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 .
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.
Claim 4 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 the limitation "the cover" in the first line of claim 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-7,9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 20150369908 A1) in view of Zehner (US 5506812 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zimmerman teaches An … vehicle provided with at least a first sonar and a second sonar, for the detection of underwater objects[Abstract has forward and sidescanning sonar for objects], …..all the measurements of a plane being obtained in one emission/reception cycle[Claims and abstract concern sonar meaning it sends a pulse and gets an echo which is a reception cycle which is how Sonar works], the at least one first sonar allowing the detection of underwater objects located at a depth ….than that of the ….. vehicle[Fig 10 shows tracking of objects where sonar is pointing], the second sonar being configured to detect underwater objects located at a depth greater than that of the underwater vehicle[Fig 10 shows tracking of objects where sonar is pointing], the underwater vehicle further comprising correlation means for correlating data from said at least first sonar and said second sonar, an underwater object being identified and located according to a correlation result[0016-0018, 0058, 0085 and claim 28 and 57-59 have correlation of objects across different sonars]
Zimmerman does not explicitly teach underwater vehicle….. the at least one first sonar being a sonar whose angular coverage in elevation is comprised between 45 and 240 degrees, is oriented towards the surface when the underwater vehicle is in the detection phase of an underwater object and whose angular coverage in bearing is less than 10 degrees to obtain measurements in a plane,
Zehner teaches underwater vehicle [Fig 2B and 2C show vehicle underwater]….. the at least one first sonar being a sonar whose angular coverage in elevation is comprised between 45 and 240 degrees[Fig 2B and 2C show angular coverage reading on the claimed degrees], is oriented towards the surface when the underwater vehicle is in the detection phase of an underwater object and whose angular coverage in bearing is less than 10 degrees to obtain measurements in a plane[Fig 2B and 2C show angular coverage reading on the claimed degrees], …..depth less than underwater vehicle [Fig 2B and 2C show vehicle underwater with sonar pointing towards surface and objects at depth less than vehicle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Zimmerman with the angles of Zehner in order to track objects across various depths around the vehicle. Moreover it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have sonar coverage at such angles towards the surface, since applicant has not disclosed that such angles or view solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with having the sonar face any desired direction.
Regarding claim 13, Zimmerman teaches the emission, by the at least one first sonar, of an acoustic signal …..[Abstract has forward and sidescanning sonar for objects; Fig 7 shows the various directions],
- the acquisition of acoustic signals in return of the signal emitted towards the ….., to obtain measurements in a plane, all the measurements of a plane being obtained in one emission/reception cycle[Claims and abstract concern sonar meaning it sends a pulse and gets an echo which is a reception cycle which is how Sonar works],
- the emission, by the second sonar, of an acoustic signal towards the seabed[Fig 10 shows tracking of objects where sonar is pointing],
- the acquisition of acoustic signals in return of the signal emitted towards the seabed and[Claims and abstract concern pulsed transmission sonar meaning it sends a pulse and gets an echo which is a reception cycle which is how Sonar works]
- the processing of the acquired signals to detect and locate an underwater object located at a depth ….. than that of the ….. vehicle[Fig 10 shows tracking of objects where sonar is pointing], ...
Zimmerman does not explicitly teach towards the surface according to an angular coverage in elevation comprised between 45 and 240 degrees and an angular coverage in bearing less than 10 degrees….. depth less than that of the underwater vehicle
Zehner teaches the emission, by the at least one first sonar, of an acoustic signal towards the surface according to an angular coverage in elevation comprised between 45 and 240 degrees and an angular coverage in bearing less than 10 degrees [Col 1 Background relates to sonar systems in water, Fig 2B and 2C show angular coverage reading on the claimed degrees and direction],
underwater vehicle [Fig 2B and 2C show vehicle underwater with sonar pointing towards surface and objects at depth less than vehicle]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Zimmerman with the angles of Zehner in order to track objects across various depths around the vehicle. Moreover it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have sonar coverage at such angles towards the surface, since applicant has not disclosed that such angles or view solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with having the sonar face any desired direction.
Regarding claim 2, Zimmerman as modified, teaches that the at least one first sonar is provided with a longitudinal emission antenna oriented along the axis of the underwater vehicle, allowing broadband emission. [0044, 0065, 0071 has various frequencies that transmit and receiver array along and around the axis of the vehicle for frequency transmission; Fig 7 has facing of various transceivers]
Zehner, also teaches that the at least one first sonar is provided with a longitudinal emission antenna oriented along the axis of the underwater vehicle, allowing ..... emission. [Fig 2A has transmit and receiver array along and around the axis of the vehicle for frequency transmission]
Regarding claim 3, Zimmerman as modified, teaches that the at least one first sonar is provided with a linear or curved transverse reception antenna[Fig 3 shows linear array]
Zehner, also teaches that the at least one first sonar is provided with a linear or curved transverse reception antenna. [Fig 2A has transmit and receiver array around the vehicle meaning it is curved or linear when going along the device]
Regarding claim 4, Zimmerman, does not explicitly, teaches that the cover is oriented forward in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle, at an angle comprised between 5 and 25 degrees when the underwater vehicle is in the detection phase of an underwater object. [Though such degrees would be a matter of design choice as seen in fig 7, 8 or 10]
Zehner, teaches that the cover is oriented forward in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle, at an angle comprised between 5 and 25 degrees when the underwater vehicle is in the detection phase of an underwater object. [Fig 2B and 2C show angular coverage being claimed].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Zimmerman with the angles of Zehner in order to track objects across various depths around the vehicle. Moreover it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have sonar coverage at such angles towards the surface, since applicant has not disclosed that such angles or view solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with having the sonar face any desired direction.
Regarding claim 5, Zimmerman as modified, teaches that the at least one first sonar is with a scanning in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle, said scanning in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle being controlled independently of the advance of the underwater vehicle.[Fig 7, 8 or 10 show beam scanning in vertical direction]
Zehner, also teaches that the at least one first sonar is with a scanning in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle, said scanning in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle being controlled independently of the advance of the underwater vehicle.[Fig 2A and 2C show vertical plane scanning being done by towed body meaning automatically and independent of the advance]
Regarding claim 6, Zimmerman, as modified, teaches that the at least one first sonar is a multibeam sonar. [0015, 0052, 0058 teach multibeam sonar]
Zehner, also teaches that the at least one first sonar is a multibeam sonar. [Fig 2B and 2C show multiple sections meaning multiple beams]
Regarding claim 7, Zimmerman, as modifed, teaches the at least one first sonar is a side sonar. [Abstract; 0006-0012 has side scan sonar]
Regarding claim 9, Zimmerman, as modified, teaches the at least one first sonar has colored emission.[0044, 0065, 0071 has various frequencies has various frequencies meaning colored emission]
Regarding claim 10, Zimmerman, as modified, teaches that the at least one first sonar is made up of a plurality of sonars[Fig 3 shows sonar array]
Zehner, also teaches that the at least one first sonar is made up of a plurality of sonars[Fig 2A shows array meaning plurality of sonar].
Regarding claim 12, Zimmerman, as modified, teaches that which the vehicle is autonomous. [0048 has ROV application meaning]
Zehner, also teaches that which the vehicle is autonomous. [Abstract concerns towed body meaning the vehicle is performs its actions automatically].
Regarding claim 14, Zimmerman, does not explicitly, teach that the acoustic signal emitted towards the surface is emitted forward in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle, at an angle comprised between 5 and 25 degrees. [Though such degrees would be a matter of design choice as seen in fig 7, 8 or 10]
Zehner, as modified, teaches that the acoustic signal emitted towards the surface is emitted forward in a longitudinal vertical plane of the underwater vehicle, at an angle comprised between 5 and 25 degrees.[Fig 2B and 2C show angular coverage reading on the claimed degrees]
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman (US 20150369908 A1) in view of Zehner (US 5506812 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burlet (US 20170059706 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zimmerman does not explicitly teach the at least one first sonar is a synthetic antenna sonar.
Burlet, teaches the at least one first sonar is a synthetic antenna sonar. [Title, Abstract, Claim 1 has synthetic antenna sonar]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Zimmerman with the synthetic antenna of Burlet in order to better improve resolution as stated in 0003 of Burlet.
Regarding claim 11, Zimmerman does not explicitly teach the second sonar is a synthetic antenna sonar.
Burlet, teaches the second sonar is a synthetic antenna sonar. [Title, Abstract, Claim 1 has synthetic antenna sonar]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Zimmerman with the synthetic antenna of Burlet in order to better improve resolution as stated in 0003 of Burlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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 at (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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645