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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2024, 12/20/2024 and 09/17/2025 was/were filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejection under 35 USC 112
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Referring to MPEP 2164,01, which recites in part: “[a]ny analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention. The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? That standard is still the one to be applied. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Accordingly, even though the statute does not use the term "undue experimentation," it has been interpreted to require that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("The test of enablement is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation.").” (emphasis in bold added).
Referring to MPEP 2161.01 III, which recites in part: “In In re Wands, the court set forth the following factors to consider when determining whether undue experimentation is needed: (1) the breadth of the claims; (2) the nature of the invention; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the level of one of ordinary skill; (5) the level of predictability in the art; (6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (7) the existence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d 1404. The undue experimentation determination is not a single factual determination; rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing all the factual considerations. Id.” (hereinafter referred to as “Wands factors”).
Regarding claim 1, limitation in lines 8-11, which reads: “to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other, and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis” (emphasis in bold added) was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
According to Wands factors, Examiner submits that (1) the breadth of the claim of claim 1 recites “to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other, and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis” (2) the nature of the invention of claim 1 being a combined sonar and motor assembly (3) the state of the prior art being mostly taught by commercial sonar and trolling motor assembly prior to the effective filing date of instant application; (4) the level of one of ordinary skill in the field of sonar and trolling motor assembly for watercraft; (5) the level of predictability is in the art of sonar and trolling motor assembly for watercraft; (6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor as provided by instant disclosure in Figs 3-10, showing structures for assemblies 125, 225, 325, 425, 525, 625, 725, 825, 925, 1025, and descriptions in [0050], [0051] and [0072] in specification, which as best understood by examiner, describes of the desired end results to be achieved, but not enough details of the corresponding enabling structural elements and limitations for achieving such results; (7) the existence of insufficient working examples; as best understood by Examiner, no working example is found in instant disclosure being commensurate in scope to showing the structure(s) to describe and “to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other, and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis” and (8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure would be fairly significant, to one of ordinary skill in the art, according to disclosed structures in Figs 3-10, showing structures for assemblies 125, 225, 325, 425, 525, 625, 725, 825, 925, 1025, it remains unclear as to what specific structural limitations would be able “to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other, and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis”. Thus, it appears that claimed invention of claim 1 fails to satisfy at least factors (6), (7) and (8) of Wands factors test, thereby claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
By virtue of dependency upon rejected base claim 1, claims 2-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 1-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites limitation in lines 8-11 as follow: “to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other, and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis” (emphasis in bold added).
Referring to MPEP 2172.01, “depending on the specific facts at issue, a claim which omits subject matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may be rejected …….. under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite (see, e.g., In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976)); or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as failing to claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor (or, for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention (see, e.g., In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968)). Such essential matter may include missing elements, steps or necessary structural cooperative relationships of elements described by the applicant(s) as necessary to practice the invention. ……… If a claim fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined by applicant(s) in the specification, the claim may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976)……”
As best understood by Examiner, essential elements, features and limitations are missing in the claim “to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other, and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis”. Referring to [0049], [0050], [0055] and [0063], at least elements including gears with respect to motor shaft and other elements are essential to enable rotation and engagement. Correction is required.
Furthermore, claim 1 in line 7 recites: “the shaft”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the respective claim. Meanwhile, there is also “the first shaft” being recited in line 8 o claim 1, thereby introducing more confusion and ambiguity. Correction is required.
By virtue of dependency upon rejected base claim 1, claims 2-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laster (US 20230358885A1, hereinafter referred to as “Laster”).
Regarding claim 1, Laster discloses a combined sonar and motor assembly (Fig 1, combined sonar 121 and trolling motor, Fig 2A, combined sonar 121 and trolling motor with housing 115) comprising: a sonar transducer assembly (121); a propulsion motor (Fig 1, trolling motor 110); a subassembly defining an opening therein (Fig 2B, sonar 221 has an opening for threaded end 211b); and a first shaft defining an axis (Fig 2B, pole 211), wherein the sonar transducer assembly is attached to the subassembly (Fig 2B), wherein the propulsion motor is attached to the shaft (Figs 1 and 2A, trolling motor 110 attached to a shaft 111; note: “the shaft” versus “the first shaft”), and wherein the subassembly is configured to receive the first shaft (Fig 1, sonar assembly 121 to shaft (109) and Fig 2B, sonar assembly 221 to receive pole 211) within the opening (Fig 2B, sonar 221 has an opening for threaded end of 211b) so that the first shaft (211) is rotatable relative to the subassembly to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly (121) or the propulsion motor (110) about the axis without rotating the other (Figs 1, 2A and 2B, note: trolling motor 110 is disposed independently of steering device 109, thus without rotating trolling motor 110, sonar transducer 121 in Fig 2B can be rotated separately/independently), and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis (Figs 2A, shaft axis A1 is shared by both sonar transducer 121 and the trolling motor with housing 115).
Regarding claim 5, Laster discloses wherein the propulsion motor is a trolling motor (Fig 1, trolling motor 110).
Claim(s) 14, 16 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark (US 20220390542A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”).
Regarding claim 14, Clark discloses a combined sonar and motor assembly (Figs 7B and 12A and 12B) comprising: a sonar transducer assembly (Figs 5 and 7A and 12A, sonar transducer 602, 902, 1202); a propulsion motor (Fig 1, trolling motor 108, Fig 7B, 912, Fig 12A, 1212); a first shaft defining an axis (Fig 12B, pole 1210; Fig 7A, pole 910, Fig 12C, pole 1210); and a second shaft that is hollow and that defines an opening (Figs 12A and 12B, clamp 1208 has a shaft that is hollow with an opening; Figs 14A and 14B, clamp 1408 has a shaft from 1408A to 1408B, and opening at 1413), wherein the first shaft is received within the opening of the second shaft (Figs 7A, 12A, 12B, 12C, 13 and 18-20), wherein the propulsion motor is attached on the first shaft (Fig 12B, motor 1212 attached on shaft 1210, Fig 13, motor 1312 attached on shaft 1310), wherein the sonar transducer assembly is attached on the second shaft (Figs 12A and 12B, transducers attach to clamp shaft), and wherein the second shaft is configured to rotate relative to the first shaft about the axis to enable a rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other ( Figs 12A and 12B, hollow clamps 908, 1208 for supporting transducers 902, 1202, 1302 permit isolated rotation thereof without rotating the pole 1210, 1310), and wherein the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor are both configured to rotate about the axis (Fig 7B).
Regarding claim 16, Clark discloses wherein the first shaft is received within the opening of the second shaft (Fig 12C, pole 1210 received in opening 1413 of clamp shaft shown in Fig 14A), and wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second shaft (Fig 14A, by loosening the hex nut and bolt fasteners of the clamp 908, 1208, pole can slide relative to the clamp).
Regarding claim 17, Clark discloses wherein the first shaft is configured to slide within the opening of the second shaft to increase or decrease a distance between the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor (Fig 14A, by loosening the hex nut and bolt fasteners of the clamp 1408, pole can slide relative to the clamp to adjust distance between transducer and motor, see Figs 12 and 13 and 20).
Regarding claim 18, Clark discloses a method of assembling a combined sonar and motor assembly for a watercraft (Fig 12A), the method comprising: providing a first shaft that defines an axis (Fig 14A, clamp 1408 has a shaft), wherein the first shaft defines a first end and a second end (Fig 14A, ends 1408A, 1408B); providing sonar transducer assembly (Fig 5), a propulsion motor (trolling motor), and a subassembly, wherein the subassembly defines an opening therein; attaching the sonar transducer assembly to the subassembly (Figs 7A and 12A); attaching the propulsion motor to the first shaft proximate to the second end of the first shaft (Figs 12A and 12B); and receiving the first end of the first shaft through the opening of the subassembly (Fig 12C and 14A, opening 1413), wherein the first end of the first shaft is received through the opening of the subassembly so that the first shaft is allowed to rotate about the axis and so that the sonar transducer assembly is rotatable about the axis relative to the propulsion motor (Fig 12C, coverage angles A1, A2, [0097]).
Regarding claim 19, Clark discloses wherein the first end of the first shaft is received in the opening of the subassembly so that the first shaft is allowed to move along the axis relative to the subassembly and so that the distance between the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor is adjustable.
Regarding claim 20, Clark discloses wherein the subassembly includes a second shaft that is hollow and that defines the opening of the subassembly therein (Fig 12B, second transducer 1202B has another clamp 1208 with opening 1413).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US 20230358885A1, hereinafter referred to as “Laster”) in view of Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”), and further 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 2, Laster fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the subassembly includes a second shaft, wherein the second shaft is hollow and defines an opening, wherein the first shaft is received within the opening of the second shaft, wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second shaft, wherein the sonar transducer assembly is attached on the second shaft, and wherein the first shaft and the second shaft are rotatable relative to each other to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other.
However, Vance teaches wherein the subassembly (Fig 1 and [0030], motorized pole mount system 100) includes a second shaft (Fig 5, hollow member 112), wherein the second shaft is hollow and defines an opening (Fig 5, hollow member 112), wherein the first shaft is received within the opening of the second shaft, wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second shaft (Figs 2 and 5, pole 110 includes hollow member 112 and inner shaft 114, and inner shaft 114 is received in opening of second shaft 112, dual shaft motor 140 rotates via coupler 132 to pole 110, [0036], [0039]: rotation, spinning of motor cause the pole 110 to also spin, see [0032] for details), …. and wherein the first shaft and the second shaft are rotatable relative to each other to enable rotation of one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor about the axis without rotating the other ([0031] sonar 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; Fig 1 shows trolling motor shaft 320 and trolling motor 310 being separate and independent from pole 110 and motor 140, respectively, and thus the trolling motor does not rotate while transducer pole and motor rotates).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laster by Vance based on the following rationale: referring to Figs 1 and 2B of Laster, the steering device 109 for attaching the sonar assembly 121 and the attachment feature 213 does not have remote direction control capability. On the other hand, Vance teaches extensive sonar transducer directional control by means of the dual puck 170, motor controller, power supply and motor 140 setup for the pole mount system 100 independent of trolling motor directional control (see Figs 1-3 of Vance for details). As a result, above discussed advantage of Vance over Laster serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Vance and Laster, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Vance and Laster are analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
However, Vance and Laster, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose wherein the sonar transducer assembly is attached on the second shaft.
However, InDepth Video and Humminbird combined teach the following: wherein the sonar transducer assembly is attached on the second shaft (InDepth video at 1:40 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 and 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 further combine Laster, 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 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 Laster and 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 Laster and 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 3, Laster fails to disclose wherein the first shaft is configured to slide within the opening of the second shaft to increase or decrease a distance between the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor.
However, Vance teaches wherein the first shaft is configured to slide within the opening of the second shaft to increase or decrease a distance between the sonar transducer assembly and the propulsion motor (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 on adjustment of length of pole 110 between sonar transducer and motor 140).
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 Laster, Vance and InDepth Video in view of Humminbird based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 2 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US 20230358885A1, hereinafter referred to as “Laster”) in view of Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”), and further 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, Laster, Vance, InDepth video, Humminbird, fails to disclose or teach further comprising: a depth adjustment knob configured to adjust a depth of at least one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor.
However, Roath teaches further comprising: a depth adjustment knob configured to adjust a depth of at least one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor (Fig 2, directional indicator 102 on electronic module top 101, can adjust the articulating sensor module 300, thereby affecting depth thereof shown in Fig 8).
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 Laster and Vance and Roath in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to 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 and 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 can be 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 over Vance, thereby 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 Laster and Vance and Roath are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 11, Laster, Vance, InDepth video, Humminbird, fails to disclose or teach wherein an orientation of at least one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor is manually adjustable.
However, Roath teaches wherein an orientation of at least one of the sonar transducer assembly or the propulsion motor is manually adjustable ([0048] directional indicator 102, Fig 1, sensor module 300, Fig 8, Fig 12, orientation of sensor module 300 is manually adjustable via rotatable pole 106, [0048] 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 Laster and Vance and Roath in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on same rationale as previously discussed for claim 4, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US 20230358885A1, hereinafter referred to as “Laster”) in view of Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”), and further 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 Crawford (US 11046408B1, hereinafter referred to as “Crawford”).
Regarding claim 6, Laster, Vance, InDepth video, and Humminbird, fails to disclose or teach further comprising: a gear motor; a motor shaft having a first end and a second end; and a first gear, wherein the first end of the motor shaft is attached to the gear motor, wherein the second end of the motor shaft is attached to or is configured to engage with the first gear, wherein activation of the gear motor causes rotation of the motor shaft and the first gear, and wherein rotation of the first gear causes rotation of the first shaft or the subassembly.
However, Crawford teaches further comprising: a gear motor (col 10, lines 64-67, motor 130; col 15, lines 53-56); a motor shaft having a first end and a second end (col 10, lines 64-67, electric motor operative to turn a shaft; col 15, lines 53-56: motor 130 may be used to cause rotation of shaft assembly 234); and a first gear (232), (Fig 13, gear 264), wherein the first end of the motor shaft is attached to the gear motor ( col 8, lines 58-65, electric motor 130 operative to turn a shaft that is mechanically linked eg. via gears to shaft 22), wherein the second end of the motor shaft is attached to or is configured to engage with the first gear (col 8, lines 62-64, col 15, lines 53-55, col 16, line 9-16), wherein activation of the gear motor causes rotation of the motor shaft and the first gear (col 15, lines 53-56, col 8, lines 62-64, col 15, lines 53-55, col 16, line 9-16, first gear 264), and wherein rotation of the first gear causes rotation of the first shaft or the subassembly (col 16, lines 9-16, Fig 9, shaft assembly 234, col 15, lines 53-56).
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 Crawford to Laster and Vance and Roath in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to Laster and Vance, several sonar transducers and motors for watercraft are described, however, none of the internal workings of the gearbox or gear assembly is expressly taught by Laster and Vance. On the other hand, Crawford teaches a turnkey complete gear assembly for describing sufficient details of motion transferred from motor to shaft and to sonar transducer. As a result, above discussed benefits of Crawford over Laster and Vance, thereby serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by Crawford, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Laster and Vance and Crawford are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 7, Laster, Vance, InDepth video, and Humminbird, fails to disclose or teach wherein the first gear engages with a portion of the first shaft or the subassembly.
However, Crawford teaches wherein the first gear engages with a portion of the first shaft or the subassembly (Fig 18, first gear 264 engage with portion of shaft assembly 234).
Regarding claim 8, Laster, Vance, InDepth video, and Humminbird, fails to disclose or teach further comprising: a second gear that engages with a portion of the first shaft or the subassembly, wherein the first gear engages with the second gear, and wherein rotation of the first gear causes rotation of the first shaft or the subassembly due to engagement between the first gear and the second gear.
However, Crawford teaches further comprising: a second gear (Fig 13, gear 314) that engages with a portion of the first shaft or the subassembly (Fig 12, engage with shaft 236), wherein the first gear engages with the second gear (Fig 13, gear 264 engage gear 314), and wherein rotation of the first gear causes rotation of the first shaft or the subassembly due to engagement between the first gear and the second gear (col. 14, lines 62-65).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, 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 Crawford to Laster and Vance and Roath in view of InDepth Video and Humminbird based on the following rationale: referring to Laster and Vance, several sonar transducers and motors for watercraft are described, however, none of the internal workings of the gearbox or gear assembly is expressly taught by Laster and Vance. On the other hand, Crawford teaches a turnkey complete gear assembly for describing sufficient details of motion transferred from motor to shaft and to sonar transducer. As a result, above discussed benefits of Crawford over Laster and Vance, thereby serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by Crawford, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Laster and Vance and Crawford are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US 20230358885A1, hereinafter referred to as “Laster”) in view of Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”), and further 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 Crawford (US 11046408B1, hereinafter referred to as “Crawford”), and further in view of Bird (US 20250014556A1, hereinafter referred to as “Bird”).
Regarding Claim 9. Laster, Vance, InDepth video, and Humminbird fails to disclose or teach wherein the first gear rotates about a first axis, wherein the second gear rotates about a second axis, and wherein the first axis and the second axis are not parallel to each other.
However, Bird teaches wherein the first gear rotates about a first axis (Figs 5 and 6, drive gears 264 with axis shown by vertical line), wherein the second gear rotates about a second axis (Figs 5 and 6, rotating coupler 226 with gear teeth 266, rotating axis shown), and wherein the first axis and the second axis are not parallel to each other (Figs 5 and 6, drive gears 264, and rotating coupler 226 with gear teeth 266 are not parallel with each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Crawford by Bird based on the following rationale: referring to [0053] of Crawford, the design allows for easy removal of the motor away from the shaft, so that trolling motor shaft 106 can be easily disconnected and removed from the head 108. On the other hand, Crawford does not have such capability. As a result, above discussed benefits of Bird over Crawford thereby serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Crawford by Bird, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Bird and Crawford are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 10, Crawford teaches wherein the first gear rotates about a first axis (Fig 13, gear 264), wherein the second gear rotates about a second axis (Fig 13, gear 314), and wherein the first axis and the second axis are about perpendicular to each other. (Figs 9, 13 and 17, gears 264, 314 are parallel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Crawford by Bird based on same rationale as previously discussed for claim 9 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laster (US 20230358885A1, hereinafter referred to as “Laster”) in view of Vance (US 20210056944A1, hereinafter referred to as “Vance”), and further 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”), and further in view of Clark (US 20220390542A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”).
Regarding claim 12, Laster, Vance, InDepth video, and Humminbird fails to disclose or teach further comprising: a handle, wherein the subassembly includes a second shaft, wherein the second shaft is hollow and defines an opening, wherein the first shaft is received within the opening of the second shaft, wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second shaft, wherein the sonar transducer assembly is attached on the second shaft, and wherein the first shaft is manually rotatable relative to the second shaft to enable rotation of the sonar transducer assembly about the axis using the handle without rotating the propulsion motor.
However, Clark teaches further comprising: a handle (Figs 12A and 12B, each transducer 1202A, 1202B has a handle), wherein the subassembly includes a second shaft (Fig 14A, shaft formed by clamp 1408), wherein the second shaft is hollow and defines an opening (Fig 14A 1413), wherein the first shaft (910) is received within the opening of the second shaft (Figs 12A and 12C), wherein the first shaft is configured to rotate relative to the second shaft (Fig 14A, by loosening the hex nut and bolt fasteners of the clamp 1408, pole can be rotated relative to clamp shaft), wherein the sonar transducer assembly is attached on the second shaft (Figs 12A and 12B), and wherein the first shaft is manually rotatable relative to the second shaft to enable rotation of the sonar transducer assembly about the axis using the handle without rotating the propulsion motor (Figs 12A and 12B).
Regarding claim 13, Laster, Vance, InDepth video, and Humminbird fails to disclose or teach further comprising: a handle; and a third shaft, wherein the third shaft is attached to the watercraft, wherein the third shaft is hollow and defines a third shaft opening, wherein the second shaft is received within the third shaft opening, wherein the second shaft is configured to rotate relative to the third shaft, wherein the handle is attached to the first shaft or the second shaft, and wherein the handle is configured to be manually rotated to cause the second shaft to rotate relative to the first shaft to enable rotation of the sonar transducer assembly about the axis using the handle without rotating the propulsion motor.
However, Clark teaches further comprising: a handle (Figs 12A, 12B) and a third shaft (Fig 12B, another clamp 1208 has a shaft), wherein the third shaft is attached to the watercraft, (Fig 12A) wherein the third shaft (clamp 1208 shaft) is hollow and defines a third shaft opening (Fig 12A, for 1210), wherein the second shaft (1210) is received within the third shaft opening (Fig 12A), wherein the second shaft is configured to rotate relative to the third shaft (Fig 12A), wherein the handle is attached to the first shaft or the second shaft (Figs 12A and 12B, each sonar has a handle), and wherein the handle is configured to be manually rotated to cause the second shaft to rotate relative to the first shaft to enable rotation of the sonar transducer assembly about the axis using the handle without rotating the propulsion motor (Fig 12A, motor in motor housing 1212 is not rotated when handle for transducer is rotated).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, 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 Clark to Laster, Vance, 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. Meanwhile, no details on sonar transducer is provided by Laster. 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 to watercraft taught by Laster and 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 Laster and Vance by Clark, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Laster and Vance and Clark are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 20220390542A1, hereinafter referred to as “Clark”) in view of Laster (US 20230358885A1, hereinafter referred to as “Laster”).
Regarding claim 15, Clark fails to disclose wherein the second shaft is configured to be attached to a body of the watercraft, and wherein the first shaft is not directly attached to the body of the watercraft.
However, Laster teaches wherein the second shaft (Fig 2B, shaft 211) is configured to be attached to a body of the watercraft ([0054] last 3 lines), and wherein the first shaft is not directly attached to the body of the watercraft (Fig 2A, shaft 111 is mounted to system housing 112 and watercraft attachment feature 113, and is not directly attached to the body of watercraft 100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark by Laster based on the following rationale: referring to Clark, various embodiments of sonar transducers are mounted to the same pole/shaft holding the trolling motor, while no transducer is mounted to a separate and independent shaft without trolling motor. On the other hand, Laster teaches in Fig 1 of mounting a sonar transducer 121 on a shaft (109) without trolling motor, thus allowing more degree of freedom of underwater live transducer image capture, due to presence of transducer mounted to a separate and independent shaft without trolling motor. As a result, above discussed benefits of Laster over Clark thereby serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Clark by Laster, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Laster and Clark are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
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