DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102“(a)(1)” as being anticipated by EASTERLING (US 2017/0253313 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, EASTERLING teaches a reconfigurable acoustic-based modem (Figure 4, [0041]; [0066]: AUV Transceiver comprising a FPGA for reconfigurability) comprising:
a first processing component (Figure 4; [0070]: Tunable Demodulator); and
a second processing component operatively coupled to the first processing component (Figure 4; Paragraph [0070]: Processor coupled to the Tunable Demodulator), wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem is configured to:
(i) receive and transmit data in real-time in an underwater environment ([0066]-[0067]; [0087]: The AUV transceiver of the AUV transmits and receives data in real-time with a diver), and
(ii) facilitate real-time software-controlled modulation adaptation between a plurality of communication protocols using the first processing component and the second processing component in an underwater environment ([0066]-[0067]; [0088]-[0089]: Real-time modulation between a plurality of different communication protocols between the AUV Transceiver and the Diver, AUV sensors, cameras and other equipment is facilitated using the Tunable Demodulators and Processors);
wherein the plurality of communication protocols comprises a first communication protocol and a second communication protocol that is different from the first communication protocol ([0067]; [0089]: A plurality of different protocols, e.g. OOK and FSK, may be used for both transmitting and receiving communications).
Referring to Claim 2, (Canceled).
Referring to Claim 5, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, wherein the first processing component comprises a field reconfigurable gate array (FPGA) (Figure 4, [0041]; [0066]: AUV Transceiver comprising a FPGA for reconfigurability).
Referring to Claim 12, EASTERLING teaches The reconfigurable acoustic-based modem according to claim 1, wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem is embodied as an acoustic beacon, underwater phone ([0025]), or underwater global positioning system (GPS).
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a hydrophone ([0066]; Fig’s 4-6: hydrophone as shown in Fig’s 4-5) comprising: a housing (inherent: underwater AUV/diver transceiver structure); a receiver and a transmitter at least partially disposed within the housing ([0066]-[0070]; Fig’s 4-5) that are configured to convert an input signal that is generated or received by the hydrophone into digital signals via an analog-to-digital converter ([0073]; [0089]); a filtering component operatively coupled to the receiver and the transmitter that is configured to condition the input signal ([0073]); and the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem according to claim 1. Therefore Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Referring to Claim 11, (Canceled).
Referring to Claim 15, (Canceled).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EASTERLING as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of CHRIST (US 2020/0180740 A1).
Referring to Claim 3, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first communication protocol comprises a low-range, low-speed communication protocol, and wherein the second communication protocol comprises a short-range, high speed communication protocol.
CHRIST teaches the first communication protocol comprises a low-range, low-speed communication protocol ([0246]: Frequency Shift Keying is a low-range low-speed communication protocol), and wherein the second communication protocol comprises a short-range, high speed communication protocol ([0246]: Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing is a short-range high speed communication protocol).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem disclosed in EASTERLING with the first communication protocol comprises a low-range, low-speed communication protocol, and wherein the second communication protocol comprises a short-range, high speed communication protocol taught in CHRIST with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a plurality of modulation schemes to increase communication efficiency, as taught by CHRIST ([0246]-[0247]).
Referring to Claim 4, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, wherein but doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of communication protocols comprises at least one of Binary Frequency Shift Keying (B-FSK), Fast Frequency Hopping Frequency Shift Keying (FH-FSK), and orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM).
CHRIST teaches the plurality of communication protocols comprises at least one of Binary Frequency Shift Keying (B-FSK), Fast Frequency Hopping Frequency Shift Keying (FH-FSK), and orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) ([0246]).
Referring to Claim 10, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, wherein the real-time software-controlled modulation adaptation is used to facilitate rapid switching of communication parameters ([0066]; [0073]-[0076]) but doesn’t explicitly teach to avoid environmental interference, and/or directional communications.
CHRIST teaches avoiding environmental interference ([0007]), and/or directional communications ([0049]).
Claim(s) 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EASTERLING as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of OELZE (US 2018/0145770 A1).
Referring to Claim 6, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem is configured to operate underwater ([0021]; [0025]; [0066]) to provide a data rate ([0067]-[0068]; [0074])
EASTERLING doesn’t explicitly teach between 2000 bits per second (bps) and 345 kilobits per second (Kbps).
OELZE teaches between 2000 bits per second (bps) and 345 kilobits per second (Kbps) ([0065]; [0067]; [0074]-[0075]; Fig. 7, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem disclosed in EASTERLING with providing a data rate between 2000 bits per second (bps) and 345 kilobits per second (Kbps) taught in OELZE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled underwater acoustic data transmission at known operating data rates falling between 2000 (bps) and 345 (Kbps), thereby providing reliable underwater communication, as taught by OELZE ([0074]-[0075]).
Referring to Claim 7, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an operational range between 50 meters and 1 kilometer (km).
OELZE teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an operational range ([0051]-[0053]) between 50 meters and 1 kilometer (km) ([0052]-[0053]).
Referring to Claim 9, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, wherein the real-time software-controlled modulation adaptation is used to facilitate rapid switching ([0073]-[0076]) but doesn’t explicitly teach between short-range video communication and long-range data transmission.
OELZE teaches between short-range video communication and long-range data transmission ([0044]-[0045]; [0094]).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EASTERLING as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of SNODGRASS (US 8,009,605 B1).
Referring to Claim 8, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an on-chip power between 0.5 Watts and 2.5 Watts.
SNODGRASS teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an on-chip power between 0.5 Watts and 2.5 Watts (Col. 5, Ln. 5-11; Col. 3, Ln. 1-20: an integrated circuit architecture for implementing a low power, programmable modem for use in software […] communication processing modules 40 may be implemented on the same die […] the modem 28 preferably can be designed to use in the range of 2-3 watts of power).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem disclosed in EASTERLING with the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem having an on-chip power between 0.5 Watts and 2.5 Watts taught in SNODGRASS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have reduced modem power consumption by implementing the communication-processing modules on the same die and powering down unused modules, thereby providing a low-power reconfigurable modem suitable for battery-powered applications, as taught by SNODGRASS (Col. 3, Ln. 1-20).
Referring to Claim 13, EASTERLING teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem according to claim 1, wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem is configured to receive and/or transmit data ([0025]-[0026]) based at least in part on one or more user-selected parameters ([0036]-[0038]) such as number of modulation ([0067]), and bandwidth ([0036]; [0073]-[0074]); but doesn’t explicitly teach such as number of subcarriers,.
SNODGRASS teaches number of subcarriers (Col. 4, Ln. 5-40).
Claim(s) 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EASTERLING in view of PADOS (US 2022/0260663 A1).
Referring to Claim 16, EASTERLING teaches a system ([0021]) comprising:
a plurality of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) ([0036]; [0066]) to operate in an underwater environment ([0021]-[0025]), wherein each AUV comprises:
a reconfigurable acoustic-based modem ([0066]-[0074]) comprising:
a first processing component (Figure 4; [0070]: Tunable Demodulator); and
a second processing component operatively coupled to the first processing component (Figure 4; Paragraph [0070]: Processor coupled to the Tunable Demodulator), wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem is configured to:
(i) receive and transmit data in real-time in an underwater environment ([0066]-[0067]; [0087]: The AUV transceiver of the AUV transmits and receives data in real-time with a diver), and
(ii) facilitate real-time software-controlled modulation adaptation between a plurality of communication protocols using the first processing component and the second processing component in an underwater environment ([0066]-[0067]; [0088]-[0089]: Real-time modulation between a plurality of different communication protocols between the AUV Transceiver and the Diver, AUV sensors, cameras and other equipment is facilitated using the Tunable Demodulators and Processors);
wherein the plurality of communication protocols comprises a first communication protocol and a second communication protocol that is different from the first communication protocol ([0067]; [0089]: A plurality of different protocols, e.g. OOK and FSK, may be used for both transmitting and receiving communications).
EASTERLING doesn’t explicitly teach configured as a mesh network.
PADOS teaches configured as a mesh network ([0049]: Self-positioning and automated neighbor discovery of peer AUVs in multi-vehicle missions will support position-aware/geographic data routing, directional communication links and cooperative vehicle navigation in GPS-less environments.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system disclosed in EASTERLING with the configured as a mesh network taught in PADOS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled multiple AUV’s to discover neighboring AUV’s and route communication information among the vehicles in a coordinated multi-vehicle underwater mission; thereby supporting cooperative vehicle navigation and communication in GPS denied underwater environments, as taught by PADOS ([0049]).
Referring to Claim 17-18, (Canceled).
Referring to Claim 21, EASTERLING teaches the system of claim 16, wherein each first processing component comprises a field reconfigurable gate array (FPGA) (Figure 4, [0041]; [0066]: AUV Transceiver comprising a FPGA for reconfigurability).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EASTERLING in view of PADOS as applied to Claim(s) 16 above, and further in view of CHRIST.
Referring to Claim 19, EASTERLING, as modified, teaches the system of claim 16, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first communication protocol comprises a low-range, low-speed communication protocol, and wherein the second communication protocol comprises a short-range, high speed communication protocol.
CHRIST teaches the first communication protocol comprises a low-range, low-speed communication protocol ([0246]: Frequency Shift Keying is a low-range low-speed communication protocol), and wherein the second communication protocol comprises a short-range, high speed communication protocol ([0246]: Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing is a short-range high speed communication protocol).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system disclosed in EASTERLING as modified with PADOS with the first communication protocol comprises a low-range, low-speed communication protocol, and wherein the second communication protocol comprises a short-range, high speed communication protocol taught in CHRIST with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a plurality of modulation schemes to increase communication efficiency, as taught by CHRIST ([0246]-[0247]).
Referring to Claim 20, EASTERLING t, as modified, teaches the system of claim 16, wherein but doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of communication protocols comprises at least one of Binary Frequency Shift Keying (B-FSK), Fast Frequency Hopping Frequency Shift Keying (FH-FSK), and orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM).
CHRIST teaches the plurality of communication protocols comprises at least one of Binary Frequency Shift Keying (B-FSK), Fast Frequency Hopping Frequency Shift Keying (FH-FSK), and orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) ([0246]).
Claim(s) 22-23; and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EASTERLING in view of PADOS as applied to Claim(s) 16 above, and further in view of OELZE.
Referring to Claim 22, EASTERLING teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem is configured to operate underwater ([0021]; [0025]; [0066]) to provide a data rate ([0067]-[0068]; [0074])
EASTERLING doesn’t explicitly teach between 2000 bits per second (bps) and 345 kilobits per second (Kbps).
OELZE teaches between 2000 bits per second (bps) and 345 kilobits per second (Kbps) ([0065]; [0067]; [0074]-[0075]; Fig. 7, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem disclosed in EASTERLING, as modified, with providing a data rate between 2000 bits per second (bps) and 345 kilobits per second (Kbps) taught in OELZE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have enabled underwater acoustic data transmission at known operating data rates falling between 2000 (bps) and 345 (Kbps), thereby providing reliable underwater communication, as taught by OELZE ([0074]-[0075]).
Referring to Claim 23, EASTERLING teaches the system of claim 16, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an operational range between 50 meters and 1 kilometer (km).
OELZE teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an operational range ([0051]-[0053]) between 50 meters and 1 kilometer (km) ([0052]-[0053])..
Referring to Claim 25, EASTERLING teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the real-time software-controlled modulation adaptation is used to facilitate rapid switching ([0073]-[0076]) but doesn’t explicitly teach between short-range video communication and long-range data transmission.
OELZE teaches between short-range video communication and long-range data transmission ([0044]-[0045]; [0094]).
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EASTERLING in view of PADOS as applied to Claim(s) 16 above, and further in view of SNODGRASS (US 8,009,605 B1).
Referring to Claim 24, EASTERLING, as modified, teaches the system of claim 16, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an on-chip power between 0.5 Watts and 2.5 Watts.
SNODGRASS teaches the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem has an on-chip power between 0.5 Watts and 2.5 Watts (Col. 5, Ln. 5-11; Col. 3, Ln. 1-20: an integrated circuit architecture for implementing a low power, programmable modem for use in software […] communication processing modules 40 may be implemented on the same die […] the modem 28 preferably can be designed to use in the range of 2-3 watts of power).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem disclosed in EASTERLING, as modified, with the reconfigurable acoustic-based modem having an on-chip power between 0.5 Watts and 2.5 Watts taught in SNODGRASS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have reduced modem power consumption by implementing the communication-processing modules on the same die and powering down unused modules, thereby providing a low-power reconfigurable modem suitable for battery-powered applications, as taught by SNODGRASS (Col. 3, Ln. 1-20).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights