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 December 8th, 2025, the following has occurred: claims 1, 3, 9, and 12 have been amended; claims 1-17 and 19-21 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, 5-6, 10, 12-14, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakura et al. (US 20180217243 A1, “Sasakura”) in view of Goulet et al. (US 3491333 A, “Goulet) and Robertson (US 3882444 A, “Robertson”).
Regarding claim 1, Sasakura discloses a method for mapping a target region of a space that comprises a plurality of portions with signal scatterers, the method comprising: providing a signal transmitter and a signal receiver within signal range of the signal transmitter([0017]-[0021], echo measuring apparatus includes a transmitting unit and receiving unit configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves); moving at least one of the signal transmitter and the signal receiver along a respective trajectory relative to the target region([0188], invention is applied to synthetic aperture sonar in which sound waves are sequentially transmitted with the motion of the research ship);wherein the probing signal comprises a binary sequence of pseudo-random-noise values modulating a carrier signal([0137], gold code generator generates a gold code synchronously with the transmission pulse, which is a Pseudo random noise sequence);
Sasakura may not explicitly disclose continuously transmitting, with the signal transmitter, a probing signal towards the target region; continuously receiving, with the signal receiver, a response signal composed of a plurality of signal components that result from scattering of the probing signal by respective ones of the plurality of portions of the target region; during the transmitting and receiving, repeatedly determining instantaneous positions of the moving at least one of the signal transmitter and receiver (26, 46); transforming the probing signal into a plurality of test signals, each test signal being associated with a signal propagation path via a selected portion of the target region; correlating each of the plurality of test signals with the response signal in the a time domain, to generate a map of correlation strength values associated with the selected portions of the target region, wherein the transforming of the probing signal for each selected portion of the target region comprises: calculating a total delay time based on a propagation speed within the a signal carrying medium and on a propagation distance from a first instantaneous position of the signal transmitter at a time that the probing signal was transmitted, towards the selected portion where the probing signal was scattered, and further towards a second instantaneous position of the signal receiver at a time that the response signal was received, wherein the determined instantaneous positions comprise the first and the second instantaneous positions; and shifting parts or all of the probing signal in time, by correcting for the calculated total delay time, to obtain the test signal associated with the selected portion of the target region.
Goulet teaches disclose continuously transmitting, with the signal transmitter, a probing signal towards the target region; continuously receiving, with the signal receiver, a response signal composed of a plurality of signal components that result from scattering of the probing signal by respective ones of the plurality of portions of the target region; during the transmitting and receiving, repeatedly determining instantaneous positions of the moving at least one of the signal transmitter and receiver (26, 46);([column 5, lines 42-68], continuous pulse is transmitted and received as the signal is reflected off of the ocean floor and frequency shifts due to the relative motion of the transducers carried on the watercraft are accounted for)(column 4, lines 55-68], plurality of response signals are received due to the back scattering of the transmitted signal as it is impinged off of the ocean floor)([abstract], doppler frequency shift that is proportional to the velocity is used for navigation purposes)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that navigation purposes implicitly includes location)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar navigation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Sasakura, to include the continuous scattering signal reception of Goulet with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining frequency shifts relative to the movement of the transducer and watercraft [column 5, lines 42-68].
Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet may not explicitly teach transforming the probing signal into a plurality of test signals, each test signal being associated with a signal propagation path via a selected portion of the target region; correlating each of the plurality of test signals with the response signal in the a time domain, to generate a map of correlation strength values associated with the selected portions of the target region; wherein the transforming of the probing signal for each selected portion of the target region comprises: calculating a total delay time based on a propagation speed within the a signal carrying medium and on a propagation distance from a first instantaneous position of the signal transmitter at a time that the probing signal was transmitted, towards the selected portion where the probing signal was scattered, and further towards a second instantaneous position of the signal receiver at a time that the response signal was received, wherein the determined instantaneous positions comprise the first and the second instantaneous positions; and shifting parts or all of the probing signal in time, by correcting for the calculated total delay time, to obtain the test signal associated with the selected portion of the target region.
Robertson further teaches transforming the probing signal into a plurality of test signals, each test signal being associated with a signal propagation path via a selected portion of the target region ([column 6, lines 60-67], delay circuits provided by the noise generators simultaneously receives the output of the noise generator and so that each one corresponds to a return signal that has been backscattered from the region); correlating each of the plurality of test signals with the response signal in the a time domain, to generate a map of correlation strength values associated with the selected portions of the target region([column 7, lines 39-67] response signals are correlated via correlator with the produced noise waveforms output from the delay network. Due to the differing timings provided by the delay network, each return signal will only be matched to a noise output from a respective delay network), wherein the transforming of the probing signal for each selected portion of the target region comprises: calculating a total delay time based on a propagation speed within the a signal carrying medium and on a propagation distance from a first instantaneous position of the signal transmitter at a time that the probing signal was transmitted, towards the selected portion where the probing signal was scattered, and further towards a second instantaneous position of the signal receiver at a time that the response signal was received, wherein the determined instantaneous positions comprise the first and the second instantaneous positions; and shifting parts or all of the probing signal in time, by correcting for the calculated total delay time, to obtain the test signal associated with the selected portion of the target region.([column 6, lines 64-67]-[column 7, lines 1-6], delay time of each delay network is selected such that if a transmitted signal requires a time value to travel from the transmitter to the backscatter segment and return to the receiver, then the delay time is selected accordingly. Output transmission signal will be delayed an appropriate time value and the return signal will be appropriately correlated)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that signal propagation time would implicitly be accounted for when determining the appropriate delay time value)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar navigation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet, to include the backscatter correlation of Robertson with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of correlating each backscattered return with the probing signal and rejecting signals that are not correlated[column 7, lines 11-20].
Regarding claim 2, Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robinson teaches the method according to claim 1. Sasakura further teaches wherein the correlating includes calculating, for each selected portion of the target region, a correlation strength between the response signal and the test signal corresponding with the selected portion, to determine the map of correlation strengths associated with respective selected portions of the target region(implicit, [0139], reception data is supplied to an amplifier and is then supplied to the correlator. The correlator extracts a reception echo that is correlated to the transmission pulse.)([0067], discriminating echo corresponding to the transmission signal by the correlator allows for determination of ship motion on the basis of a time difference between the echo and the transmission)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the ship motion determination map based on correlation strengths reads upon the claim limitation)
Regarding claim 5, Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson teaches the method according to claim 1. Sasakura teaches wherein the moving involves moving at least one of a first and second platform along a corresponding closed curve(Implicit, Fig. 13 illustrates a ship performing echo sounding as it traverses along a direction)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that there would implicitly be instances where the ship performs its traversal along a closed curve).
Goulet further teaches while continuously transmitting the probing signal and receiving the response signal over the entire extent of the closed curve. (Implicit, [column 5, lines 42-68], continuous pulse is transmitted and received as the signal is reflected off of the ocean floor and frequency shifts due to the relative motion of the transducers carried on the watercraft are accounted for)
Regarding claim 6, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson teaches the method according to claim 1. Robertson teaches wherein the transforming of the probing signal comprises shifting instantaneous values of the probing signal in time, such that the respective test signal associated with the respective portion of the target region is a sequence of amplitude values defined by: p(tR)wherein: the time tR represents the a time instance at which the receiver receives the response signal; At represents the total time delay time based on the signal propagation speed in the signal carrying medium and the propagation distance from the first instantaneous position of the signal transmitter at time tT that the probing signal was transmitted, via the selected portion where the probing signal was scattered, to the second instantaneous position of the signal receiver at the time of receipt tR; p(tR) represents the instantaneous value of test signal p at time instant tR; and w(tR - At) represents the instantaneous value of the probing signal at earlier time instant tR – At (Implicit, [column 6, line 59]-[column 7, line 11], plurality of delay circuits transform each of the test signals into a replica of one another so that the correlator will operate in a known manner to eliminate the carrier component from the return signal and produce an output comprising a dc term and a replica of the incoming signal)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that each instance of the transmitted signal will be transformed into an exact replica of one another in order for the correlators to work in a known manner, which implicitly includes the transformations of the respective test signals having the required amplitude value sequence).
Regarding claim 10, Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson teaches the method according to claim 1. Sasakura further teaches wherein the binary sequence of pseudo-random-noise values is a sequence of pseudo- random-noise bits, which is modulated onto the carrier signal using binary phase- shift keying ([0137], gold code generator generates a gold code synchronously with the transmission pulse. Pseudorandom noise sequences may be used instead of the gold code. The gold code or PN sequence may be digitally modulated by BPSK).
Regarding claim 12, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson teaches the method according to claim 1. Sasakura further teaches wherein the signal transmitter is configured to generate the probing signal having a primary emission beam with a substantially uniform spatial gain profile, at least within a solid angle that covers the a target area during the emitting of the probing signal.(Fig. 2 illustrates 2 potential beam patterns to be transmitted towards the target region, one of which is predominantly conical in intensity and is projected predominantly vertically downwardly and having a substantially uniform gain profile)
Regarding claim 13, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding 14, Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson teaches the system according to claim 13. Sasakura further teaches comprising the signal transmitter and the signal receiver, wherein at least one of the signal transmitter and signal receiver is adapted to be moved along a respective trajectory relative to the target region while transmitting the probing signal or receiving the response signal , respectively.(Fig. 13 illustrates a research ship traversing horizontally and transmitting and receiving probing signals)
Regarding claim 16, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson teaches the system according to claim 14. Sasakura further teaches wherein the signal transmitter is adapted to generate the probing signal having a predominantly conical intensity distribution that is directed predominantly vertically downwards into a signal carrying medium and towards an expected location of the target region.(Fig. 2 illustrates 2 potential beam patterns to be transmitted towards the target region, one of which is predominantly conical in intensity and is projected predominantly vertically downwardly)
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 13 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 14 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakura in view of Goulet, Robertson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fischell et al. (US 11709262 B2, “Fischell”).
Regarding claim 4, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson teaches the method according to claim 1. Sasakura further teaches wherein the target region is a target area of a submerged surface, and the probing signal is a continuous acoustic signal comprising the binary sequence of pseudo-random-noise values modulated onto an acoustic carrier signal. ([0017]-[0022], transmission signal forming unit is provided for forming a pseudo noise sequence signal, transmitting unit is configured to transmit the transmission forming unit signal as an ultrasonic wave, and receiving unit is configured to receive the ultrasonic wave. Signals are transmitted and received into a body of water)
Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson may not explicitly teach wherein the signal transmitter is an acoustic transmitter provided on a first waterborne platform, the signal receiver is an acoustic receiver provided on a second waterborne platform
Fischell further teaches wherein the signal transmitter is an acoustic transmitter provided on a first waterborne platform, the signal receiver is an acoustic receiver provided on a second waterborne platform. ([column 8, lines 9-26], leaders are mobile vehicles with a signal generating source, while followers are mobile vehicles with signal detecting means in water)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar navigation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertons, to include the first and second platform of Fischell with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of determining the bearing of a mobile vehicle based on the detected sound signals [column 8, lines 9-26].
Claim(s) 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakura in view of Goulet, Robertson as applied to claims 14 and 19 (respectively), and further in view of Wilby (US 20210272547 A1, “Wilby”).
Regarding claim 15, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson teaches the system (10) according to claim 14. Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson, may not explicitly teach wherein the signal receiver is an omni-directional receiver, adapted to simultaneously receive multiple signal components that are reflected by distinct portions in the target region.
Wilby teaches wherein the signal receiver is an omni-directional receiver, adapted to simultaneously receive multiple signal components that are reflected by distinct portions in the target region.([0047], the hydrophone is omnidirectional ((i.e., is capable of receiving signal from different direction with equal or substantially the same sensitivity))
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar navigation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson, to include the omni-directional receiver of Wilby with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of receiving signals from different directions with equal or substantially the same sensitivity [0047].
Regarding claim 21, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 15 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasakura in view of Goulet, Robertson as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Florin (US 20200391837 A1, “Florin”).
Regarding claim 17, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson teaches the system according to claim 13. Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson, may not explicitly teach wherein the processing device is part of a remote processing centre or a cloud computing facility.
Florin teaches wherein the processing device is part of a remote processing centre or a cloud computing facility.([0118], RAV transmits sonar data to a land-based processing center)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of sonar navigation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson, to include the remote processing center of Florin with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of allowing for remote processing capabilities [0118].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-9 and 11 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, as well as overcoming any relevant 112(b) rejections.
Regarding claim 3, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson teaches he method according to claim 1. Sasakura further teaches wherein the signal transmitter is an acoustic transmitter provided on a first waterborne platform, the signal receive is an acoustic receiver provided on a second waterborne platform, and wherein the binary sequence of pseudo-random-noise values in the probing signal is unique and has a total duration at least as long as a total time required by at least one of a the first and second platforms to complete the respective trajectory. (implicit, [0137], gold code generator generates a gold code synchronously with the transmission pulse, which is a Pseudo random noise sequence)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the gold code PN sequence would implicitly be long enough for a respective platform to complete the respective trajectory from a first position to a second position)(Sasakura, nor any other identified prior art teaches the required limitations of the transmitter and receiver being positioned on separate waterborne platforms. Additionally, no identified prior art teaches the limitations in part with sufficient motivation to combine)
Regarding claim 7, Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson teaches the method according to claim 6. Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson may not explicitly teach wherein the correlation strength for the respective portion of the target region is calculated using a discrete correlation operation defined by: J=(,)=p(t) -r(t) =w(tR -wherein: J is the correlation strength (value) for the portion that is located at a location defined by voxel coordinates ( ,rj,() e[[-]] p(t) represents the test signal p as a function of time t; and r(t) represents the response signal as a function of time t; and wherein the method further comprises storing the map of calculated values of correlation strength as function of voxel coordinates ( ,rj,() of the respective portions of the target region (No identified prior art teaches the specific function defined by the discrete correlation operation required by the claim limitation. No identified prior art teaches the limitation in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 8, Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson and Pelin teaches the method according to claim 5. Sasakura, as modified in view of Robertson and Pelin, may not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises: calculating a point spread function, PSF, image for a hypothetical scatter source present only at the selected portion of the target region; identifying a location of a true optimum correlation value in the PSF image; and identifying a plurality of locations of false excess correlation values in the PSF image.
Rikoski teaches wherein the method further comprises: calculating a point spread function, PSF, image for a hypothetical scatter source present only at the selected portion of the target region; identifying a location of a true optimum correlation value in the PSF image; and identifying a plurality of locations of false excess correlation values in the PSF image ([column 3, lines 40-57] teaches using a point spread function in the frequency domain to correlate echoes on an existing map to extract a ships own position, however none of Riksoski nor any other prior art teach the required limitations of calculating the PSF for a hypothetical scatter source, identifying a location of a true optimum correlation in the PSF image, and identifying locations of false excess correlation values in the PSF. Additionally no other identified prior art teaches the limitations in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
`Regarding claim 9, the claim is indicating as containing allowable subject matter based on its respective dependency to a claim that is indicating as containing allowable subject matter. Additionally, see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson teaches the method according to claim 1. Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson may not explicitly teach wherein the probing signal is defined by: w(t) = A sin(2rcwot + 8) S(t) wherein: t represents time; A represents an amplitude of the carrier signal; o represents an angular frequency of the carrier signal; 6 represents a fixed phase shift of the carrier signal, in a range 0 <6<2r; S(t) represents the binary sequence of pseudo-random-noise values as function of time (None of Sasakura, Goulet, Robertson or any other identified prior art teaches the required definition of the probing signal. No identified prior art teaches the limitations in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8th, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 3 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson fails to teach the limitations of claim 1 for the following reasons:
Sasakura fails to teach continuous transmission and instead uses a ping-based transmission method
Sasakura fails to teach TX/RX positioning during continuous operation
The combination of Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson relies on improper hindsight reasoning
Sasakura discloses a different technical effect and problem addressed
Sasakura teaches away from continuous probing and fails to disclose per-voxel delay correction
Robertson fails to teach mapping functionality and teaches a directionality determination that operates statically as opposed to dynamically
Goulet fails to teach mapping via per-voxel delay shifted PN test signals or instantaneous position determination during continuous transmission, or the construction of absolute or spatial positioning/mapping
Goulet does not teach continuous PN probing for mapping, voxel-based correlation, voxelized mapping, instantaneous positioning, and total propagation delay for each voxel
With respect to (1) the examiner agrees that Sasakura fails to disclose continuous transmission, however Sasakura is not relied to teach such limitations. Rather, Goulet is introduced such limitations and does so at [column 5, lines 42-68], which states that a continuous pulse is transmitted and the frequency shift of observed signals are determined in order to account for the relative motion of the watercraft. Sasakura is merely relied upon to teach the use of echo measurement with respect to a watercraft in which pseudo random noise codes modulated onto a carrier signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the continuous pulse transmission of Goulet with the method of Sasakura, with the motivation of accounting for the backscattering of the probing signal off of the seafloor [column 4, lines 55-68] as well as accounting for doppler frequency shift of return signals (column 5, lines 42-68] in order to determine relative motion of the watercraft.
With respect to (2), the examiner agrees that Sasakura does not teach TX/RX positioning during continuous operation, however Sasakura is not relied upon to teach such limitations. Rather, Goulet is relied upon to teach TX/RX positioning during continuous operation. Goulet at [column 4, lines 13-17] teaches that the hull of the watercraft has a plurality of acoustic projectors and hydrophones collocated at fixed positional relationships. Goulet at [column 5, lines 42-68], which states that a continuous pulse is transmitted and the frequency shift of observed signals are determined in order to account for the relative motion of the watercraft. It is the examiner’s interpretation that the determination of the relative motion of the watercraft indicates that in order to determine motion of the watercraft, the positions of the hull mounted acoustic projectors (transmitters) and hydrophones (receivers) must be determined during the continuous pulse transmission.
With respect to (3), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson relies on improper hindsight reasoning to demonstrate why POSITA would combine their teachings in order to yield continuous transmit/receive during motion with instantaneous positioning voxelized time-domain correlation. Firstly, the limitations of claim 1, as currently drafted, do not require the voxelization of time-domain correlation. Rather claim 1 requires continuous transmission and reception of return signals that have been backscattered within a target region, as well as time-delay correlation (without requirement for the correlation to be conducted on a per-voxel basis) of the backscattered return signals with a test signal. Goulet teaches the continuous transmission and reception of signals at [column 5, lines 42-68] based on backscattering of the signal off of the seafloor [column 4, lines 55-68], with the motivation of accounting for the relative motion of the watercraft using the plurality of backscattered return signals. Robertson teaches the use of time-delay correlation between backscattered return signals and a probing signal at [column 6, lines 64-67]-[column 7, lines 1-6] which describes that the time-delay of a given return signal for a given region is selected to be correlated with the probing signal. POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of Robertson with those of Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet in order to reject return signals that are not correlated with the backscattering of the probing signal and in order to apply the proper correlation for backscattered returns with the probing signal [column 7, lines 11-20].
With respect to (4), the examiner respectfully disagrees that Sasakura teaches addressing a different technical effect and problem addressed. Applicant argues that the technical effect and problem addressed of the claim subject matter is directed towards a continuous pipeline with instantaneous positioning and per-voxel delay-corrected time-domain correlation that produces higher-fidelity mapping with fewer operational passes (efficiency), and that Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson addresses short pulses for resolution, Doppler for navigation, and noise based direction finding. Firstly, the limitations of claim 1 as currently drafted do not require per-voxel delay-corrected time-domain correlation, rather claim 1 requires continuous transmission and reception of return signals that have been backscattered within a target region, as well as time-delay correlation (without requirement for the correlation to be conducted on a per-voxel basis) of the backscattered return signals with a test signal. Secondly Sasakura, as modified in view of Goulet and Robertson addresses the technical effects and problems addressed of continuous transmission and instantaneous positioning (Goulet at [column 5, lines 42-68]) and delay-corrected time-domain correlation (Robertson at [column 6, lines 64-67]-[column 7, lines 1-6])
With respect to (5), the examiner agrees that Sasakura does not teach continuous transmission, however the examiner respectfully disagrees that Sasakuras short pulse transmission constitutes teaching away from the claimed subject matter. Firstly, Sasakura is not relied upon to teach continuous pulse transmission, rather Goulet is relied upon to teach such limitations and does so at [column 5, lines 42-68]. Secondly, POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of Goulet with those of Sasakura to account for backscattering of the return signals off of the ocean floor on a continuous basis (Goulet at [column 4, lines 55-68]) in order to track the relative motion of the watercraft (Goulet at [column 5, lines 42-68]).
With respect to (6) the examiner agrees that Robertson does not teach mapping, however Robertson is not relied upon to teach such limitations. Instead, Robertson is relied upon to teach a map of correlation values between backscattered return signals and a probing signal, which he does so at [column 6, lines 64-67]-[column 7, lines 1-6] and [column 7, lines 11-20]. Applicant argues that such teaching are insufficient to yield voxel mapping that is generated based on transforming a probing signal into a plurality of test signals tied to dynamic positions in order build a spatial map. The limitations of claim 1, as currently drafted, make no recitation of voxel or spatial mapping. Instead the limitations of claim 1 recite the limitation of creating a correlation strength map. It is the examiner’s interpretation that Robertson implicitly teaches this limitation at [column 6, lines 64-67]-[column 7, lines 1-6] which states that backscattered return signals are correlated to a probing signal based on a time-delay that would be required for the return signal to be received after backscattering from a particular segment. This means that each segment is correlated to a different return signal, and that the correlated return signal has a correlation value (or strength) that satisfies the time-delay requirement for it to have been backscattered from a respective segment, while rejecting return signals that were not received due to being backscattered from a respective segment (or have a lower correlation strength).
Regarding claim (7), inasmuch as the examiner understands what applicant is arguing, the limitations of claim 1, as currently drafted do not require mapping via per-voxel delay shifted PN test signals or instantaneous position determination during continuous transmission, or the construction of absolute or spatial positioning/mapping. Claim 1 currently requires time-delay correlation between a test signal and backscattered return signals (taught by Robertson at [column 6, lines 64-67]-[column 7, lines 1-6]), continuous transmission and reception with instantaneous positioning (taught by Goulet at [column 5, lines 42-68]). Further, the instantaneous positioning is not required to be absolute, therefore the relative instantaneous positioning of Goulet still reads upon the limitations.
With respect to (8), the examiner agrees that Goulet does not teach modulating a PN code onto the continuous transmission signal, however Goulet is not relied upon to teach that limitation. Further the limitations of claim 1, as currently drafted do not require voxel-based correlation, nor do they require total propagation delay for each voxel. With respect to the argument that Goulet fails to teach instantaneous positioning, the examiner disagrees as Goulet teaches at [column 5, lines 42-68], which states that a continuous pulse is transmitted and the frequency shift of observed signals are determined in order to account for the relative motion of the watercraft. It is the examiner’s interpretation that determination of motion requires determination that the instantaneous position of the watercraft has changed between two points in time. Although Goulet does not teach absolute or spatial coordinates with respect to this positioning and instead teaches relative instantaneous positioning, the limitations of claim 1 do not preclude Goulet from being relevant prior art.
On Pg. 6-7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of claim 1, independent claims 13 and 19, as well as dependent claims 2-12, 15-17, and 20-21 are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to claim 1 above, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained and therefore so are the rejections of claims 2-13, 15-17, and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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:
Markhovsky et al. (US 20160366554 A1, “Markhovsky”) which discloses a system and method of multi-path mitigation in range-finding and tracking objects using reduced attenuation rf technology
Rikoski (US 8379484 B1, “Rikoski”) which discloses an apparatus and method for compensating sonar imagery for differences in aspect
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