DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
An amendment was filed by applicant on 07/08/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 17 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are remaining in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, regards as the invention.
The term “long” in the claim limitation “long-track” (claims 2 and 3) is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “long” for “long-track” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the claim limitation “track” is rendered indefinite by the relative term “long”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 1-3, 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1: Design and Finite Element Analysis of Gondola Construction for Multibeam Echosounder (MBES) Installation on RV Barunia Jaya III – BPPT” (Putra Arfis Maydino et al.), cited by applicant. D1 discloses: a gondola for high-speed multibeam echosounder (MBES) surveying by a semi-displacement or planing hull survey vessel (title), the gondola comprising: a housing having an enclosed volume extending between an upper surface of the housing and a lower surface of the housing (apparent from figures 5(a), 5(b), and 6), wherein a multi-head MBES transducer array is provided within the enclosed volume and extends through one or more apertures of the lower surface (also apparent from figures 5(a), 5(b), and 6; first paragraph on page 6; last paragraph on page 7); a nose fairing extending from a forward portion of the housing at a maximal width of the upper surface and the lower surface (figures 5(a) and 5(b) show "Side Shell" elements; those at the front side, i.e. at the right-hand side in the figures, represent a noise fairing as claimed; it should be noted that the terms "nose" and "forward portion" are not limiting as long as the gondola is claimed alone, i.e. not in combination with a semi-displacement or planing hull survey vessel); a tail fairing extending from an aft portion of the housing at a minimal width of the upper surface and the lower surface (figures 5(a) and 5(b) show "Side Shell" elements; those at the sides at the back, i.e. at the left-hand side in the figures, represent a tail fairing as claimed; it should be noted that the terms "tail" and "aft portion" are not limiting as long as the gondola is claimed alone, i.e. not in combination with a semi-displacement or planing hull survey vessel); and a hydrofoil strut segment having first and second hydrofoil surfaces extending between a first distal end of the hydrofoil strut segment and a second distal end of the hydrofoil strut segment (apparent from figures 5(a) and 6), wherein: the first distal end of the hydrofoil strut segment includes a coupling configured for flush attachment to the upper surface of the housing (apparent from figures 5(d) and 6); the second distal end of the hydrofoil strut segment includes a coupler portion configured for attachment to the semi-displacement or planing hull survey vessel (last paragraph on page 4; and the first and second hydrofoil surfaces are orthogonal to the upper surface of the housing (figure 6) and are configured to generate opposing hydrodynamic forces during high-speed MBES surveying by the semi-displacement or planing hull survey vessel (figure 6: follows from the shape of the disclosed support structures, the term "support structure" being found in figure 5(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
As best understood by the examiner, claims 4-6, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: Design and Finite Element Analysis of Gondola Construction for Multibeam Echosounder (MBES) Installation on RV Barunia Jaya III – BPPT” (Putra Arfis Maydino et al.), cited by applicant. D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the specifically claimed features of the recited subject matter of claims 4-6, 12-14, 16-18 and 20. Regarding, claims 4-6, the particular speeds for which the gondola is configured for would have been considered a matter of preference based on desired performance and design criteria, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, especially since no particular material configuration is specifically associated with such speeds. In addition, regarding claim 6, D1 in Figs. 5(a) and 6 disclose a hydrofoil strut segment comprises a rounded leading surface and a tapered trailing edge. Regarding claims 12-14, see Figs. 1 and 6 and the last paragraph on page 3 pertaining to a multi-head MBES transducer array including transmitter, TX transducer array and RX transducer array with first and second receivers disposed on opposite sides of the transmitter. Regarding claim 15, see side shell elements identified in Figs. 5(a), 5(b) and 6 of D1 interpreted as nose fairing and tail fairing flush with upper surface and lower surface of the housing. Regarding claims 16-18, the particular shape of the upper surface of the housing and tapering from the maximal width at an attachment point with the nose fairing to the minimal width at an attachment point with the tail fairing would have been considered obvious as a matter of preference to facilitate desired performance, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, Fig. 6 of D1 shows that both the upper surface and the lower surface, without the "Side Shell" elements identified in figures 5(a) and 5(b), comprise a planar surface and a curved surface. Regarding claim 20, D1 discloses in the legend of Fig. 3 a high-speed multibeam echosounder (MBES) surveying system comprising a survey vessel specified in the claim. That the MBES is used with a high-speed survey vessel having a semi-displacement hull or a planing hull as further claimed is considered intended use. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate enhanced performance of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
As best understood by the examiner, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1: Design and Finite Element Analysis of Gondola Construction for Multibeam Echosounder (MBES) Installation on RV Barunia 2407 III – BPPT” (Putra Arfis Maydino et al.), cited by applicant, in view of D2: EP 4024079 A1 (Farsounder Inc.), also cited by applicant. D1 discloses all claimed features as indicated previously, except the claimed subject matter of claim 7. However, D2 discloses such features in Fig. 4 [121] and Fig. 9; paras. [0043] and [0064] for reinforcement and support. Therefore, it would have been considered obvious 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 to provide such features to facilitate reinforcement and support of the device as desired with a reasonable expectation of success, as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. The rejection combines known features to achieve expected results; no unknown features or unexpected results are achieved for the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 07/09/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL V VENNE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7947. The examiner can normally be reached between M-F, 7am-3:30pm Flex. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marc Q Jimenez, who can be reached at phone number (571) 272-4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
15. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Daniel V Venne/
Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
07/22/2026
Prosecution Insights