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 § 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 14, 16, 19-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 20220373678A1, hereinafter referred to as “Combs”), in view of Wagner (US 11874372B2, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), and further in view of Knight (US 6254441B1, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”).
Regarding claim 1, Combs discloses a system for a watercraft (Fig 1, watercraft 100, multiple sonar transducers 140, 140a, 140b, 140c), the system (Fig 1, 100) comprising: an outer shaft defining a first end and a second end (Fig 1, shaft 149 have a top end a bottom end into the water), a first sonar device attached to the outer shaft (Fig 1, sonar 140 attached to shaft 149); an inner shaft defining a first end and a second end (Fig 1, a short shaft at 140a, or alternatively a short shaft at 140c), ……. a second sonar device (Fig 1, sonar 140a or sonar 140c) attached to the inner shaft at or proximate to the second end (Fig 1, second end is inside the water).…. and a motor coupled to the inner shaft and configured to operate to cause the rotation of the inner shaft to cause corresponding rotation of the facing direction of the second sonar device (Fig 1, steering assembly 145a or 145c, [0059]: steering assembly, sonar may be placed on the primary motor or trolling motor, or on a dedicated sonar steering assembly).
However, Combs fails to disclose wherein the inner shaft is disposed within the outer shaft such that the second end extends past the second end of the outer shaft, wherein the inner shaft is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft……. wherein rotation of the inner shaft within the outer shaft causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft.
However, Wagner teaches a first sonar device attached to the outer shaft (Fig 1, non-directional transducer 64 attached to shaft 60) ….. a second sonar device attached to the inner shaft at or proximate to the second end (Fig 1, directional transducer 76 attached to the inner shaft (70) proximate to end of 70 into the water) ….. the second end extends past the second end of the outer shaft (Fig 1, one end of shaft 70 extends past one end of the shaft 60), wherein the inner shaft is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft (Fig 1, shaft 70 is rotatable with respect to shaft 60) …… wherein rotation of the inner shaft ….. causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft (Fig 1, rotation of 70 causes directional control of directional sonar 76 relative to outer shaft (60)).
However, Wagner fails to sufficiently teach wherein the inner shaft is disposed within the outer shaft …… wherein rotation of the inner shaft within the outer shaft causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft.
However, Knight teaches wherein the inner shaft is disposed within the outer shaft (Figs 13-14, inner shaft 308 is disposed within outer shaft 310)…… wherein rotation of the inner shaft within the outer shaft causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft (col 11, lines 34-38 and line 59).
Meanwhile, although Knight fails to teach the first sonar disposed on the outer shaft, however Wagner teaches a first sonar device attached to the outer shaft (Fig 1, non-directional transducer 64 attached to shaft 60). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine and modify Wagner by Knight so that the first sonar (non-directional transducer 64) of Wagner is disposed on the outer shaft 310 of Knight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Combs by Wagner based on the following rationales: Referring to Fig 1 of Combs, the respective sonar transducers 140, 14a, 140b, 140c mounted to entire region of the boat, from stern to bow, and even at starboard side, all appear to be the same type of directional transducer that requires to be rotated and tilted to provide scan coverage, why implies tremendous amount of redundancy and waste of resources. In addition, according to [0087], the transducer has to be manually remote controlled to sweep the 360 degree underwater environment by rotating a specific sonar transducer which takes some time to perform. According to MPEP 2143, one of common rationale for justifying obviousness is “(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. Thus, based on the conventional knowledge of motivation of eliminating waste and redundancy, and saving time, the singular non-directional transducer 64 combine with the singular directional transducer 76 of Wagner would solve the issues of waste, and redundancy, and offer time savings over that of Combs by using a non-directional transducer capable of providing real-time 360 degrees scan data.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Combs by Knight based on the following rationales: Referring to Fig 1 of Combs, the respective sonar transducers 140, 14a, 140b, 140c are mounted to be spread out to the entire region of the boat, from stern to bow, and even at starboard side, so that the various points of control are spread out over large distance and area. According to MPEP 2143, one of common rationale for justifying obviousness is “(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. Thus, based on the conventional knowledge of motivation of simplifying and consolidating many different functional points of control especially for solo (single-handed) boating and fishing trip to be combined to one singular one of control location would be significantly beneficial. In Knight, the singular point of control at the transducer 70 supported by a nested outer shaft and inner shaft would greatly simplify the transducer setup of Combs.
As a result, above discussions of benefits of Wagner and Knight could then be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Combs, serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Combs by Wagner in view of Knight, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Combs, Wagner and Knight are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 2, Combs fails to discloses wherein the outer shaft is fixed with respect to a base component, and wherein the base component comprises the motor that is coupled to the inner shaft
However, Knight teaches wherein the outer shaft (Fig 13, outer shaft 310) is fixed with respect to a base component (Fig 13, head 450), and wherein the base component (450) comprises the motor (Fig 13, steering drive 452) that is coupled to the inner shaft (Fig 13, inner shaft 308).
Regarding claim 3, Combs fails to disclose wherein the base component comprises an indicator indicating the facing direction of the second sonar device.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the base component (Fig 1, clamp body 12) comprises an indicator (Fig 1, directional indicator 78 ) indicating the facing direction of the second sonar device (Fig 1, indicating facing direction of directional transducer 76, col 3, lines 37-45).
Regarding claim 5, Combs fails to disclose wherein the first sonar device is a 360-degree sonar imaging device.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the first sonar device is a 360-degree sonar imaging device (Fig 1, non-directional transducer 64, implying of 360 degree scan coverage).
Regarding claim 6, Combs fails to disclose wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises at least one sonar transducer element.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises at least one sonar transducer element (Fig 1, one non-directional transducer 64).
Regarding claim 9, Combs fails to disclose wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device is attached circumferentially around the outer shaft.
However, Wagner teaches wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device is attached circumferentially around the outer shaft (Fig 1, sonar transducer 64 attached circumferentially around outer shaft (60) via a sleeve end 62).
Regarding claim 14, Combs discloses wherein the system is configured such that a vertical distance between the first sonar device and the second sonar device is such that the second sonar device does not hinder a first imaging volume of the first sonar device and such that the first sonar device does not hinder a second imaging volume of the second sonar device (Fig 1, watercraft 100, multiple sonar transducers 140, 140a, 140b, 140c are configured so that vertical distances therebetween are offset and far away and independently rotated by various steering assemblies to image volumes shown by Figs 4, 10C, 11, 12),
Regarding claim 16, Combs discloses wherein the second sonar device is pivotable with respect to the inner shaft within a vertical plane (Fig 5, sonar 541 is pivotable with respect to shaft 549 within plane A).
Regarding claim 19, Combs discloses wherein a trolling motor system is at least partially connected to the outer shaft via one or more support arms (Fig 1, trolling motor 108 including sonar 140b, is connected to an outer shaft (108b) via a support arm for supporting 140b located under propellor 108a).
Regarding claim 20, Combs discloses wherein a trolling motor shaft (Fig 1, shaft 108b) corresponding to a trolling motor (108) of the trolling motor system (108) and the inner shaft can rotate independently of each other (Fig 1, shaft 149 rotate independent of shaft 108b).
Regarding claim 21, Combs discloses wherein the trolling motor system and the inner shaft are configured to rotate such that rotations of the trolling motor system and the inner shaft correspond to each other (Fig 1, trolling motor system 108 and shaft 108b of sonar 140b rotate corresponding to each other).
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6 and 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Combs, Wagner and Knight based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 1, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 23, Combs discloses a system for a watercraft (Fig 1, watercraft 100, multiple sonar transducers 140, 140a, 140b, 140c), the system (Fig 1, 100) comprising: an outer shaft defining a first end and a second end (Fig 1, shaft 149 have a top end a bottom end into the water), a first sonar device attached to the outer shaft (Fig 1, sonar 140 attached to shaft 149); wherein the first sonar device is rotatable (Fig 1, sonar 140 is rotatable); and an inner shaft defining a first end and a second end (Fig 1, a short shaft at 140a, or alternatively a short shaft at 140c), ……. a second sonar device (Fig 1, sonar 140a or sonar 140c) attached to the inner shaft at or proximate to the second end (Fig 1, second end is inside the water).…. wherein the first sonar device and the second sonar device are configured to rotate independent of each other (Fig 1, sonar 140 and sonar 140a rotate independent of each other by having independent steering assemblies 145 versus 145a).
However, Combs fails to disclose wherein the inner shaft is disposed within the outer shaft such that the second end extends past the second end of the outer shaft, wherein the inner shaft is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft……. wherein rotation of the inner shaft within the outer shaft causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft.
However, Wagner teaches a first sonar device attached to the outer shaft (Fig 1, non-directional transducer 64 attached to shaft 60) ….. a second sonar device attached to the inner shaft at or proximate to the second end (Fig 1, directional transducer 76 attached to the inner shaft (70) proximate to end of 70 into the water) ….. the second end extends past the second end of the outer shaft (Fig 1, one end of shaft 70 extends past one end of the shaft 60), wherein the inner shaft is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft (Fig 1, shaft 70 is rotatable with respect to shaft 60) …… wherein rotation of the inner shaft ….. causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft (Fig 1, rotation of 70 causes directional control of directional sonar 76 relative to outer shaft (60)).
However, Wagner fails to sufficiently teach wherein the inner shaft is disposed within the outer shaft …… wherein rotation of the inner shaft within the outer shaft causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft.
However, Knight teaches wherein the inner shaft is disposed within the outer shaft (Figs 13-14, inner shaft 308 is disposed within outer shaft 310…… wherein rotation of the inner shaft within the outer shaft causes directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft (col 11, lines 34-38 and line 59).
Meanwhile, although Knight fails to teach the first sonar disposed on the outer shaft, however Wagner teaches a first sonar device attached to the outer shaft (Fig 1, non-directional transducer 64 attached to shaft 60). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine and modify Wagner by Knight so that the first sonar (non-directional transducer 64) of Wagner is disposed on the outer shaft 310 of Knight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Combs by Wagner based on the following rationales: Referring to Fig 1 of Combs, the respective sonar transducers 140, 14a, 140b, 140c mounted to entire region of the boat, from stern to bow, and even at starboard side, all appear to be the same type of directional transducer that requires to be rotated and tilted to provide scan coverage, why implies tremendous amount of redundancy and waste of resources. In addition, according to [0087], the transducer has to be manually remote controlled to sweep the 360 degree underwater environment by rotating a specific sonar transducer which takes some time to perform. According to MPEP 2143, one of common rationale for justifying obviousness is “(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. Thus, based on the conventional knowledge of motivation of eliminating waste and redundancy, and saving time, the singular non-directional transducer 64 combine with the singular directional transducer 76 of Wagner would solve the issues of waste, and redundancy, and offer time savings over that of Combs by using a non-directional transducer capable of providing real-time 360 degrees scan data.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Combs by Knight based on the following rationales: Referring to Fig 1 of Combs, the respective sonar transducers 140, 14a, 140b, 140c are mounted to be spread out to the entire region of the boat, from stern to bow, and even at starboard side, so that the various points of control are spread out over large distance and area. According to MPEP 2143, one of common rationale for justifying obviousness is “(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”. Thus, based on the conventional knowledge of motivation of simplifying and consolidating many different functional points of control especially for solo (single-handed) boating and fishing trip to be combined to one singular one of control location would be significantly beneficial. In Knight, the singular point of control at the transducer 70 supported by a nested outer shaft and inner shaft would greatly simplify the transducer setup of Combs.
As a result, above discussions of benefits of Wagner and Knight could then be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Combs, serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Combs by Wagner in view of Knight, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Combs, Wagner and Knight are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2022037378A1, hereinafter referred to as “Combs”), in view of Wagner (US 11874372B2, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), and further in view of Knight (US 6254441B1, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”), and further in view of Roath (US 20240125928A1, hereinafter referred to as “Raoth”).
Regarding claim 4, Combs, Wagner and Knight fail to disclose or teach wherein the base component further comprises a second indicator indicating a second facing direction of the first sonar device.
However, Roath teaches wherein the base component further comprises a second indicator indicating a second facing direction of the first sonar device (Fig 1, sensor module 300, Fig 8, Fig 12, orientation of sensor module 300 is manually adjustable via rotatable pole 106, [0048] various examples of a mounting device for a sensor that incorporate one or more directional indicators ….. may be driven either mechanically by a user or via motors connected to an electric power supply).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Roath to Combs in view of Wagner and Knight based on the following rationale: referring to Combs which fails to disclose of any directional indicator. Meanwhile, referring to Wagner, the dial indicator 78 is designed to be used only for the single directional sonar transducer 76 mounted to the motor 40. Thus, there is still a need for a second directional indictor to be mounted to the second sonar transducer, which is taught by Roath. Meanwhile, the articulating capability of sensor module 300 in Fig 8 alongside discussions in [0051] in specification of Roath shows that the sensor module is able to articulate the sensor across multiple degrees of freedom facilitating view of larger areas from more angles than prior mounting devices. As a result, above discussed benefits of second directional indictor of Roath can be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system taught by Wagner and Combs, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by Roath, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Combs, Wagner, Knight and Roath are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim(s) 7, 13, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2022037378A1, hereinafter referred to as “Combs”), in view of Wagner (US 11874372B2, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), and further in view of Knight (US 6254441B1, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”), and further in view of Clark (US 20220390542A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”).
Regarding claim 7, Combs, Wagner and Knight, fails to disclose or teach wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises three linear sonar transducer elements.
However, Clark teaches wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises three linear sonar transducer elements (Figs 2A-2C: linear array with transducers; Fig 6, transducer arrays 620, 630, 640; and [0059] transducer assemblies 102a, 102b, 102c, with transducer elements, including linear downscan sonar transducer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine and modify Clark to Combs and Wagner and Knight based on the following rationale: referring to Combs, directional sonar transducers are only vaguely described and being omitted in details. Meanwhile, Wagner only describe generic vague descriptions for two types of sonars, namely non-directional sonar transducer 64 and directional sonar transducer 76, and details are omitted. On the other hand, Clark teaches very details information on a sonar transducer assembly capable of forming live or real-time 2D sonar images in more than 23 figures, including components such as sonar transducer elements, mounting brackets, mounting clamp, and system flowchart and methods. As a result, above discussed information from Clark can be easily adapted to the sonar transducer mounting system taught by Combs and Wagner, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Combs and Wagner by Clark, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Combs, Wagner, Knight and Clark are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 13, Combs, Wagner and Knight fail to disclose or teach wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device provides live or near-live sonar imagery such that an entirety of a resulting image is continuously updated.
However, Clark teaches wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device provides live or near-live sonar imagery such that an entirety of a resulting image is continuously updated ([0097]-[0098]: live sonar imagery, sonar system to provide 360 degrees of coverage around watercraft).
Regarding claim 17, Combs, Wagner and Knight fail to disclose wherein the second sonar device is a live sonar imaging device that provides live or near-live sonar imagery such that an entirety of a resulting image is continuously updated.
However, Clark teaches wherein the second sonar device is a live sonar imaging device that provides live or near-live sonar imagery such that an entirety of a resulting image is continuously updated ([0097]-[0098]: live sonar imagery, sonar system to provide 360 degrees of coverage around watercraft).
Regarding claim 18, Combs, Wagner and Knight fail to disclose wherein the live sonar imaging device comprises three sonar transducer arrays.
However, Clark teaches wherein the live sonar imaging device comprises three sonar transducer arrays (Figs 2A-2C: linear array with transducers; Fig 6, transducer arrays 620, 630, 640; and [0059] transducer assemblies 102a, 102b, 102c, with transducer elements, including linear downscan sonar transducer).
Regarding claims 13, 17 and 18, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Combs, Wagner and Knight, and Clark based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 7, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2022037378A1, hereinafter referred to as “Combs”), in view of Wagner (US 11874372B2, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), and further in view of Knight (US 6254441B1, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”), and further in view of Clark (US 20220390542A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”), and further in view of Summit fishing equipment online shop product page for Lowrance Active Imaging 3in1 transducer dated 06/23/2024 (hereinafter referred to as “Lowrance”).
Regarding claim 8, Combs, Wagner and Knight and Clark, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein a conical or square transducer element is paired with each of the three linear sonar transducer elements, and wherein each of the conical or square transducer elements is used to create fish arches for sonar imagery for the linear transducer element with which the conical or square transducer element is paired.
However, Lowrance teaches wherein a conical or square transducer element is paired with each of the three linear sonar transducer elements, and wherein each of the conical or square transducer elements is used to create fish arches for sonar imagery for the linear transducer element with which the conical or square transducer element is paired (pages 2-3: pairing a conical transducer (traditional 2D sonar) with linear (imaging) sonar transducers (DownScan/SideScan); conical transducers create fish arches, which are formed as a fish passes through the cone-shaped beam, linear transducers (3-in-1 units) provide narrow, high-frequency, photographic-like images (DownScan). While the conical transducer shows the shape (arch) of the fish, the linear (DownScan) transducer shows the position of the fish relative to structure. 3-in-1 Active Imaging, contain both elements (a "cone" for 2D sonar and "linear/arrays" for scanning) to provide a 3D-like understanding).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Combs and Wagner and Knight and Lowrance based on the following rationale: referring to Combs, sonar transducer is only vaguely described and not shown in details. Meanwhile, Wagner only describe generic vague descriptions for two types of sonars, namely non-directional sonar transducer 64 and directional sonar transducer 76, and details are omitted. On the other hand, Lowrance teaches an advanced 3 in 1 sonar transducer system that has many features as described in page 2. As a result, above discussed benefits of 3-in-1 Lowrance active imaging sonar which can be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Combs and Wagner, serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wagner, Knight and Combs and Lowrance, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Combs, Wagner, Knight, Clark and Lowrance are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2022037378A1, hereinafter referred to as “Combs”), in view of Wagner (US 11874372B2, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), and further in view of Knight (US 6254441B1, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”), and further in view of Clark (US12314050B1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark 4050”).
Regarding claim 10, Combs, Wagner and Knight, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the system further comprises a second motor coupled to the 360-degree sonar imaging device that is configured to cause each linear transducer element of the 360-degree sonar imaging device to adjust a facing direction along an arc of angles about the outer shaft in a back and forth manner.
However, Clark 4050 teaches wherein the system further comprises a second motor coupled to the 360-degree sonar imaging device that is configured to cause each linear transducer element of the 360-degree sonar imaging device to adjust a facing direction along an arc of angles about the outer shaft in a back and forth manner.
(col 3, lines 54-61: second motor for sonar array pointed at the position of the user-set target).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Combs and Clark 4050 in view of Wagner and Knight based on the following rationale: referring to Combs, sonar transducer is only vaguely described and not shown in details in figures and being omitted in details, and no details is provided for sonar array positioning for pointing at user defined target while watercraft is in motion. Meanwhile, Wagner only describe generic vague descriptions for two types of sonars, namely non-directional sonar transducer 64 and directional sonar transducer 76, and details are omitted. On the other hand, Clark 4050 teaches very details information on a sonar transducer assembly and sonar imaging system (see Fig 10), and remote control capable of sonar targeting or sonar array positioning for pointing at user defined target while watercraft is in motion. Clark 4050 provides advantages of a system to continuous steer a sonar to keep the intended target in frame regardless of movement of the anglers water craft while fishing (see col 2, lines 5-8 of Clark 4050)). As a result, above discussed benefit offered by Clark 4050 can be easily adapted to the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Combs, Wagner and Knight, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by Clark 4050, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because all cited prior art including Clark 4050 are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 11, Combs, Wagner and Knight, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teachwherein the second motor causes the facing direction of each linear transducer element of the 360-degree sonar imaging device to adjust between a 0-degree reference point and a point that is 120 degrees from the 0-degree reference point.
However, Clark 4050 teaches wherein the second motor causes the facing direction of each linear transducer element of the 360-degree sonar imaging device to adjust between a 0-degree reference point and a point that is 120 degrees from the 0-degree reference point (col 3, lines 54-61: second motor for sonar array pointed at the position of the user-set target; note: it is implicit that second motor can move 360 degrees, including 0 degree and 120 degrees from reference point).
Regarding claim 12, Combs, Wagner and Knight, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device is configured to produce a 360-degree sonar image of an underwater environment beneath the system.
However, Clark 4050 teaches wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device (Fig 5, 360 degree sonar transducer assembly) is configured to produce a 360-degree sonar image of an underwater environment beneath the system (Figs 6-8, transducer assembly 106 is underwater environment).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Combs and Clark 4050 in view of Wagner and Knight based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 10 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2022037378A1, hereinafter referred to as “Combs”), in view of Wagner (US 11874372B2, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), and further in view of Knight (US 6254441B1, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”), and further in view of LSMount product page at lsmouts.com, (hereinafter referred to as “LSMount”).
Regarding claim 15, Combs, Wagner and Knight, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the inner shaft, the outer shaft, the first sonar device, and the second sonar device are configured to be stowable in the watercraft together and are configured to be deployable from the watercraft together.
However, LSMount teaches wherein the inner shaft, the outer shaft, the first sonar device, and the second sonar device are configured to be stowable in the watercraft together and are configured to be deployable from the watercraft together (page 3, sonar devices and shafts are stowable in the watercraft in photo).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Combs and Wagner and Knight and LSMount based on the rationale that all of Combs, Wagner and Knight fails to disclose of shafts and sonar devices being stowable inside watercraft when not in use. On the other hand, LSMount express teaches of mounting features for sonar devices and shafts to be stowable in the watercraft, which facilitate ease of storage. As a result, above discussed benefit offered by LSMount can be easily adapted to the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Combs, Wagner and Knight by LSMount, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Combs, Wagner and Knight and LSMount are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs (US 2022037378A1, hereinafter referred to as “Combs”), in view of Wagner (US 11874372B2, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), and further in view of Knight (US 6254441B1, hereinafter referred to as “Knight”) and further in view of Reetz (US 20250123383A1, hereinafter referred to as “Reetz”).
Regarding claim 22, Combs, Wagner and Knight, singularly or in combination, fails to sufficiently disclose or teach further comprising: a display; one or more processors; and a memory including computer program code configured to, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: generate a first sonar image based on first sonar data from the first sonar device; generate a second sonar image based on second sonar data from the second sonar device; cause presentation of the first sonar image and the second sonar image; receive user input directed to a position within the first sonar image; determine the position; determine a direction to face the second sonar device so as to cause sonar coverage from the second sonar device to cover the determined position; and cause the motor to operate to cause the second sonar device to adjust the facing direction such that the sonar coverage from the second sonar device covers the determined position.
However, Reetz teaches further comprising: a display (Fig 2, display 101); one or more processors (Fig 6, processing element 134); and a memory including computer program code configured to (Fig 6, memory element 132), when executed, cause the one or more processors (134) to: generate a first sonar image based on first sonar data from the first sonar device (Fig 5); generate a second sonar image based on second sonar data from the second sonar device (Fig 8); cause presentation of the first sonar image and the second sonar image (Figs 5 and 8, image on display 101); receive user input directed to a position within the first sonar image ([0061], [0064] user can holding down the activation button; [0065] gesture control by user); determine the position; determine a direction to face the second sonar device so as to cause sonar coverage from the second sonar device to cover the determined position ([0065] and [0070]); and cause the motor (Fig 6, motorized steering unit 118) to operate to cause the second sonar device to adjust the facing direction such that the sonar coverage from the second sonar device covers the determined position ([0061], [0062], [0066] and [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Combs, Wagner and Knight, and Reetz based on the following rationale: referring to Combs, the remote device 1765 is only shown by a generic block in Fig 17, and no details are provided thereof. Meanwhile, Combs, Wagner and Knight, fails to disclose any stand-alone gesture remote for remotely control of sonar steering and orientation changes based on displayed real-time images on display. On the other hand, Reetz teaches a complete or turnkey system including gesture remote for remotely control of sonar steering and orientation changes based on displayed real-time images on display. As a result, above discussed benefits of Reetz can be easily adapted to combine to the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Combs, Wagner and Knight combined, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by Reetz, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Combs, Wagner and Knight, and Reetz are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Cited prior art including Combs, Wagner, and Knight fails to disclose or teach the second end of the inner shaft extends past the second end of the outer shaft and through a center of the 360-degree sonar imaging device, wherein the inner shaft is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft of claim 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baker (US 20240219545A1) discloses a motorized mount assembly for transducer on a boat. Hesse (US 20230393251A1) discloses a forward facing sonar mount on boat. Bird (US 20250012910A1) discloses a sonar transducer mount for attachment to troller motor. Freeman (US 20230375700A1) disclose a sonar target locking system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4797. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights