DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
An application was filed by applicant on 01/22/2025.
Claims 1-7 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature limitation: “buoyancy portion” must be shown as recited in the claims (it is suggested that such be shown with an appropriate reference character corresponding to this feature(s) in the specification) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Specification describes a buoyancy member but not a buoyancy portion. In addition, the drawings do not show this feature and identify such with an appropriate drawing reference character. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the above feature(s) (with appropriate reference characters corresponding to the feature(s) in the written description) consistent with the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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. No new matter should be entered.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
The Specification does not refer to the drawings regarding the feature(s) indicated in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Office Action.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The Abstract and Specification clearly specify and disclose and underwater robot.
Therefore, the following title is suggested: Underwater Robot
Appropriate correction is required.
The Specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claimed feature “buoyancy portion” is not found in nor described in the Specification as recited in the claims. Claimed features should be consistent with features found in and described in the Specification. In addition, terminology and/or nomenclature should be consistent throughout the disclosure (includes Abstract, Specification and Claims).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
12. Claims 2, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
13. It is unclear whether these claims further specify an apparatus or introduce a method of making the apparatus; such should be clarified (the claims specify a method of forming a shape for a functional result but do not materially define any distinguishing structure of such shape). A method of making an apparatus in an apparatus claim carries insignificant patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: Liu et al. (US 11753127 B1), in view of D2: Foster (WO 2009/070852). D1 discloses a robot (modular underwater robot) with a power device (power assembly with thrusters [601, 602]) configured to output power for an underwater operation; the robot includes a main body portion (Figs. 1-3), exposed portion (mechanical arm [701-703]; Fig. 7) and buoyancy portion (a periphery of the modular underwater robot is wrapped with a polyethylene shell, and a gap between the shell and the robot body is filled with a foam board, thus generating a certain buoyancy and balancing some uneven loads; see col. 9, lines 1-7, and Fig. 3). D1 further discloses that resistance of the robot to water flow can be decreased by decreasing size and/or /profile of certain members (support plates [101]) of the body portion to facilitate energy savings and smoother navigation (see col. 5, lines 48-52). D1 has surface portions, including in both the main body and the mechanical arm (see Figs. 1 and 7). D1 does not disclose a surface portion in which a dimple is formed. Foster discloses providing dimples for a surface of a component (fin) of a watercraft; see Figs. 1-4; pg. 3, lines 12-17 and pgs. 5-8; see entire description; especially the disclosure of varying shapes, sizes and arrangements for dimples [230]. Foster discloses that the dimples can be oval, square, a hexagon or any other shape, size or depth (pg. 7, para. 1, lines 3-5), different diameter dimples may be formed on the same surface (pg. 6, para. 2, lines 15-16) and the dimples can be placed anywhere on any surface or part of any surface (pg. 6, para. 3, lines 19-21). Foster also discloses that the dimples may be randomly placed or in a predetermined manner or pattern and the dimples may be ordered in such a way that each dimple may touch another or be positioned such the edges of the dimples are spaced away from each other. Foster also explicitly teaches that the dimples cause a separation in the boundary layer of water passing over them reducing drag. Foster also teaches that changes to the laminar flow of water around the surfaces with dimples create different effects, and also that water passing over the surfaces changes the laminar flow over the dimples. In addition, applicant has not claimed or discloses any specific distinguishing structural features for the dimples over the prior art which achieve the claimed functional limitations for reducing laminar separation of water flowing over the fin surfaces. It is also noted that applicant’s specification admits known prior art that includes underwater robots with surface depressions that facilitate laminarization and reduce flow resistance even where flow velocity of fluid surface flow contacting with the surface increases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary or optimize shapes, sizes, spacing and arrangement for such dimples as desired in order to effect flow properties as desired and optimize performance. In view of the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust dimple shape, sizing and spacing to effect surface flow as desired in order to facilitate reduced drag and enhanced performance as would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such an arrangement to facilitate reduced drag of the device through water as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 2, 5 and 6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: Liu et al. (US 11753127 B1), in view of D2: Foster (WO 2009/070852), and further in view of D3: Shelman-Cohen (US 2010/0219296 A1). D1 in view of D2 discloses all claimed features as previously indicated; however, D1 in view of D2 does not explicitly disclose the functionality of the particular shapes formed for the claimed dimples. However, D3 discloses use of dimples (indentations) having varying depths and shapes with can reduce vortices and turbulence and improve laminar flow characteristics for watercraft surfaces (such as foils and fins), while also reducing drag (abstract, paragraphs [0013], [0029], [0032], [0037], [0043] and Fig. 5). D3 also teaches that dimple shapes, spacing, density and surface distribution can vary. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary or optimize shapes, sizes, spacing and arrangement for such dimples as desired in order to effect flow properties as desired and optimize performance. In view of the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust dimple shape, sizing and spacing to effect surface flow as desired in order to facilitate reduced drag and enhanced performance as would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such an arrangement to facilitate reduced drag of the device through water as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
17. The prior art cited and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The prior art references cited by the examiner include robots used for underwater operations and/or underwater surface components that contain dimples to effect fluid flow over surfaces. Potter (US 20150104988 A1) discloses dimples of varying shapes on a fin to lower fluid drag.
18. It is noted that applicant has not claimed or specified any specific distinguishing structural features for the claimed invention over the cited prior art which achieve the specifically claimed functional limitations. A functional recitation for a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. It is suggested that applicant consider amending the claims in order to specify structural limitations that differentiate over the prior art.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel J. Morano can be reached on (571) 272-6684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
20. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615
10/02/2026
