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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2-11 objected to because of the following informalities: “A communication device (1) according to…” should be “The communication device (1) according to…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4-6 recite “electromagnetic waves (EW) that is captured on the buoy (2)” which should use “are” instead of “is” because waves is plural.
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 1-11 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 buoy (2) made almost entirely of dielectric material.” The phrase “almost entirely” is a term of degree that lacks an objective boundary; the specification does not define a quantitative threshold (e.g., percentage by volume, mass, or surface area) or otherwise provide a clear standard by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a given buoy is “almost entirely” dielectric. As a result, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not clear.
In addition, claim 1 recites that the reflector “creates a conductive surface that allows the electromagnetic wave (EW) to be detected on the buoy (2) without distortion in the second state (II).” No electromagnetic wave is previously introduced in the claim, and it is unclear whether “the electromagnetic wave” refers to any incident wave or some particular wave associated with unclaimed system components. Further, “without distortion” is another term of degree for which the application does not provide an objective standard (e.g., allowable phase or amplitude error), rendering the scope of performance required by the claim ambiguous. Accordingly a skilled artisan would not appropriately be able to determine the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the inner surface” which lacks antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites “a reflector (4) that is made of flexible conductive paint and creates a concave dish antenna form on the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) in the second state (II) ….” Claim 1 already recites “at least one reflector (4) that partially covers the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2).” Because claim 2 uses “a reflector (4)” rather than “the reflector (4)” or “the at least one reflector (4),” it is unclear whether claim 2 introduces a second reflector in addition to the reflector of claim 1 or merely further defines the already recited reflector. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether claim 2 requires one reflector or multiple reflectors.
Claim 2 further states that the reflector “creates a surface capable of detecting electromagnetic waves (EW) on the buoy (2) enabling the detection of almost every transmitted electromagnetic wave (EW).” The phrase “almost every transmitted electromagnetic wave” is a term of degree without an objective boundary; neither the claims nor the specification specify what level of detection (e.g., percentage of incident energy or number of waves) constitutes “almost every” transmitted electromagnetic wave. The required detection performance is therefore unclear.
Claim 3 recites “at least one surface sensor (5) that is located on the buoy (2) and is positioned to remain on the water surface (W) in the second state (II)”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the surface sensor is to remain on the water surface W or above the water surface W as shown, e.g., in FIG. 2. The limitation is thus indefinite in light of the Specification because the plain and ordinary meaning of “on the water surface” is at the water surface level with the water surface. A skilled artisan could not determine the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the underwater" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the surface sensor” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear whether claim 6 is intended to require the surface sensor (5) of claim 3, a different surface sensor, or both surface and underwater sensors in some unspecified combination.
Claim 7 recites “the under sensor (6)” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. . A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine whether claim 7 requires the underwater sensor (6) of claim 4, some other underwater sensor, or an implicit element not defined in the claims.
Claim 8 recites “wherein an underwater sensor (6)…,a converter unit (8)…, a transmission line (7)…, and a buoy (2) that enables the electromagnetic waves (EW) transmitted via the transmission line (7) to be transmitted to the receiver via the surface sensor (5) and thus enables the establishment of an underwater-surface communication network.” First, underwater sensor (6), converter unit (8), transmission line (7), and buoy (2) are already present in the dependency chain (claims 1, 3, 5, and 7). By reintroducing each of these elements with “an [element]” rather than “the [element]” (e.g., “an underwater sensor (6)”), claim 8 is ambiguous as to whether additional components are being introduced or whether it is merely further defining the existing components. This ambiguity affects the number of elements required by the claim. Second, claim 8 recites “to be transmitted to the receiver via the surface sensor (5)” but no “receiver” is recited in any antecedent claim in the dependency chain. It is therefore unclear whether the “receiver” is (i) an external device not part of the claimed apparatus, a component of the surface sensor or another structure. The structural and functional relationship of “the receiver” to the recited elements is undefined. Accordingly, claim 8 is indefinite for lack of antecedent basis for “the receiver” and for ambiguity created by reintroducing previously recited elements with the indefinite article “an.”
Claim 9, which depends from claim 3, recites “wherein the water surface sensor (5) that is made of conductive paint and 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).” Claim 3 introduces “at least one surface sensor (5) that is located on the buoy (2) and is positioned to remain on the water surface (W) in the second state (II).” The terminology “the water surface sensor (5)” has no antecedent basis; only “surface sensor (5)” is previously recited. It is unclear whether “water surface sensor (5)” is intended to be the same element as the “surface sensor (5)” of claim 3 or a distinct element. The shared reference numeral does not overcome the textual inconsistency in the claim language. Furthermore, the “wherein” clause in claim 9 is grammatically incomplete: “wherein the water surface sensor (5) that is made of conductive paint and is located …” lacks a verb explicitly stating that the sensor “is made” and “is located” as claimed. This renders it uncertain whether the conductive paint and inner surface characteristics are limiting features of the claimed sensor or merely descriptive language.
Claim 11 depends from claim 6 and recites “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.” Neither claim 1, 4, nor 6 recites a surface sensor (5); the surface sensor is introduced in claim 3, which is not in the dependency chain of claim 11. The reference to “the surface sensor (5)” in claim 11 therefore lacks antecedent basis. The converter unit (8) is introduced only in claims 7 and 8, which are not in the dependency chain of claim 11. Claim 11 nonetheless recites “the converter unit (8)” when describing the centre of gravity, again without antecedent basis. It is unclear which converter unit is being referenced or whether any converter unit is actually part of the claimed combination. Claim 6 itself is indefinite for lack of antecedent basis for “the surface sensor (5)” and for the ambiguous “electromagnetic waves (EW) that is captured” language. Because claim 11 depends from claim 6 and incorporates its limitations, the ambiguity in claim 6 carries over into claim 11. The limitation “created on the water surface (W) with the converter unit (8)” is syntactically ambiguous as to whether the centre of gravity is located on the water surface, is “created with” the converter unit, or refers to some other configuration involving the converter unit. Combined with the missing antecedent for the converter unit, the positional relationship between the keel (10), converter unit (8), and centre of gravity cannot be clearly determined. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would not be apprised of the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/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) comprising at least one buoy (2) (e.g., see 100 in the Figures) made of flexible material (e.g., see 102) to be positioned on the water surface (W), at least one inflation apparatus (3) (e.g., see 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 110 in FIG. 1, 3), 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., as shown in FIG. 3), characterised by the buoy (2) made almost entirely of dielectric material (e.g., “buoy skin”), and at least one reflector (4) (e.g., see 105) that partially covers the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) (e.g., “flexible surface material” of 105) and thus creates a conductive surface (e.g., see claim 5) that allows the electromagnetic wave (EW) to be detected on the buoy (2) without distortion in the second state (II) (e.g., 104 and 105 used for electromagnetic communication as discussed in the description).
Claim 2: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein a reflector (4) that is made of flexible conductive paint (e.g., see claim 5) and creates a concave dish antenna (e.g., “disc-shaped reflector surface 105”) form on the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2) in the second state (II) (e.g., see “As a further improvement of the technical solution, the flexible surface material is coated with a conductive coating. so as to make it can form the dish antenna 120.” on pg. 5 of the translation), thus creates a surface capable of detecting electromagnetic waves (EW) on the buoy (2) enabling the detection of almost every transmitted electromagnetic wave (EW).
Claim 3: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein at least one surface sensor (5) (e.g., see 104) that is located on the buoy (2) and is positioned to remain on the water surface (W) in the second state (II), thus enables the electromagnetic signals transmitted over the water surface (W) to be captured and/or transmitted on the buoy (2).
Claim 4: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 1, wherein at least one underwater sensor (6) (e.g., see 103) that is located on the buoy (2) and is positioned to remain under the water surface (W) in the second state (II), 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 the underwater (e.g., 103 for optical waves as discussed in the description).
Claim 5: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 3, wherein at least one transmission line (7) that is produced from conductive paint (e.g., see FIG. 2 showing transmission line on inner surface connecting 104 and 103, see on pg. 4 of translation: “the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 is fixedly connected with an antenna feed source 104, the antenna feed source 104 and the optical fibre connector 103 through optical fibre connection”), and enables the transmission of electromagnetic waves (EW) that is captured on the buoy (2) using the surface sensor (5) via the reflector (4) from the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2).
Claim 6: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 4, wherein at least one transmission line (7) that is produced from conductive paint (e.g., see FIG. 2 showing transmission line on inner surface connecting 104 and 103, see on pg. 4 of translation: “the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 is fixedly connected with an antenna feed source 104, the antenna feed source 104 and the optical fibre connector 103 through optical fibre connection”), and enables the transmission of electromagnetic waves (EW) that is captured on the buoy (2) using the surface sensor (5) via the reflector (4) from the inner surface (Z) of the buoy (2).
Claim 7: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 5, wherein at least one converter unit (8) (e.g., see 103) that enables the electromagnetic waves (EW) carried on the buoy (2) and transmitted to the underwater sensor (6) via the transmission line (7) (e.g., see FIG. 2, transmission line between 104 and 103, see pg. 4 of translation: “the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 is fixedly connected with an antenna feed source 104, the antenna feed source 104 and the optical fibre connector 103 through optical fibre connection”) 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) (e.g., see FIG. 2 showing transmission line connecting 104 and 103), and thus allows the buoy (2) to remain balanced on the water surface by creating the centre of gravity in the second state (II) (e.g., 103 forms a center of gravity for the device 100 at least as exemplified by drawings being at center in water and the physical attachment weight, further see MPEP §§ 2112, 2114).
Claim 8: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 7, wherein an underwater sensor (6) that allows the detection of acoustic/optical waves (AW) transmitted from under the water surface (W), a converter unit (8) that converts the detected signals transmitted via the underwater sensor (6) into electromagnetic waves (EW) (e.g., see 103 and/or underwater converter for transmitting the optical signals to 103), a transmission line (7) that allows the signals converted into electromagnetic waves (EW) to be transmitted to the surface sensor (5) (e.g., see 104 in FIG. 2, transmission line between 103 and 104, see pg. 4 of translation: “the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 is fixedly connected with an antenna feed source 104, the antenna feed source 104 and the optical fibre connector 103 through optical fibre connection”), and a buoy (2) that enables the electromagnetic waves (EW) transmitted via the transmission line (7) to be transmitted to the receiver via the surface sensor (5) and thus enables the establishment of an underwater-surface communication network (e.g., 100 being for underwater-surface communication).
Claim 9: Ding teaches a communication device (1) according to claim 3, wherein the water surface sensor (5) (e.g., see 104) that is made of conductive paint (see claim 5) and 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 “the antenna feed source 104 on the inner surface of the buoy skin 102 form a dish-shaped antenna 120.” on pg. 4 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(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding.
Claim 10: Ding does not explicitly teach a 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 when optimal to be brought from the first state to the second state (“FIG. 5 is a floating to the water surface of the communication antenna 100 through releasing compressed air storage tank 101 compressed air to inflate the buoy skin 102, the buoy skin 102 unfolded into a spherical air bag, communication antenna 100 extends into the process schematic diagram of the dish antenna 120.”, see pg. 6 of translation).
Furthermore the Examiner takes Official / Judicial Notice that a trigger sensor is ‘old and well-known’ in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form a trigger sensors on the buoy of Ding that is adapted to trigger the inflation apparatus by detecting contact with the water motivated by utilizing the device in an airborne form deployment above the water such as in a missile or air vehicle instead of submarine with a predictable expectation of success.
Claim 11: Ding does not explicitly teach a communication device (1) according to claim 6, wherein 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 takes Official / Judicial Notice that a keel for a buoy to remain above water and ensure a center of gravity is ‘old and well-known’ in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the keel on the buoy of Ding in order to ensure remaining above the water and form a center of gravity motivated by keeping the surface sensor above the water for optimal communication and not be distorted by the water.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights