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 .
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 4 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.
Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus, namely an underwater towing system. However, the limitation “each of the underwater work structures includes an autonomous underwater vehicle including a propulsor and is indirectly towed by the towing rope by sailing while being guided by the light signal from the at least one light emitter.” Recites the manner in which the autonomous underwater vehicle is operated or used rather than positively reciting structural limitation of the claimed apparatus. Specifically, the phrases “is indirectly towed,” “by sailing,” and “being guided by the light signal” describe operational steps performed during use of the underwater towing system rather than structural characteristics of the claimed apparatus. Accordingly, it is unclear whether these limitations further define the structure of the claimed underwater towing system or merely recite a method of using or operating the apparatus. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not reasonably clear.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urciuoli (US-20120227654-A1) in view of Doniec et al. (US-9031413-B2, hereafter Doniec).
Regarding to claim 1, Urciuoli teaches an underwater towing system (Fig. 7, 10) comprising:
a towing structure sailing on or in water and including control circuitry (Fig.7, 14; paragraph 64);
a towing rope hanging down from the towing structure into the water (Fig. 7, 22, 24);
and underwater work structures towed by the towing rope (Fig. 7, 12, paragraphs,67, 184),
and one of the underwater work structures separates from the towing rope (Fig. 12, paragraphs 158-162).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
663
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Urciuoli does not teach:
at least one light emitter attached to the towing rope and controlled by the control circuitry;
each of the underwater work structures includes a light receiver that receives a light signal from the at least one light emitter;
when the control circuitry makes the at least one light emitter transmit a separation signal for this underwater work structure, and the light receiver of this underwater work structure receives the separation signal.
Doniec teaches:
at least one light emitter (Fig. 1A,12) attached to the towing rope and controlled by the control circuitry (Fig. 5);
each of the underwater work structures includes a light receiver that receives a light signal from the at least one light emitter (Fig. 1A, 12; Col 3, lines 52-67; Col 4, lines 1-3);
when the control circuitry makes the at least one light emitter transmit a separation signal for this underwater work structure, and the light receiver of this underwater work structure receives the separation signal (Col 3, lines 33-51).
PNG
media_image3.png
617
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
388
695
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to modify the underwater towing system of Urciuoli to incorporate the optical communication system as taught by Doniec, in order to provide reliable optical communication for controlling separation of an underwater work structure in an underwater environment.
Regarding claim 2, Urciuoli teaches the underwater towing system according to claim 1, wherein:
the control circuitry includes first control circuitry (paragraphs 61-64);
each of the underwater work structures includes an engager (Fig. 7, 16) that is connectable to the towing rope, an actuator that operates the engager, and second control circuitry configured to control the actuator (paragraphs 61-64);
the second control circuitry drives the actuator such that the towing rope and the engager are disconnected from each other (paragraphs 61-64).
PNG
media_image5.png
658
456
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Urciuoli does not teach:
when the light receiver receives the separation signal, the second control circuitry drives the actuator such that the towing rope and the engager are disconnected from each other.
Doniec teaches:
the light receiver receiving an optical signal, and a controller processes the received signal (Fig. 5; Col 8 line 4-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to modify the underwater towing system of Urciuoli to incorporate the optical communication system as taught by Doniec, in order to provide reliable optical communication for controlling separation of an underwater work structure in an underwater environment.
Regarding claim 3, Urciuoli teaches the underwater towing system according to claim 1, wherein each of the underwater work structures includes an autonomous underwater vehicle (Paragraph 184).
Regarding claim 4, Urciuoli does not teach the underwater towing system according to claim 1, wherein each of the underwater work structures includes an autonomous underwater vehicle including a propulsor and is indirectly towed by the towing rope by sailing while being guided by the light signal from the at least one light emitter.
Doniec teaches the underwater towing system according to claim 1, wherein each of the underwater work structures includes an autonomous underwater vehicle including a propulsor (Fig. 1B, 32, 36) and is indirectly towed by the towing rope by sailing while being guided by the light signal from the at least one light emitter (Fig. 2A,2B; Col 5, lines 15-67).
PNG
media_image6.png
675
566
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
673
373
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention’s effective filling date to modify the underwater towing system of Urciuoli to incorporate the autonomous underwater vehicle guidance system as taught by Doniec, in order to enable underwater work structures to navigate under their own propulsion while being guided by optical communication, thereby improving positioning accuracy and operational flexibility during underwater operations.
Regarding claim 5, Urciuoli teaches the underwater towing system according to claim 2, wherein each of the underwater work structures includes an autonomous underwater vehicle (Paragraph 184).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0117. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am-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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/K.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights