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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/23/24, and 9/23/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mathematical expression which is considered a judicial exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not disclose how the mathematical expression is used to make determinations about a physical object or the practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Guidance, a determination is made whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A of the Guidance is two-pronged, and determines whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exception, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)—(h)).
Step 1
Applicant’s claims are within a statutory category. Claims 25 and 27 recite a method/ process.
Step 2A, Prong I
Claims 25 and 27 recites at least one mathematical concept or mental processes, which is identified in the Guidance as an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claims 25 and 27 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claims as a whole are not directed to an improved method as the additional elements (claims 22, 24 from which claims 25 and 27 depend upon) are provided in the prior art. Claims 25 and 27 appear to merely collect and mathematically manipulate data, and are not directed to use of that data to direct subsequent operation.
Step 2B
The claims only appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Evidence of the limitation being well-understood from Alumbaugh et al., US 2010/0013485 in view of Dubberley et al., US 20140067748
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 25-27 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 25 and 27, the claims recite the term “A(w)”. The claims do not explicitly recite what this variable represents and is therefore unclear.
Claim 26 is dependent on claim 25 and is therefore also rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumbaugh et al., US 2010/0013485 in view of Majima, US 20200241162
Regarding claim 16, Alumbaugh teaches a system for detection and delineation of an object that is at least partly buried in seabed (Fig. 1; sea floor 118, subterranean element 122), the system comprising: a controlled electric dipole source mounted on an underwater element (Fig. 1; electric dipole in electrodes 134, 136 ); a first receiver electrode pair comprising vertical receiver electrodes mounted on the underwater element the vertical receiver electrodes separated from one another in a vertical direction of the underwater element (Fig. 1; electrodes 140, 150), a 3-axes magnetometer assembly mounted in the underwater element (Fig. 1; magnetometer 108), wherein the receiver pair is configured to measure electric field and the 3-axes magnetometer assembly is configured to measure magnetic field (Fig. 1; inherent in the operation of magnetometer and electrodes); a second receiver pair comprises inline receiver electrodes mounted on the underwater element, the inline receiver electrodes are separated from one another in a longitudinal direction of the underwater element (Fig. 1; any of electrodes 142-146 or electrodes 152-156); and a third receiver pair comprises crossline receiver electrodes mounted on the underwater element, the crossline receiver electrodes are separated from one another in a crossline direction of the underwater element (Fig. 1; any of electrodes 142-146 in combination with electrodes 152-156), wherein the second and the third receiver pairs are configured to measure electric field (inherent in function of electrodes).
Alumbaugh is silent in wherein the underwater element is an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, AUV, having a hull. Majima teaches Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, AUV, having a hull (Fig. 1-3; autonomous underwater vehicle 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Majima into Alumbaugh for the benefit of traveling autonomously and unmanned in the sea for detection of buried assets.
Regarding claim 19, Alumbaugh teaches wherein the system further comprises a processor which is configured to use measurements from at least one receiver electrode pair and the 3-axes magnetometer assembly to create a conductivity structure of a buried object (¶[0017]).
Regarding claim 21, Alumbaugh teaches wherein a position of a buried object relative to the AUV is estimated from data measured with at least one receiver electrode pair and the 3-axes magnetometer assembly (¶[0013]; survey data acquisition).
Regarding claim 18, Alumbaugh is silent wherein the controlled electric dipole source operates in the frequency range between 1 and 1000 Hz. Majima teaches an electric source operates in the frequency range between 1 and 1000 Hz (¶[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Majima into Alumbaugh since a substitution of the frequency range would produce predictable result of providing an electrical response from the buried object.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumbaugh et al., US 2010/0013485 in view of Tenghamn et al., US 20090140741
Regarding claim 17, Alumbaugh wherein the controlled electric dipole source comprises at least two metal electrode plates mounted on a first end and a second end of the hull of the AUV. Tenghamn teaches an electric dipole comprises at least two metal electrode plates mounted on a first end and a second end of an underwater element (Fig. 1-2b; vehicle 19; electric dipoles 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Tenghamn into Alumbaugh since the substitution of the metal plates at the desired location would produce predictable result of receiving the underwater measurements.
Claim(s) 20, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumbaugh et al., US 2010/0013485 in view of Majima, US 20200241162 in view of Yoon et al., “Optimal Synthetic Aperture Method for Marine Controlled-Source EM surveys”
Regarding claim 20, Alumbaugh is silent in wherein the processor is configured to increase sensitivity of measured data by using a Synthetic Aperture method. Yoon teaches wherein a processor is configured to increase sensitivity of measured data by using a Synthetic Aperture method (Page 414; Abstract “sensitivity of the MCSEM survey…enhanced by…corresponding synthetic aperture”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Yoon into Alumbaugh for discriminating buried underwater objects with efficiency.
Regarding claim 22, Alumbaugh discloses a method of detection and delineation of an object that is at least partly buried in seabed (Fig. 1; sea floor 118, subterranean element 122), the method comprising steps of: transmitting electromagnetic energy from a controlled electric dipole source mounted on an Underwater element (Fig. 1; electric dipole in electrodes 134, 136 ); arranging a first receiver electrode pair comprising vertical receiver electrodes mounted on the Underwater element, the vertical receiver electrodes separated from one another in a vertical direction of the Underwater element (Fig. 1; electrodes 140, 150); arranging a second receiver pair comprising inline receiver electrodes mounted on the Underwater element, the inline receiver electrodes separated from one another in a longitudinal direction of the Underwater element (Fig. 1; any of electrodes 142-146 or electrodes 152-156); arranging a third receiver pair comprising crossline receiver electrodes mounted on the Underwater element, the crossline receiver electrodes separated from one another in the crossline direction of the Underwater element (Fig. 1; any of electrodes 142-146 in combination with electrodes 152-156); measuring electric field with the first receiver electrode pair, the second receiver pair, and the third receiver pair mounted on the Underwater element (Fig. 1; inherent in the operation of electrodes); measuring magnetic field with at least one 3-axes magnetometer assembly mounted in the Underwater element (Fig. 1; magnetometer 108); and processing measured data with a processor located onboard (¶[0022]; Fig. 1; controller 124).
Alumbaugh is silent in wherein the underwater element is an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, AUV, having a hull. Majima teaches Autonomous Underwater Vehicle, AUV, having a hull (Fig. 1-3; autonomous underwater vehicle 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Majima into Alumbaugh for the benefit of traveling autonomously and unmanned in the sea for detection of buried assets.
Alumbaugh is silent in the processor adapted to increasing sensitivity of the measured data by using a Synthetic Aperture method. Yoon teaches wherein the processor is adapted to increase sensitivity of measured data by using a Synthetic Aperture method (Page 414; Abstract “sensitivity of the MCSEM survey…enhanced by…corresponding synthetic aperture”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Yoon into Alumbaugh for discriminating multiple buried underwater objects with efficiency.
Regarding claim 23, Alumbaugh is silent in wherein the electromagnetic energy transmitted by the controlled electric dipole source comprises discrete frequencies between 1 and 1000 Hz. Majima teaches an electric source operates in the frequency range between 1 and 1000 Hz (¶[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Majima into Alumbaugh since a substitution of the frequency range would produce predictable result of providing an electrical response from the buried object.
Regarding claim 24, Alumbaugh is silent in wherein using the Synthetic Aperture method comprises normalizing the measured data with a background field and combining with optimized weights.Yoon teaches wherein using the Synthetic Aperture method comprises normalizing the measured data with a background field and combining with optimized weights (Page 415; Col. 1; Eb – background fields; w- weights; A- normalized synthetic aperture data dB). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Yoon into Alumbaugh for discriminating multiple buried underwater objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on 571.272.2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights