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 .
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 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No.17/179460, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. 17/179460 does not support limitations in claims 1 and 6 including presentation of the first sonar image portion to a left of a vertical centerline corresponding to a current location of the watercraft and presentation of the second sonar image portion to a right of the vertical centerline, wherein the first sonar image portion and the second sonar image portion are each configured as a vertical slice that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth; and limitations in claim 12 including cause, on the display, presentation of a perspective view of the sonar beam zone, configured as a vertical display that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth, and an indication of the object within the sonar beam zone.
However, these limitations are supported in application 17/349046 and therefore claims in the instant Application have application 17/349046’s effective filing date of 16 June 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 9-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a second non-zero depth”. It is unclear if this “second non-zero depth” is the same as the “second non-zero depth” of claim 1 or a different non-zero depth. Therefore, Claim 4, and 5 by dependence, are indefinite. For examination purposes, examiner will interpret the second “a second non-zero depth” as a “a third non-zero depth”.
Claim 9 recites “a second non-zero depth”. It is unclear if this “second non-zero depth” is the same as the “second non-zero depth” of claim 6 or a different non-zero depth. Therefore, Claim 9, and 10 by dependence, are indefinite. For examination purposes, examiner will interpret the second “a second non-zero depth” as a “a third non-zero depth”.
Claim 12 recites “a second non-zero depth” in lns. 24-25. It is unclear if this “second non-zero depth” is the same as the “second non-zero depth” of ln. 22 or a different non-zero depth. Therefore, Claim 12, and 13-20 by dependence, are indefinite. For examination purposes, examiner will interpret the second “a second non-zero depth” as a “a third non-zero depth”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeHart US 10408933 B1.
Regarding claim 1, DeHart teaches a system for presenting marine data, the system comprising:
a first sonar transducer associated with a first side of a watercraft, wherein the first sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more first sonar beams into an underwater environment of a body of water in a first direction off to the first side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more first sonar beams are each emitted according to a first beam shape (left 26 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 ln. 28- Col. 7 ln. 16);
a second sonar transducer associated with a second side of the watercraft, wherein the second sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more second sonar beams into the underwater environment of the body of water in a second direction off to the second side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more second sonar beams are each emitted according to a second beam shape, wherein the first direction is different than the second direction (right 26 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 ln. 28- Col. 7 ln. 16);
a display (display 62 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 lns. 28-41; Col. 10 lns. 20-28);
one or more processors (64 and 66 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 lns. 28-41);
a memory including a computer program code (memory with microprocessor 64, Col. 9 ln. 57-Col. 10 ln. 10) configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive first sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the first sonar transducer (Col. 10. ln. 44-Col. 11 ln. 33);
receive second sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the second sonar transducer (Col. 10. ln. 44-Col. 11 ln. 33);;
generate, based on the first sonar return data, a first sonar image portion corresponding to the first sonar returns received by the first sonar transducer (Col. 13 ln. 32-48);
generate, based on the second sonar return data, a second sonar image portion corresponding to the second sonar returns received by the second sonar transducer (Col. 13 ln. 32-48); and
cause, on the display, presentation of the first sonar image portion to a left of a vertical centerline corresponding to a current location of the watercraft and presentation of the second sonar image portion to a right of the vertical centerline, wherein the first sonar image portion and the second sonar image portion are each configured as a vertical slice that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth (centerline and combined image shown in Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48).
Regarding claim 2, DeHart teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the presentation of the first sonar image portion and the presentation of the second sonar image portion collectively encourages determination by a user of a real world positioning of the first sonar return data and the second sonar return data within the underwater environment by orienting each vertical slice in a way that corresponds to a real world scenario in which the second non-zero depth is below the zero depth (Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeHart US 10408933 B1 in view of Takahashi US 20100066699 A1.
Regarding claim 3, DeHart teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: receive subsequent first sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the first sonar transducer; receive subsequent second sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the second sonar transducer; generate, based on the subsequent first sonar return data, a subsequent first sonar image portion corresponding to the subsequent first sonar return data; generate, based on the subsequent second sonar return data, a subsequent second sonar image portion corresponding to the subsequent second sonar return data (Col. 10. ln. 44-Col. 11 ln. 33);
DeHart does not explicitly teach cause, on the display: presentation of the first sonar image portion to move to the left on the display; presentation of the second sonar image portion to move to the right on the display; presentation of the subsequent first sonar image portion to the left of the vertical centerline and adjacent to the first sonar image portion; and presentation of the subsequent second sonar image portion to the right of the vertical centerline and adjacent to the second sonar image portion.
Takahashi teaches shifting positions of previous images when displaying new image data ([0071])
Additionally, positioning of the different images in different directions are an obvious design choice as a simple rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of the device (see In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart to include cause, on the display: presentation of the first sonar image portion to move to the left on the display; presentation of the second sonar image portion to move to the right on the display; presentation of the subsequent first sonar image portion to the left of the vertical centerline and adjacent to the first sonar image portion; and presentation of the subsequent second sonar image portion to the right of the vertical centerline and adjacent to the second sonar image portion similar to Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of helping see changes to the sonar images.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeHart US 10408933 B1 in view of Sawrie US 20080137483 A1.
Regarding claim 4, DeHart teaches the system of claim 1
DeHart does not explicitly teach further comprising: a third sonar transducer associated with the first side of a watercraft, wherein the third sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more third sonar beams into the underwater environment of a body of water in a third direction off to the first side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more third sonar beams are each emitted according to a third beam shape, wherein the third direction is different than the first direction and the second direction; a fourth sonar transducer associated with the second side of the watercraft, wherein the fourth sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more fourth sonar beams into the underwater environment of the body of water in a fourth direction off to the second side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more fourth sonar beams are each emitted according to a fourth beam shape, wherein the fourth direction is different than the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction; wherein the memory including the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: receive third sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the third sonar transducer; receive fourth sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the fourth sonar transducer; generate, based on the third sonar return data, a third sonar image portion corresponding to the third sonar returns received by the third sonar transducer; generate, based on the fourth sonar return data, a fourth sonar image portion corresponding to the fourth sonar returns received by the fourth sonar transducer; and cause, on the display, presentation of the third sonar image portion to the left of the vertical centerline corresponding to the current location of the watercraft and presentation of the fourth sonar image portion to the right of the vertical centerline, wherein the third sonar image portion and the fourth sonar image portion are each configured as a vertical slice that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth.
Sawrie teaches multiple left and right beams produced by different sonar elements (Fig. 2, [0028])
Additionally, DeHart teaches producing images such as Fig. 8 using variable number of acoustic sonar transmitting and receiving elements (Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart to include third and fourth transducers and image portions similar to Sawrie with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping ensure complete coverage of 180 degrees underwater.
Regarding claim 5, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the third sonar image portion is presented further left of the vertical centerline than the first sonar image portion, and wherein the fourth sonar image portion is presented further right of the vertical centerline than the second sonar image portion (different angled portions shown at least partially further left/right in Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48; see also Fig. 3).
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeHart US 10408933 B1 in view of Clark US 20190072951 A1.
Regarding claim 6, DeHart teaches the system for presenting marine data, the system comprising:
a first sonar transducer associated with a first side of a watercraft, wherein the first sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more first sonar beams into an underwater environment of a body of water in a first direction off to the first side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more first sonar beams are each emitted according to a first beam shape (left 26 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 ln. 28- Col. 7 ln. 16);
a second sonar transducer associated with a second side of the watercraft, wherein the second sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more second sonar beams into the underwater environment of the body of water in a second direction off to the second side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more second sonar beams are each emitted according to a second beam shape, wherein the first direction is different than the second direction (right 26 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 ln. 28- Col. 7 ln. 16);
a display (display 62 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 lns. 28-41; Col. 10 lns. 20-28);
one or more processors (64 and 66 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 lns. 28-41);
a memory including a computer program code (memory with microprocessor 64, Col. 9 ln. 57-Col. 10 ln. 10) configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive first sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the first sonar transducer (Col. 10. ln. 44-Col. 11 ln. 33);
receive second sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the second sonar transducer (Col. 10. ln. 44-Col. 11 ln. 33);;
generate, based on the first sonar return data, a first sonar image portion corresponding to the first sonar returns received by the first sonar transducer (Col. 13 ln. 32-48);
generate, based on the second sonar return data, a second sonar image portion corresponding to the second sonar returns received by the second sonar transducer (Col. 13 ln. 32-48); and
cause, on the display, presentation of the first sonar image portion to a left of a vertical centerline corresponding to a current location of the watercraft and presentation of the second sonar image portion to a right of the vertical centerline, wherein the first sonar image portion and the second sonar image portion are each configured as a vertical slice that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth (centerline and combined image shown in Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48);
determine, based on the first beam shape, a first portion, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first coverage volume of the underwater environment of the body of water (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
determine, based on the second beam shape, a second portion, wherein the second portion corresponds to a second coverage volume of the underwater environment of the body of water (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
determine an object within one or more of the first sonar return data or the second sonar return data (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
cause, on the display, an indication of the object in the first portion in an instance in which the object is determined to be within the first sonar return data (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48); and
cause, on the display, an indication of the object in the second portion in an instance in which the object is determined to be within the second sonar return data (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48).
DeHart does not explicitly teach cause, on the display, presentation of a first chart between the first sonar image portion and the second sonar image portion, wherein presentation of the first chart includes presentation of an indication of the first portion and the second portion;
Clark teaches simultaneous display of sonar data (462), chart (405) and sonar coverage on the chart (461, Fig. 4A, [0097-98]). Additionally, positioning of the different views are an obvious design choice as a simple rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of the device (see In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart to cause, on the display, presentation of a first chart between the first sonar image portion and the second sonar image portion, wherein presentation of the first chart includes presentation of an indication of the first portion and the second portion similar to Clark with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping users identify where they are currently scanning.
Regarding claim 11, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the presentation of the first sonar image portion and the presentation of the second sonar image portion collectively encourages determination by a user of a real world positioning of the first sonar return data and the second sonar return data within the underwater environment by orienting each vertical slice in a way that corresponds to a real world scenario in which the second non-zero depth is below the zero depth (Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeHart US 10408933 B1 in view of Clark US 20190072951 A1 and further in view of Wang US 20100284248 A1.
Regarding claim 7, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 6,
DeHart does not explicitly teach wherein the computer program code, is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: cause, on the display, presentation of a second chart, below the first chart, wherein presentation of the second chart includes presentation of a perspective view of a sonar beam zone including the first portion and the second portion, and the indication of the object within the sonar beam zone as to visually indicate the position of the object within the sonar beam zone.
Wang teaches displaying a 3D sonar beam coverage zone in a view (90a in Fig. 11, [0076]; including plan view 90b’; see also Fig. 18, [0107]).
Clark teaches a variety of different combinations of views (Figs. 4A-B, [0097-106]; Fig. 10E, [0159]; one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add additional views such as Wangs).
Additionally, positioning of the different views are an obvious design choice as a simple rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of the device (see In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the computer program code, is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: cause, on the display, presentation of a second chart, below the first chart, wherein presentation of the second chart includes presentation of a perspective view of a sonar beam zone including the first portion and the second portion, and the indication of the object within the sonar beam zone as to visually indicate the position of the object within the sonar beam zone similar to Wang and Clark with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams.
Regarding claim 8, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 7,
DeHart does not explicitly teach wherein the perspective view is a three-dimensional view.
Wang teaches displaying a 3D sonar beam coverage zone in a view (90a in Fig. 11, [0076]; including plan view 90b’; see also Fig. 18, [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the perspective view is a three-dimensional view similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeHart US 10408933 B1 in view of Clark US 20190072951 A1 and further in view of Sawrie US 20080137483 A1.
Regarding claim 9, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 6
DeHart does not explicitly teach further comprising: a third sonar transducer associated with the first side of a watercraft, wherein the third sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more third sonar beams into the underwater environment of a body of water in a third direction off to the first side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more third sonar beams are each emitted according to a third beam shape, wherein the third direction is different than the first direction and the second direction; a fourth sonar transducer associated with the second side of the watercraft, wherein the fourth sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more fourth sonar beams into the underwater environment of the body of water in a fourth direction off to the second side of the watercraft, wherein the one or more fourth sonar beams are each emitted according to a fourth beam shape, wherein the fourth direction is different than the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction; wherein the memory including the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: receive third sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the third sonar transducer; receive fourth sonar return data corresponding to sonar returns received by the fourth sonar transducer; generate, based on the third sonar return data, a third sonar image portion corresponding to the third sonar returns received by the third sonar transducer; generate, based on the fourth sonar return data, a fourth sonar image portion corresponding to the fourth sonar returns received by the fourth sonar transducer; and cause, on the display, presentation of the third sonar image portion to the left of the vertical centerline corresponding to the current location of the watercraft and presentation of the fourth sonar image portion to the right of the vertical centerline, wherein the third sonar image portion and the fourth sonar image portion are each configured as a vertical slice that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth.
Sawrie teaches multiple left and right beams produced by different sonar elements (Fig. 2, [0028])
Additionally, DeHart teaches producing images such as Fig. 8 using variable number of acoustic sonar transmitting and receiving elements (Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart to include third and fourth transducers and image portions similar to Sawrie with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping ensure complete coverage of 180 degrees underwater.
Regarding claim 10, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the third sonar image portion is presented below the first sonar image portion, and wherein the fourth sonar image portion is presented below the second sonar image portion (different angled portions shown at least partially further left/right in Fig. 8, Col. 13 ln. 32-48; see also Fig. 3).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeHart US 10408933 B1 in view of Wang US 20100284248 A1.
Regarding claim 12, DeHart teaches a system for presenting marine data, wherein the system comprises:
at least one sonar transducer associated with a watercraft, wherein the at least one sonar transducer is configured to emit one or more sonar beams into an underwater environment of a body of water in a direction relative to the watercraft, wherein the one or more sonar beams are each emitted according to a beam shape (26 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 ln. 28- Col. 7 ln. 16);
a display (display 62 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 lns. 28-41; Col. 10 lns. 20-28);
one or more processors (64 and 66 in Fig. 1, Col. 6 lns. 28-41); and
a memory including a computer program code (memory with microprocessor 64, Col. 9 ln. 57-Col. 10 ln. 10) configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
determine, based on the beam shape corresponding to the at least one sonar transducer, a sonar beam zone corresponding to a coverage volume of the underwater environment of the body of water (beam zones shown in Figs. 3 and 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
receive sonar return data corresponding to the sonar returns received by the at least one sonar transduce (Col. 10. ln. 44-Col. 11 ln. 33)r;
determine an object within the sonar return data (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
determine, based on the sonar return data, a position of the object within the sonar beam zone (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
generate, based on the sonar return data, a sonar image portion corresponding to the sonar returns from the at least one sonar transducer (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
cause, on the display, presentation of the sonar image portion, wherein the sonar image portion is configured as a vertical slice that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth (Fig. 8, Col. 13 lns. 32-48);
DeHart does not explicitly teach cause, on the display, presentation of a perspective view of the sonar beam zone, configured as a vertical display that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth, and an indication of the object within the sonar beam zone.
Wang teaches displaying a 3D sonar beam coverage zone in a view (90a in Fig. 11, [0076]; including plan view 90b’; see also Fig. 18, [0107]; Wang additionally teaches displaying multiple views in Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart to cause, on the display, presentation of a perspective view of the sonar beam zone, configured as a vertical display that leads from a zero depth vertically down to a second non-zero depth, and an indication of the object within the sonar beam zone similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams.
Regarding claim 13, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: cause, on the display, at least one depth contour within the presentation of the sonar image portion (Fig. 7, Col. 12 ln. 53-Col. 13 ln. 31; angular color contours are a form of depth contour).
Regarding claim 14, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
DeHart does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: cause, on the display, below the presentation of the perspective view of the sonar beam zone, presentation of a flat projection view of the sonar beam zone, and the indication of the object within the flat projection view of the sonar beam zone (90a in Fig. 11, [0076]; including plan view 90b’; see also Fig. 18, [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: cause, on the display, below the presentation of the perspective view of the sonar beam zone, presentation of a flat projection view of the sonar beam zone, and the indication of the object within the flat projection view of the sonar beam zone similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams.
Regarding claim 15, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
DeHart does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the perspective view is a three-dimensional view (90a in Fig. 11, [0076]; including plan view 90b’; see also Fig. 18, [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the perspective view is a three-dimensional view similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams.
Regarding claim 16, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
DeHart does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the perspective view includes at least one depth ring indicating a relative depth within the sonar beam zone (ring at a depth shown in Fig. 18, [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the perspective view is a three-dimensional view similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams and better gauge depth of objects.
Regarding claim 17, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
DeHart does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the indication of the object within the sonar beam zone is presented at a depth position within the sonar beam zone that corresponds to a real world depth of the object (Fi in Fig. 11, [0076]; see also 92a and 92b in Fig. 18, [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the indication of the object within the sonar beam zone is presented at a depth position within the sonar beam zone that corresponds to a real world depth of the object similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams and better gauge depth of objects.
Regarding claim 18, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
DeHart does not explicitly teach but Wang teaches wherein the indication of the object within the sonar beam zone is presented at a lateral position within the sonar beam zone relative to a vertical centerline so as to convey to a user a real world position of the object relative to the watercraft (Fi in Fig. 11, [0076]; see also 92a and 92b in Fig. 18, [0107]; objects shown lateral to a vertical centerline in both figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the indication of the object within the sonar beam zone is presented at a lateral position within the sonar beam zone relative to a vertical centerline so as to convey to a user a real world position of the object relative to the watercraft similar to Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users with more information on the total coverage of the sonar beams and better gauge position of objects.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeHart US 10408933 B1 in view of Wang US 20100284248 A1 and further in view of Stokes US 20180164434 A1.
Regarding claim 19, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
DeHart does not explicitly teach wherein the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: receive a selection of the object; and cause, on the display and in response to the selection of the object, presentation of at least one of a depth of the object, a size of the object, or a location of the object.
Stokes teaches selection of an object and presenting object information including depth, bearing, and size (Figs. 6A-6G, [0144-164]; in particular Fig. 6G and [0163-164] or graphic 618 in Fig. 6F indicating position, [0160-161])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: receive a selection of the object; and cause, on the display and in response to the selection of the object, presentation of at least one of a depth of the object, a size of the object, or a location of the object similar to Stokes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users more information on objects of interest in the scan.
Regarding claim 20, DeHart as modified above teaches the system of claim 12,
DeHart does not explicitly teach wherein the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: receive a selection of the object; and cause, on the display and in response to the selection of the object, highlighting of the object and subsequent tracking of the object.
Stokes teaches selection of an object, highlighting the object using an indicator such as 618 (Fig. 6F-6G, [0160-161]) and allowing tracking an object (Figs. 6G, [0163-164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified DeHart such that the computer program code is further configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: receive a selection of the object; and cause, on the display and in response to the selection of the object, highlighting of the object and subsequent tracking of the object similar to Stokes with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result helping provide users more information on objects of interest in the scan and where the objects are moving, and allowing users to visually verify that they selected the object the user wanted to select.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maguire US 20140064024 A1 teaches a plurality of transducers used for sidescan (Figs. 1-2)
Vogt US 20100142324 A1 teaches angled conic beams (Fig. 5)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 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, 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 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights