DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0060901) in view of DeWeert ‘555 (US 2021/0302555).
Regarding Claim 1, Martin teaches a system [Fig 1] comprising: a laser beam generator [#16 of Fig 1; 0036] and a receiver [#15, #25 of Fig 1; 0033; 0038-43]; a processor operatively connected to the receiver, the processor configured execute instructions [#39 of Fig 1; 0043-45; 0051; 0053] on a non-transient computer readable storage medium to: receive, at the receiver, a reflected first beam from a first portion of a laser beam interacting with an interface surface [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; …second beam from a second portion of the laser beam …[see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; measure, via the processor, movement of acoustically driven surface waves at a reaction point on the interface surface in response to a subsurface acoustic wave interacting with the interface surface [0020; 0032-34; 0047-49]; and disregard movement of gravity capillary waves [0020; 0032-34; 0047-49].
Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘555 does teach receive, at the receiver, a reflected second beam from a second portion of the laser beam interacting with the interface surface [0083; 0091-94]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include receiving a second reflected beam as accumulation of multiple scatterings significantly depolarizes light as it moves through the fluid column, thus allowing aspects of light behavior to be exploited by polarizing at least one sensor - this one sensor that is polarized with the polarization direction of the beam and a second sensor that is cross-polarized relative to the polarization of the beam.
Regarding Claim 13, Martin teaches a system [Fig 1] comprising: a platform [0033]; interferometer equipment carried by the platform [Fig 1; 0037], the interferometer equipment including a laser beam generator and a receiver [#15, #16, #25 of Fig 1; 0033; 0038-43]; acoustic wave detection logic including a processor carried by the platform including a non-transient computer readable storage medium [#39 of Fig 1; 0043-45; 0051; 0053] having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by the processor, execute operations to: transmit a first portion of a laser beam towards a surface of water [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; transmit a second portion of the laser beam towards the surface of water [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40] ; receive, at the interferometer equipment, a reflected first beam from the first portion interacting with the surface of water [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; …second beam from the second portion…[see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; measure, via the interferometer equipment, movement of acoustically driven surface waves at the surface of water at a reaction point in response to a subsurface acoustic wave interacting with the surface water [0020; 0032-34; 0047-49]; and disregard movement of gravity capillary waves [0020; 0032-34; 0047-49].
Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘555 does teach receive, at the interferometer equipment, a reflected second beam from the second portion interacting with the surface of water [0083; 0091-94]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include receiving a second reflected beam as accumulation of multiple scatterings significantly depolarizes the light as it moves through the fluid column, thus allowing aspects of the light behavior can be exploited by polarizing at least one sensor - this one sensor that is polarized with the polarization direction of the beam and a second sensor that is cross-polarized relative to the polarization of the beam.
Regarding Claims 2 and 14, Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘555 does teach wherein the processor executes instructions to: range gate, for the reflected first beam, the receiver at a first gate that straddles the interface surface [0032; 0063; 0067-70]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include range gating the first reflected beam to allow for discriminating the object against the sea floor with at least two polarization-sensitive sensors set to one of similar depths, and different depths – as co-polarized gate widths and depths may be set to either include or not include the ocean bottom, depending on whether on-bottom objects are of interest.
Regarding Claims 3 and 15, Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘555 does teach wherein the processor executes instructions to: range gate, for the reflected second beam, the receiver at a second gate that is entirely below the interface surface [0032; 0063; 0067-70]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include range gating the second reflected beam to allow for discriminating the object against the sea floor with at least two polarization-sensitive sensors set to one of similar depths, and different depths – as co-polarized gate widths and depths may be set to either include or not include the ocean bottom, depending on whether on-bottom objects are of interest.
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Martin also teaches wherein the processor executes instructions to: split the laser beam into the first portion and the second portion via a beam splitter [0036; 0039; 0041]. Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert does teach delay the second portion from the first portion [0074-75; 0079]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include time delay to allow for discriminating the object against the sea floor with at least two polarization-sensitive sensors set to one of similar depths, and different depths – as co-polarized gate widths and depths may be set to either include or not include the ocean bottom, depending on whether on-bottom objects are of interest.
Regarding Claims 5 and 17, Martin also teaches unequally split the laser beam into the first portion and the second portion [0041]. DeWeert ‘555 additionally teaches this limitation in [0053; 0091-92].
Regarding Claim 7, Martin also teaches wherein the interface surface is defined between air and water [0002; 0005-07; 0013]. DeWeert ‘555 also teaches this in [0003-06; 0053].
Regarding Claim 8, Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘555 does teach wherein the interface surface is defined between air and a non-water fluid, or translucent solid [0053]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include air-fluid interfaces based on the type of environment the user places the system to operate.
Regarding Claim 10, Martin also teaches wherein the interface surface is defined between any translucent fluids or solids [0002; 0004-07; 0013]. DeWeert ‘555 additionally teaches this limitation in [0003-06; 0053].
Regarding Claim 11, Martin also teaches is a multiple-layer interface and acoustic or non-acoustic stresses perturb the multiple-layer interface [0002; 0004-07; 0013]. DeWeert ‘555 additionally teaches this limitation in [0003-06; 0053].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0060901) in view of DeWeert ‘555 (US 2021/0302555) and DeWeert ‘208 (US 2015/0338208).
Regarding Claim 20, Martin teaches a computer program product including least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium [#39 of Fig 1; 0043-45; 0051; 0053] on a moving platform in operative communication with a computer processing unit (CPU) [0043-45; 0051; 0053] in interferometer equipment having a laser beam generator and a receiver [#15, #16, #25 of Fig 1; 0033; 0038-43], the storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the CPU [0043-45; 0051; 0053], implement a process to determine the presence of a acoustically driven surface waves at a surface of water generated from a subsurface acoustic source [0033; 0037-40], the process comprising: transmitting a first portion of a laser beam towards the surface of water [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; transmitting a second portion of the laser beam towards the surface of water [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; receiving, at the interferometer equipment, a reflected first beam from the first portion interacting with the surface of water [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; … a reflected second beam from the second portion … [see #17-19 of Fig 1; 0033; 0037-40]; measuring, via the interferometer equipment, movement of acoustically driven surface waves at the surface of water at a reaction point in response to a subsurface acoustic wave interacting with the surface water [0020; 0032-34; 0047-49], …and disregarding movement of gravity capillary waves [0020; 0032-34; 0047-49].
Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘555 does teach receiving, at the interferometer equipment, a reflected second beam from the second portion interacting with the surface of water [0083; 0091-94]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Martin to include receiving a second reflected beam as accumulation of multiple scatterings significantly depolarizes the light as it moves through the fluid column, thus allowing aspects of the light behavior can be exploited by polarizing at least one sensor - this one sensor that is polarized with the polarization direction of the beam and a second sensor that is cross-polarized relative to the polarization of the beam.
Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘208 does teach measuring movement … by vertically self-referencing a pixel in the receiver with the reflected first beam and the reflected second beam by constructing a relative-phase reference for the beam based on the reflected first beam and the reflected second beam and mixing a laser-illuminated image with a vertically-displaced image illuminated by the first portion and the second portion of the laser beam, respectively [0034; 0054; 0060; 0063]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Martin to include vertical pixel self-referencing to reduce uncertainty and extensive post-processing.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0060901) in view of DeWeert ‘555 (US 2021/0302555) as applied to claims 5 and 17 above, further in view of Crouch (US 20190310372).
Regarding Claims 6 and 18, Martin does not explicitly teach – but Crouch does teach wherein the unequal split results in the second portion being less than/greater than the first portion [0085]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include unequal beam splitting to allow for discriminating the object against the sea floor with at least two polarization-sensitive sensors set to one of similar depths, and different depths – as co-polarized gate widths and depths may be set to either include or not include the ocean bottom, depending on whether on-bottom objects are of interest.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0060901) in view of DeWeert ‘555 (US 2021/0302555) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of DeWeert ‘644 (US 2021/0323644).
Regarding Claim 9, Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘644 does teach wherein the interface surface is defined between air and a translucent solid [0036]. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Martin to include air-ice interfaces based on the temperature of the water body being monitored or scanned.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 2010/0060901) in view of DeWeert ‘555 (US 2021/0302555) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of DeWeert ‘208 (US 2015/0338208).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Martin does not explicitly teach – but DeWeert ‘208 does teach instructions to: vertically self-reference a pixel in the receiver with the reflected first beam and the reflected second beam by constructing a relative-phase reference for the beam based on the reflected first beam and the reflected second beam; and mix a laser-illuminated image with a horizontally-displaced image illuminated by the first portion and the second portion of the laser beam, respectively [0034; 0054; 0060; 0063]. It would have been obvious to modify the method of Martin to include vertical pixel self-referencing in order to vastly reduce the uncertainty and the extensive post-processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s arguments on Page 2 regarding the first and second portion of the laser source, it is quite clear in primary reference Martin in [0036] – [0038] that “Coherent light is generated by a laser 16 and then split by a beam-splitter 17 into a first beam 18 and a second beam 19. Beam 18 is directed towards the light field control optics 20, which may include optical components commonly used by practitioners in optical measurements”. As such this is a split laser beam with a first and second portion of the laser beam interacting with the (very broadly described) surface interface. Meanwhile, DeWeert ‘555, which is in the same field of endeavor and prior art by the same applicant teaches the limitation in [0083] and [0091]-[0094] that any beam (which includes second portion of the beams) are detected at the receiver. As such, it appears as if the applicant has a much narrower view of what constitutes the “interface surface” than what is explicitly written in the claims, and that the combination of Martin and DeWeert clearly teach all of the limitations of independent Claim 1 (and similarly for Claims 13 and 20, also including tertiary reference DeWeert ‘208), with a clear teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine the references.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. All rejections are maintained, and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 5712705227. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights