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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/19/2025 have been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 12/25/2024.
Specification
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 of, in the specification.
Objection to Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. Applicant is reminded that the Abstract is required to clearly and concisely surmise applicants claimed subject matter in under 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive and includes the word submersible yet the boat has seats and a user interface, thus fails being submersible. Further, where is the submersible features or control stated. As the specification and further the drawings support, this robotic vessel floats on top of the water. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1 is the only independent claim.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer.
Applicant states “submersible” yet does not define this term, does not show that that the rescue robot is submersible, that if functions underwater, or that it can be controlled underwater. In fact, the motors, the vessel and the controls all appear to be floating on top of the water with a typical floating boat structure. Therefore, the Office has no idea what applicant means when the term “submersible” is being used.
Pressure sensor is configured to measure “a draft”, and the term draft is defined by applicant to mean “In some embodiments, the pressure sensor 21 is located at the outer bottom of the robot body 10, i.e., on a side of the robot body 10 close to the ground, to sense the draft of the robot body. Specifically, the pressure sensor 21 may measure the water pressure borne by the outer bottom of the robot body 10 and determine the draft of the robot body 10 based on the obtained water pressure. For example, the draft is calculated based on the water pressure using a built-in physical pressure formula.
The “environmental complexity” in the underground mines refers to a degree of complexity of the environment within the space of the underground mines. [0091] In some embodiments, the control device may determine the environmental complexity in the underground mines based on a density of obstacles in a pre-stored underground tunnel map of the underground mines, where a greater density indicates a higher environmental complexity in the underground mines.
Both located at a head of the robot body of the robotic body and from the drawings this means the front, or opposite side of the drive device.
Gas Feature = The gas feature refers to a parameter set for characterizing gas com position and concentration in the environment surrounding the robot body. The gas composition includes, but is not limited to, 02 , CO, CH4 , H2S, or the like.
Drive device is located at a tail of the robot body of the robotic body and from the drawings this means the back, or opposite side of the head.
Applicant states “explosion proof battery” and this term is not defined as to what this means. What makes applicants battery “explosion proof”? What definition or art recognized metes and bounds can be used for this?
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, (f) paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-17 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “control device” coupled with functional language “controls” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-17 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-17 all recite the control device controls the robot body. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The device may include: a processor 1010, a memory 1020, an input/output interface 1030, a communication interface 1040, and a bus 1050. The processor 1010, the memory 1020, the input/output interface 1030, and the communication interface 1040 are connected to each other for communication within the device via the bus 1050. [0186] The processor 1010 may be implemented by a general-purpose CPU (Central Processing Unit), a microprocessor, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or one or more integrated circuits, and is configured to execute related programs to implement the technical solution provided in the embodiments of the present disclosure” [Specification, ¶ 0185-0186].
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 state “submersible” yet fail to show or explain how this robot is submersible. The boat style, the seats, the interface with humans, and even the engine all suggest that the vehicle is above water, not submersible. Further the sensors are on the bottom of the boat that floats. Based on the specification and drawings, the term “submersible” is not being used as understood by the office, thus the claims fail to reasonably convey applicants claimed subject matter. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C., 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-17 state “hull-shaped” yet the specification and drawings fail to support what the metes and bounds of hull-shaped mean. What are the boundaries of “hull and not-hull” shaped? When the Office looks at the specification, floating vessels are shown, and does this mean, only this type of hull? Or any type of hull? And what would be a hull and what would not? As currently presented Claims 1-17 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claims are indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as ant floating vessel as this is supported in the drawings and specification. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 1-17 state “submersible” yet the specification and drawings fail to support this is any way shape or even form. As understood by one in the art, “submersible” is underwater, yet this robot appears to be floating. Further using items, such as GPS do not work underwater, thus how would this system even work? Further the drawings do not show this robot underwater, in fact it’s a typical floating vessel with a motor, user areas, and a user interface, which would not work underwater. As currently presented Claims 1-17 fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claims are indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as a floating vessel as this is supported in the drawings and specification. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 7 states a positioning device connected to the control device yet the claims states the vehicles is working and functioning as a submersible, thus positioning device such as GPS or Radar do not work, thus the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are indefinite. Is the vehicle really underwater, if so, what is the positioning device? As currently presented, the claims fail to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus they are indefinite. The Office is again going to interpret this as not a submersible. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 8 states “the supplies compartment is arranged close to the human-machine interface terminal” and the relative term “close” is indefinite. What is close and what is not close? Is 2 inches, 12 feet? Using relative terms where almost everyone has a different perspective renders the claims indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as within a threshold distance. The Office suggest amending the claims to more positively recite the metes and bounds with specification supported limitations. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 14 states “an explosion proof” battery but yet what the metes and bounds of this limitation remain unclear, thus the claim is indefinite. When the Office looks into the specification, this term is merely repeated, thus what is and what is not explosion proof is indefinite. Is this a known and common term of art? If so, where is this used and what are the metes and bounds for this limitation? Based on the current record, this term is not definite, thus any battery will be interpreted as reading on this. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
