DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
The following addresses applicants’ response dated 3rd September 2026. Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 were amended; NO Claim(s) were cancelled; and NO Claim(s) were newly added; therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are pending and addressed below. The Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments (Remarks Pg. 6 of 14) with respect to the claim amendments of Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 have been fully considered.
Applicants’ arguments (Remarks Pg. 6-13 of 14) with respect to the rejection of the Claim(s) under AlA 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103; have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amended Claim; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as described below. Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 have been amended; therefore, Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented prior art, SARANGAPANI (US 2019/0257930 A1) in view of NOTHNICK (US 4,952,833 A); Claim(s) 2-3, and 11-12 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Applicant presented prior art, ROWE (US 2019/086538 A1); Claim(s) 5 and 14 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Applicant presented prior art, FAGE (US 5,521,883 A); Claim(s) 6 and 15 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Applicant presented prior art, DOELZ (US 2,977,417 A); Claim(s) 9 and 18 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of NPL, KENNY (Advances in and extended application areas for Doppler sonar, Re Item V OCEANS, 2012, IEEE, 14 October 2012 (2012-10-14), pages 1-9, XP032299854, DOI: 10.1109/0CEANS.2012.6404884 ISBN: 978-1-4673-0829-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8, 10, 13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented prior art, SARANGAPANI (US 2019/0257930 A1) in view of NOTHNICK (US 4,952,833 A).
Referring to Claim 1, SARANGAPANI teaches a sonar system ([0004]) comprising:
a transducer subsystem configured to transmit a plurality of acoustic beams in a plurality of different directions offset from a common axis by a Janus angle ([0051], [0052]);
wherein each acoustic beam comprises a transmit waveform comprising a plurality of sub-waveforms ([0038]);
wherein the plurality of sub-waveforms ([0041]-[0042]) of each acoustic beam ([0038]) are transmitted at different center frequencies ([0041]-[0042], [0044]: 1200kHz and 300kHZ).
SARANGAPANI doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of sub-waveforms of each single acoustic beam are transmitted at different center frequencies to obtain independent relative velocity estimates.
NOTHNICK teaches the plurality of sub-waveforms (Col. 2, Ln. 55-68) of each single acoustic beam (Col. 2, Ln. 33-65) are transmitted at different center frequencies (Col. 2, Ln. 60-68; Col. 4, Ln. 1-16) to obtain independent relative velocity estimates (col. 5; Ln. 1-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sonar system disclosed in SARANGAPANI with the frequency stepped arrangement taught in NOTHNICK, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided independently conveyed acoustic-wave channels centered at different frequencies; thereby improving frequency discrimination and isolation between the respective channels as taught by NOTHNICK (see Col. 2, Ln. 55-68 and Col. 3, Ln. 25-31[0044]).
Referring to Claim 4, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sub-waveforms of each acoustic beam are temporally staggered in time ([0038]: sequentially).
Referring to Claim 7, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 1, wherein:
the transducer subsystem comprises a plurality of piston transducers configured to transmit the plurality of acoustic beams ([0038]);
each sub-waveform of each acoustic beam is transmitted at the Janus angle ([0051], [0052]).
Referring to Claim 8, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 7, wherein the transducer subsystem comprises four piston transducers each configured to transmit a respective acoustic beam (Fig. 5).
Claim 10 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to a method for the sonar system of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Claim 13 is essentially the same as Claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 4 above.
Claim 16 is essentially the same as Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 7 above.
Claim 17 is essentially the same as Claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 8 above.
Referring to Claim 19, SARANGAPANI teaches a sonar system ([0004]) comprising:
a transducer subsystem configured to transmit a single acoustic beam ([0041], Fig. 2);
wherein the acoustic beam comprises a transmit waveform comprising a plurality of sub-waveforms ([0041], [0042]);
wherein the plurality of sub-waveforms ([0041]-[0042]) of the acoustic beam are transmitted at different center frequencies ([0041]-[0042] [0044]: 1200kHz and 300kHZ).
SARANGAPANI doesn’t explicitly teach the plurality of sub-waveforms of the acoustic beam are transmitted at different center frequencies to obtain independent relative velocity estimates from the same scattering surface or volume.
NOTHNICK teaches the plurality of sub-waveforms (Col. 2, Ln. 55-68) of the acoustic beam (Col. 2, Ln. 33-65) are transmitted at different center frequencies (Col. 2, Ln. 60-68; Col. 4, Ln. 1-16) to obtain independent relative velocity estimates (col. 5; Ln. 1-30) from the same scattering surface or volume (see Col. 2, Ln. 55-68 and Col. 3, Ln. 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sonar system disclosed in SARANGAPANI with the frequency stepped arrangement taught in NOTHNICK, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided independently conveyed acoustic-wave channels centered at different frequencies; thereby improving frequency discrimination and isolation between the respective channels as taught by NOTHNICK (see Col. 2, Ln. 55-68 and Col. 3, Ln. 25-31).
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 19 and refers to method of operating the sonar system of claim 19. Therefore Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 19 above.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Applicant presented prior art, ROWE (US 2019/086538 A1).
Referring to Claim 2, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein: the transducer subsystem comprises a phased array transducer configured to transmit the plurality of acoustic beams; each sub-waveform of each acoustic beam is transmitted at an angle offset from the Janus angle.
ROWE teaches the transducer subsystem comprises a phased array transducer configured to transmit the plurality of acoustic beams ([0044], Fig. 3);
each sub-waveform of each acoustic beam is transmitted at an angle offset from the Janus angle (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sonar system disclosed in SARANGAPANI with the transducer subsystem taught in ROWE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been capable of simultaneously or sequentially forming multiple acoustic beams in two axes and at two or more widely separated acoustic frequencies as taught by ROWE ([0044]).
Referring to Claim 3, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 2, wherein the angle offset is determined based at least on a number of the sub-waveforms and a beamwidth of the phased array transducer (Fig. 1).
Claim 11 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Applicant presented prior art, FAGE (US 5,521,883 A).
Referring to Claim 5, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of sub-waveforms is a first plurality of sub-waveforms transmitted simultaneously ([0038]);
SARANGAPANI doesn’t explicitly teach the transmit waveform of each acoustic beam further comprises a second plurality of sub-waveforms transmitted at same center frequencies and temporally staggered in time.
FAGE teaches the transmit waveform of each acoustic beam further comprises a second plurality of sub-waveforms transmitted at same center frequencies and temporally staggered in time (Col. 3, Ln. 58 - Col. 4, Ln. 13; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sonar system disclosed in SARANGAPANI with transmitting waveform of each acoustic beam further comprises a second plurality of sub-waveforms transmitted at same center frequencies and temporally staggered in time taught in FAGE with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have made it possible to obtain simultaneously as many reception signals as there are emission directions as taught by FAGE (Col. 3, Ln. 49-57).
Claim 14 is essentially the same as Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Applicant presented prior art, DOELZ (US 2,977,417 A).
Referring to Claim 6, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 1, but doesn’t wherein the plurality of sub-waveforms of each acoustic beam are modulated using minimum-shift keying (MSK).
DOELZ wherein the plurality of sub-waveforms of each acoustic beam are modulated using minimum-shift keying (MSK) (Col. 1, Ln. 35 - Col. 2, Ln. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sonar system disclosed in SARANGAPANI with the plurality of sub-waveforms of each acoustic beam being modulated using minimum-shift keying taught in DOELZ with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have greatly improved the error rate of the received signal as taught by DOELZ (Col. 3, Ln. 45-57).
Claim 15 is essentially the same as Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 6 above.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARANGAPANI in view of NOTHNICK as applied to Claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of NPL, KENNY (Advances in and extended application areas for Doppler sonar, Re Item V OCEANS, 2012, IEEE, 14 October 2012 (2012-10-14), pages 1-9, XP032299854, DOI: 10.1109/0CEANS.2012.6404884 ISBN: 978-1-4673-0829-8).
Referring to Claim 9, SARANGAPANI teaches the sonar system of claim 1, further comprising a logic device configured to:
determine a Doppler shift of a received echo return corresponding to each sub-waveform ([0039]);
separate the received echo returns through frequency-selective filtering ([0039]);
estimate, for each received echo return corresponding to each sub-waveform or a combination of sub-waveforms, an independent relative velocity between the transducer subsystem and a scatterer ([0039]);
however, SARANGAPANI doesn’t explicitly teach average the estimated independent relative velocities to reduce a single-ping standard deviation of a velocity error.
KENNY teaches average the estimated independent relative velocities to reduce a single-ping standard deviation of a velocity error (Pg. 6, right Col. 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sonar system disclosed in SARANGAPANI with averaging the estimated independent relative velocities to reduce a single-ping standard deviation of a velocity error taught in DOELZ with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided high accuracy measurement as taught by KENNY (Pg. 6, right Col. 1st paragraph).
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 9 above.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights