a target object, resurfacing a plurality of vehicles and transferring data between two vehicles and process the transferred sonar data to generate a map based on the sonar data.
Christ teaches:
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. Paragraph [0070] describes multiple autonomous underwater vehicles operating simultaneously with a single host platform.
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. Paragraph [0071] and figure 2 describes an underwater mapping system 200. Paragraph [0231] describes a mapping for the sea bottom using sonar targets using a side scan sonar.
determining, based on the surveying, that a target object is detected within the area. Paragraph [0071] and figure 2 describes an underwater mapping system 200. Paragraph [0231] describes a mapping for the sea bottom using sonar targets using a side scan sonar.
and 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. Paragraph [0076] describes transferring data from the AUV to the USV and HSV.
and processing the transferred sonar data to generate a map based on the sonar data. Paragraph [0071] describes that this invention is used to map the underwater region. Paragraph [0085] describes that this is done using sonar.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Valsvik to incorporate the teachings of Christ to show multiple vehicles, mapping a body of water, detecting a target object, resurfacing a plurality of vehicles and transferring data between two vehicles and process the transferred sonar data to generate a map based on the sonar data. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a more efficient way of performing underwater scanning operations ([0011] of Christ).
Regarding Claim 4:
Valsvik discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of vehicles is associated with a global satellite network. Paragraph [0031] describes a GPS satellite receiver deployed on a ROV or AUV.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6:
Christ teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the communication device is configured to communicate using a secure communications network. Paragraph [0121] describes an Iridium communication network, which is a secured network.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
Christ teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the secure communication network comprises IridiumTM satellite communications systems. Paragraph [0231] describes an Iridium satellite communication system.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
Christ teaches:
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. Paragraph [0006] and figure 2 describes an AUV 104 maintaining a fixed depth. Figure 2 shows multiple vehicles at fixed depths.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Christ teaches:
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. Paragraph [0071] and figure 2 describes vehicles 204 and 206 each at different depths. One is at 0 ft depth and the other is at an unspecified depth.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10:
Christ teaches:
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. Paragraph [0243] and [0244] describes multiple transducer elements that maintain continual acoustic communications with the AUV.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Christ teaches:
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. Paragraph [0076] describes transferring data from the AUV to the USV and HSV.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Christ discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises an autonomous underwater vehicle. Paragraph [0070] describes multiple autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV).
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14:
Christ teaches:
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. Paragraph [0006] describes AUVs 104 that have front/side/bottom looking sonars to gather data, map and communicate with the host platform 102. Paragraph [0231] describes a side scan sonar (SSS) that maps the sea floor using acoustic backscatter.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15:
Christ teaches:
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. Paragraph [0087] describes that the intermediate noted can be deployed by being air dropped.
The reason to combine Christ with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16:
Valsvik discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein submerging each of the plurality of vehicles in the body of water is performed without removable weights. Paragraph [0047] describes that AUV device uses a propulsion unit instead of a water expulsion, inflatable bag, weight release, etc…
Claim(s) 2 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valsvik in view of Christ and further in view of Wolfel et al. (US Pub No: 2021/0048544 A1, hereinafter Wolfel).
Regarding Claim 2:
Valsvik and Christ teach the above inventions in claim 1. Valsvik and Christ do not teach sonar data being transferred from one or more of the vehicles to a remote server.
Wolfel, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sonar data is transferred from one or more of the plurality of vehicles to the remote server. Paragraph [0027] describes a remote server 245 that can receive data from the autonomous marine survey vehicles 200.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Valsvik to incorporate the teachings of Wolfel to show sonar data being transferred from one or more of the vehicles to a remote server. One would have been motivated to do so to monitor and supervise the autonomous marine survey vehicles ([0027] of Wolfel).
Regarding Claim 17:
Wolfel teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, after resurfacing, charging the rechargeable battery of each of the plurality of vehicles. Paragraph [0053] describes solar panels for on board power generation. The energy produced allows the subsea vehicle to have power during submerged operation.
The reason to combine Wolfel with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 18:
Wolfel teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein each of the plurality of vehicles comprises one or more solar panels operable to recharge the rechargeable battery. Paragraph [0053] describes solar panels for on board power generation. The energy produced allows the subsea vehicle to have power during submerged operation.
The reason to combine Wolfel with Valsvik is for the same reason as in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valsvik in view of Christ and further in view of Lapota et al. (US Patent No: 9,772,288 B1, hereinafter Lapota).
Regarding Claim 3:
Valsvik and Christ teach the above inventions in claim 1. Valsvik and Christ do not teach transferring the data to one or more of the plurality vehicles to the surface of the body of water when the vehicle resurfaces.
Lapota, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
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. Column (51) describes a housing 20 that resurfaces and transmits test data to the data acquisition and control unit.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Valsvik to incorporate the teachings of Lapota to show transferring the data to one or more of the plurality vehicles to the surface of the body of water when the vehicle resurfaces. One would have been motivated to do so that the data is clearly sent without distortion from ocean waves/water diffraction.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valsvik in view of Christ and further in view of Eldred (US Pub No: 2023/0182876 A1, hereinafter Eldred).
Regarding Claim 5:
Valsvik and Christ teach the above inventions in claim 1. Valsvik and Christ do not teach sonar data comprising a low bandwidth message.
Eldred teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sonar data comprises a low bandwidth message. Paragraph [0100] describes a variety of protocols developed for underwater data transmission to handle low-bandwidth and high-interference environments.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Valsvik to incorporate the teachings of Eldred to show sonar data comprising a low bandwidth message. One would have been motivated to do so to allow diverse systems to discover each other and negotiate faster, higher-bandwidth protocols.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valsvik in view of Christ and further in view of Strunk (US Pub No: 2022/0363357 A1, hereinafter Strunk).
Regarding Claim 11:
Valsvik and Christ teach the above inventions in claim 1. Valsvik and Christ do not teach generating a virtual model in real time based on the generated map.
Strunk, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a virtual model in real time based on the generated map. Paragraph [0026] describes a controller 38 that generates the virtual environment based on stored data. The model is than updated as data from the sensor 58 of the surface vessel 14, the underwater vehicle camera 30, data from the underwater vehicle LIDAR system 32, and other suitable sources, comes in.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Valsvik to incorporate the teachings of Strunk to show generating a virtual model in real time based on the generated map. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive a control input signal indicative of a target virtual position/orientation of a target virtual underwater vehicle within a virtual environment (Abstract of Strunk).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brizard (US Pub No: 2018/0224568 A1): Systems and methods for deploying seismic autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) to the seabed by using a variety of guidance systems and/or positioning/communication protocols based on a particular AUV's location. A combination of a USBL system and a phased array system may be used to deploy different groups of AUVs on one or more deployment lines of a seismic survey area. The deployment lines may be generally perpendicular or parallel to a deployment vessel's direction of travel. Once a certain number of AUVs have landed on the seabed, the landed AUVs may be used to guide flying AUVs to their intended seabed destination by using acoustic pingers and phased array techniques. Time intervals for acoustic signals emitted from landed AUVs may be generated using a predetermined Time of Emission pattern and received by a phased array receiver on flying AUVs.
Postic (US Pub No: 2019/0353815 A1): Disclosed is an ocean bottom seismic node for recording seismic signals on the seabed. The ocean bottom seismic node may comprise an arched cathedral buoyant body coupled to a substantially flat bottom metal plate. The buoyant body may be formed of hard plastic (such as plastic injection in a mold) and have one or more cathedral type inner structures with columns that form a plurality of interconnected inner chambers, which may be dry or filled with foam and/or act as ballasts. One or more electronic components may be directly attached to the bottom metal plate (and within one or more of the internal cathedral chambers) and covered/protected by the buoyant body that is water and pressure resistant at seabed depths. The edge(s) of the buoyant body may seal around the metal plate on one or more peripheral edges of the plate and buoyant body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658