DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 17th February, 2026. Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 13 were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and Claim(s) 15-17 were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-17 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 7-12) with respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 1-14 under AlA 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over; have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amended Claim; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendment is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as described below. Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 13 have been amended; therefore, Claim(s) 1-7, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS (US 2015/0136012 A1) in view of BICK (US 6,341,661 B1); Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim 1 above; and further in view of HAN (US 2009/0323286 A1); Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim 1 above; and further in view of POTUCEK (US 2011/0267834 A1); Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view of BARDSLEY (US 2021/0105914 A1); Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK in view of HAN as applied to Claim 8 above; and further in view of BARDSLEY (US 2021/0105914 A1); Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view YU (CN 112278182 A). (see rejection of the claims below)
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) 1-7, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS (US 2015/0136012 A1) in view of BICK (US 6,341,661 B1).
Referring to Claim 1, WILLIAMS teaches a sonar transducer assembly ([0131]; [0302]), comprising:
a housing that is in contact with an underwater environment ([0218]: sensor housing 4802);
a chassis (102) coupled to at least an inner bottom surface of the housing (see Fig. 36 chassis assembly 3600);
an ultrasonic transducer configured to transmit an ultrasonic transmission wave to the underwater environment and receive an ultrasonic reflection wave from the underwater environment ([0105]; [0303]);
circuitry and in communication with the ultrasonic transducer ([0272]-[0277] see printed circuit board system);
WILLIAMS doesn’t explicitly teach a housing mounted to a bottom of a surface ship, the housing having a bottom and sidewalls that, when mounted to the bottom of the surface ship, forms a waterproof compartment; a chassis coupled to at least an inner bottom surface of the housing; an ultrasonic transducer disposed within the waterproof compartment; circuitry disposed within the waterproof compartment; a heat sink disposed within the waterproof compartment and coupled to the circuitry and the chassis, the heat sink configured to dissipate heat from the circuitry.
BICK teaches a housing mounted to a surface ship (Col. 3, Ln. 34-55), but doesn’t explicitly teach the housing is mounted to a bottom of a surface of the ship; instead, BICK discloses frame 17 which is mountable on a ship's bow 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the housing mountable on a ship's bow, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Furthermore, BICK teaches the housing having a bottom and sidewalls that, when mounted to the bottom of the surface ship, forms a waterproof compartment (Col. 4, Ln. 14-53)
a chassis coupled to at least an inner bottom surface of the housing (Col. 3, Ln. 34-55; Fig. 1: composition of cylindrical pressure housing 4; stave 6; frame 16; frame 17);
an ultrasonic transducer disposed within the waterproof compartment (Col. 3, Ln. 34-55; Fig. 1: elongated array 3 of sequentially juxtaposed transmitting transducer elements 2 stacked within and confined by an enclosed, preferably cylindrical pressure housing 4);
circuitry disposed within the waterproof compartment (Col. 3, Ln. 34-55; Fig. 1: transducer is independently connected to drive circuitry);
a heat sink disposed within the waterproof compartment and coupled to the circuitry and the chassis, the heat sink configured to dissipate heat from the circuitry (Col. 5, Ln. 24-42; Col. 6, Ln. 28, Ln. 67).
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 sonar transducer assembly disclosed in WILLIAMS with the housing structure heat sink disposed within the housing and coupled to the circuitry and the chassis to dissipate heat from the circuitry taught in BICK with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided support and protection of the transducer assembly and increased the effective thermal mass and surface area available for heat transfer; thereby, improving performance.
Referring to Claim 2, BICK, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, wherein the chassis is coupled to the inner bottom surface of the housing in a seamless connection (Col. 3, Ln. 34-55; Fig. 1: composition of cylindrical pressure housing 4; stave 6; frame 16; frame 17).
Referring to Claim 3, WILLIAMS, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, wherein the housing is a layer on an outer surface of at least a part of the chassis (Fig. 36).
Referring to Claim 4, WILLIAMS, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, wherein at least a part of the housing is sandwiched between the chassis and the underwater environment (Fig. 36).
Referring to Claim 5, WILLIAMS, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, wherein the housing is molded on an outer surface of the chassis (Fig. 36).
Referring to Claim 6, WILLIAMS, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 5, wherein the housing is molded on the outer surface of the chassis by one of: overmolding or insert molding (Fig. 36).
Referring to Claim 7, WILLIAMS teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, wherein: the heat sink comprises a heat spreader placed to a predetermined distance from the surface of the circuitry; and the metallic heat spreader comprises a groove and a heat pipe disposed within the groove ([0195]).
Referring to Claim 11, WILLIAMS, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, wherein the housing is made of a plastic material ([0174]).
Referring to Claim 16, BICK teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 7, wherein the metallic heat spreader comprises an upper metallic heat spreader in thermal contact with a first side of the circuitry and a lower metallic heat spreader in thermal contact with a second side of the circuitry opposite from the first side of the circuitry (Col. 6, Ln. 28-67).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim 1 above; and further in view of HAN (US 2009/0323286 A1).
Referring to Claim 8, WILLIAMS, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 7, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein at least a first portion of the heat pipe runs along a horizontal plane a predetermined distance from one or more electronic components of the circuitry that radiate heat.
HAN teaches at least a first portion of the heat pipe runs along a horizontal plane a predetermined distance from one or more electronic components of the circuitry that radiate heat ([0025]-[0028]; [0045]; Fig. 3).
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 sonar transducer assembly disclosed in WILLIAMS with the heat pipe runs in proximity to one or more electronic components of the circuitry that radiate heat taught in HAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have achieved efficient heat transfer and often generate flow resistances.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim 1 above; and further in view of POTUCEK (US 2011/0267834 A1).
Referring to Claim 9, WILLIAMS teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the chassis is made of a metallic material
POTUCEK teaches the chassis is made of a metallic material ([0042]).
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 sonar transducer assembly disclosed in WILLIAMS with the chassis is made of a metallic material taught in POTUCEK with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided vibration control with thermal conduction and electromagnetic shielding.
Referring to Claim 10, WILLIAMS teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach the chassis is made of aluminum.
Furthermore, POTUCEK teaches a metal chassis ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal chassis of POTUCEK made of aluminum, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view of BARDSLEY (US 2021/0105914 A1).
Referring to Claim 12, WILLIAMS teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the housing is made of polyurethane.
BARDSLEY teaches the housing is made of polyurethane ([0058]).
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 sonar transducer assembly disclosed in WILLIAMS with heat sink disposed within the housing and coupled to the circuitry and the chassis to dissipate heat from the circuitry taught in LU, ZHOU, SPERO, BARDSLEY, and COWAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have increased the effective thermal mass and surface area available for heat transfer; thereby, improving performance.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK in view of HAN as applied to Claim 8 above; and further in view of BARDSLEY (US 2021/0105914 A1).
Referring to Claim 13, WILLIAMS, as modified, teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 12, but doesn’t explicitly teach, the chassis comprises one or more holes connecting an inside surface of the chassis and an outside surface of the chassis opposite the inside surface; and the polyurethane is in contact with both the inside surface of the chassis and the outside surface of the chassis, and the polyurethane fills the one or more holes connecting the inside and outside surfaces.
HAN teaches the chassis comprises one or more holes connecting an inside surface of the chassis and an outside surface of the chassis opposite the inside surface ([0007]).
BARDSLEY teaches wherein: the polyurethane is in contact with both the inside surface of the chassis and the outside surface of the chassis, and the polyurethane fills the one or more holes connecting the inside and outside surfaces ([0058]).
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 sonar transducer assembly disclosed in WILLIAMS with the chassis comprises one or more holes taught in HAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided simple ventilation.
Referring to Claim 14, BARDSLEY teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 13, wherein the polyurethane further covers the circuitry and the heat sink ([0058]).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WILLIAMS in view of BICK as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view YU (CN 112278182 A).
Referring to Claim 15, WILLIAMS, as modified, the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein in a plan view, the housing has a substantially triangular shape having a centerline that is aligned with or parallel to a centerline of the ship, with an apex of the substantially triangular shape aligned with a rear direction of the ship.
YU teaches the sonar transducer assembly of claim 1, wherein in a plan view, the housing has a substantially triangular shape having a centerline that is aligned with or parallel to a centerline of the ship, with an apex of the substantially triangular shape aligned with a rear direction of the ship (Fig. 1-2).
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 sonar transducer assembly disclosed in WILLIAMS with the substantially triangular shaped housing taught in YU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have formed an obtuse angle with the water flow, thereby reduced the resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 17 are allowable for disclosing the waterproof compartment includes a cavity extending substantially vertically forming a lower fin of the sonar transducer assembly, and in the lower fin, the heat pipe includes a portion that runs in a vertical direction perpendicular to the lower metallic heat spreader, the lower metallic heat spreader connected to a heat pad. These limitations, in combinations in the claims, were not found in the prior art.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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