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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed July 8th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3-4, and 9 have been amended; claims 1-10 and 12-14 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. ("Experimental Implementation of an Echo Repeater for Continuous Active Sonar," in IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 289-297, April 2017, “Murphy”) in view of Barchasz et al. ("A novel low-power high speed accurate and precise DAQ with embedded artificial intelligence for long term biodiversity survey." E-forum acusticum 2020. 2020.).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses a submarine target device comprising an acoustic receiver (pg. 3, prototype echo repeater consisted of a towed hydrophone), an acoustic transmitter(pg. 3, prototype echo repeater consisted of a towed source and amplifier to retransmit the simulated echo) and a processor(pg. 3, echo repeater includes a signal process to generate simulated echoes of received signals), echo repeater includes a processor) adapted to perform a first cycle of operations comprising:
detection within an acoustic stream captured by said acoustic receiver, of the start of a first acoustic signal corresponding to characteristics of at least one remote acoustic transmitter of at least one detector([pg. 3, . Ping-Pong Mode], in ping-pong mode, echo repeater cycles through periods of recording and retransmission where the repeater records periods of acoustic data for a predetermined period of time and then periods of retransmitting replicas of the recording signals)(Fig. 2A illustrates the ping-pong mode in which the first pulse’s entire duration (see “incident on echo repeater”), including the start is recorded by the echo repeater (see “recorded by echo repeater));
detection within said acoustic stream of the end of said first signal([pg. 3, . Ping-Pong Mode], in ping-pong mode, echo repeater cycles through periods of recording and retransmission where the repeater records periods of acoustic data for a predetermined period of time and then periods of retransmitting replicas of the recording signals)(Fig. 2A illustrates the ping-pong mode in which the first pulse’s entire duration (see “incident on echo repeater”), including the end is recorded by the echo repeater (see “recorded by echo repeater));
following detection of the end of said first signal, stopping recording of said first signal (pg. 3, Once the recording period has completed, the echo repeater conditions the recorded acoustic data into a simulated echo. The trigger pulse from the next ping then cues the echo repeater to switch from the recording mode to the transmission mode and then to retransmit the simulated echo);
followed by a second cycle of operations comprising:
detection within said acoustic stream, of the start of a second acoustic signal of the same nature as the first signal and corresponding to said characteristics([pg. 3, . Ping-Pong Mode], in ping-pong mode, echo repeater cycles through periods of recording and retransmission where the repeater records periods of acoustic data for a predetermined period of time and then periods of retransmitting replicas of the recording signals)(Fig. 2A illustrates the ping-pong mode in which a second pulse’s entire duration (see “incident on echo repeater”) , including the start is recorded by the echo repeater (see “recorded by echo repeater));
and transmission via said acoustic transmitter of the first acoustic signal recorded during the first cycle of operations ([pg. 3, . Ping-Pong Mode], in ping-pong mode, echo repeater cycles through periods of recording and retransmission where the repeater records periods of acoustic data for a predetermined period of time and then periods of retransmitting replicas of the recording signals).
Wherein said transmission is triggered by said detection of the start of said second acoustic signal (pg. 3, once the recording period has completed, the echo repeater conditions the recorded acoustic data in a simulated echo. The trigger pulse from the next ping then cues the echo repeater to switch from the recording mode to the transmission mode and then to retransmit the simulated echo)
Murphy fails to teach
wherein said recording is triggered by said detection of the start of said first acoustic signal
Barchasz teaches
wherein said recording is triggered by said detection of the start of said first acoustic signal (pg. 3, an ultra-low power detector, always-on acoustic wake-up system is used. It aims at detecting abnormal or target acoustic events to wake-up and start the high frequency recorder.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Murphy, to include the teachings of Barchasz, in order to yield an underwater sonar target decoy device that is capable of simulating an underwater target and also conserves power by using an always-on wake-up procedure to reduce unnecessary energy consumption and prevent recording of signals unrelated to the target signal to further increase accuracy of the retransmitted signal. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz teaches device as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further teaches
said second cycle is iterated several times ([pg. 2-4, Ping-Pong Mode] every second ping is retransmitted and is utilized in a continuous active mode)(the second ping is part of a second cycle and that continuous active mode implicitly means the second ping scheduling would mean the second cycles are repeated several times) .
Regarding claim 7, the claim is a device claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons (“a detector” in claim 8 is equivalent to “an acoustic receiver” in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz teaches device as claimed in claim 1. Murphy further teaches said
second cycle is iterated 5 times ([pg. 2-4, Ping-Pong Mode] every second ping is retransmitted and is utilized in a continuous active mode)(the second ping is part of a second cycle and that continuous active mode implicitly means the second ping scheduling would mean the second cycles are repeated several times, including 5 times).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 13 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Barchasz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphree et al. (US 3641485 A, “Murphree”).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz, fails to teach
said processor is adapted to detect first and second signals corresponding to characteristics of a plurality of remote acoustic receivers of distinct detectors.
Murphree teaches
said processor is adapted to detect first and second signals corresponding to characteristics of a plurality of remote acoustic receivers of distinct detectors ([column 4, lines 46-50], a pair of remote hydrophones are positioned on the mobile submarine target simulator at a distance from one another)([column 6, lines 13-19], taps are placed along shift register corresponding to highlights of the vessel of which echoes are to be simulated. Echoes are synthesized based on whether the simulated target vessel is presenting a stern or a bow aspect to the tracking sonar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Murphy, as modified in view of the teachings of Barchasz, to further include the teachings of Murphree, in order to yield an underwater sonar target decoy device that determines the exact characteristics of any desired simulated target including variations in target signal based on where on the target the signal is generated such that the device may retransmit a more detailed and realistic signal that would be generated from a target during a live scenario. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III (C).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Barchasz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pirie et al. (US 5122989 A, “Pirie”).
Regarding claim 4, Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz fails to teach
processor comprises an analog-to-digital converter for converting said acoustic stream into a series of digital samples,
digital circuits for processing said series,
a digital-to-analog converter for converting said series into an analog signal and an amplifier for amplifying said analog signal prior to its transmission via said acoustic transmitter.
Pirie further teaches
processor comprise an analog-to-digital converter for converting said acoustic stream into a series of digital samples (column 3, lines 41-42], converter (24) may comprise any suitable analog to digital converter),
digital circuits for processing said series(column3, lines 56-67, processor includes ADSP-2100 integrated circuit device that is programmable to detecting incoming signals of interest and collects and stores the data to further form the echo signal to be retransmitted),
a digital-to-analog converter for converting said series into an analog signal and an amplifier for amplifying said analog signal prior to its transmission via said acoustic transmitter ([column 4, lines 18-25], 12-bit converter is used for converting digital signal back to an analog signal as well as suitable means for amplifying the signal prior to transmission).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the submarine target device of Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz, in order to yield an underwater sonar target decoy device that is capable of converting the received analog signal data into digital signal data so that it may be properly processed and amplified in order to maximize the efficiency of retransmission to ensure the decoy’s retransmitted signal more closely emulates the characteristics of the original signal that was transmitted, thus leading to a decoy that more accurately mimics a true target. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Regarding claim 5, Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz and Murphy teaches the device as claimed in claim 4. Murphy further teaches
wherein said digital circuits are adapted to transform said digital samples in the frequency domain and to detect a start of the first or second signal according to a comparison of a power for each frequency with at least one threshold ([pg. 6, Ping Isolator], ping isolator begins operation once the echo repeater has been triggered and aids in the suppression of feedback by isolating pings through the use of a bandpass filter).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of Barchasz, and Pirie, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Abbot et al. (US 20080165617 A1, “Abbot”).
Regarding claim 6, Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz and Pirire teaches the device as claimed in claim 4. Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz and Pirire fails to teach
said digital circuits are adapted to:
perform a first decimation of said series, by a first constant factor,
then, perform a second decimation of said series, by a factor depending on a bandwidth corresponding to said characteristics of said at least one remote acoustic transmitter.
Abbot further teaches
said digital circuits are adapted to: perform a first decimation of said series, by a first constant factor([0071] data processing first uses a decimating operation which decimates data by a factor of 16),
then, perform a second decimation of said series, by a factor depending on a bandwidth corresponding to said characteristics of said at least one remote acoustic transmitter ([0071] Second decimating operation is carried out after basebanding using the carrier frequency and bandwidth equal to the center frequency and bandwidth of the transmitted HFM slide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Murphy, as modified in view of Barchasz and Pirie, to further include the teachings Abbot, in order to yield an underwater sonar target decoy device that is capable of determining the bearing of a target to be simulated through a data decimation process that captures the entire frequency range of the target signal interest in order to match filter the data such that range and bearing of a target is determined, allowing a retransmitted signal to reflect signal characteristics matching the bearing and range of the simulated target with a greater level of accuracy. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed July 8th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Murphy in view of Barchasz.
On pg. 7-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of independent claims 1 and 9, dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 12-14 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9, above, the rejections are maintained and therefore so are the rejections of claims 2-8, 10, and 12-14
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Koshevoi et al. (US 4199874 A, “Koshevoi”) which discloses an underwater sonar target simulator
Deveau (US 6525990 B2, “Deveau”) which discloses an underwater sonar echo repeater and/or target simulator)
Murphree (US 3829596 A, “Murphree 2”) which discloses and underwater sonar reverberation simulator
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
