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 27 September 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed for this application.
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. 3 reference character “1000” is not clear in view of fig. 4-8. Fig. 3 is interpreted that “1000” includes “1101”. However, Figs. 4-8 do not depict “1101”. This is relevant to at least claim 14 (See at least Figs. 7-8 objection below).
Fig. 3 is not clear in view of the spec. para. [0061] recite “gripper 1124”, the drawings do not label “gripper 1124”. However further confusion is added since “1124” in the spec is used for different structure.
Figs. 3-6 are not clear in view of at least spec. para. [0062] “The frame 1100 may include at least one battery coupler and in an embodiment has four battery couplers 1114a, 1114b, 1114c 1114d”. The Examiner interprets the battery coupler to be the aperture pointed to in at least fig. 5. However, is unclear as to how to evaluate “the battery coupler” as “a battery” and how it is “coupled” is not disclosed in the spec. or drawings. Examiner notes: it is not clear if the battery would be installed on an external surface or internal surface of beams 1150, 1160 or if additional structure is needed to “couple” a battery to the aperture disclosed by the applicant. Figs. 3-4 and 11 show a cylinder shape tube with spherical ends, however this is not labeled to be “a battery” therefore it is not clear as to what the cylinder shape tube is or its relevance to the Applicant’s invention. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
Fig. 4-8 reference character “1000” is not clear in view of fig. 3.
Fig. 6 the following reference characters are not clear in view of the spec:
“1140d”, “1140b” and “1140c” are doubled labeled and the middle set should be “1114d”, “1114b” and “1114c”.
“1151” is not in the spec. and should be at least “1252”.
“1231” is not in the spec. and should be at least “1251”.
Figs. 7-8 reference character “1124” is not clear in view of the spec. para. [0061] recite “gripper 1124” and para. [0063]-[0064] recite “bottom element 1124”. Figs. 7-8 match spec. para. [0063]-[0064]. The spec. and figs. should match and not be double labeled.
Fig. 8 the following reference characters are not clear in view of the spec:
“1238” is doubled labeled where the left one should be deleted as “1338” is correct.
Pointer arrow for “1124” is not clear in view of that of “1122”. Where “1124” should point to the bottom element. See at least spec. para. [0063].
The range to “1334f” and “1234f” should be “1334h” and “1234h”.
Fig. 10 step “1460” recites “an end” and should be “the second end” in view of the spec. and claim language.
Fig. 13 reference character “115a” should be “2115a”
Fig. 13 reference character “2312” should be “2322” in view of para. [0073] and fig. 15.
Fig. 15 pointer arrow for “2320” is not clear as the spec. para. [0072] recites “surfaces or sidewall”. Please verify the proper part is pointed to.
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:
Para. [0042] recites “In a deploying state 105, the line 134 is stored in the storage containers 130 and 132.The line 134 runs sequentially from the first end 135 affixed to the submersible conveyance 101 .then into and out...” and should be ““In a deploying state 105, the line 134 is stored in the storage containers 130 and 132. The line 134 runs sequentially from the first end 135 affixed to the submersible conveyance 101
Para. [0047] last two lines of page 12, recites “the bottom I1 1” and should be “the bottom 111”.
Para. [0048] third to last line recites “132.To” and should be “132. To””.
Para. [0061] introduces “a gripper 1124” however this is not shown in at least fig. 3. Therefore, all instance of “a gripper 1124” should be at least “a gripper (not shown in the figs.)” followed by “the gripper”.
Para. [0062] introduce “at least one battery coupler” however is unclear as “a battery” as found in para. [0006] and [0069] has no reference character to show in the figs how it is “coupled”. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment.
Para. [0069] line 5 recite “1450 and coupling an end of a line to a payload 1460. The step of coupling the second end” should be “1450 and coupling a second end of a line to a payload 1460. The step of coupling the second end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 lines 1-2 recite the list “a top element a bottom element and...” and should be “a top element, a bottom element and...”. 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.
Claims 1-20 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 “at least one battery coupler” in line 5. The limitation is not clear in view of the spec and drawings two different and conflicting embodiments are disclosed. Examiner views “at least one battery coupler” of figs. 5-6 as an aperture, cutout, void or hole. However, para. [0066] recite “. Beams 1150, 1160 may include at least one battery coupler and in an embodiment, one or both of beams 1150, 1160 have two battery couplers 1114a, 1114d, 1114b 1114c which may be located within twenty percent of the length of a respective beam, at opposed ends of the beam. A battery coupler 1114a, 1114b, 1114c 1114d may include a fastening element within a beam. In an embodiment, a battery coupler is orientated within thirty degrees of horizontal where horizontal is determined by the direction a fastening element extends through or from a beam. The battery coupler may be a cam lock element including a cam lock projection or a cam lock socket. In an embodiment the submersible conveyance coupler and the battery coupler are identical in locking mechanism type and in footprint size.” Therefore, para. [0066] and the figs. 5-6 interpretation above cannot exist together as a void cannot be structure of a projection from a beam. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 “at least one battery coupler” to be “at least one coupler”. Examiner notes: NPL: VideoRay Underwater Robots: “installing subsea batteries” provides some clarity to the Applicant’s intent, where the subsea battery has a set of camlocks attached to it and is fitted into the square openings of the Mission Specialist Defender underwater robot. The Applicant is using commercial off the shelf subsea battery and modifying the Applicant’s invention frame to allow the battery to be attached as the normal attachment location for the subsea battery is taken up by the Applicant’s invention. However, this does clarify the different embodiments of the Applicant’s spec verses drawing. Therefore, it is not clear if the applicant is intending only the square opening or the camlock to be the “battery coupler”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one battery coupler” in line 5. The limitation of a “coupler” for a “battery” is not clear in view of the spec. and figs. as the battery is not clearly disclosed or referenced. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 “at least one battery coupler” to be “at least one coupler”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an end” in line 7. It is not clear in view of the spec. which “end” as the spec. only discloses “a first end” and “a second end”. Para. [0005] recites “...the line having a first and second end, a hook coupled to the second end of the line...”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 1 “an end” to be “a second end”.
Claims 2-14 are rejected based on the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the frontal area” in line 2. Where claims 1-3 do not introduce “a frontal area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 4 line 2 to recite “a frontal area”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a submersible conveyance coupler” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 line 5 recites “at least one submersible conveyance coupler”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a submersible conveyance coupler” of claim 6 is the same or different than “at least one submersible conveyance coupler” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 6 lines 1-2 to recite “the at least one submersible conveyance coupler”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the submersible conveyance coupler” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 line 5 recites “at least one submersible conveyance coupler”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the submersible conveyance coupler” of claim 7 is the same or different than “at least one submersible conveyance coupler” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 7 lines 1-2 to recite “the at least one submersible conveyance coupler”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “at least one battery coupler” in line 2. The limitation of a “coupler” for a “battery” is not clear in view of the spec. and figs. as the battery is not clearly disclosed or referenced. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 8 line 2 to recite “the at least one coupler”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “at least one battery coupler” in line 2. Claim 1 line 5 recites “at least one battery coupler”. Therefore, it is not clear if “at least one battery coupler” of claim 6 is the same or different than claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 8 line 2 to recite “the at least one coupler”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the least one battery coupler” in line 1. The limitation of a “coupler” for a “battery” is not clear in view of the spec. and figs. as the battery is not clearly disclosed or referenced. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9 line 1 to recite “the at least one coupler”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the least one battery coupler” in line 1. Claim 1 line 5 recites “at least one battery coupler”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the least one battery coupler” of claim 9 is the same or different than claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9 line 1 to recite “the at least one coupler”.
The term “horizontal” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “horizontal” 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. . The spec. para. [0066] recites “...In an embodiment, a battery coupler is orientated within thirty degrees of horizontal where horizontal is determined by the direction a fastening element extends through or from a beam...”. Applicant defines “horizontal” using a direction of a fastening element extending through or from a beam. Examiner interprets the Applicant’s definition to be indefinite due to a fastening element may extend through or from a beam in any direction, therefore the term “horizontal” has no clear meaning relative to the invention. Additionally, the spec. and figs. do not reference or show “a fastening element” to ascertain a direction intended by the Applicant.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the submersible conveyance coupler and the battery coupler are identical in locking mechanism type and in footprint size”. The limitation is not clear in view of the spec and drawings two different and conflicting embodiments are disclosed for “the battery coupler”. Therefore, it is unclear how “the battery coupler” and “the submersible conveyance coupler” are to be assessed as identical in the prior art.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the submersible conveyance coupler” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 line 5 recites “at least one submersible conveyance coupler”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the submersible conveyance coupler” of claim 10 is the same or different than “at least one submersible conveyance coupler” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 lines 1-2 to recite “the at least one submersible conveyance coupler”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the battery coupler” in line 2. The limitation of a “coupler” for a “battery” is not clear in view of the spec. and figs. as the battery is not clearly disclosed or referenced. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 10 line 1 to recite “the at least one coupler”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the battery coupler” in line 2. Claim 1 line 5 recites “at least one battery coupler”. Therefore, it is not clear if “the battery coupler” of claim 10 is the same or different than claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9 line 2 to recite “the at least one coupler”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “coupling a battery” in line 3. The limitation of a “coupling” and “a battery” is not clear in view of the spec. and figs. as “a battery” is not clearly disclosed or referenced nor is how or where it is “coupled”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an end” in line 7. It is not clear in view of the spec. which “end” is being claimed as the spec. only discloses “a first end” and “a second end”. Para. [0005] recites “...the line having a first and second end, a hook coupled to the second end of the line...”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 15 “an end” to be “a second end”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a payload” in line 7. Claim 15 line 6 recites “a payload”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a payload” of line 7 is the same or different than line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 15 line 7 to recite “the payload”.
Claims 16-20 are rejected based on the independent claim 15 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claims 16-20 recites the limitation “a submersible conveyance system” in line 1. Claim 15 line 1 recites “a submersible conveyance system”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a submersible conveyance system” of claims 16-20 is the same or different than claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claims 16-20 to recite “the submersible conveyance system”.
Claims 16 and 19-20 recite the limitation “a payload” in line 2. Claim 15 line 6 recites “a payload”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a payload” of claims 16 and 19-20 is the same or different than claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claims 16 and 19-20 to recite “the payload”.
Claims 17-18 recite the limitation “a storage container” in line 2. Claim 15 line 4 recites “a storage container”. Therefore, it is not clear if “a storage container” of claim 17-18 is the same or different than claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claims 17-18 to recite “the storage container”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “line” in line 2. Claim 15 line 7 recites “a line”. Therefore, it is not clear if “line” of claim 20 is the same or different than claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 20 to recite “the line”.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1) {Examiner note: this is the Applicant’s own prior art}. See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
867
1239
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Renfroe et al. discloses a submersible conveyance system (See at least: figs. 1-2) that is remotely operated for commanded motion in any direction within a body of water (body of water 110; See at least: fig. 1) surrounding the submersible conveyance system, the submersible conveyance system is remotely operated to open and close a gripper (gripper 124; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0013]) located at a front end (tool side 125; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0016]) of the submersible conveyance system comprising: a frame (mounting skid 210; See at least: fig. 2) having at least one submersible conveyance coupler (cam lock projections 260; See at least: fig. 2) and at least one battery coupler (See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0033] “Adjustable ballast weights 280 and 281 affixed to the mounting skid 210” which is interpreted to be “at least one coupler”); at least one storage container (storage containers 130 and 132 or elongated storage containers 220 and 222; See at least: figs. 1-2) coupled to the frame; a hook (hook 138 or hook 248; See at least: figs. 1-2) coupled to an end (second end 136 or second end 242; See at least: figs. 1-2) of a line (line 134 or line 240; See at least: figs. 1-2), the hook configured to be coupled to the gripper when the gripper is closed (See at least: fig. 1 deploying state 105); and a cap (respective pliable cap 131 or 133 or respective pliable caps 230 and 232; See at least: figs. 1-2) covering a mouth (“mouth”; See at least: paras. [0014] and [0024]) of the at least one storage container, the cap having a plurality flaps (“respective flaps”; See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0029]) that define an aperture (aperture 231 or 233; See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0029]), the cap for applying a drag on the line upon the line passing through the aperture (See at least: para. [0029] “having respective flaps on both sides of the slit for applying the slight drag on the line 240 upon the line 240 passing through the slit while squeezed between the respective flaps.”).
Regarding claim 2, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the frame includes at least a pair of storage container holders (square mounting block 251, 252, 253, or 254; See at least: fig. 2 and para [0027]) each laterally disposed on respective sides of a frame centerline (See at least: fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the frame includes at least one joist (See at least: fig. 2 where an unlabeled joist is viewed on the top side of the fig as viewed) that extends laterally between the pair of storage container holders (See at least: fig. 2 modified by examiner below).
PNG
media_image2.png
445
857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the joist comprises a top element (See at least: fig. 2 modified by examiner) a bottom element (See at least: fig. 2 modified by examiner) and the frontal area (See at least: fig. 2 modified by examiner) of the joist is less than twenty-five percent of the frontal area between the pair of storage container holders (See at least: fig. 2 modified by examiner; where it is interpreted to be approximately less than 25% when visually compared).
Regarding claim 5, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the frame includes at least one column (square mounting block 251, 252, 253, or 254 -or- cam lock projections 260; See at least: fig. 2 and para [0027] where either are interpreted as a column that couple to submersible conveyance 101 of fig. 1) that couples to a submersible conveyance (submersible conveyance 101; See at least: fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where a submersible conveyance coupler (cam lock projections 260; See at least: fig. 2) is located at the top of the column (square mounting block 251, 252, 253, or 254; See at least: fig. 2 and para [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the submersible conveyance coupler is a cam lock (cam lock projections 260; See at least: fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the frame includes at least one longitudinally extending beam (mounting skid 210; See at least: fig. 2) that includes at least one battery coupler (See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0033] “Adjustable ballast weights 280 and 281 affixed to the mounting skid 210”).
Regarding claim 9, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the least one battery coupler is orientated within thirty degrees of horizontal (See at least: fig. 2 where adjustable ballast weights 280 and 281 are mounted to the mounting skid 210; the mounting skid 210 is attached under submersible conveyance 101 of fig. 1, where the operational position of submersible conveyance 101 in fig. 1 is interpreted as horizontal; therefore, all items mounted to the mounting skid 210 are positioned or oriented approximately horizontal).
Regarding claim 14, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses further including a submersible conveyance submersible conveyance 101; See at least: fig. 1).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the submersible conveyance coupler and the battery coupler are identical in locking mechanism type and in footprint size.
However, Renfroe et al. does not specifically disclose the claim language in italics above.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to standardize the size and type of couplers used through the invention. Applicant has not disclosed that a standard size and type of couplers provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with different coupler types and sizes because any space or layout restrictions in the design. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify line-handling retrofit kit 200 of Renfroe et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1) in view of Non Patent Literature (NPL) VideoRay Underwater Robots. Product Data Sheet [online], 2023 [retrieved on 10 July 2026]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://19629844.delivery.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2023_SpecSheet_71036_Defender-Base_1.0.1-1.pdf>.
Regarding claim 11, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the storage container is a cylinder (See at least: fig. 2) have a 6.5 inch diameter or less (“four inch diameter”; See at least: para. [0021]) and a length of thirty inches or less.
However, Renfroe et al. does not disclose the claim language in italics above.
VideoRay Underwater Robots in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a length of thirty inches or less (See at least: Submersible Size of a length of 28.80 in).
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 storage containers 130 and 132 or elongated storage containers 220 and 222 of Renfroe et al. with a size approximate to the length of the submersible of VideoRay Underwater Robots or less 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 fitting the line-handling retrofit kit 200 of Renfroe et al. under space constraints of the VideoRay Mission Specialist Defender ROV (See at least: Renfroe et al. fig. 1 and para. [0009] “to attach the prototype retrofit kit to the DEFENDER™ vehicle”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1) in view of Del Solar et al. (US 20130098933 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
446
395
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses where the storage container has a plurality of slits (“slits”; See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0029]), where at least one slit has a notch.
However, Renfroe et al. does not disclose the claim language in italics above
Del Solar et al. in a different field of endeavor, teaches at least one slit has a notch (See at least: fig. 2 cover 205 and para. [0025] where the circular end of the slit in the cover 205 is interpreted as “a notch”).
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 respective pliable cap 131 or 133 or respective pliable caps 230 and 232 of Renfroe et al. with cover 205 of Del Solar 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 during use the cover mitigates against an item falling out of the container while allowing a user to simply push their hand through the cover to withdraw the item in the container (See at least: De Solar et al. para. [0025] “...Cover 205 mitigates against food from falling out of receptacle 105 when lid 115 is in the open position. Cover 205 is a flexible cover over-molded onto collar 110. During use, the user can simply push their hand through cover 205 to withdraw food from receptacle 105. In the illustrated embodiment, cover 205 mitigates food spillage via flexible petals and gaps therebetween, and a living hinge...”). Further motivation is the benefit the cover with slit and notch design creates a living hinge (See at least: De Solar et al. para. [0025] cited above and fig. 2 for design).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1) in view of NPL Samson. Defense Product Webpage [online]. web.archive.org, 28 January 2023 [retrieved on 11 July 2026]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20230128103230/https://www.samsonrope.com/defense/amsteel--blue>.
Regarding claim 13, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses further includes at least a thousand feet of line (“600 feet”; See at least: para. [0021] “600 feet of quarter-inch Amsteel™ Yellow”) having an average tensile strength of at least 34000 lbs.
However, Renfroe et al. does not explicitly disclose the claim language in italics above.
Samson in a different field of endeavor, teaches having an average tensile strength of at least 34000 lbs. (See at least: page 2 of 3 where the average strength for ½ inch Amsteel ® Blue is 34000 lbs.).
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used different types and sizes {diameters and length} of line. Applicant has not disclosed that a thousand feet of line with average tensile strength of at least 34000 lbs. provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with different types and sizes {diameters and lengths} of line because the type and size of line would be selected to perform the specific lift operation based on the parameters at the dive site {i.e. depth, weight and size of object to be lifted}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify line 134 or line 240 of Renfroe et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1) in view of NPL VideoRay Underwater Robots. Training video [online]. youtube.com, 04 September 2024 [retrieved on 11 July 2026]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkaRt021gnA>. See image from the video below.
PNG
media_image4.png
1043
1360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Renfroe et al. discloses a method for utilizing a submersible conveyance system (See at least: fig. 1) comprising coupling a frame (mounting skid 210; See at least: fig. 2) to a submersible conveyance (submersible conveyance 101; See at least: figs. 1-2); coupling a battery to the frame; coupling a storage container (storage containers 130 and 132 or elongated storage containers 220 and 222; See at least: figs. 1-2) to the frame; submersing the submersible conveyance (deploying state 105; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0017]); moving the submersible conveyance in proximity to a payload (returning state 106; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0018]); and coupling an end of a line to a payload (returning state 106; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0018]).
However, Renfroe et al. does not disclose the claim language in italics above.
VideoRay Underwater Robots, training video, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches coupling a battery (subsea batteries; See at least: video time stamp range of 1:48-2:23 where the subsea battery is connected to the frame of the Mission Specialist Defender underwater robot) to the frame.
However, VideoRay Underwater Robots, training video does not teach the claim language in italics above.
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 line-handling retrofit kit 200 of Renfroe et al. with subsea batteries and mounting method of VideoRay Underwater Robots 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 converting the submersible conveyance from wired tether mode {where it is powered by the tether} to wireless mode {where it is powered by the subsea batteries} (See at least: para. [0013] “The submersible conveyance 101 is remotely operated either wirelessly or with a wired tether 121 that controls the submersible conveyance 101 from a remote control console 122...”). Further motivation is the benefit is using the same standard method to connect items to the submersible conveyance and the frame (See at least: VideoRay Underwater Robots, training video time stamp range of 1:48-2:23 where the subsea battery uses cam locks and square openings to make the connection between the two parts).
Regarding claim 16, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses wherein the step of coupling the second end of the line to a payload comprises coupling a gripper (gripper 124; See at least: fig. 1 and para. [0013]) to the submersible conveyance (See at least: fig. 1); coupling a hook (hook 138 or hook 248; See at least: figs. 1-2) to the gripper (See at least: fig. 1); and coupling the hook to the payload (See at least: fig. 1).
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 17, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses wherein the step of coupling a storage container to the frame further comprises storing at least one thousand feet of line in a plurality of storage containers (storage containers 130 and 132 or elongated storage containers 220 and 222; See at least: figs. 1-2).
However, Renfroe et al. does not explicitly disclose the claim language in italics above.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used different types and sizes {diameters and length} of line. Applicant has not disclosed that a thousand feet of line provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with different types and sizes {diameters and lengths} of line because the type and size of line would be selected to perform the specific lift operation based on the parameters at the dive site {i.e. depth, weight and size of object to be lifted}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify line 134 or line 240 of Renfroe et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1) in view of NPL VideoRay Underwater Robots. Training video [online]. youtube.com, 04 September 2024 [retrieved on 11 July 2026]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkaRt021gnA> in further view of NPL Samson. Defense Product Webpage [online]. web.archive.org, 28 January 2023 [retrieved on 11 July 2026]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20230128103230/https://www.samsonrope.com/defense/amsteel--blue>.
Regarding claim 18, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses wherein the step of coupling a storage container to the frame further comprises storing line having an average tensile strength of at least 34,000 lbs.
However, Renfroe et al. does not explicitly disclose the claim language in italics above.
Samson in a different field of endeavor, teaches having an average tensile strength of at least 34000 lbs. (See at least: page 2 of 3 where the average strength for ½ inch Amsteel ® Blue is 34000 lbs.).
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used different types and sizes {diameters and length} of line. Applicant has not disclosed that a line with average tensile strength of at least 34000 lbs. provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Applicants' invention to perform equally well with different types and sizes {diameters and lengths} of line because the type and size of line would be selected to perform the specific lift operation based on the parameters at the dive site {i.e. depth, weight and size of object to be lifted}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify line 134 or line 240 of Renfroe et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renfroe et al. (US 20240336339 A1) in view of NPL VideoRay Underwater Robots. Training video [online]. youtube.com, 04 September 2024 [retrieved on 11 July 2026]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkaRt021gnA> in further view of Del Solar et al. (US 20130098933 A1).
Regarding claims 19-20, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses wherein the step of coupling the second end of the line to a payload comprises running line through at least one of five slits in an end of the storage container (end of either aperture 231 or 233; See at least: fig. 2).
However, Renfroe et al. does not disclose the claim language in italics above
Del Solar et al. in a different field of endeavor, teaches at least one of five slits (See at least: fig. 2 modified by Examiner below where cover 205 is interpreted to have five slits).
PNG
media_image5.png
446
395
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 respective pliable cap 131 or 133 or respective pliable caps 230 and 232 of Renfroe et al. with cover 205 of Del Solar 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 during use the cover mitigates against an item falling out of the container while allowing a user to simply push their hand through the cover to withdraw the item in the container (See at least: De Solar et al. para. [0025] “...Cover 205 mitigates against food from falling out of receptacle 105 when lid 115 is in the open position. Cover 205 is a flexible cover over-molded onto collar 110. During use, the user can simply push their hand through cover 205 to withdraw food from receptacle 105. In the illustrated embodiment, cover 205 mitigates food spillage via flexible petals and gaps therebetween, and a living hinge...”). Further motivation is the benefit the cover with slit and notch design creates a living hinge (See at least: De Solar et al. para. [0025] cited above and fig. 2 for design).
Regarding claim 20, Renfroe et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Renfroe et al. discloses wherein the step of coupling the second end of the line to a payload comprises running line through a notch of a slit in an end of the storage container (See at least: fig. 1 and fig. 2 where line 134 or line 240 is shown to pass through pliable caps 131 and aperture 233 and para. [0029] “line 240 upon the line 240 passing through the slit while squeezed between the respective flaps”).
However, Renfroe et al. does not disclose the claim language in italics above
Del Solar et al. in a different field of endeavor, teaches a notch of a slit (See at least: fig. 2 cover 205 and para. [0025] where the circular end of the slit in the cover 205 is interpreted as “a notch”).
PNG
media_image6.png
519
750
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the line 134 of Renfroe et al. would also pass through the notch of Del Solar et al. (See at least: comparison of the prior art modified by Examiner, above).
Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 19 above.
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:
He et al. (CN 110667806 A) teaches a battery cabin structure for underwater robot.
Sugimoto et al. (JP 2020023286 A) teaches a transport system and method for an object between an underwater position and a position on water.
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