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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The computer-readable medium that is disclosed and claimed is interpreted, with broadest reasonable interpretation, as a form of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only the statutory embodiments. In order to avoid a further rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant is advised to add the limitation “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium” to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torem et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0044936 A1) in view of Strunk (Pub. No.: US 2022/0363357 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10; Torem teaches a control method for an underwater robot applied to an underwater robot (10, FIG. 1), an underwater robot comprising: a memory (Data storage device 54, FIG. 2), a processor (52, FIG. 2), and a control program configured for the underwater robot and stored in the memory, wherein when the processor executes the control program (program instructions ¶ 90); and a computer-readable storage medium on which a control program for an underwater robot is stored (non-transitory storage medium ¶ 34), wherein when the processor executed the control program, the underwater robot is instructed to implement:
in response to detecting that a time period when the underwater robot is out of water is greater than a first time duration (Similarly, “The controller may be configured to hold the robotic pool cleaner position at the waterline until a GPS signal is received and interpreted. For example, receiving and interpreting a GPS signal may require between 10 seconds and 30 seconds.” ¶ 73), executing a machine protection action (“In some cases, the robotic pool cleaner may be configured to reverse its direction to re-submerge if a GPS signal is not interpreted within a predetermined time limit.” ¶ 73), and acquiring posture detection data, the posture detection data comprising an acceleration and/or an inclination angle (via orientation sensors, e.g., accelerometer, tilt sensors for measuring tilt angle ¶ 47);
determining a posture variation within a preset time period (similar to “GPS signal” limitation that may not be acquired within the predetermined time limit, comparing actual speed and expected speed ¶ 74 is read on the limitation, and the pool cleaner may subsequently re-submerge ¶ 73) according to the posture detection data (compare an actual speed of movement with an expected, e.g., planned or desired, speed of movement, based on stored data ¶ 74).
Torem is silent to if the posture variation is less than a preset threshold, executing a return action. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Strunk teaches an underwater vehicle control system configured to receive a control input signal indicative of a target virtual position and a target virtual orientation of a target virtual underwater vehicle within a virtual environment (See Abstract). More specifically, an orientation threshold value being greater than certain degree values may allow for the vehicle controller to output control signals to a propulsion system (¶ 31).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the posture variation and executing a return action taught by Torem to if the posture variation is less than a preset threshold, executing a return action as taught by Strunk to improve underwater vehicle control by decreasing signal latency (¶ 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
