DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final action on the merits of application 19073151.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Teppig US 20130136564.
Claim 1 , Teppig discloses a L&R (Launch and Recovery) device [100/200], comprising: a frame, [figs. 3-5] wherein the frame includes a central region inside of its perimeter [between lifting bars 202 in fig. 5]; one or more buoyancy elements 700 [fig. 7] attached to the frame; one or more thrusters [0062] to maneuver the L&R device; a computing device to control the L&R device's operations [0036]; one or more sensors to gather data about the L&R device or its surrounding environment [0070]; and a capture system to capture an object, wherein the capture system includes a movable element that contacts the object in water [0053]. See figs 1-7.
Method Claims 9-16, Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform or be made by the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out or being made by the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform or be made by the claimed process. Examiner notes the reference discloses all the limitations of the claims except for the winch but uses lifting bars as an equivalent substitute to accomplish the same expected retrieving action.
Claim 17, Teppig discloses a L&R (Launch and Recovery) system to capture an object in a body of water, comprising: an L&R device [100/200], comprising: a frame, [figs. 3-5] wherein the frame includes a central region inside of its perimeter [between lifting bars 202 in fig. 5]; one or more thrusters to maneuver the L&R device; one or more sensors to gather data about the L&R device or its surrounding environment [0070]; and capture arms [102/104/106/108 fig. 4] positioned adjacent to the central region; wherein the L&R system includes the steps of: deploying the L&R device from a platform; navigating the L&R device to the object; capturing the object; and retrieving the L&R device back onto the platform. [0045-0072]
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppig et al, and further in view of Horshok US 20240101233.
Claim 2, Teppig discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose a capture interface attached to the frame and on an inside portion of the frame, in which the capture interface includes one or more panels that guide the object to the central region, and wherein the capture interface is positioned on an outer perimeter of the central region. Horshok discloses these limitations in figs. 1-5 [0024-0032]. A cradle 413 guides UUV 210 in a central region of a frame capture device. Thus, it 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 to have modified Teppig with Horshok to provide guide means to the launch and recovery device.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppig et al, and further in view of Tao CN 113247216.
Claim 3, Teppig discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose wherein the capture system includes sets of clamps, in which each set of clamps are positioned on laterally opposing sides of the central region. Tao discloses this in fig. 5, clamps 42-43 [Abstract]. Thus, it 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 to have modified Teppig with Tao to provide positioning means to the launch and recovery system.
Claim(s) 6, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppig et al, and further in view of Crane US 6779475.
Claim 6 and 19, Teppig discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose a homing system to enable autonomous maneuvering to the object. Crane discloses in the Abstract; a homing mechanism is coupled to the arm and is used to transmit a homing signal through the water for use by the UUV in maneuvering towards the capture mechanism. So it is known to use homing in these devices just in an opposite manner, thus it 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 have modified Teppig with Crane to have UUV capture means via homing signals to autonomously maneuvering to the UUV (object).
Claim 18, Teppig discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 17, he does not disclose wherein the L&R device maneuvers to the object autonomously, via remote user control, or both. Crane discloses this limitation, [col. 4 / line 35 – col. 5 / line 40] thus it 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 have modified Teppig with Crane to have UUV capture means via homing signals to autonomously maneuvering to the UUV (object).
Claim 20, Teppig discloses wherein capture arms are positioned on laterally opposing sides of the central region. See fig. 3 [102/104/106/108].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teppig et al, and further in view of Patterson US 5995882.
Claims 7-8, Teppig discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not disclose wherein the one or more sensors include a camera that retrieves live image or video data and relays the gathered data to a computing device via a wired or wireless connection or the frame is modular such that modular pieces of the frame are fastenable together. Patterson discloses a launch & Recovery system that uses a camera 47 in fig. 3 [col. 4 / 40-51] and that the frame is modular in the Abstract. Thus, it 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 have modified Teppig with Patterson to have imaging means to relay pictures or video and having a modular frame to easily replace components that are damaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: limitation of claim 4 was not found in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Because it discloses relevant prior art regarding L & R systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights