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 § 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, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jales (US 2018/0259618 A1) and Dubrovinskaya (2019, J. of the ASA; search report).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Jales teaches a fishing sonar apparatus for scanning a body of water and a method performed by a fishing sonar apparatus for scanning a body of water, wherein the fishing sonar apparatus comprises a control unit configured to:
- emit, by means of a fishing sonar module comprised in the fishing sonar apparatus [[0036] fisherman desire highly detailed and accurate information and/or imagery of underwater structure and mid water targets (e.g., fish) … sonar system 110], a phase-modulated impulse sonar signal having a first frequency into the body of water [[0090] pulse generator 242 may also be configured to shape a pulse envelope and/or to modulate the frequency or the phase of the carrier wave within the pulse to perform pulse compression.];
- receive a reflected phase-modulated impulse sonar signal from the body of water [[0034] a series of acoustic pulses (e.g., pulses having audio frequency waves as a carrier), receive corresponding acoustic returns (e.g., echoes), and convert the acoustic returns into sonar data and/or imagery (e.g., remote sensor image data)], wherein said received reflected sonar signal comprises a reflection of the emitted sonar signal being incident on at least one first object surrounded by the body of water [[0008] frequency or a phase of the carrier wave within the pulse may be modulated to perform pulse compression in some embodiments, and side lobes appearing in the correlated return signal due to the pulse compression may be effectively suppressed by the attenuating]; and
- determine a correlated signal between the reflected phase-modulated impulse sonar signal and a reference signal at least partly constructed based on the reflected phase-modulated impulse sonar signal [[0008] determining a correlated return signal based on the return signal and the pulse, comparing the correlated return signal against one or more bounds that are determined relative to the return signal], wherein said correlated signal is a phase-correlated signal determined based on a phase difference [[0011] logic device according to some embodiments may include a subtractor configured to determine the gradient of the first and/or second sensor return; [0092] subtractor 254 may be configured to determine a difference between input values, for example, and provide the difference as an output. Output 248 may be configured to provide the selectively attenuated correlated signal as an output signal for further processing] of the reflected sonar signal and the reference signal [[0103] compression process may include modulating the frequency or the phase of the carrier wave (e.g., carrier wave 410) to transmit the pulse and correlating a return signal (e.g., an echo representing at least a portion of the transmitted pulse reflected from a target) with a replica of the transmitted pulse, such that the resulting correlated return signal may in effect represent a compressed version of the return signa]; and
- obtain at least one object-related information associated with the at least one first object surrounded by the body of water based on said phase-correlated signal [[0104] phase-modulated to switch the phase according to binary codes such as Barker codes or other appropriate codes. Such phase modulation may also be referred to as phase-code modulation or pulse-code modulation; [0105] correlated return signal obtained by correlating a return signal (e.g., an echo) representing at least a portion of the transmitted pulse reflected from a target) with a replica of the frequency-modulated or phase-modulated transmitted pulse such as pulse 500A or 500B can provide an improve range resolution of target ranging].
Jales does not explicitly teach and yet Dubrovinskaya teaches the fishing sonar apparatus according to claim 1 and the method of claim 8, wherein the phase-correlated signal is a phase-only correlated, POC, signal [[pg. 4775, col. 1-2 bridging] typical underwater ranging schemes rely on ToA, time difference of arrival, or received signal strength, which is translated into distance via an acoustic propagation model.9 ToA measurements can be obtained by separately analyzing the reflection patterns of transmitted signals,10 which can be estimated via matched filtering or by using phase-only correlation and the kurtosis metric to mitigate channel enhanced noise.11 Still, ToA measurements tend to be noisy due to multipath: mistaking a non-specular multipath component for the direct path is often regarded as measurement noise,12 and can be mitigated by transmitting signals having a narrow auto-correlation,13,14 or by averaging ToA measurements over different signals.15 Yet, instead of considering multipath as a distortion, the wealth of multipath arrivals can be exploited in passive systems in order to improve the localization accuracy, as well as to find the range of the acoustic source16 or to localize it with multiple receivers through a propagation model.17].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the correlating circuit as taught by Jales, with the phase only correlated filter as taught by Dubrovinskaya so that time of arrival measurements may be obtained by separately analyzing the reflection patterns of transmitted signals (Dubrovinskaya) [[pg. 4775, col. 1-2 bridging]].
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Jales teaches the fishing sonar apparatus according to claim 1 and the method of claim 8, wherein said received reflected sonar signal further comprises a reflection of the emitted sonar signal being incident on at least one second object surrounded by the body of water [[fig. 3] transmit #310, receive reflected from the target #320, determine a correlated return signal #330]; and wherein the control unit is further configured to: - obtain at least one object-related information associated with the at least one second object surrounded by the body of water based on said phase-correlated signal [[0033] sonar system 110 may be implemented according to other sonar system arrangements ( e.g., remote sensing system arrangements) that can be used to detect objects within a water column and/or a floor of a body of water.].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Jales teaches the fishing sonar apparatus according to claim 1 and the method of claim 8, wherein the control unit is further configured to:- determine a time-of-flight of the phase-correlated reflected sonar signal [[0120] a selectively attenuated correlated return signal 730A-730F ( e.g., corresponding to the selectively attenuated correlated return signal z discussed above in connection with Equation 5) are plotted, where the x-axis represents a range or distance and the y-axis represents an amplitude or magnitude (e.g., power) of signals]; and - calculate a distance of the at least one first object and/or the at least one second object from the sonar module based on the determined time-of-flight of the reflected sonar signal [[0066] radars, sonars, lidars, other ranging systems].
Regarding claim 14, Jales teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein said at least one first and/or second objects comprise at least one of a fish among a school of fish [[0036] mid water targets (e.g. fish)], and sea vegetation and a bottom part of a sea and/or a lake [[0034] bottom profile].
Regarding claim 15, Jales teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the reference signal is at least one of a predetermined reference signal, a reference signal constructed based on a reflected phase-modulated impulse sonar signal generated under a test operation condition of the fishing sonar module in a test chamber, and a reference signal constructed based on a reflected phase-modulated impulse sonar signal generated under real-life operation condition of the fishing sonar module [[0141] FIG. l0C includes graph 1004 showing a series of returns before being filtered by gradient filter 800 and/or 900, and graph 1005 showing the same series of returns after being filtered by gradient filter 800 and/or 900, where target response 1024 is heavily clipped. As can be seen in FIG. l0A, interference peak 1010 has been removed from the series of returns by application of gradient filter 800 and/or 900, and heavily clipped target response 1022 has been left substantially unchanged. Testing indicates, the results are similar for interference peaks overlapping unclipped and clipped target responses.].
Regarding claim 16, Jales teaches a computer program carrier carrying one or more computer programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a processing system comprised in a control unit, the one or more programs comprising instructions for performing the method according to claim 8, and wherein the computer program carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal or a computer-readable storage medium [[0150] software … one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems].
Regarding claim 17, Jales teaches a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by one or more processors of a processing system comprised in a control unit, causes the processing system to carry out the method according to claim 8 [[0150] software … one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems].
Regarding claim 18, Jales teaches a vessel for scanning a body of water, the vessel comprising: a perception system for monitoring a surrounding environment of the vessel such as the body of water; a localization system configured to monitor a geographical position and heading of the vessel; and a fishing sonar apparatus according to claim 1 [[fig. 1b] shows a vessel].
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jales (US 2018/0259618 A1) and Jales (US 2018/0259618 A1) and Dubrovinskaya (2019, J. of the ASA; search report) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kim (2002, ASA).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Jales does not explicitly teach and yet Kim teaches the fishing sonar apparatus according to claim 1 and the method of claim 8, wherein the at least one object-related information associated with the at least one first and/or second objects comprises at least one of a distance of the at least one first and/or second object from the fishing sonar module [[pg. 795, sec. a. data collection] chirp sonar system (model: Data Sonics CAP 6000W) was set up and calibrated to transmit a 20 ms pulse ranging in frequency from 1 to 10 kHz at a repetition rate of 250 ms. Since the ship’s speed was kept at 5 knots, this repetition rate corresponds to 0.64 m distance.], and a distance of the at least one first object from the at least one second object [[pg. 795, sec. a.] water depth in the survey area increases monotonously seawards from 6 to 92 m. Figure 2 is the sea floor features map of the survey area synthesized from sediment], and a hardness characteristics of the at least one first and/or second object [[fig. 3] FIG. 3. (a) The transmitted chirp signal and (b) its amplitude spectrum. (c) A single chirp sonar trace. (d) The portion of the bottom return in (c) after matched filtering and (e) its envelope.; [pg. 797, col. 1] similarity index is a useful parameter to distinguish the bottom type as a function of grain size, hardness, and degree of sorting which aggregately define the bottom sediment facies.; [fig. 4] compares rocky bottom, sandy bottom, muddy bottom].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the sonar device as taught by Jales, with the matched filtering, envelope, and hardness detection as taught by Kim so that profiling data may be used to determined from what various types of sediments and rocks the sea floor is composed (Kim) [[pg. 794, col. 1]].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jales (US 2018/0259618 A1) and Jales (US 2018/0259618 A1) and Dubrovinskaya (2019, J. of the ASA; search report) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark (US 2019/0072951 A1; search report).
Regarding claim 7, Jales does not explicitly teach and yet Clark teaches the fishing sonar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the fishing sonar apparatus is comprised in a castable enclosure [[title castable sonar devices]; [abstract] one or more castable devices can be integrated with a transducer assembly, such as a phased array, that emits sonar beams and receives sonar returns from the underwater environment. Processing circuitry may receive the sonar returns, process the sonar returns, generate an image, and transmit the image to a display.; [0096] castable device 20 may be associated with the gathered sonar data for correlation and/or storage.].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the sonar device as taught by Jales, with the castable sonar device as taught by Clark so that the sonar may be retrieved from the water when not in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the fishing sonar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to:- extract an envelope of the reflected sonar signal; - multiply the extracted envelope of the reflected sonar signal with the phase-correlated signal; and - determine the hardness characteristics of the at least one first object and/or at least one second object based on the multiplied signal.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record does not appear to teach the method according to of claim 8,wherein the obtaining at least one object-related information associated with the at least one first object and/or at least one second object further comprises: - extracting an envelope of the reflected sonar signal; - multiplying the extracted envelope of the reflected sonar signal with the phase- correlated signal; and - determining the hardness characteristics of the at least one first object and/or at least one second object based on the multiplied signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (see discussion below).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14-18 - 102 Rejection
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Jales (US 2018/0259618 Al). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections. The amendments to independent claims 1 and 8 introduce features not taught by Jales, overcoming the rejections for the independent claims and for all claims that depend therefrom.
First, Jales fails to teach the claimed feature of reference signal construction. Claim 1 recites that the reference signal is "at least partly constructed based on the reflected phase- modulated impulse sonar signal" This is a key difference between claim 1 and the disclosure of Jales.
This claimed feature solves the problem of signal distortion caused by the transducer hardware, the underwater environment, and absorption losses as explained in the specification of the present disclosure, e.g., in § [0051]. In contrast, Jales repeatedly and exclusively teaches using a replica of the transmitted pulse as its reference. For instance, Jales states, "...correlating a return signal... with a replica of the transmitted pulse..." (see e.g., Jales, § [0103] - [0105], see also § [0108]). That is, Jales's method uses the "replica of the pulse" to be correlated with the return signal, where the replica is an ideal transmitted sonar waveform. Thus, Jales does not recognize, let alone solve, the problem of compensating for signal distortions of the emitted sonar signals by using the reflected pulse itself as the basis for constructing the reference signal.
The Examiner disagrees because the argument appears to contradict the instant specification itself which explains that the sonar receiver correlates a replica pulse, sometimes referred to as reference signal or template, with the received reflected pulse. The shape of the template is related to the shape of the transmitted sonar signal and can also be constructed based on the shape of the received reflected signal [para. 0046 as read from US PUB 2025/0085422 A1].
Furthermore, as correctly noted in the Office Action, para. 16, Jales does not explicitly teach a POC signal. Jales teaches a general "correlated return signal" (e.g., see Jales, § [0008]) but provides no disclosure of determining a phase-only correlated signal.
Accordingly, claim 1 is novel over the disclosure of Jales and Applicant respectfully requests indication of such.
The Office Action, however, arguess that claims 2 and 9 are obvious over Jales in view of Dubrovinskaya. Applicant, however, respectfully traverses this argument and respectfully asserts that amended claim 1 now incorporating the subject-matter of claim 2 is not obvious over the combination of Jales and Dubrovinskaya.
Dubrovinskaya discloses estimating the trajectory of an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) via a single passive receiver, without any anchor nodes or receiving arrays, and with the only help of a sequence of known acoustic signals emitted by the AUV. Dubrovinskaya uses the spatial dependency of channel impulse responses that arises from the diverse bathymetry around the receiver. This dependency is captured by comparing channel estimates against a database of channel responses, pre-computed through an acoustic propagation model. This yields multiple likely AUV locations, which are filtered via a path tracking method similar to the Viterbi algorithm, in order to estimate the trajectory of the AUV. (see e.g., Abstract of Dubrovinskaya).
The Office Action argues that it would have been obvious to modify the ranging system of Jales with the POC technique taught by Dubrovinskaya. Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, there is no motivation to prompt a person skilled in the art to combine these references. Moreover, Jales and Dubrovinskaya are directed to solving fundamentally different technical problems.
The Examiner disagrees because the instant specification explains that the goal of the invention is to determine time of flight of phase correlated reflected sonar signal [para. 0012]. Jales is similarly directed to sonar detection and ranging systems [[title]]. Dubrovinskaya is also concerned with estimate of location using time of arrival ranging schemes [[pg. 4775, col. 1]]. Correlation is often used in the sonar ranging art to distinguish between known or expected replicas of received signals from noise.
The person skilled in the art faced with an objective technical problem of further improving the object separation, range resolution and signal to noise ratio in the ranging system of Jales finds no clues in Dubrovinskaya as how to solve this problem according to the solution as recited in the amended claim 1. More specifically, Jales relates to improving active sonar target resolution by suppressing or selectively attenuating undesirable signal artifacts such as side lobes in a return signal that arise from pulse compression (Jales, § [0007] - [0008]).
In contrast, Dubrovinskaya addresses an entirely different problem of passive AUV localization by correlating the measured Channel Impulse Response (CIR) for each received signal against a pre-computed database of modeled CIRs. Instead of considering multipath as a distortion, Dubrovinskaya exploits the wealth of multipath arrivals in its passive system in order to improve the localization accuracy (Dubrovinskaya, Abstract; pg. 4775, col. 1, col. 2; pg. 4777, col. 2, section B).
The Examiner disagrees because Jales does not appear to discuss multipath distortion anywhere. However as to the substance of the argument, both references are concerned with use of a correlator which may be configured to determine a correlated return signal based on a return signal (e.g., representing a portion of the transmitted pulse reflected from a target) and the transmitted pulse. Dubrovinskaya itself explains that time of arrival measurements can be obtained by separately analyzing the reflection patterns of transmitted signals which can be estimated via matched filtering or by using phase-only correlation [[pg. 4775, col. 1-2 bridging]]. Therefore, it appears to be obvious to substitute one correlation technique for another.
The person of ordinary skill attempting to suppress side lobes in Jales's active sonar for improving object separation and range resolution would not be motivated to incorporate techniques from a passive system that relies on multipath effects and CIR comparison for passive AUV localization. That is, the passive multipath-based techniques neither address Jales's stated deficiencies nor provide a reasonable expectation of success in improving active sonar resolution.
The Examiner disagrees because the argument is conflating two stages or types of filtering. Dubrovinskaya explains that time of arrival measurements can first be obtained by separately analyzing the reflection patterns of transmitted signals, which can be estimated via matched filtering or by using phase-only correlation [[pg. 4775, col. 1-2 bridging]]. Dubrovinskaya goes on to explain that multipath arrivals can second be further tracked using a particle filter [[pg. 4775, col. 1]].
Nonetheless, even if the skilled person were to combine these references in an unlikely scenario, the resulting combination would still fail to disclose all features of the amended claim 1. As discussed above, neither Jales nor Dubrovinskaya contemplate a method of constructing a reference signal at least partly based on the reflected signal or determining a POC correlated signal based on the constructed reference signal.
Hence, the combination of Jales with Dubrovinskaya would be devoid of any teaching that would lead the skilled person to determining the POC signal based on correlating the reflected sonar signal and the constructed reference signal that is distortion compensated. Accordingly, even in an attempt to combine the teachings of Dubrovinskaya with Jales the person skilled in the art would not arrive at the solution of the present invention as recited in the amended claim 1.
Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention is not obvious over Jales and Dubrovinskaya or any combination thereof. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests indication of allowance of claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees with the premise of the argument, because a reflected signal, even though it may be polluted by noise as it travels, will still resemble the signal which was originally transmitted and gave rise to the reflection. As explained itself in instant para. 0046, correlating a reflected signal with the known transmitted signal allows a match to be made or not. The correlation depends on having some knowledge of what the reflected signal should look like.
As claims 3, 5 and 18 depend from claim 1 and include additional limitations, Applicant incorporates the arguments above regarding claim 1 being allowable. Applicant, therefore, respectfully asserts that claims 3, 5 and 18 are allowable and requests indication of such.
Applicant respectfully contends that claim 8 is allowable over Jales. Specifically, similar arguments apply mutatis mutandis to claim 8 as presented above regarding claim 1. For at least this reason, therefore, Applicant respectfully contends that claim 8 is allowable and requests indication of such.
As claims 10, 12, and 14-17 depend from claim 8 and include additional limitations, Applicant incorporates the arguments above regarding claim 8 being allowable. Applicant, therefore, respectfully asserts that claims 10, 12, and 14-17 are allowable and requests indication of such.
The Examiner disagrees for similar reasons as previously explained.
Claims 2 and 9 - &103 Rejection
Applicant canceled claims 2 and 9 as the limitations thereof were incorporated into claims 1 and 8, respectively. Applicant, therefore, respectfully contends that the rejection of claims 2 and 9 is moot and respectfully requests withdrawal thereof.
This argument is not addressed because as indicated the claims were cancelled.
Claims 4 and 11 - &103 Rejection
As claim 4 depends from claim 1 and claim 11 depends from claim 8, both of which include additional limitations, Applicant incorporates the arguments above regarding claims 1 and 8 being allowable over Jales. Applicant further contends that Kim fails to remedy the deficiencies noted above regarding claims 1 and 8. For at least this reason, therefore, Applicant respectfully contends that claim 4 and 11 are allowable and requests indication of such.
The Examiner disagrees for similar reasons as previously explained.
Claim 7 - §103 Rejection
As claim 7 depends from claim 1 and includes additional limitations, Applicant incorporates the arguments above regarding claims 1 being allowable over Jales. Applicant further contends that Clark fails to remedy the deficiencies noted above regarding claim 1. For at least this reason, therefore, Applicant respectfully contends that claim 7 is allowable and requests indication of such.
The Examiner disagrees for similar reasons as previously explained.
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights