DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is being filed in response to the submission having a mailing date of 11/10/2025 in which a (3) month Shortened Statutory Period for Response has been set.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
3. Upon initial entry, claims (1 -20) remain pending in the patent application, of which (1, 19, 20) being the three (3) independent parallel running claim on record.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. It is noted that no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) were filed with this application. However, the Background & introduction Sections of the Applicant's Specification describe several known materials and technologies that seem pertinent to be presented by the Applicant, moving forward.
Specification
5. The lengthy specification 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.
Drawings
6. The submitted Drawings on date 10/21/2025 has been accepted and considered under the 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
Claim interpretation
7. For the purpose of examination, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation
(BRI) doctrine, consistent with the instant specification and the common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, the below list of terms/limitations will be considered to read as:
7.1. Term “complementary sensor”, defined in the claim as – (e.g. the complementary sensor being configured to complement the image sensor”) will be read as: a sensor types (i.e. “IMI, sonar, doppler, other sensing techniques, etc”), configured to support determining depth, movement distance and/or location, also being combined with the image camera sensor for accuracy and best results; [specs].
Claim Rejection Section
35 USC 112(a).
8. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
8.1. Claims (1 -18) recite limitation “complementary sensor being configured to complement …” being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The associated claim language involves plurality of different (open ended) complementary techniques, [see section 7.1]; …but fails to define the specific functionality to be implemented otherwise, failing to satisfy the minimum level of details of the written description requirement, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01; and specifically see Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
8.2. The Office considers that by presenting “one single element” when describing plurality of sensing techniques, it does not entitle the inventor, to claim any or/and all means for achieving that functional objective (See LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346,76 USPQ2d at 1733.)
8.3. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be read as [section 7.1.].
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g. In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
9.1. A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
9.2. Individuals associated with the filing and prosecution of the instant patent application have a duty to disclose information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question. See MPEP §2001.06(b) for more details.
9.3. Claims (1, 19 and 20) and the associated dependencies in the instant 19/364,125 also directed to a method, apparatus of the same able to - a computing system, able to provide “underwater depth perception” based on data sensed by the image sensor and a set of one or more complementary sensors, being provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the analogous claims in the parent patent application [18/367,632]. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (see below Table, comparing claims 1 for both papers, as reference).
Instant Application:
19/364,125
Reference:
18/367,632 (now US 12,475,581).
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
an image sensor, the image sensor comprising any type of sensor that captures an image based on reflected or emitted electromagnetic radiation or mechanical waves;
a complementary sensor, the complementary sensor being configured to complement the image sensor;
a computing system, configured to determine attributes of underwater depth perception to provide the underwater depth perception based on data sensed by the image sensor and the complementary sensor,
wherein the computing system, the image sensor, and the complementary sensor are configured to operate together to measure a relative position of an object in an image captured by the image sensor to provide the underwater depth perception.
and a submersible device, comprising the image sensor and the complementary sensor.
Claims.1. (Currently amended) A system, comprising:
an image sensor, the image sensor comprising any type of sensor that captures an image based on reflected or emitted electromagnetic radiation or mechanical waves;
a complementary sensor, the complementary sensor being configured to complement the image sensor,
wherein the complementary sensor comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an inertial navigation system (INS), a pressure sensor, a sonar device, or a doppler velocity log (DVL) device, or any combination thereof.
a computing system, configured to determine attributes of underwater depth perception to provide underwater depth perception based on data sensed by the image sensor and the complementary sensor, wherein the computing system,
the image sensor, and the complementary sensor are configured to operate together to measure a relative position of an object in an image captured by the image sensor and according to a virtual position of the complementary sensor to provide the underwater depth perception;
controller instructions configured to control parts and operations of a submersible device according to the determined attributes of the depth perception: and
a submersible device, comprising the controller instructions, the image sensor, and the complementary sensor.
Claim Objection section
10. Claims (1 -20) of the instant application 19/364,125, being a child of Appl: 18/367,632 (now US 12,475,581). is objected to, because of the novel system for - underwater depth perception disclosed, wherein a computing system and sensing techniques, are configured to operate together to measure a relative position of an object in an image captured by the image sensor and according to a virtual position of the complementary sensor, to provide the underwater depth perception; but it may be considered for allowance if properly rewritten, with a timely file Terminal Disclaimer (TD) submitted, linking the two above applications, in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d).
10.1. The Terminal Disclaimer (TD) form signed by the assignee must also fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). See also “Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union Sanitary District, 20 USPQ2D 1392, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1991)," – [e.g., the filing of a terminal disclaimer (TD) serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting.]
Prior Art Citations
11. The following List of prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is/are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
11.1. Patent documentation:
US 12,228,389 B2 Kobayashi; et al. G03B15/00; G01B11/043; G06T7/62;
US 11,561,553 B1 Dydek; et al. G05D1/0246; G01S17/933; G01C21/165;
US 11,859,365 B2 Guo; Jian et al. H04W4/38; E02D33/00;
US 10,408,933 B1 DeHart; et al. G10K11/006; G10K11/008; G01S7/54;
US 20250088726 A1 Gilson; et al. H04N13/239; H04N23/90; H04N23/555;
11.2. Non-Patent Literature:
_ Underwater monocular image depth estimation using single echosounder; Roznere – 2020.
_ An open-source SLAM system for Monocular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras; 2017.
_ Feature Tracking for Underwater Navigation using Sonar; Folkesson; 2007.
_ Underwater optical imaging; Jules - 2001
CONCLUSIONS
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES (luis.perez-fuentes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270 -1168. The examiner can normally be reached on
Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, WILLIAM VAUGHN can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)
272 -3922. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published Applic. 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 (USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 -1000.
/LUIS PEREZ-FUENTES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481.
