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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 is found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to (and vice versa) under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
A similar issue as claims 5 and 7 above also applies to claims 6 and 8 which the examiner notes are duplicates of one another in terms of their required limitations.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megdal et al. US PG-PUB 2011/0141853 A1 (hereafter Megdal) in view of Brown et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0335511 A1 (hereafter Brown).
As to claim 1: Megdal discloses an underwater handheld computer system (104; see figs. 5 and 6 as well as details in ¶ 67 and 80) comprising:
at least one hardware processor (502; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67); and
one or more software modules are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (not labeled but see ¶ 101),
receive a selection of a mission marker (see ¶ 77-78 and 80);
display a diver’s position, heading, depth and course history for the selected mission marker (see ¶ 77-78 and 80 and fig. 6).
Megal does not explicitly teach:
a sonar display comprising a plurality of sonar color palettes that are used to enhance the visualization of data displayed using the plurality of sonar color palettes.
However, Brown teaches a sonar display (10; see figs. 1 and 2 as well as details in ¶ 24) comprising a plurality of sonar color palettes that are used to enhance the visualization of data displayed using the plurality of sonar color palettes (the plurality of palettes is not labeled but see palette 49 disclosed in ¶ 63 and further see ¶ 65 regarding “one or more depth based color palettes”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Megdal to include a sonar display comprising a plurality of sonar color palettes that are used to enhance the visualization of data displayed using the plurality of sonar color palettes because such color palettes can be utilized in a user configurable manner to allow a user to discern between different objects located at different depths by providing visual contrast, such as suggested in ¶ 65 of Brown. Accordingly, such a display would be useful in Megdal’s device by allowing a user to quickly be able to determine distance information solely based upon particular palettes being utilized while also differentiating objects located at different depths from one another.
As to claim 3: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software modules (not labeled but see Megdal ¶ 101) are further configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (502 of Megdal; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67), the color palettes (the plurality of palettes is not labeled but see palette 49 of Brown disclosed in ¶ 63 and further see ¶ 65 regarding “one or more depth based color palettes”) are used to highlight different features of a displayed sonar image, making it easier to identify and interpret (see Brown ¶ 63 and 65).
As to claim 4: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software modules (not labeled but see Megdal ¶ 101) that are further configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (502 of Megdal; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67), use the plurality of color palettes (the plurality of palettes is not labeled but see palette 49 of Brown disclosed in ¶ 63 and further see ¶ 65 regarding “one or more depth based color palettes”) to help the user distinguish between different types of underwater objects, such as rocks, coral, and manmade objects, which have different acoustic properties that are reflected in the sonar image (see Brown ¶ 65 regarding different objects that may be color coded differently).
As to claim 5: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software modules (not labeled but see Megdal ¶ 101) that are further configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (502 of Megdal; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67), display last known data, time, location of a magnetic heading calibration, and the diver’s depth (see Megdal ¶ 35, 42, and 44).
As to claim 6: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software modules (not labeled but see Megdal ¶ 101) that are further configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (502 of Megdal; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67), display a pinger locator feature (see Megdal ¶ 68).
As to claim 7: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software modules (not labeled but see Megdal ¶ 101) that are further configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (502 of Megdal; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67), display last known data, time, location of a magnetic heading calibration, and the diver’s depth (see Megdal ¶ 35, 42, and 44).
As to claim 8: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more software modules (not labeled but see Megdal ¶ 101) that are further configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (502 of Megdal; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67), display a pinger locator feature (see Megdal ¶ 68).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megdal et al. US PG-PUB 2011/0141853 A1 (hereafter Megdal) in view of Brown et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0335511 A1 (hereafter Brown) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corl et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0263487 A1 (hereafter Corl).
As to claim 2: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including:
wherein the one or more software modules (not labeled but see ¶ 101 of Megdal) are further configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor (502 of Megdal; see fig. 5 and ¶ 67),
display the diver’s position and speed over ground (see ¶ 45 of Megdal);
the height of the diver above the seabed (see ¶ 39 of Megdal);
pressure sensor data (see ¶ 45 of Megdal).
Megdal as modified by Brown does not explicitly teach:
the software module configured to display water column depth.
However, Corl teaches a display (1104; see fig. 2 and ¶ 33) that is configured to display water column depth (see ¶ 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Megdal such that the software module is configured to display water column depth because such a metric is an art recognized metric important metric regarding divers because water column depth relates to pressure on a diver and can result in dangerous conditions, such as suggested in ¶ 35 and 36 of Corl. Accordingly, such a metric would provide a user with information to prevent conditions such as barotrauma and disorientation, such as also suggested in ¶ 36 of Corl.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megdal et al. US PG-PUB 2011/0141853 A1 (hereafter Megdal) in view of Brown et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0335511 A1 (hereafter Brown) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fenu et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0336650 A1 (hereafter Fenu).
As to claim 10: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including an underwater handheld computer system and data displayed on a display (see figs. 5 and 6 of Megdal in view of details in Brown ¶ 24, 63, and 65), but does not explicitly teach:
the underwater handheld computer system comprises a heads up display to mirror the data displayed on the display.
However, Fenu teaches that underwater displays may utilize heads up display to mirror data displayed on another display (see ¶ 36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Megdal’s underwater handheld computer system to include a heads up display to mirror the data displayed on the display because this would allow a diver to both access the displayed data pertinent to diving and being in an underwater environment while allowing the diver to simultaneously operate in a hands free manner such that their hands may carry out other tasks as opposed to manually holding and supporting a display therein.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megdal et al. US PG-PUB 2011/0141853 A1 (hereafter Megdal) in view of Brown et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0335511 A1 (hereafter Brown) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ziarati US PG-PUB 2015/0200996 A1 (hereafter Ziarati).
As to claim 11: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a bezel made of Beryllium Copper (BeCu) to reduce the magnetic signature.
However, Ziarati teaches that display devices may make use of Beryllium Copper where non-magnetic materials and signatures are desirable (see ¶ 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Megdal’s system to utilize a bezel made of Beryllium Copper to reduce the magnetic signature because such a construction is an art recognized material with the predictable and useful properties of being flexible and non-magnetic while also being electrically conductive, such as suggested in ¶ 31 of Ziarati. Accordingly, such a bezel would be useful in Megdal’s system because the bezel could be shaped as desired while not adding to the measured background magnetism which could potentially interfere with Megdal’s measurements which utilize magnetometers and Earth’s magnetic field (as noted in Megdal ¶ 39 and 42).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Megdal et al. US PG-PUB 2011/0141853 A1 (hereafter Megdal) in view of Brown et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0335511 A1 (hereafter Brown) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Partan et al. US PG-PUB 2017/0332612 A1 (hereafter Partan).
As to claim 12: Megdal as modified by Brown teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a 300Wh Lithium Ion battery pod or a 97Wh Lithium Ion battery pod, and a Lithium Ion battery charger.
However, Partan teaches that a 300Wh Lithium Ion battery pod may be utilized with offshore or underwater applications (see ¶ 200-203; additionally, while not explicitly disclosed therein, the use of a Li-Ion battery system as disclosed necessitates a Lithium Ion battery charger in order to function as a rechargeable battery pod system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Megdal’s system to include a 300Wh Lithium Ion battery pod or a 97Wh Lithium Ion battery pod, and a Lithium Ion battery charger because such a battery pod is an art recognized means of allowing a device requiring power to be remotely powered for a lengthy amount of time and thus reduces how many recharging cycles are required which would be difficult in underwater applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 9: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a system wherein the underwater handheld computer system comprises a multibeam imaging sonar that use a 12 degree aperture on a 750k frequency band, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in the instant claim and with those of parent claim 1.
In particular, while the prior art of record discloses at least a relationship between multibeam imaging sonar that uses a particular aperture in a particular frequency band (see, for example, Rekdal et al. US PG-PUB 2024/0248482 A1 ¶ 41-42), there does not appear to be any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion that would fairly suggest to the skilled artisan to utilize the specific 12 degree aperture on a 750k frequency band when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1 and the other limitations of instant claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855