DETAILED ACTION
Non-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 .
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) 1-20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SONNIER (US 2021/0302576 A1) in view of STEENSTRUP (US 2017/0315234 A1).
Referring to Claim 1, SONNIER teaches a method (Abstract) comprising:
transmitting a sonar pulse using a sonar transducer array ([0018]-[0019]), wherein the sonar transducer array transmits the sonar pulse according to a first transmission rate ([0032]-[0033]);
wherein the SBP system is associated with an underwater vehicle ([0003]; [0012]), and wherein performing the measurement cycle comprises transmitting, using a transmitter of the SBP system, an acoustic pulse ([0018]-[0019], and
obtaining, using a plurality of receivers of the SBP system, respective acoustic measurement data corresponding to reflections of the acoustic pulse (0022]-[0023]), wherein the plurality of receivers of the SBP system are rigidly coupled to the underwater vehicle ([0018]-[0019]) and arranged in a linear configuration with the transmitter of the SBP system ([0020]).
SONNIER doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first transmission rate corresponds to a configured distance along a seafloor surface; and performing a measurement cycle of a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) system in response to transmission of the sonar pulse by the sonar transducer array, wherein the transmitter of the SBP system is triggered based on the transmission of the sonar pulse by the sonar transducer array.
STEENSTRUP teaches wherein the first transmission rate corresponds to a configured distance along a seafloor surface ([0038]; [0052]); and
performing a measurement cycle of a sub-bottom profiler (SBP) system in response to transmission of the sonar pulse by the sonar transducer array ([0041]-[0043]), wherein the transmitter of the SBP system is triggered based on the transmission of the sonar pulse by the sonar transducer array ([0041]-[0043]).
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 method disclosed in SONNIER with the transmission rate and measurement cycle taught in STEENSTRUP with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have ensured uniform spatial sampling regardless of the vehicles speed and prevented acoustic interference.
Referring to Claim 2, SONNIER teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining multi-channel SBP measurement data corresponding to a plurality of measurement cycles of the SBP system ([0022]), wherein each channel of the multi-channel SBP measurement data includes the respective acoustic measurement data obtained during the plurality of measurement cycles using a respective receiver of the plurality of receivers of the SBP system ([0022]- [0023]).
Referring to Claim 3, SONNIER teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
obtaining inertial measurement data associated with the underwater vehicle ([0015]; [0021]), wherein at least a portion of the inertial measurement data corresponds to one or more movements of the underwater vehicle during the measurement cycle of the SBP system ([0021]-[0022]);
correlating the multi-channel SBP measurement data with the inertial measurement data to determine respective motion compensation information for each channel of the multi-channel SBP measurement data ([0025]-[0027);
processing the multi-channel SBP measurement data according to the respective motion compensation information for each channel, to thereby generate a processed sub-bottom profile for the plurality of measurement cycles of the SBP system ([0027]-[0028]).
Referring to Claim 4, SONNIER teaches the method of claim 3, wherein a spatial measurement density of the processed sub-bottom profile is greater than a spatial transmission density associated with the SBP system transmitting one acoustic pulse within each measurement cycle of the plurality of measurement cycles ([0028]).
Referring to Claim 5, SONNIER teaches the method of any of claims 3 to 4, claim 3, further comprising: determining, for each respective measurement cycle of the plurality of measurement cycles, a normalized horizontal plane corresponding to the linear configuration of the plurality of receivers and the transmitter of the SBP system during the respective measurement cycle ([0026]), wherein the normalized horizontal plane is determined based on the inertial measurement data associated with the underwater vehicle ([0026]).
Referring to Claim 6, SONNIER teaches the method of claim 5, wherein processing the multi-channel SBP measurement data according to the respective motion compensation information for each channel includes: using the respective motion compensation information for each channel to align the acoustic measurement data for each receiver of the SBP system to the normalized horizontal plane determined for the respective measurement cycle ([0026]).
Referring to Claim 7, SONNIER teaches the method of any of claims 3 to 6, claim 3, wherein the respective motion compensation information for each channel of the multi-channel SBP measurement data is indicative of: a corresponding three-dimensional (3D) coordinate for the respective receiver of the SBP system at a time when the respective receiver obtained the respective acoustic measurement data for each measurement cycle of the plurality of measurement cycles ([0024]).
Referring to Claim 8, SONNIER teaches the method of any of claims 3 to 7, claim 3, wherein, the inertial measurement data is obtained using an inertial navigation system (INS) of the underwater vehicle ([0015]); and
the respective motion compensation information for each channel is determined based on projecting the inertial measurement data from a position of the INS on the underwater vehicle to a corresponding position on the underwater vehicle of the respective receiver of the SBP system associated with each channel ([0024]-[0025).
Referring to Claim 9, STEENSTRUP teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: a duration of the measurement cycle of the SBP system is less than or equal to a duration of a transmission cycle of the sonar transducer array ([0044]-[0045]); and
the transmission cycle of the sonar transducer array corresponds to successive sonar pulse transmissions by the sonar transducer array according to the first transmission rate ([0038]-[0039]).
Referring to Claim 10, STEENSTRUP teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sonar transducer array comprises a synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) transducer array oriented in an along-track direction corresponding to a direction of travel of the underwater vehicle (Title; [0005]; [0010]).
Referring to Claim 11, STEENSTRUP teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of receivers of the SBP system and the transmitter of the SBP system are arranged in the linear configuration oriented along an along-track axis of the underwater vehicle ([0028]-[0030]).
Claim 12 is essentially the same as Claim 1 and refers to an underwater vehicle for marine surveying for the method as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 1 above.
Referring to Claim 13, STEENSTRUP teaches the underwater vehicle of claim 12, wherein the underwater vehicle further comprises: a flat panel array rigidly coupled to an exterior surface of the underwater vehicle ([0029]), wherein the flat panel array extends longitudinally along the direction of travel of the underwater vehicle ([0029]), and wherein the plurality of SBP receivers are attached to the flat panel array in the linear configuration ([0030]).
Referring to Claim 14, STEENSTRUP teaches the underwater vehicle of claim 13, wherein the flat panel array comprises a rigid housing for the plurality of SBP receivers of the multi-receiver SBP system ([0031]).
Referring to Claim 15, SONNIER teaches the underwater vehicle of any of The underwater vehicle of any of claim 12, wherein the plurality of SBP receivers are integral with an exterior surface of the underwater vehicle based on the plurality of SBP receivers being rigidly coupled to the underwater vehicle ([0019]).
Referring to Claim 16, STEENSTRUP teaches the underwater vehicle of any of The underwater vehicle of any of claim 12, further comprising a controller associated with the multi-receiver SBP system ([0040]), wherein the controller is configured to perform a measurement cycle of the SBP system in response to transmission of a sonar pulse by a sonar transducer array having a first transmission rate corresponding to a configured distance along a seafloor surface ([0041]-[0043]; [0038]-[0039]).
Referring to Claim 17, STEENSTRUP teaches the underwater vehicle of claim 16, wherein the sonar transducer array comprises a synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) transducer array or a side scan sonar (SSS) transducer array ([0005]-[0006]).
Referring to Claim 18, STEENSTRUP teaches the underwater vehicle of claim 16, wherein, the controller is included in the multi-receiver SBP system ([0040]);
to perform the measurement cycle of the SBP system, the controller is configured to: trigger the SBP transmitter to emit an acoustic pulse ([0040]-[0041]), wherein the controller triggers the SBP transmitter in response to the transmission of the sonar pulse by the sonar transducer array ([0041]-[0043]).
Referring to Claim 19, SONNIER teaches the underwater vehicle of any of The underwater vehicle of claim 16, wherein the sonar transducer array is included in the underwater vehicle ([0012]).
Referring to Claim 20, STEENSTRUP teaches the underwater vehicle of any of The underwater vehicle of any of claim 12, wherein the SBP transmitter is included in the linear configuration ([0029]).
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
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
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights