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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 24, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 5 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.
The term “special-shaped waterproof block” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “special” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 (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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 6,138,604) in view of Kume (WO 2019146595 A9).
Anderson et al. discloses a pelagic free swimming aquatic vehicle, as shown in Figures 1-15, which is comprised of an aquatic vehicle or robot fish, defined as Part #10, having a fish body skeleton, defined as Part #14, as shown in Figure 7, a fish head skeleton, defined as Part #12 or 180, as shown in Figure 10, that is movably connected to said fish body skeleton, a tail, defined as Part #16, with a swing mechanism, defined as Part #128, as shown in Figure 7, a pair of dive planes or pectoral fins, defined as Parts #18 and 20, with servo motors, defined as Parts #22 and 24, a buoyancy adjusting mechanism in the form of a ballast tank, defined as Part #34, that is configured to change a volume of a fish belly portion of said aquatic vehicle or robot fish, as shown in Figure 3, an operating system or control unit, defined as Part #38, as shown in Figure 3, that is disposed in said fish head skeleton and configured to control all functions of said aquatic vehicle or robot fish, and a flexible skin, defined as Part #60, that is made from neoprene rubber and is attached in a sealing manner to said fish body skeleton and said fish head skeleton, as shown in Figure 4.
Anderson et al., as set forth above, discloses all of the features claimed except for the use of a rescue mechanism that is configured to release a lifesaving airbag.
Kume discloses a life-saving implement employing a buoyancy bag, as shown in Figures 1-7, with is comprised of a life preserver or airbag, defined as Part #11, that is activated by a folded float, defined as Part #12, and an inflator, defined as Part #13, that is connected to an air inlet of said life preserver or airbag, as shown in Figure 1. Said life preserver or airbag is configured within a cartridge case, defined as Part #17, with a propellant, defined as Part #18, to allow said life preserver or airbag to be deployed into a body of water during a rescue. Once inflated, said life preserver or airbag takes the form of a life ring, defined as Part #42, as shown in Figure 4. Said life preserver or airbag can be configured to be deployed by a drone vehicle, as shown in Figure 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize a life-saving implement in the form of a life preserver or airbag that is deployable by means of a drone vehicle, as taught by Kume, in combination with the pelagic free swimming aquatic vehicle or robot fish as disclosed by Anderson et al. for the purpose of providing a rescue robot fish with a rescue mechanism in the form of a life preserver or airbag in order to perform a water rescue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huang et al. (US 12,528,568), Yao et al. (US 11,192,619), Oh et al. (US 9,937,986), Rufo et al. (US 9,090,320) and Gieseke (US 6,835,108) disclose various aquatic vehicles in the form of robot fish.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARS A OLSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-6685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
July 13, 2026
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights