DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment was filed by applicant on 08/09/2024.
Claims 1, 9-12 and 15 are amended.
Claims 16-54 are canceled.
Claims 55-58 are new.
Claims 1-15 and 55-58 are remaining in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature limitation(s): “first compressive device”, compressive device” must be shown (it is suggested that such be shown with an appropriate reference character corresponding to this feature(s) in the Specification) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature(s) (with appropriate reference characters corresponding to the feature(s) in the written description) consistent with the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
The Specification does not refer to the drawings regarding the feature indicated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Office Action.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
13. Claims 1-15 and 55-58 are 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, regards as the invention.
14. The claimed features “the vehicle”, “the compressive device”, “the force”, “the batteries”, “the mobility”, “the front” and “the aft” lack sufficient antecedent basis where recited.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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), 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: “compressive device” in claim 1 and subsequent dependent claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim element “compressive device” is considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function. The Specification does not clearly specify distinct structure associated to the feature(s); therefore, the feature limitations as claimed is not clear with respect to scope, structure or limiting effect in light of the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 9-13 and 15-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3473504 A (Giddings), cited by the examiner. Regarding claims 12 and 11, D1 discloses an aquatic vehicle (submersible; Fig. 2) with wings (control surface of fixed winglike configuration; col. 2, lines 54-55 and claim 1) [12]. D1 does not explicitly disclose planing of the aquatic vehicle at a speed on a water surface greater than 6 knots; however, D1 discloses that conventional control surfaces of the prior art are a compromise between maneuverability at low speeds and safety at high speeds (col. 1, lines 56-58). Therefore, the particular planing speed for which the aquatic vehicle would be capable of on a water surface would have been considered a matter of design preference based on desired maneuverability and safety, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 9 and 13, D1 discloses that the aquatic vehicle is capable of rising and diving in a vertical plane (col. 2, lines 1-3), and Fig. 2 shows the wings being aligned with the aquatic vehicle and such would remain aligned while diving in a vertical orientation, which the vehicle would have been considered of being capable of, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 10, the particular size and/or percentage length of the wings (control surfaces) [12] with respect to the length of the aquatic vehicle would have been considered a matter of design preference based on desired performance and planing, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art; especially since applicant has indicated that such is not critical and may be increased or decreased in size to enhance vehicle performance. Regarding claim 15, the aquatic vehicle is considered portable, inasmuch as such vehicle would be capable of being transported other than under its own power depending on means of transport and relative size of such aquatic vehicle with respect to the means of transport chosen, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 55, the particular weight of the aquatic vehicle would have been considered a matter of preference to facilitate desired use, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 56, the control surfaces [12] are considered delta wings inasmuch as the wings are triangular in shape. Regarding claim 57, the hull shape of the aquatic vehicle appears cylindrical; however, the particular shape of such vehicle would have been considered a matter of preference to facilitate performance, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art; especially since cylindrical shape submersibles are well known in the art and provide a form to minimize drag and enhance speed, performance and maneuverability while moving through the water, as would also have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. In view of the foregoing, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features for an aquatic vehicle to facilitate and/or enhance speed, maneuverability, safety, performance and transportability of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1, 2, 5, 7-15 and 55-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3473504 A (Giddings) cited by the examiner, in view of D2: CN 113998088 A (SEU) cited by the applicant. D1 is considered to disclose the claimed features as previously indicated. With the exception of claim 12, D2 is considered to disclose the following claimed features: Regarding claim 1, D2 discloses an aquatic vehicle (see Figs. 1, 5; Para. [0037] regarding an unmanned underwater vehicle) comprising: a mass (inertia swinging body [202], Fig. 5, inertia swinging body [202], Para. [0037], mass center of the inertia swinging body, Para. [0023]) inside the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) that is movable with respect to a vehicle hull (wave energy capturing cabin [2], Fig. 1); and a first compressive device (left return springs [203], Fig. 5, each set of return springs [203] is symmetrically disposed at the left and right sides of the swing main body [2021]; the return spring [203] keeps the inertial oscillating body [202] in a vertical state when not acted on by wave energy, Para. [0048]) configured to compress under a weight of the mass (inertia swinging body [202]) when the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) is oriented sufficiently vertically (underwater vehicle is automatically adjusted to be vertical, Para. [0065]), and decompress (return spring [203] is in a stretched state when the inertial oscillating body [202] is stressed to swing left and right, Para. [0048]) when a more horizontal orientation (inertial swinging body [202] and the unmanned underwater vehicle shell swing relatively, Para. [0065]) of the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) reduces a force acting on the first compressive device (left return springs [203]) due to the weight of the mass (inertia swinging body [202]); wherein a powered device is not utilized to move the mass (inertia swinging body [202]) relative to the vehicle hull (wave energy capturing cabin [2], Fig. 1, under the action of first-order wave excitation force and inertia, Para. [0065]). Regarding Claim 2, D2 discloses the aquatic vehicle of claim 1 wherein the first compressive device (left return springs [203], Fig. 5) comprises a spring (left return springs [203]) or flexible tubing. Regarding claim 4, making a battery to be replaceable without requiring a tool, would have been considered obvious in order to facilitate replacement, maintenance, accessibility and manual efficiency, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Claim 5, D2 discloses the aquatic vehicle of claim 1 wherein a second compressive device (left limiting spring [207], Fig. 5) located rearward (Fig. 5 showing left limiting spring [207] extending rearward of a portion of left return springs [203]) from the first compressive device (left return springs [203]) dampens a mobility (under large wave conditions, the amplitude of motion of inertial pendulum [202] increases, and during motion, it is restrained by limiting spring 207, Para. [0065]) of the mass (inertia swinging body [202]) when the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) is in large waves (under large wave conditions, Para. [0065]) or currents. Regarding Claim 7, D2 discloses the aquatic vehicle of claim 1 wherein during forward motion of the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) the mass (inertia swinging body [202], Fig. 5) is disposed toward a front (Fig. 5 showing inertia swinging body [202] movable toward the right return springs [203]) of the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]), thereby orienting the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) more horizontally (inertial swinging body [202] and the unmanned underwater vehicle shell swing relatively, Para. [0065]). Regarding Claim 8, D2 discloses the aquatic vehicle of claim 1 wherein when the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) is vertically oriented (underwater vehicle is automatically adjusted to be vertical, Para. [0065]) the mass (inertia swinging body [202], Fig. 5) is disposed toward an aft (Fig. 5 showing inertia swinging body [202] movable toward the left return springs [203]) of the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]), thereby stabilizing the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]). Regarding Claim 9, D2 discloses the aquatic vehicle of claim 1 capable of traveling (propulsion of the unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0041]) on (as shown in Fig. 1) or under a water surface (can float to the water surface, Para. [0041]) and diving (unmanned underwater vehicle dives, Para. [0068]) in a vertical orientation (underwater vehicle is automatically adjusted to be vertical, Para. [0065]). Regarding claim 14, D2 discloses wings that comprise wing sections (see Fig. 1 showing wings of propulsion cabin [3]) connected to a hull unit (propulsion cabin [3]) and forward wings (wings of propulsion cabin [3] are forward of the propeller on the aquatic vehicle); such wings assist in maneuverability of the vessel. Providing such wings forward on the aquatic vehicle would have been considered obvious to facilitate maneuverability of the aquatic vehicle, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding Claim 15, D2 discloses the aquatic vehicle of claim 1 wherein the aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0037]) is portable (propulsion of the unmanned underwater vehicle, Para. [0041]). Providing such features as disclosed for such an aquatic vehicle would have been considered obvious to improve upon the device with respect to at least maneuverability and performance, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features for an aquatic vehicle to facilitate at least improved maneuverability and performance of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3473504 A (Giddings) cited by the examiner, in view of D2: CN 113998088 A (SEU) cited by the applicant, in further view of D3: US 7281484 B1 (Alvarez-Calderon), cited by the examiner. D1 in view of D2 is considered to disclose all claimed features as previously indicated. D3 also discloses wings that comprise wing sections connected to a hull unit and forward wings; see forward wings [7, 37, 47, 94L, 94R] on the disclosed submersible (as shown in Figs. 1A, 3, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B) and the corresponding written description. Such features facilitate and/or assist in the diving and maneuvering capability for the submersible. Providing such features as disclosed for such an aquatic vehicle would have been considered obvious to improve upon diving ability and maneuverability for the device, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features for an aquatic vehicle to facilitate at least improved diving capability, maneuverability and performance of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3473504 A (Giddings) cited by the examiner, in view of D2: CN 113998088 A (SEU) cited by the applicant, in further view of D4: US 10472034 B1 (TI, inc.), cited by the applicant. D1 in view of D2 is considered to disclose all claimed features as previously indicated, except the claimed subject matter of claims 3 and 4. D4 discloses an aquatic vehicle (unmanned underwater vehicle; col. 1, lines 8-10) and teaches wherein a mass (weight [98], Fig. 3) comprises one or more batteries (battery serves dual purpose as energy source and ballast) [98] (col. 7, lines 66-67) and are replaceable without requiring a tool (a rechargeable battery [61] (col. 5, lines 52-54, replace a drained battery, col. 1, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the aquatic vehicle to include wherein the one or more batteries are replaceable without requiring a tool as taught by D4 for the purpose of providing a rechargeable battery as a main energy storage means and also a ballast weight, and thereby ensure that the operation area for the underwater vehicle is expanded (col. 3, lines 9-14). Providing such features as disclosed for such an aquatic vehicle would have been considered obvious to facilitate/enhance the energy source, ballast and efficiency for the device, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features for an aquatic vehicle to facilitate at least an improved energy source, ballast and efficiency for the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: US 3473504 A (Giddings) cited by the examiner, in view of D2: CN 113998088 A (SEU) cited by the applicant, in further view of D5: US 3157145 A (Farris et al.), cited by the applicant. D1 in view of D2 is considered to disclose all claimed features as previously indicated, except the claimed features of claim 6. However, D5 discloses an aquatic vehicle (underwater glider; col. 1, lines 10-14) and teaches wherein a second compressive device (as the vehicle [20] submerges, the bellows [148, 168 and 170] start to compress; col. 6, lines 52-53) does not comprise a spring (bellows [148, 168 and 170], col. 6, lines 52-53). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the second compressive device of Southeast to include wherein the second compressive device does not comprise a spring as taught by Farris for the purpose of providing compression that varies and/or compression that is redundant/fail-safe, thereby ensuring that the compression reliably adjusts as the aquatic vehicle submerges (col. 6, lines 52-53). Providing such features as disclosed for such an aquatic vehicle would have been considered obvious to improve upon the reliability of compression for the device as desired, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features for an aquatic vehicle to improve upon the device regarding reliability of compression, as desired, with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
29. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited by the examiner disclose aquatic vehicles with fins, foils or wings.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
31. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
07/02/2026
Prosecution Insights