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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restricted claims were amended to be dependent to a generic claim rather than independent claims. This is found persuasive, and the requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 13 have randomly capitalized letters throughout the claims – which is improper. Applicant is reminded the claims are to be in complete sentence-form, beginning with a capital letter and ending with a period. 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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claims 1 and 11 claim a “sensor”, “processor”, “collector” and “vehicle”. These limitations are indefinite because it is unclear as to where they are located and how they operate (e.g. are the sensor/processor on a ship that maps out target sites beforehand, are they on the “vehicle”, are they on a different support vessel, etc.).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a vehicle”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether this is the same vehicle from claim 1 or a different one altogether.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a storage unit”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether this is the same “storage unit” of claim 1 or a different one altogether.
Claim 7 recites limitations drawn towards tasks completed by the processor but it is unclear as to what/how this is actually done (e.g. is Applicant referring to the “collector” from claim 1, a “separator” is also potentially claimed – with improper antecedent basis to boot – and it is further unclear as to what/where that is within the invention, as well as how it operates…is this merely a visual “separation” preparing for extraction, or a physical separation after extraction). For prosecution on the merits, the Examiner interprets a visual separation device on the subsea vehicle.
Claim 10 recite the limitation “a locking device”. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what exactly is being locked (a wheel, a door, a computer etc.) and where this actually is positioned in relation to the other claimed structures.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Whether the sensor, processor, collector, and separator are on the vehicle, external vessel, or something else entirely
This information is critical to a skilled artisan attempting to re-create the invention to know what to do as well as how to do it.
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) 1-3, 5, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0211368).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 10, Kalwa discloses an offshore mineral mining system comprising a powered vehicle [2 or 20] that is maneuverable in water for gathering manganese nodules [12], collector [6], sensors measuring echosounder signals and neural-processors to analyze surface/nodule density [Paragraph 62], communicate with a powered external vessel [20 or 2], and self-correct [Paragraphs 73 & 74].
Regarding method claims 11 and 12, the claimed method would be inherently performed by the system disclosed in Kalwa. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform 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 the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0211368) alone.
Regarding claim 6, although not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include some sort of environmental sensor to ensure compliance as part of obtaining a permit to complete the mining operation.
Regarding claim 7, although not explicitly stated, it would have been obvious that the sensing equipment separates the seafloor material into things to be collected and then collects them.
Regarding claims 9 and 13, although Kalwa does not disclose the use of AI/Machine Learning within the system, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to utilize this very well-known modern technology to optimize the system to achieve the best results with respect to time and collecting as much manganese nodules as possible in the safest manner.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalwa et al. (US 2015/0211368) in view of Sha et al. (CN 117449857 A).
Kalwa fails to disclose the use of a storage unit.
Sha teaches an offshore mining system utilizing a storage unit [Figure 7].
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kalwa by adding the storage unit to the collection device as described by Sha to enable the collection device to remain collecting for longer rather than having to immediately transfer the material up to the surface, thereby increasing efficiency and saving time/money.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sha et al. (CN 11967318 A) discloses an underwater vehicle for mining sulphide deposits similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights