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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Upon careful review of figures submitted by applicant dated 07/18/2024, Examiner submits that Fig 6A and Fig 6B images cannot be understood due to poor image quality. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”).
Regarding claim 1, Vance discloses a system for a watercraft ([0007] and abstract, mounting device for fish finding apparatus secured to a boat), the system (Fig 1 and [0030], motorized pole mount system 100) comprising: an outer shaft (Fig 5, hollow member 112), ….. an inner shaft (Fig 5, second member 114) that is disposed within the outer shaft and that is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft (Fig 2, dual shaft motor 140 via coupler 132 to pole 110, [0036], [0039]: rotation, spinning of motor cause the pole 110 to also spin, pole 110 includes hollow member 112 and inner shaft 114, see [0032] for details), the inner shaft being attached to a second sonar device so as to enable directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft ([0031] transducer attached to pole 110, [0035] motor to turn direction of pole 110, [0038] direction switch 170 controls spin direction imparted to the pole by motor, see [0040] for further details); and a motor coupled to the inner shaft and configured to operate to cause rotation of the inner shaft to cause corresponding rotation of the facing direction of the second sonar device ([0031] transducer attached to pole 110, [0035] motor to turn direction of pole 110; [0040] direction switch in form of dual pucks 170 with motor controller to control rotation of motor).
However, Vance fails to disclose the outer shaft being attached to a first sonar device;
However, InDepth Video and Humminbird combined teaches the outer shaft being attached to a first sonar device (InDepth video at 1:40 min showing Humminbird Mega 360 sonar transducer; 1:02 min and 1:15 min shows a Garmin Livescope Perspective sonar transducer with mount, and 6:40 min ~ 7:35 min discusses the following: they (transducer one of Mega 360 and transducer two of Livescope) are both a huge complement to each other ….. see benefits of both transducer ….. recommends to have both sonar transducers system on the same boat; Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide in page 29, shows a Mega 360 sonar transducer mounted by a Fortrex mounting bracket to a shaft).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vance and InDepth Video in view of Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to [0031] of Vance, which describes that other types of transducers may also be used in other implementations, implying that, in addition to just having one sonar transducer when used in a non-limiting embodiment. As a result, Vance expressly suggests the possibility of implementing multiple different transducers. Meanwhile, inDepth Video in 6:40 min ~ 7:35 min discusses the following: they (Mega 360 (sonar transducer # 1) and Garmin Livescope (sonar transducer # 2)) are both a huge complement to each other, and discusses benefits of each type of transducer, discusses the synergy of having both transducers at the same time, and he recommends to have both sonar transducers system mounted to shafts on the same boat. Meanwhile, Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide in page 29, shows a Humminbird Mega 360 sonar transducer mounted by a Fortrex mounting bracket to a shaft). As a result, above discussed benefits of having both Humminbird Mega 360 sonar and the Garmin Livescope sonar as taught by InDepth Video, which can be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Vance, in view of teaching of Humminbird Mega 360 sonar transducer mounting by a Fortrex mounting bracket to a shaft, serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vance and InDepth Video in view of Humminbird, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance, InDepth Video and Humminbird are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 2, Vance 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 (Figs 2 and 5, outer shaft (112) is fixed with respect to base component (120/136/130), and base component (120/136/130) supports a motor 140 coupled to inner shaft (114) via a coupler 132).
Regarding claim 3, Vance discloses wherein the base component (130/120/136) comprises an indicator (Fig 2, indicator dial 134) indicating the facing direction of the second sonar device ([0037]).
Regarding claim 5, Vance fails to disclose wherein the first sonar device is a 360-degree sonar imaging device.
However, InDepth Video teaches wherein the first sonar device is a 360-degree sonar imaging device (InDepth video at 1:40 showing Hummingbird Mega 360 sonar transducer).
Regarding claim 6, Vance fails to disclose wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises at least one sonar transducer element.
However, InDepth Video wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises at least one sonar transducer element (InDepth video at 1: 58 min ~ 2:05 min, Mega 360 has a transducer rotating inside the housing).
Regarding claim 9, Vance fails to disclose wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device is attached circumferentially around the outer shaft.
However, InDepth Video teaches wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device is attached circumferentially around the outer shaft (video at 2:06 min shows 360 degree Humminbird Mega 360 sonar attached circumferentially around the bottom section of a shaft).
Regarding claim 14, Vance fails to disclose 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.
However, InDepth Video teaches 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 (7:00 min ~ 7: 23 min describe of having two sonar devices Humminbird Mega 360 and Garmin Livescope used together on the boat, Humminbird Mega 360 at the bow of the boat, while the Garmin Livescope can be at the stern of the boat as shown in video at 7:02min to prevent any hinderance. Image quality of the simulated Garmin Livescope live image does not show any hinderance from mega 360 sonar).
Regarding claim 19, Vance discloses wherein a trolling motor system is at least partially connected to the outer shaft via one or more support arms (Figs 1 and 5, trolling motor 310, flange bearing 122).
Regarding claim 20, Vance discloses wherein a trolling motor shaft corresponding to a trolling motor of the trolling motor system and the inner shaft can rotate independently of each other (Figs 2 and 5, motor 140 of inner shaft 112 and pole 110 rotate independent of trolling motor above trolling motor shaft 320 in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 21, Vance 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, note: the trolling motor and the motor 140 for the sonar transducer are correspondingly rotatable with respect to the boat by virtue of plate 120 for securing both together).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 9 and 14, 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 Vance and InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 1, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), and further in view of Roath (US 20240125928A1, hereinafter referred to as “Raoth”).
Regarding claim 4, Vance, InDepth and Humminbird fails 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 Vance and Roath in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to [0031] of Vance, which describes that other types of transducers may also be used in other implementations, implying that, in addition to just having one sonar transducer when used in a non-limiting embodiment. As a result, Vance expressly suggests the possibility of implementing multiple different transducers. Meanwhile, inDepth Video in 6:40 min ~ 7:35 min discusses the following: they (Mega 360 (sonar transducer # 1) and Garmin Livescope (sonar transducer # 2)) are both a huge complement to each other, and discusses benefits of each type of transducer, discusses the synergy of having both transducers at the same time, and he recommends to have both sonar transducers system mounted on the same boat. Meanwhile, Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide in page 29, shows a Humminbird Mega 360 sonar transducer mounted by a Fortrex mounting bracket to a shaft). However, referring to Vance, the dial indicator 134 is designed to be used only for the single sonar transducer mounted to the motor 140 (see Fig 2) and pole 110. Thus there is still a need for a second directional indictor to be mounted to the second 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 Roath can be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system taught by Vance, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vance by Roath, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance 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 Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), and further in view of Clark (US 20220390542A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”).
Regarding claim 7, Vance and InDepth Video 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 Vance and Clark in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to Vance, sonar transducer is only vaguely described and not shown in figures and being omitted in details. Meanwhile, InDepth Video only describe generic vague product descriptions for two types of sonars, namely Mega 360 (sonar transducer # 1) and Garmin Livescope (sonar transducer # 2)). No details on each of the sonar device is provided by InDepth Video. 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 Vance, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vance by Clark, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance 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, Vance and InDepth Video fails 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, Vance fails 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, Vance fails 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 Vance and Clark in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird 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 Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), 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, Vance, InDepth Video, Humminbird 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 Vance and Lowrance based on the following rationale: referring to Vance, sonar transducer is only vaguely described and not shown in figures and being omitted in details. Meanwhile, InDepth Video only describe generic vague product descriptions for two types of sonars, namely Mega 360 (sonar transducer # 1) and Garmin Livescope (sonar transducer # 2)). No details on each of the sonar device is provided by InDepth Video. 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 Vance, serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vance and Lowrance, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance, 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 Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), and further in view of Clark (US12314050B1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark 4050”).
Regarding claim 10, Vance fails to disclose 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 Vance and Clark 4050 in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to Vance, sonar transducer is only vaguely described and not shown in figures and being omitted in details, and no details is provided for sonar targeting or sonar array positioning for pointing at user defined target while watercraft is in motion. Meanwhile, InDepth Video only describe generic vague product descriptions for two types of sonars, namely Mega 360 (sonar transducer # 1) and Garmin Livescope (sonar transducer # 2)). No details on each of the sonar device is provided by InDepth Video for sonar targeting or sonar array positioning for pointing at targe while watercraft is in motion.
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 Vance, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vance by Clark 4050, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance and 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, Vance fails to disclose 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.
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, Vance fails to disclose 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 Vance and Clark 4050 in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird 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 Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), and further in view of LSMount product page at lsmouts.com, (hereinafter referred to as “LSMount”).
Regarding claim 15, Vance fails to disclose 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 Vance and LSMount view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the rationale that all of Vance, InDepth Video and Humminbird 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 taught by Vance, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vance by LSMount, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance and LSMount are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), and further in view of Caspall (US 20220373663A1, hereinafter referred to as “Caspall”).
Regarding claim 16, Vance and InDepth Video fails to disclose or teach
wherein the second sonar device is pivotable with respect to the inner shaft within a vertical plane.
However, Caspall teaches wherein the second sonar device is pivotable with respect to the inner shaft within a vertical plane ([0078] transducer assembly 160 rotatable to desired orientation. [0007], Fig 2C, Fig 5, Fig 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 Vance and Caspall in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to [0031] of Vance, which describes that other types of transducers may also be used in other implementations, implying that, in addition to just having one sonar transducer when used in a non-limiting embodiment. As a result, Vance expressly suggests the possibility of implementing multiple different transducers. Meanwhile, inDepth Video in 6:40 min ~ 7:35 min discusses the following: they (Mega 360 (sonar transducer # 1) and Garmin Livescope (sonar transducer # 2)) are both a huge complement to each other, and discusses benefits of each type of transducer, discusses the synergy of having both transducers at the same time, and he recommends to have both sonar transducers system mounted on the same boat. Meanwhile, Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide in page 29, shows a Humminbird Mega 360 sonar transducer mounted by a Fortrex mounting bracket to a shaft). However, referring to Vance, sonar device is not pivotable with respect to the inner shaft within a vertical plane. On the other hand, Caspall shows that the transducer assembly is able to rotate or pivot across multiple degrees of freedom facilitating view of larger areas from more angles than prior mounting devices. As a result, above discussed benefits of Caspall can be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Vance, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vance by Caspall, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance and Caspall 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 Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), and further in view of Reetz (US 20250123383A1, hereinafter referred to as “Reetz”).
Regarding claim 22, Vance fails to sufficiently disclose 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 Vance and Reetz based on the following rationale: referring to Vance, the dual pucks 170 in Fig 3 and [0040] are used to serve as direction switch to control spin direction of shaft which in turns spins the pole 110 and transducer. Meanwhile, Vance 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 Vance, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vance by Reetz, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance and Reetz are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) in view of Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”).
Regarding claim 23, InDepth video discloses a system for a watercraft (video at 7:02 min showing a boat with two sonar transducer systems, namely Garmin LiveScope perspective and Humminbird Mega 360, and corresponding displays), the system comprising: an outer shaft, the outer shaft being attached to a first sonar device (video at 1:35 min, shaft attached to hummingbird mega 360 sonar), wherein the first sonar device is rotatable (video at 2:01 min ~ 2:13 min); ……. the inner shaft being attached to a second sonar device so as to enable directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft (video at 0:20min and 1:07 min showing Garmin Livescope perspective mounted to a shaft; live real time video image capture at 5:33 min and 7:42 min shows direction changes of sonar ), wherein the first sonar device and the second sonar device are configured to rotate independently of each other (comparison of full 360 rotation of Humminbird mega 360 sonar (video at 2:01 min ~ 2:13 min) versus slight left and right rotational of Garmin live sonar transducer).
However, InDepth video fails to disclose the following: and an inner shaft that is disposed within the outer shaft and that is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft.
However, Vance teaches and an inner shaft (Fig 5, second member 114) that is disposed within the outer shaft and that is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft (Fig 2, dual shaft motor 140 via coupler 132 to pole 110, [0036], [0039] rotation, spinning of motor cause the pole 110 to also spin, pole 110 includes hollow member 112 and inner shaft 114, see [0032] for details).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vance and InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the same rationale as previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”) in view of InDepth Sonar youtube video titled “LiveScope Perspective VS Mega 360 – Garmin VS Humminbird” dated 03/09/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “InDepth Video”) and further in view of Humminbird 2023 accessory resource guide dated 01/01/2023 (hereinafter referred to as “Humminbird”), and further in view of Clark (US 20220390542A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”).
Regarding claim 24, Vance discloses an assembly for a watercraft ( [0007] and abstract, mounting device for fish finding apparatus secured to a boat), the assembly comprising: an outer shaft (Fig 5, hollow member 112), ….. ; an inner shaft (Fig 5, second member 114) that is disposed within the outer shaft and that is rotatable with respect to the outer shaft (Fig 2, dual shaft motor 140 via coupler 132 to pole 110, [0036], [0039] rotation, spinning of motor cause the pole 110 to also spin, pole 110 includes hollow member 112 and inner shaft 114, see [0032] for details), the inner shaft (114) being attached to a second sonar device so as to enable directional control of a facing direction of the second sonar device relative to the outer shaft ([0031] transducer attached to pole 110, [0035] motor to turn direction of pole 110, [0038] direction switch 170 controls spin direction imparted to the pole by motor, see [0040] for further details)
….. and a motor coupled to the inner shaft and configured to operate to cause rotation of the inner shaft to cause rotation of the facing direction of the second sonar device ([0031] transducer attached to pole 110, [0035] motor to turn direction of pole 110; [0040] direction switch in form of dual pucks 170 with motor controller to control rotation of motor).
However, Vance fails to disclose the outer shaft being attached to a first sonar device, wherein the first sonar device is a 360-degree sonar imaging device …… 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, InDepth Video teaches the outer shaft being attached to a first sonar device, wherein the first sonar device is a 360-degree sonar imaging device (1:40 min showing Hummingbird Mega 360 sonar transduce attached to a shaft).
Meanwhile, 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);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vance and InDepth Video in view of Humminbird based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity. 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 Vance and Clark based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 7 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ridl (US 11370516B2) discloses a motorized rotating transducer mount for watercraft. Betts (US20130215719A1) discloses a 360 degree imaging sonar. Pelin (US 20180120431A1) discloses a sonar transducer assembly for mounting to watercraft. Wagner (US 20220018958A1) discloses a fish finder transducer mount. Crawford (US 20220373662A1) discloses a sonar steering system. Pendergraft (US 20230011068A1) discloses a trolling motor foot pedal-controlled sonar device.
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