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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 12 September 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Applicant elected Group I (claims 1-11) however, claims 12-20 have not been canceled at this time.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 26 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following {Examiner notes: The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with different paragraphs of 37 CFR 1.84. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, clearly list all objections below. This will act as a check list for the Applicant to correct, where the list is presented in the figure order.}:
Fig. 1A reference character “113n” should be “113N” to match the format used in the figs.
Fig. 1A reference character “13C” should be “113C”.
Fig. 1B in view of Figs. 1A and 2A is not clear if reference characters “113A, 113B, 113F and 113N” are properly labeled. The reference characters of “113A-n” are confusing to the Examiner as the placement is not matching throughout the drawings. The Examiner interprets the Fig. 1 to be correctly labeled and therefore, Fig. 1B has double reference characters for the same part. In Fig. 1B the following is double labeled and not clear:
Reference character “113A” is also labeled as “113F” and should only be “113N” to match fig. 1A.
Reference character “113E” is also labeled as “113B” and should only be “113E” to match fig. 1A.
Reference character “113D” is also labeled as “113n” and should only be “113D” to match fig. 1A.
Fig. 1B reference character “112B” should be “112A”.
Fig. 1B reference character “110A” should be “110D”.
Fig. 1B, “FRONT” is misplaced should be moved to a location closer to “112A”.
Fig. 1B reference character “147A-n” is not found in the Spec.
Fig. 2A reference character “113G” should be “113N” to match Fig. 1A.
Fig. 2A reference character “113D” should be “113E”.
Fig. 2A reference character “113E” should be “113D”.
Fig. 2A reference character “110D” should be deleted as this is properly labeled as “110B”.
Fig. 2B reference character “126” should be at least “125”.
Fig. 2B reference character “110A” is double labeled where the internal “110A” should be at least “130”. {Examiner notes: the Applicant may clarify the fig.2B reference characters to properly label, as necessary. The Examiner suggested reference characters may be swapped from the Applicant’s intended placement.}
Fig. 3A reference character “312A” should be “212A”.
Fig. 3B reference character “312B-D” should be “212B-D”.
Fig. 4A reference character “312A” should be “212A”.
Fig. 4A reference character “XXX” should be “186”.
Fig. 4A reference character “392A-n” is not found in the Spec. Fig. 4A reference character “392A-n” should be “396A-n” matching that of at least fig. 3A.
Fig. 4A reference character “12C/SPI” is not found in the Spec. Spec para [0069] recites “I2C” and does not match fig. 4 therefore is unclear as to which of the two is correct.
Fig. 4B reference character “312B-D” should be “212B-D”.
Fig. 5 reference character “112” is labeled as “MOTOR” however the spec. recites “THRUSTER” (See at least: para. [0051] “A thruster 112A-n can include any suitable motor...”). Therefore, the applicant may create a new reference character for “MOTOR” and update fig. 5 to include the proper reference character.
Fig. 11 is not clear in view of the spec. where at least reference characters “1130” and “1150” are either not properly labeled or unclear as the spec. para. [00123] has “one or more remote data stores(s)” with multiple reference characters listed.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paras. [0049] and [0068] both recite “signals 396A-n” where fig. 3A and 4A both state “POS DATA”. It is not clear from the spec that “signals” are “positional data signals” as shown in the figs.
Para. [0061] recites “...vectors V1-n, similarity indexes S1-n...” is not clear when viewed with at least fig. 2B as reference characters “V1-n” and “S1-n” are not shown.
Para. [0069] recites “I2C” and does not match fig. 4 “12C/SPI” therefore is unclear as to which of the two is correct.
Para. [0070]-[0071] recite “thrusters 112A-n” and “motor 112A-n” and is not clear as the thruster is interpreted to have at least a motor and propeller/impeller.
Para. [00123] has “one or more remote data stores(s)” with multiple reference characters listed and is not clear in view of fig. 11.
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 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "one or more respective compartments" in line 3. Claim 1 recites “two or more buoyant compartments” in line 2. It is not clear if the "one or more respective compartments" are the same or different than the “two or more buoyant compartments”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Tao et al. (NPL: “Omnidirectional Surface Vehicle for Fish Cage Inspection” OCEANS 2018 MTS, October 2018). {Cited on applicant’s IDS of 12 September 2024.} See at least: fig. 2 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
502
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Tao et al. discloses an omnidirectional surface vehicle (OSV) (omnidirectional surface vehicle; See at least: Title and Abstract “omnidirectional surface vehicle”), comprising:
two or more buoyant compartments (multi hull; See at least: Abstract and fig. 1 which shows floating on water and fig. 2) configured to support the OSV on a surface of a body of water (See at least: figs. 1 and 6 along with Abstract “surface vehicle”);
a thruster (thruster; See at least: Abstract and fig. 2) configured to positionally navigate the OSV (See at least: “Mechanical design” page 2 of 6 “Each thruster can generate both forward and reverse thrust. Similar to the work [21], we choose the “+” thruster configuration for efficient propulsion”); and
a camera (underwater camera; See at least: fig. 2) located onboard the OSV, wherein an orientation of the camera is adjustable (See at least: Abstract “motorized depth adjustment”).
Regarding claim 3, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Tao et al. discloses wherein operation of the thruster is configured to facilitate motion of the OSV at the surface of the body of water (See at least: figs. 1 and 6 and “Introduction” page 2 of 6 “The vessel is capable of omnidirectional movement...”) ,
wherein the thruster is connected to a ducted channel (ducted propellers; See at least: Abstract), and
wherein operation of the thruster causes fluid to be drawn into the ducted channel or ejected from the ducted channel (See at least: figs. 2-3 and “Mechanical design” page 2 of 6 “Each thruster can generate both forward and reverse thrust.” Where it is inherent that a thruster/propeller would cause fluid to be draw into and ejected when generating a forward or reverse thrust.).
Regarding claim 4, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Tao et al. discloses further comprising: an image processor (neural network processor; See at least: page 2 of 6 “Electronics”) configured to:
receive imaging data from the camera (See at least: “Experiment setup” page 4 of 6 “photos of the fish net are taken...”);
process the imaging data (See at least: “Experiment setup” page 4 of 6 “...and processed onboard...”); and
determine an integrity of a structure from the imaging data (See at least: : “Experiment setup” page 4 of 6 “...detected holes are annotated on the images with bounding boxes.”).
Regarding claim 5, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Additionally, Tao et al. discloses wherein the structure is a net in an aquaculture facility (See at least: page 1 of 6 “introduction” “Norwegian aquaculture, cage net... aquaculture nets”).
Regarding claim 7, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Additionally, Tao et al. discloses further comprising:
a position manager (detection algorithm; See at least: Abstract) configured to:
determine at least one of a position of the OSV (IpOSV; See at least: fig. 3 and page 3 of 6 “camera pose estimation” Equations (4) and (5)) or an alignment of the OSV (IӨOSV: See at least: fig. 3 and page 3 of 6 “camera pose estimation” Equations (4) and (5));
generate and transmit first position data (Ipcam or ICR; See at least: fig. 6 and page 3 of 6 “camera pose estimation” Equations (6) and (7) where these equations are based on the position and rotation of the OSV as shown in Equations (4) and (5)) comprising the at least one of the position of the OSV or the alignment of the OSV, wherein the image processor is further configured to:
receive the first position data; and determine, based on the first position data, at least one of a location or a size of a fault in the integrity of the structure (See at least: See at least figs. 5 and 7 and page 4 of 6 “Vision-based damage detection” “direction of the hole seen from the camera in the inertial frame... IVhole” and Equations (8)-(10) and page 4 of 6 “Damage position estimation” “Position of the detected hole can be calculated by finding the closest point on the modeled fish cage given Ipcam and IVhole, as illustrated in Figure 7.”).
Regarding claim 8, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 7 as noted above. Additionally, Tao et al. discloses wherein the position manager is further configured to: receive second position data, wherein the second position data is received from a first device remotely located from the OSV or receive third position data (Ip1, Ip2 or Ipb1, Ipb2 ; See at least: See at least: fig. 3 and page 3 of 6 “Coordinate transformation for localization system” Equation (1) or “camera pose estimation” Equation (3)), wherein the third position data is received from a second device (two beacons; See at least: fig. 2) located onboard the OSV;
and determine, based on at least one of the second position data or the third position data, the at least one of the position of the OSV or the alignment of the OSV (See at least: page 3 of 6 “camera pose estimation” “Assuming the OSV is perfectly leveled, position and heading of the OSV in OIXIYIZI , namely IpOSV and IӨOSV, can be calculated from Ipb1 and Ipb2.” Emphasis added by Examiner).
Regarding claim 11, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Tao et al. discloses wherein the thruster is a first thruster (See at least: fig. 2 where one of the four are shown), and further comprising: a second thruster (See at least: fig. 2 where one of the four are shown) configured to operate in conjunction with the first thruster to positionally navigate the OSV, wherein navigation of the OSV at the surface of the body of water is enabled to be omnidirectional (See at least: “Introduction” page 2 of 6 “The vessel is capable of omnidirectional movement...”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (NPL: “Omnidirectional Surface Vehicle for Fish Cage Inspection” OCEANS 2018 MTS, October 2018) in view of Jun et al. (US 20170355431 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Tao et al. discloses wherein the two or more buoyant compartments respectively comprise a hollow spherical configuration formed with two separable halves, and wherein one or more components (See at least: fig. 2 showing battery packs and core electronics internal to the hull of the multi hull) are located within one or more respective compartments (See at least: fig. 2) to enable transport of the one or more components onboard the OSV.
However, Tao et al. does not disclose wherein the two or more buoyant compartments respectively comprise a hollow spherical configuration formed with two separable halves (See at least: fig. 2 which shows the hull has a box shape separable with a top lid).
Jun et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the two or more buoyant compartments (spherical first pressure housings 120: See at least figs. 8-10 and para. [0114] “the spherical first pressure housing 120 of some embodiments withstands 600 bar pressure in the deep sea at 6,000-meter water depth, has the waterproofing capability, has a light weight of the glass sphere material and a high level of buoyancy of the internal volume of the glass sphere.”) respectively comprise a hollow spherical configuration (spherical first pressure housings 120; See at least: figs. 9-10) formed with two separable halves (See at least: fig. 9 showing 2 glass hemispheres make up one spherical first pressure housings 120).
Therefore, 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 hull design of Tao et al. with spherical first pressure housings 120 of Jun et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a spherical housing has a waterproofing capability, light weight and a high level of buoyancy of the internal volume (See at least: Jun et al para. [0114]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (NPL: “Omnidirectional Surface Vehicle for Fish Cage Inspection” OCEANS 2018 MTS, October 2018) in view of Roig et al. (ES 2311424 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tao et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above.
However, Tao et al. does not disclose wherein the camera further comprises a lens focuser configured to adjust focus of the camera as part of enabling the integrity of the structure to be determined (See at least: fig. 5 and 7-8 showing the camera’s role in the estimation/detection of the hole position).
Roig et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the camera (vision module; See at least: fig. 6, camera 161, support 162, transparent lid 163 and focus 165) further comprises a lens focuser (focus 165; See at least: fig. 6 and text copy page 8 of 13 second to last para. on the page. “...select different types of beam focusing lenses luminous to improve vision at the right distance to the user utilization”) configured to adjust focus of the camera as part of enabling the integrity of the structure to be determined.
However, Roig et al. does not teach ...as part of enabling the integrity of the structure to be determined.
Therefore, 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 camera of Tao et al with vision module of Roig et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improve vision at the right distance to the user utilization (See at least: Roig et al. text copy page 8 of 13 second to last para. on the page.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration' s element “…a central buoyant compartment to which four buoyant compartments other than the central buoyant compartment are attached, wherein the four buoyant compartments are arranged in a diamond pattern around the central buoyant compartment…”. The closest prior art is that of Tao et al. where fig. 2 shows a diamond pattern with 4 hulls on the outside perimeter and a platform in the center connecting the four hulls. Examiner considered MPEP § 2144.IV.B “Duplication of Parts” however the duplication of the hull does not teach the placement or render obvious as why one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the platform to the hull, as the platform has the camera and its associated mechanism. The next closest art is that of Tao et al. in view of Roig et al. (ES 2311424 A1) where Roig et al. teaches the placement of the vision module internal to a compartment. The combination of Tao et al. with Roig et al. teaches the movement of the camera into one of the hulls of Tao et al. as to be forward facing however does not teach the modification of the platform into the hull. Therefore, the arrangement with a center buoyant compartment is allowable.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Hardarson et al. (WO 02084217 A2) teaches a method and a system for underwater surveillance and monitoring by means of using an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), such as inspection of fish farming pens (See at least: fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights