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 January 13th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 1-6 and 10 have been amended; claim 11 has been cancelled; claims 13-14 are new; Applicant’s amendment have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 rejections as well as the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation applied n the non-final rejection mailed September 17th, 2025; claims 1-10 and 12-14 remain pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3:
“said processor are adapted” should read -- said processor is adapted –
Regarding claim 4:
“said processor comprise” should read -- said processor comprises --
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 7-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirie et al. (US 5122989 A, “Pirie”) in view of 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”).
Regarding claim 1, Pirie discloses a submarine target device comprising an acoustic receiver, an acoustic transmitter and a processor([column 3, lines 2-12], echo repeater includes hydrophone receiver and a transducer for transmitting)([column 3, lines 56]-[column 4, lines 1-3], echo repeater includes a processor)
Pirie may not explicitly disclose 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; - following detection of the start of said first signal, triggering recording of said first signal; - detection within said acoustic stream of the end of said first signal; - following detection of the end of said first signal, stopping recording of said first signal; 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; and following detection of the start of said second signal, triggering transmission via said acoustic transmitter of the first signal recorded during the first cycle of operations.
Murphy teaches 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; - following detection of the start of said first signal, triggering recording of said first signal; - detection within said acoustic stream of the end of said first signal; - following detection of the end of said first signal, stopping recording of said first signal; 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; and following detection of the start of said second signal, triggering transmission via said acoustic transmitter of the first 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).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pirie, to include the ping-pong mode of Murphy with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of achieving zero apparent latency[pg. 4, Ping-Pong Mode].
Regarding claim 2, Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy 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)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that 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 4, Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Pirie further teaches said 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, 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).
Regarding claim 5, Pirie, as modified in view of 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)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the ping isolator compares the frequency of pings to a threshold and records relevant pings accordingly.
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 (it is the examiner’s interpretation that “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, Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy 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)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that 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 Pirie in view of Murphy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphree et al. (US 3641485 A, “Murphree”).
Regarding claim 3, Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy teaches the device as claimed in claim 1. Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy, may not explicitly teach said processing means are adapted to detect first and second signals corresponding to characteristics of a plurality of remote acoustic receivers of distinct detectors.
Murphree teaches said processor are 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 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy to include the simulated target characteristics of Murphree with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of simulating a number of different target vessels for training exercises or in decoy devices [column 1, lines 15-18].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirie in view of Murphy as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Abbot et al. (US 20080165617 A1, “Abbot”).
Regarding claim 6, Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy and Murphree teaches the device as claimed in claim 4. Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy and Murphree may not explicitly 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, - 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] data processing first uses a decimating operation which decimates data by a factor of 16. 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 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar systems, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pirie, as modified in view of Murphy, to include the decimation process of Abbot with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of match filtering the signals [0071].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 2 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Pirie in view of Murphy fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 for the following reasons:
Pirie nor Murphy disclose detecting the start of a first acoustic signal and second signal and triggering recording of the respective signals upon detection.
With respect to (1) the examiner respectfully disagrees that Pirie, nor Murphy teaches the detection of an end and start of first and second acoustic signals and triggering the recording of the respective signals upon detection. In regards to Applicant’s arguments on pg. 2-4 that Pirie fails to teach these limitations, the examiner respectfully notes that Pirie is not relied upon to teach these limitations, rather Murphy is. In regards to Applicants’ arguments on pg. 4-6 of Applicant’s Remarks that Murphy fails to teach the limitations in question, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is true that the triggering of the echo repeater is caused by an out of band signal, the claim limitations, as currently drafted do not preclude Murphy from reading upon them. For example, the limitations of claim 1, as currently drafted, only require that the triggering of recording of the acoustic signals follows detection of the start of an acoustic signal, however does not require that the start of the acoustic signals is the trigger, thus Murphy at [pg. 3, Ping-Pong Mode] satisfies the limitation as the out-of-band signal triggers the echo repeater to record in band acoustic data for a predetermined amount of time. It is the examiner’s interpretation that a predetermined amount of time includes the scenario in which the predetermined amount of time includes a time range in which the start follows the detection of the start of the respective acoustic signal. Therefore the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claim 9 is maintained under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
On pg. 8, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claims 1 and 9, that the independent claims 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 similarly so are the rejections of the dependent claims.
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
Rathburn (US 3421137 A, “Rathburn”) which discloses an underwater sonar echo repeater and/or target simulator)
Murphree (US 3829596 A, “Murphree 2”) which discloses and underwater sonar reverberation simulator
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 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 /YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645