DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). In fact, no drawings are filed in the instant application. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed features, i.e. the main elements of claims 1-6, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-5 contain a database but there is no database in the Drawings or Specification. 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 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “compare underwater coral with standardized lighting and recorded time records for said data capture” in the last two lines of the claim. It is unclear if the “underwater coral” is being compared with “standardized lighting and recorded time records for said data capture,” or the “underwater coral” is being compared with other underwater coral, or if images are being compared here. This renders the claim indefinite. The dependent claims inherit this deficiency by virtue of their dependency.
Regarding claim 6, there are multiple equations with multiple, undefined variables, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what these variables represent. Examiner recommends reciting what each variable represents in the claim, like as is done for variable R, i.e. R = Random points in latent space ("noise").
Also regarding claim 6, it is unclear how A triggers an alarm. This renders the claim indefinite.
Further regarding claim 6, the claim ends with the partial sentence “indicates vulnerability to death of one or more coral reefs under surveillance.” It is unclear what this partial sentence pertains to, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2025/0042520) in view of Fieberg et al. (US 2017/0343185).
Regarding claim 1,
Lee teaches:
A collection of one or more specialized equipment modules for monitoring coral health, with each said module comprising: at least one submersible drone (Lee: Fig 1; autonomous underwater robot 1; [0053]; [0003]); at least one light mounted on said submersible drone (Lee: Fig 1; LED 181 [0091]-[0092]);
at least one camera adjacent to and associated with said light (Lee: Fig 1; camera 182; [0091]-[0092]); at least one positioning sensor for position said camera at a reproducible distance and angle from a surface of coral to be photographed (Lee: [0020]; [0022]; control robotic arm based on position/angle relative to item to be gripped; anything underwater can be gripped/attempted to be gripped, which necessarily includes coral; Fig 1; GPS unit 160, moving base GPS 161, Rover GPS 162; [0086]-[0088]; moving base GPS 161 may be used to measure the position of the underwater robot 1; Rover GPS 162 may be used to measure a heading angle of the underwater robot 1; [0139]; controlling multi-degree-of-freedom robot arm 3 based on the data transmitted from the position controller 150; Fig 13; S13i, j, k, l, m; [0167]-[0189];[0198]-[0199]; depth value measurement; [0230]-[0231]); at least one timing device (Lee: [0008]; underwater robot timing; [0020]; real time Kinematic (RTK)-based position correction; [0022]; [0025]; [0071]; [0096]; time division multiple access (TDMA); [0120]; time delay; [0185]; [0191]; [0192]; [0209]-[0210]); at least one database (Lee: [0201]; current image and previous image storage); and at least one telemetry device (Lee: [0093]-[0094]; wireless communication system; [0104]; [0169]); wherein each module may thus photograph for data capture, and compare underwater coral with standardized lighting and recorded time records for said data capture (Lee: [0201]; comparing the current image with the previous image, including images taken about the same time).
Lee fails to teach:
at least one strobe light mounted on said submersible drone outfitted with lighting having a minimum 30,000 lumens output and a regulable strobe duration and repetition;
Fieberg teaches:
at least one strobe light mounted on said submersible drone outfitted with lighting having a minimum 30,000 lumens output and a regulable strobe duration and repetition (Fieberg: abstract; [0006]-[0009]; 30,000 lumens or more in the strobe mode; microprocessor sets maximum pulse duration and repetition rate of the power delivered to the LED array; [0011]-[0012]; [0023]; light 10 on autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV); [0033]; [0037]; [0045]);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fieberg with Lee. Using the strobe light of Fieberg would benefit the Lee teachings by allowing for more photography lighting options. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, using a strobe light, to a known device ready for improvement, the Lee device, to yield predictable results. Furthermore, this is simple substitution of one known element for another, a led strobe light in place of an led light, to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2025/0042520) in view of Fieberg et al. (US 2017/0343185) and Chirayath (2019/0266712).
Regarding claim 2,
Lee in view of Fieberg teaches:
The collection of one or more specialized equipment modules according to claim 1, wherein said at least one database is pre-programmed with at least two images of a reference coral (Lee: [0201]; current image and previous image),
Lee in view of Fieberg fails to teach:
with one image's being of healthy coral and a second image's being of compromised coral.
Chirayath teaches:
wherein said at least one database is pre-programmed with at least two images of a reference coral, with one image's being of healthy coral and a second image's being of compromised coral (Chirayath: [0197]; using database to separates living coral structure from nonliving structure and segments coral reef morphology into four classes—branching coral, mounding coral, basalt rock, and sand; abstract; [0004]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chirayath with Lee in view of Fieberg. Taking into account coral health, as in Chirayath, would benefit the Lee in view of Fieberg teachings by allowing for enhanced classification and detection.
Regarding claim 3,
Lee in view of Fieberg teaches:
The collection of one or more specialized equipment modules according to claim 1, wherein said at least one database is pre-programmed with at least two images of a reference coral (Lee: [0201]; current image and previous image),
Lee in view of Fieberg fails to teach:
wherein said at least one database is pre-programmed with at least three images of a reference coral, with one image's being of healthy coral, with a second image's being of compromised coral, and with a third image's being of dead coral.
Chirayath teaches:
wherein said at least one database is pre-programmed with at least three images of a reference coral, with one image's being of healthy coral, with a second image's being of compromised coral, and with a third image's being of dead coral (Chirayath: [0197]; using database to separates living coral structure from nonliving structure and segments coral reef morphology into four classes—branching coral, mounding coral, basalt rock, and sand; abstract; [0004]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chirayath with Lee in view of Fieberg. Taking into account coral health, as in Chirayath, would benefit the Lee in view of Fieberg teachings by allowing for enhanced classification and detection.
Regarding claim 4,
Lee in view of Fieberg and Chirayath teaches:
The collection of one or more specialized equipment modules according to claim 3, wherein said at least one database has the capacity to store at least two images taken of a coral reef to be monitored, with said at least two images' being taken at two different points in time and further wherein said images are time stamped by said timing device (Lee: [0201]; current image and previous image).
Regarding claim 4,
Lee in view of Fieberg and Chirayath teaches:
The collection of one or more specialized equipment modules according to claim 4 wherein said at least one database has the capacity to store at least three images taken of a coral reef to be monitored, with said at least three images' being taken at three different points in time and further wherein said images are time stamped by said timing device (Lee: [0201]; current image and previous image; Using a third image is the duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record that is not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M PONTIUS whose telephone number is (571)270-7687. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
/JAMES M PONTIUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488