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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 11/08/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2, recites “comprises” but should recite – comprises: –
Claim 4, lines 2-3, recites “monitoring a change in the location coordinates of the marine vehicle” but should recite – monitoring the change in the location coordinates of the marine vehicle –
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-9 and 18 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the horizontal plane" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-9 and 18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim 3, line 5, recites “the marine vehicle’s axis”. Claim 1, line 10, recites “a central axis of the marine vehicle”. It is unclear to the Examiner if these are the same axis or not. In other words, is the axis recited in claim 3 the same as the previously recited central axis in claim 1 or is this a new or different axis being introduced. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets these as the same axis.
Claim 3, line 5, recites “a horizontal plane”. Claim 1, line 10, recites “the horizontal plane”. It is unclear to the Examiner if these are the same horizontal plane or not. In other words, is the horizontal plane recited in claim 3 the same as the previously recited horizontal plane in claim 1 or is this a new or different horizontal plane being introduced. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets these as the same horizontal plane.
Claim 3, line 6, recites “distance measurements”. Claim 3, line 4, recites “calculating a distance from the gripper to the marine vehicle”. It is unclear to the Examiner if there is more than just one distance being calculated or determined. In other words, claim 3, line 6, recites using multiple distance measurements, however, previously in claim 3 it only recites calculating a (i.e., singular) distance. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the distance measurements to be the one calculated distance.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer program comprising of software instructions, which is explicitly defined in the MPEP 21.06.03 as being NOT directed to one of the statutory categories (software per se).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (WO 2019115262 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113460274 A).
Regarding claim 1, Keller teaches a method of recovering a marine vehicle floating on a choppy water surface, the method comprising: determining a zero location coordinates of the marine vehicle floating on the choppy water surface and continuously monitoring a change of location coordinates of the marine vehicle in relation to the determined zero location in real time (¶[50]-[52] “position mark 117 and the lifting ring 113 are located above the water surface 109 in the atmosphere” “laser scanner 115, laser signals are emitted continuously and thereby the position mark 117 of the autonomous underwater vehicle 105 is detected”), moving a gripper to a predetermined distance from the marine vehicle (¶[31]-[32] “certain distance” “maintained”), controlling a position of the gripper at the predetermined distance by continuously changing the position of the gripper according to the monitored change of the location coordinates of the marine vehicle (¶[50]-[52] “Taking into account the sensor data, the industrial robot arm 101 approaches the lift ring 113 of the autonomous underwater vehicle 105 autonomously and very precisely with the snap-action jaw 111, the industrial robot arm 101 communicating control and movement specifications via the control and regulating device 123 to the autonomous underwater vehicle”; ¶[31]-[31] “certain distance”), calculating a moment of grabbing the marine vehicle (¶[0051]-[0052] “industrial robot arm 101 approaches the lift ring 113 of the autonomous underwater vehicle 105 autonomously and very precisely with the snap-action jaw 111, the industrial robot arm 101 communicating control and movement specifications via the control and regulating device 123 to the autonomous underwater vehicle” and “the snap-action mouth 111 snaps into the opening within the lifting ring”); recovering the marine vehicle from the choppy water surface at the calculated moment with the gripper (¶[0051]-[0053] “the snap-action mouth 111 snaps into the opening within the lifting ring 113” “autonomous underwater vehicle 105 has landed aboard the carrier ship”).
Keller does not explicitly teach determining an angle of a central axis of the marine vehicle in the horizontal plane during the change in the location coordinates of the marine vehicle. However, Zhang discloses an AUV autonomous recovery device and teaches determining an angle of a central axis of the marine vehicle in the horizontal plane during the change in the location coordinates of the marine vehicle (page 7 “adjusting the angle of the mechanical arm 11, so as to adjust the angle of the clamping sleeve 6, the clamping sleeve 6 to the AUV7 angle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deploying and recovering device for recovering an object of Keller to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, determining an angle of a central axis of the marine vehicle in the horizontal plane during the change in the location coordinates of the marine vehicle, as taught by Zhang, to provide avoid damaging the AUV caused by unstable clamping or clamping angle error. (Zhang at page 10)
Regarding claim 2, Keller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein calculating the moment of grabbing comprises calculating a possible grabbing position and comparing the calculated possible grabbing position with suitable positions for grabbing the marine vehicle (¶[32]-[36] “control and / or regulation of the movement of the lifting device”; ¶[50]-[52] “Taking into account the sensor data, the industrial robot arm 101 approaches the lift ring 113 of the autonomous underwater vehicle 105 autonomously and very precisely with the snap-action jaw 111, the industrial robot arm 101 communicating control and movement”, i.e., the robot arm is autonomously controlling to maintain certain distance)”, i.e., grabbing the AUV is up to the determination of the robotic system and it is performed autonomously).
Regarding claim 4, Keller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the predetermined distance comprises monitoring a change in the location coordinates of the marine vehicle (¶[31]-[32] “certain distance” “maintained”; ¶[50]-[52] “Taking into account the sensor data, the industrial robot arm 101 approaches the lift ring 113 of the autonomous underwater vehicle 105 autonomously and very precisely with the snap-action jaw 111, the industrial robot arm 101 communicating control and movement”, i.e., the robot arm is autonomously controlling to maintain certain distance).
Regarding claim 6, Keller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises moving the gripper from the predetermined distance towards the marine vehicle before the moment of grabbing the marine vehicle (¶[31]-[32] “certain distance” “maintained”; ¶[50]-[52] “Taking into account the sensor data, the industrial robot arm 101 approaches the lift ring 113 of the autonomous underwater vehicle 105 autonomously and very precisely with the snap-action jaw 111, the industrial robot arm 101 communicating control and movement”, i.e., the robot arm is autonomously controlling to maintain certain distance).
Regarding claim 8, Keller teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises active heave compensating of the gripper on the water surface using a motion reference unit (MRU) (¶[32]-[36] “wave-motion sensor” “wave pattern of the water surface can be determined and incorporated into the control and / or regulation of the movement of the lifting device”).
Regarding claim 18, Keller teaches a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (¶[51] “industrial robot arm 101 approaches the lift ring 113 of the autonomous underwater vehicle 105 autonomously”, it is inherent that a robot/vehicle that operates autonomously is going to include a memory or storage device).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (WO 2019115262 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113460274 A), as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 112347900 A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Keller and Zhang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 2, wherein calculating the possible grabbing position of the marine vehicle comprises receiving images of the marine vehicle, calculating a distance from the gripper to the marine vehicle, calculating a position of the marine vehicle's axis in a horizontal plane and the centre of mass based on the visual images and distance measurements. However, Wang discloses an automatic grabbing method and teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein calculating the possible grabbing position of the marine vehicle comprises receiving images of the marine vehicle (pages 2-3 “guiding the mechanical arm to autonomously grasp” “image signal”), calculating a distance from the gripper to the marine vehicle (page 5 “distance estimation” “target automatic grabbing”), calculating a position of the marine vehicle's axis in a horizontal plane and the centre of mass based on the visual images and distance measurements (pages 2-3 “fusing sensor data” “guiding mechincal arm to autonomously grasp”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deploying and recovering device for recovering an object of Keller as modified by Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein calculating the possible grabbing position of the marine vehicle comprises receiving images of the marine vehicle, calculating a distance from the gripper to the marine vehicle, calculating a position of the marine vehicle's axis in a horizontal plane and the centre of mass based on the visual images and distance measurements, as taught by Wang, to provide improve the efficiency of the mechanical arm grabbing a target. (Wang at page 5)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (WO 2019115262 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113460274 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pastor et al. (WO 2017086780 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Keller and Zhang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined distance is from 10 cm up to 300 cm. However, Pastor discloses a method and system for hauling a marine equipment and teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined distance is from 10 cm up to 300 cm (page 11, lines 17-25, “maintaining the distance between the vessel and the lifting point on the AUV”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deploying and recovering device for recovering an object of Keller as modified by Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the predetermined distance is from 10 cm up to 300 cm, as taught by Pastor, to provide maintaining the distance between the vessel and the lifting point. (Pastor at page 11, lines 17-25)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (WO 2019115262 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113460274 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of William et al. (WO 2017064504 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Keller and Zhang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises detecting the marine vehicle in a pick-up zone before determining the zero location coordinates of the marine vehicle. However, William discloses deployment and retrieval methods of AUVs and teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises detecting the marine vehicle in a pick-up zone before determining the zero location coordinates of the marine vehicle (page 4 “retrieval zone 30”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deploying and recovering device for recovering an object of Keller as modified by Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the method further comprises detecting the marine vehicle in a pick-up zone before determining the zero location coordinates of the marine vehicle, as taught by William, to provide lifting the AUVs out of the water upon entering a retrieval zone. (William at page 10)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (WO 2019115262 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113460274 A), as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Delago (US 4448396 A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Keller and Zhang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 8, wherein the method further comprises turning off the active heave compensating, when the gripper is at the predetermined distance from the marine vehicle. However, Delago discloses a heave motion compensation apparatus and teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the method further comprises turning off the active heave compensating, when the gripper is at the predetermined distance from the marine vehicle (Col. 8, lines 50-60, “when the load is clear of the supply vessel, computer control switch 120 will be opened to deactivate the motion compensating system”, i.e., once the distance is 0 and the load is attached the AHC can be deactivated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deploying and recovering device for recovering an object of Keller as modified by Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the method further comprises turning off the active heave compensating, when the gripper is at the predetermined distance from the marine vehicle, as taught by Delago, to provide deactivating the motion compensating system after lift-off. (Col. 8, lines 50-60)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Guevel et al. (US 20190283848 A1) is pertinent because it is a method and system for launching and recovering underwater vehicles with an autonomous base.
Dollon (FR 3074473 A1) is pertinent because it is a method for recovering floating devices.
Peleg et al. (US 20180312225 A1) is pertinent because it is a system and method for launch and recovery of a marine vessel.
Son et al. (US 20180201344 A1) is pertinent because it is an unmanned vessel having coupling apparatus and a recovery method thereof.
Lossec (US 20140377004 A1) is pertinent because it is a receiving assembly for receiving a seagoing vessel and system for recovering and deploying such a vessel in the sea.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights