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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered however they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the rejection mapped "the antenna feed source (104) and the flexible, conductively-coated surface material (105)" to the claimed reflector (4) (Remarks, pg. 8). The prior action mapped the reflector (4) to the disc-shaped reflecting surface 105 alone, and mapped the antenna feed source 104 to the surface sensor (5) of claim 3. The same mapping is relied upon below.
Applicant argues that in Ding "the conductive surface that forms the antenna structure is disclosed as being formed integrally on the buoy skin (102) itself" (Remarks, pg. 8). Ding does not say so. Ding describes the buoy skin 102 driving "the built-in flexible surface material" to unfold, so that the flexible surface material is unfolded into the disc-shaped reflecting surface 105 inside the spherical airbag (e.g., see pg. 3, 5 of translation). Ding's claim 2 recites the buoy skin and the flexible surface material as separate elements (e.g., see pg. 7 of translation), and FIG. 2 shows the reflecting surface 105 with its own reference numeral as a dish within the sphere formed by the skin 102. Nothing in Ding places the conductive coating on the outer surface of the skin 102. The reflecting surface 105 is therefore disposed within the buoy independently of the outer surface (Y).
Applicant argues that Ding lacks "a discrete reflector element structurally independent of, and spaced apart from" the water-contacting outer surface, and lacks a reflector arranged "to prevent the reflector from ever contacting water" (Remarks, pgs. 8-9). Claim 1 requires that the reflector (4) be "disposed within the buoy (2) independently of the outer surface (Y)" and that it partially cover an inner surface (Z), with an electromagnetic wave detected "without the reflector (4) contacting water in the second state (II)." Claim 1 does not recite a spacing from the skin, a discrete element, or an exclusion of water contact in every state. Limitations not recited in the claims are not read into them. See MPEP 2145(VI). Further, Applicant's own reflector (4) is a conductive paint or coating applied to the inner surface (Z) of the same buoy (2) whose outer surface (Y) contacts water (e.g., see Paras. 11, 45-46), and FIG. 3 depicts the reflector (4) as a surface spanning the interior of the buoy (2), as Ding's FIG. 2 depicts the reflecting surface 105. In the second state, the reflecting surface 105 of Ding sits inside a sealed skin made of waterproof cloth and above the waterline (e.g., see FIG. 2, pg. 5 of translation), and does not contact water.
Applicant argues that Ding does not disclose "that the outer surface of its buoy skin is itself transparent to electromagnetic waves as a distinct functional requirement" (Remarks, pg. 9). Claim 1 requires an outer surface (Y) that is transparent to electromagnetic waves (EW). It does not require that the prior art recognize transparency as a "distinct functional requirement." In Ding, the reflecting surface 105 and the antenna feed source 104 form the dish antenna 120 entirely inside the skin 102, and the dish antenna 120 accesses a communication satellite at Ka band or V band millimeter wave frequencies (e.g., see FIG. 2, pg. 5 of translation). The millimeter waves must pass through the skin 102 for the dish antenna 120 to operate. The outer surface of the skin 102 is therefore necessarily transparent to those electromagnetic waves. See MPEP 2112(IV). A reference need not recognize an inherent property. See MPEP 2112(II). As further evidence that inflatable skins enclosing an internal reflector are transparent to electromagnetic waves, Huang describes radar waves penetrating the material of an inflatable sphere to reach a metal screen cloth reflector inside it and penetrating the material again on return (e.g., see pg. 1 of translation of CN 208399676 U), and EP 0507632 A1 describes a reflector secured within an inflatable cover and a flexible radar reflective layer encapsulated within a flexible radar transparent membrane (e.g., see pg. 2). The skin 102 is also fabric or waterproof cloth (e.g., see pg. 5 of translation), which is a dielectric material.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ding is maintained.
Applicant states that it "does not concede, and reserves the right to contest, the propriety of the Examiner's Official Notice regarding trigger sensors and keels," and that "that issue need not be reached" (Remarks, pg. 9). The Reservation of Rights further states that "timely objection to such reliance on Official Notice is made" (Remarks, pg. 10). To adequately traverse a finding of Official Notice, Applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action, including stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See MPEP 2144.03(C). Neither statement does so. Because the traversal is inadequate, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statements set forth in the prior action for claims 10 and 11 are taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "wherein the buoy (2) comprising an outer surface (Y)" should read "wherein the buoy (2) comprises an outer surface (Y)." Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8, 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim recites a "wherein" clause that introduces an element followed by "that," without a verb stating that the element is part of the claimed device or what the element is. For example, claim 3 recites "wherein at least one surface sensor (5) that is located on the buoy (2) and is positioned to remain above the water surface (W)...." The same construction appears in claim 2 ("wherein the reflector (4) that is made of flexible conductive paint and creates..."), claim 4 ("wherein at least one underwater sensor (6) that is located..."), claims 5 and 6 ("wherein at least one transmission line (7) that is produced from conductive paint..."), claim 7 ("wherein at least one converter unit (8) that enables..."), claim 8 ("wherein a surface sensor (5) that is located..."), claim 10 ("wherein at least one trigger sensor (9) that is located...") and claim 11 ("wherein at least one keel (10) that is located..."). Applicant corrected the same construction in claim 9 in response to the prior action. The Examiner suggests amending each clause to the form "further comprising at least one [element] that is..." for a newly introduced element, or "wherein the reflector (4) is made of..." for claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 as amended recites "at least one transmission line (7) that is produced from conductive paint, and enables the transmission of electromagnetic waves (EW) that are captured on the buoy (2) using the underwater sensor (6) via the reflector (4) from the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2)." The Specification as filed describes electromagnetic waves (EW) captured on the buoy (2) by the surface sensor (5) via the reflector (4) and carried by the transmission line (7) from the inner surface (Z) (e.g., see Paras. 12, 47, 49). The Specification describes the underwater sensor (6) as positioned under the water surface (W) to detect, capture and transmit acoustic and/or optical waves (AW) (e.g., see Paras. 13, 48), and describes electromagnetic waves (EW) reaching the underwater sensor (6) only after conversion into acoustic or optical waves (AW) by the converter unit (8) (e.g., see Paras. 50-51). The Specification does not describe electromagnetic waves (EW) captured on the buoy (2) using the underwater sensor (6) via the reflector (4). Applicant states that support lies in "the specification's disclosure that the transmission line (7) enables transmission of electromagnetic waves captured via either sensor through the reflector (4)" (Remarks, pg. 7), but identifies no paragraph, and the Specification contains no such statement. The limitation is new matter.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason.
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 6-8 and 11 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 6 recites "electromagnetic waves (EW) that are captured on the buoy (2) using the underwater sensor (6) via the reflector (4)." Claim 4, from which claim 6 depends, recites that the underwater sensor (6) is positioned to remain under the water surface (W) and enables acoustic and/or optical waves (AW) transmitted from under the water surface (W) to be captured on the buoy (2). Claim 1 recites that the reflector (4) allows an electromagnetic wave (EW) transmitted through the outer surface (Y) to be detected without the reflector (4) contacting water. It is unclear how a sensor positioned under the water surface (W) to capture acoustic and/or optical waves (AW) captures electromagnetic waves (EW) via the reflector (4), or what structural relationship between the underwater sensor (6), the reflector (4) and the transmission line (7) the claim requires. A skilled artisan would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation. For purposes of examination, claim 6 is interpreted as requiring a transmission line (7) of conductive paint that carries, from the inner surface (Z), electromagnetic waves (EW) captured on the buoy (2) via the reflector (4), between the location of capture and the underwater sensor (6). Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 8 recites "the converter unit (8)" and "the transmission line (7)." As amended, claim 8 depends from claim 1, which does not recite a converter unit or a transmission line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether claim 8 refers to a converter unit and a transmission line recited elsewhere, or introduces them. For purposes of examination, the limitations are interpreted as "a converter unit (8)" and "a transmission line (7)." Claim 11 depends from claim 8 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 11 recites "ensuring the centre of gravity created on the water surface (W) with the converter unit (8) to remain stable." First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for "the centre of gravity" in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 8, which depends from claim 1, and none of claims 1 and 8 recites a centre of gravity. Second, as set forth in the prior action, the limitation is syntactically ambiguous as to whether the centre of gravity is located on the water surface (W), is "created with" the converter unit (8), or refers to some other configuration involving the converter unit (8). The positional relationship between the keel (10), the converter unit (8) and the centre of gravity cannot be clearly determined, and a skilled artisan would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the limitation. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the keel (10) keeping the buoy (2) stable in an upright orientation, with the converter unit (8) contributing to a centre of gravity of the buoy (2), consistent with Para. 54.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112397868 A (hereinafter "Ding").
Claim 1: Ding teaches a communication device (1) (e.g., see communication antenna 100 in FIGS. 1-2) comprising at least one buoy (2) (e.g., see buoy skin 102) made of flexible material (e.g., fabric, pg. 5 of translation) to be positioned on the water surface (W) (e.g., see FIG. 2), at least one inflation apparatus (3) (e.g., see compressed air storage tank 101) that is located on the buoy (2) and allows the buoy (2) to be inflated, a first state (I) of the buoy (2) (e.g., see communication buoy 110 in FIGS. 1, 4), and a second state (II) in which the buoy (2) is inflated by injecting air into it by means of the inflation apparatus (3) to be positioned on the water surface (W) (e.g., see spherical airbag forming dish antenna 120 in FIGS. 1-2, 5, pg. 4, 6 of translation), wherein the buoy (2) comprises an outer surface (Y) (e.g., see outer surface of 102) that is transparent to electromagnetic waves (EW) (e.g., wherein the Ka band or V band millimeter waves of dish antenna 120 formed inside 102 pass through 102, pg. 5 of translation) and made of a dielectric material (e.g., fabric or waterproof cloth, pg. 5 of translation), and at least one reflector (4) (e.g., see disc-shaped reflecting surface 105) that is disposed within the buoy (2) independently of the outer surface (Y) of the buoy (2) (e.g., see built-in flexible surface material unfolded into 105 inside 102 in FIG. 2, pg. 3, 5 of translation) and partially covers an inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) opposite the outer surface (Y) (e.g., see 105 extending over a portion of the inner surface of 102 in FIG. 2) and thus creates a conductive surface (e.g., conductive coating, pg. 5 of translation) that allows an electromagnetic wave (EW) transmitted through the outer surface (Y) to be detected on the buoy (2) by the reflector (4) without the reflector (4) contacting water in the second state (II) (e.g., wherein 105 sits above the waterline inside sealed 102 in FIG. 2 and forms dish antenna 120 with antenna feed source 104 to access a communication satellite, pg. 5 of translation).
Regarding the transparency of the outer surface (Y), the dish antenna 120 formed by 104 and 105 entirely inside 102 accesses a communication satellite, so the electromagnetic waves necessarily pass through 102 (MPEP 2112(IV)). See also Huang, CN 208399676 U (radar waves penetrate inflatable sphere material to reach an internal reflector, pg. 1 of translation), and EP 0507632 A1 (reflector secured within an inflatable cover, radar transparent membrane, pg. 2), cited as evidence.
Claim 2: Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the reflector (4) (e.g., see 105) is made of flexible conductive paint (e.g., flexible surface material coated with a conductive coating, pg. 5 of translation; the instant Specification equates the reflector being "a conductive paint or coating," Para. 11) and creates a concave dish antenna form on the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) in the second state (II) (e.g., see disc-shaped reflecting surface 105 forming dish antenna 120 in FIG. 2, pg. 5 of translation), thus creates a surface capable of detecting electromagnetic waves (EW) on the buoy (2) (e.g., wherein 105 and 104 together form dish antenna 120 for Ka band or V band communication, pg. 5 of translation) while the reflector (4) is prevented from contacting water (e.g., see 105 inside sealed waterproof 102 above the waterline in FIG. 2).
Claim 3: Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein at least one surface sensor (5) (e.g., see antenna feed source 104) that is located on the buoy (2) and is positioned to remain above the water surface (W) without contacting the water surface (W) in the second state (II) (e.g., see 104 at the top of the spherical airbag in FIG. 2, pg. 5 of translation), thus enables the electromagnetic signals transmitted over the water surface (W) to be captured and/or transmitted on the buoy (2) (e.g., satellite communication through dish antenna 120, pg. 5 of translation).
Claim 4: Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein at least one underwater sensor (6) (e.g., see optical fibre connector 103) that is located on the buoy (2) and is positioned to remain under the water surface (W) in the second state (II) (e.g., see 103 at the bottom of 102 at the water in FIG. 2), thus enables the acoustic and/or optical waves (AW) transmitted from under the water surface (W) to be captured on the buoy (2) or the transmission of acoustic and/or optical waves (AW) from the buoy (2) to a location underwater (e.g., wherein 103 connects 100 to submarine 200 by optical fibre for bidirectional communication, FIG. 3, pg. 4, 6 of translation).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of CN 208399676 U (hereinafter "Huang"). This rejection is set forth in the alternative to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ding.
Claim 2: Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein the reflector (4) (e.g., see 105) creates a concave dish antenna form on the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) in the second state (II) (e.g., see disc-shaped reflecting surface 105 forming dish antenna 120 in FIG. 2, pg. 5 of translation), thus creates a surface capable of detecting electromagnetic waves (EW) on the buoy (2) (e.g., wherein 105 and 104 form dish antenna 120, pg. 5 of translation) while the reflector (4) is prevented from contacting water (e.g., see 105 inside sealed waterproof 102 above the waterline in FIG. 2). Ding teaches that the reflector is a flexible surface material coated with a conductive coating (e.g., see pg. 5 of translation), but does not explicitly teach that the reflector (4) is made of flexible conductive paint.
However, Huang teaches a flexible conductive paint applied to a flexible inflatable body that folds for storage and is inflated for use, the paint making the surface conductive so that it interacts with incident electromagnetic (radar) waves (e.g., see conductive paint sprayed uniformly on inflatable ball 1 of PVC net cloth, pgs. 2-3 of translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the conductive coating of the reflecting surface 105 of Ding from a flexible conductive paint as taught by Huang, as the substitution of one known conductive coating for a flexible inflatable material for another, yielding the predictable result of a flexible conductive reflecting surface, and motivated by keeping the reflector foldable with the buoy skin, which Ding seeks (e.g., good folding performance, pg. 5 of translation; Huang, pg. 3 of translation).
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Huang.
Claim 5: Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 3, wherein at least one transmission line (7) (e.g., see the line connecting 104 and 103 along the inner surface of 102 in FIG. 2, pg. 4 of translation) enables the transmission of electromagnetic waves (EW) that are captured on the buoy (2) using the surface sensor (5) (e.g., see 104) via the reflector (4) (e.g., see 105) from the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) (e.g., see FIG. 2, pgs. 4-5 of translation).
Ding does not explicitly teach that the transmission line (7) is produced from conductive paint. Ding connects 104 and 103 through optical fibre (e.g., see pg. 4 of translation).
However, Huang teaches conductive paint applied to the surface of a flexible inflatable body that folds for storage and is inflated for use, forming a conductive path on that surface (e.g., see conductive paint sprayed uniformly on inflatable ball 1 of PVC net cloth, pgs. 2-3 of translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the transmission line of Ding from conductive paint applied along the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 as taught by Huang, with the signal carried from 104 to 103 for the optical fibre link to the submarine, motivated by keeping the transmission line flexible so that it folds with the buoy skin 102, which Ding seeks (e.g., good folding performance, pg. 5 of translation), and because Ding already relies on a conductive coating on flexible material inside the buoy (e.g., see pg. 5 of translation), with a predictable expectation of success.
Claim 6: As best understood in view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) above, Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 4, wherein at least one transmission line (7) (e.g., see the line connecting 104 and 103 along the inner surface of 102 in FIG. 2, pg. 4 of translation) enables the transmission of electromagnetic waves (EW) that are captured on the buoy (2) via the reflector (4) (e.g., see 105 forming dish antenna 120 with 104, pg. 5 of translation) from the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) to the underwater sensor (6) (e.g., see 103 in FIG. 2).
Ding does not explicitly teach that the transmission line (7) is produced from conductive paint.
However, Huang teaches this feature for the reasons set forth for claim 5 above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the transmission line of Ding from conductive paint as taught by Huang for the reasons set forth for claim 5 above.
Claim 9: Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 3, wherein the surface sensor (5) (e.g., see 104) is located on the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) so that it remains above the water surface (W) in the second state (II) (e.g., see 104 fixedly connected with the inner surface of 102 at the top of the spherical airbag in FIG. 2, pgs. 4-5 of translation).
Ding does not explicitly teach that the surface sensor (5) is made of conductive paint.
However, Huang teaches conductive paint applied to the surface of a flexible inflatable body so that the painted surface is conductive and interacts directly with incident electromagnetic waves (e.g., see conductive paint sprayed on inflatable ball 1 so that radar waves directly form secondary radiation at the painted surface, pg. 3 of translation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the antenna feed source 104 of Ding from conductive paint on the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 as taught by Huang, motivated by reducing the weight of the buoy and keeping the feed flexible so that it folds with the buoy skin 102 (e.g., good folding performance, Ding, pg. 5 of translation; folded and preserved, Huang, pg. 3 of translation), with a predictable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Huang, and further in view of US 6,813,218 B1 (hereinafter "Antonelli").
Claim 7: Ding in view of Huang teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 6, wherein the electromagnetic waves (EW) are carried on the buoy (2) and transmitted to the underwater sensor (6) (e.g., see 103) via the transmission line (7) (e.g., see FIG. 2, pg. 4 of translation), and are carried onward to the submarine 200 as optical signals over optical fibre (e.g., see FIG. 3, pg. 4, 6 of translation).
Ding in view of Huang does not explicitly teach at least one converter unit (8) that enables the electromagnetic waves (EW) to be converted into acoustic/optical waves (AW), is located in the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) that is opposite to the outer surface (Y) that is in contact with the water in the second state (II), and thus allows the buoy (2) to remain balanced on the water surface by creating the centre of gravity in the second state (II).
However, Antonelli teaches a converter unit (8) (e.g., see optic-processing module 60, control/memory/GPS module 40 and acoustic processing-electronics section 30 inside shell 12 in FIG. 1) that enables electromagnetic waves received on a buoy (e.g., see laser signals 6A detected by photo-detector array 50) to be converted into acoustic waves transmitted underwater by an underwater sensor (e.g., see transducer array 20 in lower portion 16, e.g., see Col. 5, Ln. 49 to Col. 6, Ln. 22; Col. 3, Lns. 24-30), on a buoy whose shell may be a flexible, inflatable structure (e.g., see Col. 5, Lns. 5-7), with internal components placed to maintain buoyancy and proper vertical orientation (e.g., see centrally located power supply 17 and ballast chambers 18, Col. 5, Lns. 7-11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the buoy of Ding in view of Huang with a converter unit as taught by Antonelli, located on the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 at its bottom opposite the water-contacting outer surface and adjacent the underwater sensor 103, motivated by allowing the buoy to communicate acoustically or optically with underwater platforms, since radio frequency signals do not propagate well in water (e.g., see Antonelli, Col. 1, Lns. 22-40; Col. 2, Lns. 35-49; Ding, pgs. 2-3 of translation), and by placing the converter low in the buoy to keep the buoy upright with the surface sensor 104 above the water, as Antonelli places internal components and ballast for proper vertical orientation (e.g., see Col. 5, Lns. 7-11). A converter so placed inherently creates a centre of gravity of the buoy in the second state. The location of the converter is also a rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Antonelli.
Claim 8: As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Ding teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein a surface sensor (5) (e.g., see 104) that is located on the buoy (2) and positioned to remain above the water surface (W) without contacting the water surface (W) in the second state (II) (e.g., see 104 at the top of the spherical airbag in FIG. 2, pg. 5 of translation); an underwater sensor (6) (e.g., see 103) that is located on the buoy (2) and positioned to remain under the water surface (W) in the second state (II) (e.g., see 103 at the bottom of 102 at the water in FIG. 2) and that allows the detection of acoustic/optical waves (AW) transmitted from under the water surface (W) (e.g., wherein 103 receives optical signals from submarine 200 over optical fibre, pg. 4, 6 of translation); a transmission line (7) that allows the signals to be transmitted to the surface sensor (5) (e.g., see the line connecting 103 and 104 in FIG. 2, pg. 4 of translation); and wherein the buoy (2) enables the electromagnetic waves (EW) transmitted via the transmission line (7) to be transmitted to a receiver located remotely from the buoy (2) via the surface sensor (5) (e.g., see communication satellite accessed by dish antenna 120, pg. 5 of translation) and thus enables the establishment of an underwater-surface communication network (e.g., bidirectional communication between submarine 200 and the land-based command part, pgs. 5-6 of translation).
Ding does not explicitly teach a converter unit (8) that converts the detected signals transmitted via the underwater sensor (6) into electromagnetic waves (EW).
However, Antonelli teaches a converter unit (8) (e.g., see acoustic processing-electronics section 30, control/memory/GPS module 40 and optic-processing module 60 inside shell 12 in FIG. 1) that converts signals detected by an underwater sensor (e.g., see acoustic signals 22 detected by transducer array 20) into electromagnetic waves transmitted from the buoy through the air to a remote receiver (e.g., see translating underwater acoustic signals to optical signals transmitted through air for remote reception, Col. 3, Lns. 24-30; Col. 6, Lns. 38-45), and teaches that buoys conventionally receive underwater acoustic signals and reradiate the information as radio frequency signals into the air for detection by land or air-based platforms and relay through satellites (e.g., see Col. 2, Lns. 41-49).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the buoy of Ding with a converter unit as taught by Antonelli that converts the signals detected by the underwater sensor into electromagnetic waves for transmission by the surface sensor 104 over the transmission line, motivated by relaying communications from underwater platforms to a remote receiver such as a satellite, which is Ding's goal (e.g., see pgs. 2-3, 5 of translation), and by allowing communication with underwater platforms that are not tethered to the buoy by optical fibre (e.g., see Antonelli, Col. 2, Lns. 35-49), with a predictable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of admitted prior art (Official Notice taken in the prior action and not adequately traversed, see MPEP 2144.03(C)).
Claim 10: Ding does not explicitly teach the communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein at least one trigger sensor (9) that is located on the buoy (2) in connection with the inflation apparatus (3) and triggers the inflation apparatus (3) by detecting the contact of the buoy (2) with water, thus allowing the buoy (2) to be brought from the first state (I) to the second state (II).
However, Ding teaches triggering the inflation apparatus to bring the buoy from the first state to the second state when the communication antenna reaches the water surface (e.g., see step S200 and the release of compressed air from storage tank 101 to inflate buoy skin 102, FIG. 5, pg. 4, 6 of translation).
Further, the Examiner took Official Notice in the prior action that a trigger sensor is old and well-known in the art, in the context of triggering the inflation apparatus of a buoy upon contact with water. Applicant did not adequately traverse the notice (see Response to Arguments, Section V above), and the noticed fact is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a trigger sensor on the buoy of Ding, in connection with the compressed air storage tank 101, that triggers inflation by detecting the contact of the buoy with water, motivated by inflating the buoy automatically when it reaches the water, including when the device is deployed from above the water such as from an air vehicle instead of from a submarine, with a predictable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Antonelli, and further in view of admitted prior art (Official Notice taken in the prior action and not adequately traversed, see MPEP 2144.03(C)).
Claim 11: As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Ding in view of Antonelli teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 8, wherein the underwater sensor (6) (e.g., see 103) remains underwater and the surface sensor (5) (e.g., see 104) remains above the water in the second state (II) (e.g., see FIG. 2), and wherein the converter unit (8) is located in the buoy (e.g., see Antonelli, the FIGURE, Col. 5, Lns. 7-11, 31-34).
Ding in view of Antonelli does not explicitly teach at least one keel (10) that is located on the buoy (2) and allows the underwater sensor (6) to remain underwater and the surface sensor (5) to remain above the water in the second state (II), ensuring the centre of gravity created on the water surface (W) with the converter unit (8) to remain stable.
However, the Examiner took Official Notice in the prior action that a keel for a buoy to remain above water and ensure a centre of gravity is old and well-known in the art. Applicant did not adequately traverse the notice (see Response to Arguments, Section V above), and the noticed fact is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a keel on the buoy of Ding in view of Antonelli in order to ensure that the buoy remains above the water with a stable centre of gravity, motivated by keeping the surface sensor above the water for optimal communication without distortion by the water, as Antonelli likewise maintains proper vertical orientation of its buoy with ballast (e.g., see Col. 5, Lns. 7-11), with a predictable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Antonelli, and further in view of US 7,932,850 B1 (hereinafter "Hochschild"). This rejection is set forth in the alternative to the rejection of claim 11 in Section G above.
Claim 11: As best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Ding in view of Antonelli teaches the communication device (1) according to claim 8, as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach at least one keel (10) that is located on the buoy (2) and allows the underwater sensor (6) to remain underwater and the surface sensor (5) to remain above the water in the second state (II), ensuring the centre of gravity created on the water surface (W) with the converter unit (8) to remain stable.
However, Hochschild teaches at least one keel (10) (e.g., see drogue chute 20 with weight 30 in FIG. 1) that is located on an inflatable buoy (e.g., see inflatable structure 11 of flexible membrane material, Col. 3, Lns. 8-12) and keeps the buoy stable and upright on the water against wave motion and wind (e.g., wherein drogue chute 20 attached to bottom panel 13 stabilizes the inflatable structure and prevents it from tipping over or tilting excessively due to wave motion and wind, Col. 3, Lns. 25-30; and weight 30 at lower end 23 stabilizes the target so it rests upright in the water, Col. 3, Lns. 56-61).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to attach a weighted stabilizer as taught by Hochschild to the bottom of the buoy of Ding in view of Antonelli, motivated by keeping the buoy upright against wave motion so that the underwater sensor 103 remains underwater and the surface sensor 104 remains above the water with a stable centre of gravity (e.g., see Hochschild, Col. 3, Lns. 25-30, 56-61), with a predictable expectation of success.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/AMAL PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
