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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to application BR1020230206026 filed 05 October 2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02 October 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner considered restriction regarding invention I (Claims 1-6) and invention II (claims 7-10), however the examiner noted that the differences between independent claims 1 and 7 pertained to the limitations "two separate devices" and "wherein each of the one or more TAGS is configured to be read at a low radio frequency when positioned underwater". The former is an obvious modification (merely describing that the devices are made separable (see MPEP 2144.04.V.C.) and the latter is a term of varying degree/subjective term (see MPEP 2173.05(b).I. and 2173.05(b).IV.) which may be considered to be found in invention I through dependent claim 4. Therefore, the examiner will not restrict at this time.
Regarding the devices of the independent claims (claims 1 and 7), the examiner notes that RFID tags and RFID reader/interrogators are well understood in the art. Thus, while they are referred to generically as a first and second device, they are clarified with sufficient structure in the independent claims to prevent 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
Claims 1 and 7 state "the one or more TAGS includes stored characteristics, equipment, and material codes". Per the description found in paragraph [0024] in the specification, the examiner believes that "characteristics, equipment, and material codes" are not three separate items in a list but rather a generic naming convention for codes. Therefore, the examiner will consider any stored identification information to read upon the "codes" recited.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states "…the method comprising…", however it should state "…the system comprising…".
Claim 7 states "…the method comprising…", however it should state "…the system comprising…".
Claim 4 states "A system according to claim 1…" and should state "The system according to claim 1…".
Claim 5 states "A system according to claim 1…" and should state "The system according to claim 1…".
Claim 6 states "A system according to claim 4…" and should state "The system according to claim 4…".
Claim 8 states "A system according to claim 7…" and should state "The system according to claim 7…".
Claim 10 states "A system according to claim 9…" and should state "The system according to claim 9…".
Claim 1 states “dentification”, which appears to be a typographical error wherein “identification” is intended.
Claim 7 states “dentification”, which appears to be a typographical error wherein “identification” is intended.
Claim 2 states "the area", however "the area" has not been properly established (lacks antecedent basis). The examiner believes that "an underwater area" is intended based upon the recitation of "in underwater areas" in parent claim 1.
Claim 3 states "allows the reading of information"; "the" reading of information lacks antecedent basis. Further, "allows" does not positively claim an action and may be interpreted as an intended use. The examiner recommends "wherein the system [[allows the reading of]] is configured to read information…".
Claim 9 states "allows the reading of information"; "the" reading of information lacks antecedent basis. Further, "allows" does not positively claim an action and may be interpreted as an intended use. The examiner recommends "wherein the system [[allows the reading of]] is configured to read information…".
Claim 3 states "the seabed", which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 states "the structure", which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5 states "also in radio frequency" and depends upon claim 1. No other radio frequency has been discussed in claims 1 and 5, so stating "also in" implies that another radio frequency was discussed, and this is not the case. The examiner recommends removal of "also".
Claim 5 states "its identification and code corresponding to the one or more AUVs reader/recorder." The examiner notes that the ID and code of the RFID does not correspond to the AUV and believes this to be a translation error. Instead, the examiner believes that "its identification and code [[corresponding]] transmitted to the one or more AUVs reader/recorder." is intended.
Claim 6 states "its identification and code corresponding to the one or more AUVs reader/recorder." The examiner notes that the ID and code of the RFID does not correspond to the AUV and believes this to be a translation error. Instead, the examiner believes that "its identification and code [[corresponding]] transmitted to the one or more AUVs reader/recorder." is intended.
Claim 4 states "wherein the first reader/recorder", which implies that multiple reader/recorders were disclosed. While the parent claim establishes "reader/recorder integrated into one or more AUVs", which implies the existence of more reader/recorders, reference with "first" is improper. The examiner recommends removal of "first".
Claim 8 states "wherein the first reader/recorder", which implies that multiple reader/recorders were disclosed. While the parent claim establishes "reader/recorder integrated into one or more AUVs", which implies the existence of more reader/recorders, reference with "first" is improper. The examiner recommends removal of "first".
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 7 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 7 utilizes terminology “low frequency”, which is a term of relative degree per MPEP 2173.05(b). Neither the claim nor the specification (by explicit definition) provides one having ordinary skill in the art with the basis of understanding what may be considered “low” frequency, as each frequency is low in relation to a higher frequency. The examiner is unsure what may constitute as prior art or what other references may read upon this language if issued, as “low” is relative. Therefore, the phrase renders the claim indefinite.
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
The examiner notes that claim 8 resolves this deficiency by providing a particular frequency range.
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 "…in each item of equipment and underwater material existing in the area…". The examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite as 1) applicant states "equipment and underwater material", apparently attempting to delineate between two separate groups of matter without providing a definition of either in the specification, and 2) while "equipment" may generally be known, stating "each item of…underwater material" is indefinite as "underwater material" has not been defined and reasonably includes natural matter, such as animals, flotsam/debris, particulate matter, etc., leading to an infinite expression.
The examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above, including considering "equipment and underwater material" to merely be a generic naming convention for predetermined underwater assets.
The examiner recommends amendment of the claim language to "in [[each item of equipment and underwater material existing in the area of a given]] one or more predetermined objects in an oil filed in 2,000…"
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harasti et al. (US 2011/0095865 A1; hereinafter Harasti).
Regarding independent claim 1: Harasti discloses A radio frequency identification (RFID) system for identifying equipment and positioning autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) in underwater environment, the method comprising: (The examiner notes that “for identifying…” is interpreted as intended use and not afforded significant patentable weight; however, the examiner presents art that best reads upon the intent of the claim language. Paragraph [0016-0018], Harasti discloses a system using RFID technology for identifying tags and localizing (positioning) an underwater explorer, which is an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), in an underwater environment)
two separate devices, the first device being an active equipment, reader/recorder integrated into one or more AUVs, and (Paragraph [0018, 0023], Harasti discloses an active RFID reader on the AUV)
the second device being one or more passive equipment RFID tags (TAGs) positioned to be associated with one or more items of equipment when positioned underwater, wherein dentification information associated with the one or more TAGS includes stored characteristics, equipment, and material codes, which are linked to a digital positioning map for AUV inspections in underwater areas. (Paragraph [0016-0018, 0023, 0026, 0028, 0030, 0035], Harasti discloses a plurality of passive RFID tags placed on the bottom of a vessel, or not on a vessel and rather just any submerged surface, such as a dock, dam wall, or surface of an object. Harasti discloses that the RFID tags include identification information and positioning information along a surface (such as a hull), and that the tag corresponds to position that can be stored in a lookup table. The examiner notes that “map” is not particularly limited, and considers the collection of positions in a lookup table to constitute a map. Alternatively, the use of NAVMODEL, which is disclosed as providing a virtual replication (a map) of the surface, can be used to indicate where the point is located on a ship hull (thus, also a map))
Regarding independent claim 7: Harasti discloses A radio frequency identification (RFID) system for identifying equipment and positioning autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) in underwater environment, the method comprising: (The examiner notes that “for identifying…” is interpreted as intended use and not afforded significant patentable weight; however, the examiner presents art that best reads upon the intent of the claim language. Paragraph [0016-0018], Harasti discloses a system using RFID technology for identifying tags and localizing (positioning) an underwater explorer, which is an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV), in an underwater environment)
two devices, the first device being an active equipment, reader/recorder integrated into one or more AUVs, and (Paragraph [0018, 0023], Harasti discloses an active RFID reader on the AUV)
the second device being one or more passive equipment RFID tags (TAGs) positioned to be associated with one or more items of equipment when positioned underwater, wherein each of the one or more TAGS is configured to be read at a low radio frequency when positioned underwater, and wherein dentification information associated with the one or more TAGS includes stored characteristics, equipment, and material codes, which are linked to a digital positioning map for AUV inspections in underwater areas. (Paragraph [0016-0018, 0023, 0026, 0028, 0030, 0035], Harasti discloses a plurality of low frequency passive RFID tags placed on the bottom of a vessel, or not on a vessel and rather just any submerged surface, such as a dock, dam wall, or surface of an object. Harasti discloses that the RFID tags include identification information and positioning information along a surface (such as a hull), and that the tag corresponds to position that can be stored in a lookup table. The examiner notes that “map” is not particularly limited, and considers the collection of positions in a lookup table to constitute a map. Alternatively, the use of NAVMODEL, which is disclosed as providing a virtual replication (a map) of the surface, can be used to indicate where the point is located on a ship hull (thus, also a map))
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasti in view of Morley et al. (US 2011/0291854 A1; hereinafter Morley.
Regarding claim 2: Harasti discloses parent claim 1. Harasti does not explicitly disclose when or where the tags are placed, nor the particular operating environment (oil field), nor the particular depth.
However, Morley, in a similar field of endeavor of underwater radio communication, teaches wherein the identifying TAGs are placed by AUVs when underwater, or onshore prior to positioning the equipment underwater, [in each item of equipment and underwater material existing in the area of a given oil field in 2,000 meters to 3,000 meters deep underwater.] (The examiner notes that through recitation of “or”, that only one is needed. Paragraph [0012], Morley teaches that the RFID tag may be programmed while at the surface (onshore prior to positioning))
Harasti and Morley are in a similar field of endeavor of underwater radio communication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Harasti with the explicit teaching that the RFID tags of Harasti could be set up (programmed/placed/etc.) prior to placement underwater as taught by Morley as this is an obvious modification that does not affect how the base invention operates. As there are a limited number of possible solutions to placing an RFID tag with a known location in the known location, it would have been obvious to try programming and installation prior to submerging the object of interest or by the AUV while underwater. Regardless, whether the tag is installed prior to the object being submerged or while it is submerged does not change the structural/operational aspects of the invention and is considered an obvious variant thereof. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have benefitted from the teachings of Morley to combine with Harasti for explicit guidance of how to set up/initialize the system of Harasti.
Regarding the limitations of a given oil field in 2,000 meters to 3,000 meters deep underwater, the examiner finds that these limitations are mere obvious variants of Harasti. First, Harasti discloses an underwater localization system and does not limit the disclosure to one particular type of underwater location. Merely specifying an analogous system that is used in a location labeled an “oil field” does not change how the claimed system is structured or operated. Further, specifying that the depth is a particular depth range is merely an obvious matter of routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) influenced by intended use. The disclosure of Harasti is not particularly limited to a specific depth. Further, Harasti addresses the design criteria for an underwater component operating at depth by stating that the “RFID tags 125 are marinized by using standard potting methods for waterproofing, or other known methods.” (Paragraph [0017]). The claimed invention of the instant application merely applies the invention disclosed by Harasti to a particular depth without providing necessary modifications or teachings to show what makes the invention of the instant application work in regions where prior art fails (particular waterproofing methods, etc.). Therefore, merely specifying that the invention is meant to operate at a particular depth is considered an intended use, and the particular depth is a matter of obvious routine optimization/design choice influenced by the particular operating environment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Harasti.
Regarding claim 3: Harasti discloses parent claim 1. Harasti further discloses wherein the system allows the reading of information from the one or more identifying TAGs in a submerged area on the seabed to be carried out [60 centimeters (cm) to 120 cm] away from the equipment, without contact or collision of the one or more AUVs on the structure to read an identification (ID) from the one or more identification TAGS. (Paragraph [0018, 0036], Harasti discloses “the mobile underwater unit 150 includes an RFID reader/interrogator 175, so that whenever the mobile unit 150 comes within a passive reading range of a tag 125, the reader 175 receives the unique identification…”. Thus, Harasti discloses a reading range to read the RFID tag. Further, Harasti discloses collision/object avoidance)
Regarding the particular distance of 60 centimeters (cm) to 120 cm, the examiner notes that the particular reading range is a matter of obvious routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) that may be chosen based on water clarity at operating depth, accuracy of a sensor chosen, particular confidence in the read values, etc. Harasti discloses a reading range (as noted above, in paragraph [0018]) but does not particular limit the range. Merely specifying a certain range is considered an obvious variant of Harasti.
Claims 4, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasti in view of Tunon (NPL – “Underwater Robot Navigation for Maintenance and Inspection of Flooded Mine Shafts”, published on IEEE on 06 January 2019, hereinafter Tunon).
Regarding claim 4: Harasti discloses parent claim 1. Harasti does not disclose a particular frequency range.
However, Tunon, in a similar field of endeavor of underwater vehicle navigation, teaches wherein the first reader/recorder equipment transmits a specific protocol in radio frequency, in the range of 100 kilohertz (KHz) to 300 KHz, for the one or more TAGs. (Section [III.A. on page 1484], Tunon teaches that Low Frequency in RFID pertains to a range of 120-150kHz)
Harasti and Tunon are in a similar field of endeavor of underwater vehicle navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Harasti to disclose a particular operating frequency (as taught by Tunon) in the interest of providing further frequency information. The examiner submits that this is a matter of obvious design choice/routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) that may be selected by a skilled artisan depending upon factors such as interfering signals, wave propagation at depth, etc. Harasti discloses low frequency passive tags (Paragraph [0017]) but does not particularly limit the frequency to a specific range. Tunon is shown as a teaching reference that highlights that it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to interpret a low frequency (when applied to RFID systems) as 120-150kHz. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the particular frequency to be an obvious matter of design choice and/or routine optimization with basis from the teachings of Tunon.
Regarding claim 8: Harasti discloses parent claim 7. Harasti further discloses wherein the first reader/recorder equipment transmits a specific protocol in radio frequency, in a low radio frequency range of [100 kilohertz (KHz) to 300 KHz], for the one or more TAGs, and wherein the one or more items of equipment are positioned in an underwater depth in a range of [2000 meters to 3000 meters]. (Paragraph [0016-0018], Harasti discloses radio communication between devices at low frequency while positioned underwater)
Harasti does not disclose a particular frequency range.
However, Tunon, in a similar field of endeavor of underwater vehicle navigation, teaches low radio frequency range of 100 kilohertz (KHz) to 300 KHz. (Section [III.A. on page 1484], Tunon teaches that Low Frequency in RFID pertains to a range of 120-150kHz)
Harasti and Tunon are in a similar field of endeavor of underwater vehicle navigation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Harasti to disclose a particular operating frequency (as taught by Tunon) in the interest of providing further frequency information. The examiner submits that this is a matter of obvious design choice/routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) that may be selected by a skilled artisan depending upon factors such as interfering signals, wave propagation at depth, etc. Harasti discloses low frequency passive tags (Paragraph [0017]) but does not particularly limit the frequency to a specific range. Tunon is shown as a teaching reference that highlights that it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to interpret a low frequency (when applied to RFID systems) as 120-150kHz. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the particular frequency to be an obvious matter of design choice and/or routine optimization with basis from the teachings of Tunon.
Regarding the limitations of 2,000 meters to 3,000 meters deep underwater, the examiner finds that this limitation is a mere obvious variant of Harasti. Merely specifying that the depth is a particular depth range is an obvious matter of routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) influenced by intended use. The disclosure of Harasti is not particularly limited to a specific depth. Further, Harasti addresses the design criteria for an underwater component operating at depth by stating that the “RFID tags 125 are marinized by using standard potting methods for waterproofing, or other known methods.” (Paragraph [0017]). The claimed invention of the instant application merely applies the invention disclosed by Harasti to a particular depth without providing necessary modifications or teachings to show what makes the invention of the instant application work in regions where prior art fails (particular waterproofing methods, etc.). Therefore, merely specifying that the invention is meant to operate at a particular depth is considered an intended use, and the particular depth is a matter of obvious routine optimization/design choice influenced by the particular operating environment.
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 8 is unpatentable over Harasti in view of Tunon. Harasti further discloses wherein the system allows the reading of information from the one or more identifying TAGs in a submerged area on the seabed to be carried out [60 centimeters (cm) to 120 cm] away from the equipment, without contact or collision of the one or more AUVs on the structure to read an identification (ID) from the one or more TAGS, and wherein the AUV follows a selected route along the map for locating and reading/recording the one or more TAGS. (Paragraph [0016-0018, 0035-0036], Harasti discloses reading RFID tags on any underwater surface. Further, Harasti discloses “the mobile underwater unit 150 includes an RFID reader/interrogator 175, so that whenever the mobile unit 150 comes within a passive reading range of a tag 125, the reader 175 receives the unique identification…”. Thus, Harasti discloses a reading range to read the RFID tag. Further, Harasti discloses collision/object avoidance. Finally, the vehicle follows a path, the path controlled as the vehicle navigates and reads RFID tags)
Regarding the particular distance of 60 centimeters (cm) to 120 cm, the examiner notes that the particular reading range is a matter of obvious routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) that may chosen based on water clarity at operating depth, accuracy of a sensor chosen, particular confidence in the read values, etc. Harasti discloses a reading range (as noted above, in paragraph [0018]) but does not particular limit the range. Merely specifying a certain range is considered an obvious variant of Harasti.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasti in view of Chan (NPL – “Chapter 10 – Other Existing Positioning systems”, publish/copyright year 2012, hereinafter Chan).
Regarding claim 5: Harasti discloses parent claim 1. Harasti further discloses wherein each of the one or more TAGs is [energized by an electromagnetic field received and returned], through transmission by means of a protocol also in radio frequency, its identification and code corresponding to the one or more AUVs reader/recorder. (Paragraph [0016-0018] and Claim [1], Harasti discloses passive RFID tags that are read by an active reader/interrogator in radio frequency including identification and positioning data)
Harasti does not explicitly disclose that the tags are energized by an EMF.
However, Chan, in a similar field of endeavor of RFID technology, teaches one or more TAGs is energized by an electromagnetic field received and returned (Page [194] section [Passive RFID tag], Chan teaches that the reader/interrogator generates an electromagnetic wave (field) to be used by the passive RFID tag for rectification)
Harasti and Chan are in a similar field of endeavor of RFID technology. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Harasti to disclose exchange of data between the reader and the passive RFID tag, as taught by Chan, as this merely provides further detail regarding how passive RFID tags work. Harasti explicitly disclose the use of passive RFID tags that are read by the reader/interrogator on the robot and Chan is relied upon as a teaching reference that further describes how passive RFID tags work. Merely further clarifying how passive RFID tags operate in the case of the instant application does not delineate itself from the disclosure of Harasti, as the teachings of Chan are implicit through explicit use of passive RFID tags.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasti in view of Tunon in further view of Chan
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Harasti in view of Tunon. Harasti further discloses wherein each of the one or more TAGs is [energized by an electromagnetic field received and returned], through transmission by means of a protocol also in radio frequency, its identification and code corresponding to the one or more AUVs reader/recorder, and wherein the one or more items of equipment includes one or more [pipelines]. (Paragraph [0016-0018] and Claim [1], Harasti discloses passive RFID tags that are read by an active reader/interrogator in radio frequency including identification and positioning data)
Harasti does not explicitly disclose that the tags are energized by an EMF.
However, Chan, in a similar field of endeavor of RFID technology, teaches one or more TAGs is energized by an electromagnetic field received and returned (Page [194] section [Passive RFID tag], Chan teaches that the reader/interrogator generates an electromagnetic wave (field) to be used by the passive RFID tag for rectification)
Harasti and Chan are in a similar field of endeavor of RFID technology. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Harasti to disclose exchange of data between the reader and the passive RFID tag, as taught by Chan, as this merely provides further detail regarding how passive RFID tags work. Harasti explicitly disclose the use of passive RFID tags that are read by the reader/interrogator on the robot and Chan is relied upon as a teaching reference that further describes how passive RFID tags work. Merely further clarifying how passive RFID tags operate in the case of the instant application does not delineate itself from the disclosure of Harasti, as the teachings of Chan are implicit through explicit use of passive RFID tags.
Regarding application of the RFID tag to a pipeline, this is interpreted as an obvious variant indicating an intended use of the invention. Harasti discloses an underwater localization system and does not limit the disclosure to one particular type of underwater location and further states that the object may be any underwater object (Paragraph [0016]). Merely specifying an analogous system that is used on a pipeline does not change how the claimed system is structured or operated. Therefore, this is considered an obvious variant.
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over Harasti in view of Tunon. Harasti further discloses wherein each of the one or more TAGs is [energized by an electromagnetic field received and returned], through transmission by means of a protocol also in radio frequency, its identification and code corresponding to the one or more AUVs reader/recorder, and wherein the one or more items of equipment includes one or more [pipelines]. (Paragraph [0016-0018] and Claim [1], Harasti discloses passive RFID tags that are read by an active reader/interrogator in radio frequency including identification and positioning data)
Harasti does not explicitly disclose that the tags are energized by an EMF.
However, Chan, in a similar field of endeavor of RFID technology, teaches one or more TAGs is energized by an electromagnetic field received and returned (Page [194] section [Passive RFID tag], Chan teaches that the reader/interrogator generates an electromagnetic wave (field) to be used by the passive RFID tag for rectification)
Harasti and Chan are in a similar field of endeavor of RFID technology. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Harasti to disclose exchange of data between the reader and the passive RFID tag, as taught by Chan, as this merely provides further detail regarding how passive RFID tags work. Harasti explicitly disclose the use of passive RFID tags that are read by the reader/interrogator on the robot and Chan is relied upon as a teaching reference that further describes how passive RFID tags work. Merely further clarifying how passive RFID tags operate in the case of the instant application does not delineate itself from the disclosure of Harasti, as the teachings of Chan are implicit through explicit use of passive RFID tags.
Regarding application of the RFID tag to a pipeline, this is interpreted as an obvious variant indicating an intended use of the invention. Harasti discloses an underwater localization system and does not limit the disclosure to one particular type of underwater location and further states that the object may be any underwater object (Paragraph [0016]). Merely specifying an analogous system that is used on a pipeline does not change how the claimed system is structured or operated. Therefore, this is considered an obvious variant.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2016/0300089 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING
LOCATIONS OF MOBILE ELEMENTS IN A
FACILITY WITH ANUMBER OF REGIONS
Arsenault et al.
Filed: 09 Apr 2015
Pub: 13 Oct 2016
Discusses a mobile element (a vehicle or general piece of movable equipment, per paragraph [0031]) that reads RFID tags positioned in a workspace in order to perform localization.
2
US 11,807,349 B1
Submersible Remote Operated Vehicle Vision Assistance and Control
Schumannet al.
Filed: 16 Sep 2022
Pub: 07 Nov 2023
Discusses use of RFID to guide navigation of an underwater ROV.
3
US 2017/0072563 A1
USING OBJECT OBSERVATIONS OF
MOBILE ROBOTS TO GENERATE A
SPATIO-TEMPORAL OBJECT INVENTORY,
AND USING THE INVENTORY TO
DETERMINE MONITORNG PARAMETERS
FOR THE MOBILE ROBOTS
Anderson- Sprecher
Filed: 10 Sep 2015
Pub: 16 Mar 2017
Discusses a robot (that may be a submersible robot) that performs localization via detection of passive RFID tags.
4
US 2024/0346278 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETECTING
AND TRACKING RFID TAGS OF INTEREST
Wilkinson
Filed: 26 Jun 2024
Pub: 17 Oct 2024
Discusses use of RFID tags, sending a transmission from a transmitter to a RFID tag and using a reader to receive information.
5
US 2016/0124105 A1
TOUCH DOWN MONITORING OF ANOCEAN
BOTTOM SEISMIC NODE
Valsvik et al.
Filed: 28 Oct 2015
Pub: 05 May 2016
Discusses localization of an autonomous underwater vehicle through use of RFID in a plurality of locations in the environment along the cable, further including obstacle avoidance.
6
US 2021/0031891 A1
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR
AUTONOMOUS EXPLORATION FOR
MAPPING UNDERWATER ENVIRONMENTS
Englot et al.
Filed: 30 Jul 2020
Pub: 04 Feb 2021
Discusses a method of localization and mapping for an autonomous underwater vehicle using passive fiducial markers detected by an active detection element of the vehicle.
7
US 2019/0223272 A1
AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLE
LIGHT SHOW
Pohl et al.
Filed: 22 Mar 2019
Pub: 18 Jul 2019
Discusses an autonomous underwater vehicle using transmission of radio frequency and positioning beacons (analogous to RFID tags) in order to localize the AUV.
8
US 2024/0142992 A1
MAP GENERATION DEVICE AND MAP
GENERATION SYSTEM
Dalla Libera
Filed: 12 Jan 2024
Pub: 02 May 2024
Priority: 30 Jul 2021
Discusses map generation for a robot that performs localization based upon reading of markers with predetermined location information, the markers being radio frequency tags (analogous to RFID tags).
9
US 2020/0298949 A1
UNDERWATER POSITIONING SYSTEM
Gerard et al.
Filed: 20 Mar 2020
Pub: 24 Sep 2020
Discusses navigation of an underwater vehicle through use of radio frequency beacons comprising identification/location information (analogous to RFID) to establish mapping and localization.
10
KR101496446B1
System for Managing of Submarine Cable Using by Recognization Radio Frequency and Method Thereof
Kim et al.
Filed: 20 Jun 2014
Pub: 02 Mar 2015
Discusses localizing an underwater autonomous vehicle through active detection of passive RFID tags along an undersea cable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658