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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim1-15 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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
There are various elements that are indefinite in the claims. For instance regarding claims 1, 6 and 10 the claims refer to elements on the seafloor. The claim appears to mean the seafloor itself as elements that reflect sound in a sonar is simply the environment. This makes the limitation redundant, duplicative and confusing. It can also mean receivers. Terms such has this and various others in the claim do not make clear to a person of ordinary skill, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitations to avoid infringement.
Claim such as claim 5s depend on the velocity being a function of the time and an undefined constant which is being claimed as a threshold. This can mean any arbitrarily chosen equation would read on the claim. The very principles of physics have velocity being a function of time and other factors. Terms such has this and various others in the claim do not make clear to a person of ordinary skill, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitations to avoid infringement. This can mean any arbitrarily chosen value or threshold would read on the claim.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12 and14-15 recites the limitation "said" in the claims before various limitations such as different depths, values, constant and various other places where it is unclear what antecedent it is refereeing to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Braun (WO 0142812 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Braun discloses at a first position, emitting, with the sonar system, a first sound wave and receiving the first sound wave reflected by the concerned element of the sea floor[Fig 1 has transmitter #11, Fig 2, Page 4-5 has reception sensors receiving signals];
determining, with an electronic processing unit, a first propagation time as a function of a first duration separating the times of emission and reception of the first sound wave[Page 7; Lines 1-10; see also equations for Ti. Moreover by definition propagation time is the duration between emission and reception];
at a second position distinct from the first position, emitting, with the sonar system, a second sound wave and receiving, at a receiving antenna, the second sound wave reflected by the concerned element of the sea floor, said receiving antenna thus outputting reception signals[Page 7-8 has time, constant, depth and speed data on intersection points in fig 3-4 meaning it is first and second position];
determining, with the electronic processing unit, a second propagation time as a function of a second duration separating the times of emission and reception of the second sound wave[Page 7; Lines 1-10; see also equations for Ti. Moreover by definition propagation time is the duration between emission and reception],
the electronic processing unit determining a propagation constant as a function of said reception signals[Page 6, Lines 1-15 has reception direction 1], said propagation constant being equal to the sine of a reception angle indicating a direction of reception of the reflected second sound wave with respect to a vertical axis, divided by a local propagation velocity of sound waves at a depth of said receiving antenna[Page 6 equation 1];
and determining a mean velocity value at the depth of the concerned element of the sea floor as a function of the first propagation time, the second propagation time and the propagation constant.[Equation 4 has product of angle and velocity, Page 7-8 has time, constant, depth and speed data on intersection points in figs 3-4 meaning first and second position]
Regarding claim 6, Braun discloses a sonar head[Abstract involves sound in water ie sonar];
and a piloting unit and a processing unit, said piloting unit being configured to control the sonar head to perform the following steps for each of a plurality of elements of the sea floor respectively corresponding to different depths[Abstract involves sound in water ie sonar]:
- at a first position, emitting a first sound wave and receiving the first sound wave reflected by the concerned element of the sea floor[Fig 1 has transmitter #11, Fig 2, Page 4-5 has reception sensors receiving signals];
- at a second position distinct from the first position, emitting a second sound wave and receiving, at a receiving antenna of the sonar head, the second sound wave reflected by the concerned element of the sea floor, said receiving antenna being configured to output reception signals upon receiving the reflected second sound wave[Page 7-8 has time, constant, depth and speed data on intersection points in fig 3-4 meaning it is first and second position];
and said processing unit being configured, for each of the plurality of elements of the sea floor: to determine a first propagation time as a function of a first duration separating the times of emission and reception of the first sound wave[Page 7; Lines 1-10; see also equations for Ti. Moreover by definition propagation time is the duration between emission and reception];
to determine a second propagation time as a function of a second duration separating the times of emission and reception of the second sound wave[Page 7; Lines 1-10; see also equations for Ti. Moreover by definition propagation time is the duration between emission and reception];
to determine a propagation constant as a function of said reception signals, said propagation constant being equal to the sine of a reception angle indicating a direction of reception of the reflected second sound wave with respect to a vertical axis, divided by a local propagation velocity of sound waves at a depth of said receiving antenna[Page 6 equation 1];
and to determine a mean velocity value at the depth of the concerned element of the sea floor as a function of the first propagation time, the second propagation time and the propagation constant.[Equation 4 has product of angle and velocity, Page 7-8 has time, constant, depth and speed data on intersection points in figs 3-4 meaning first and second position]
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Braun discloses further comprising the estimation of a local propagation velocity profile by a numerical method of inversion from the mean velocity profile. [Abstract has correction of means speed of sound; Page 12 has multiple linear regression for calculation of correction of speed]
Regarding claim 5, Braun discloses wherein said mean velocity value is the value for which a deviation between: - a first estimate of the depth of the concerned element of the sea floor, determined based on the first propagation time and on the basis of said value, and - a second estimate of the depth of the concerned element of the sea floor, determined based on the second propagation time and the propagation constant, and on the basis of said value, is minimum or lower than a threshold. [Equation 4 has product of angle and velocity, Page 7-8 has time, constant, depth and speed data on intersection points in figs 3-4 meaning first and second position]
Moreover even in the event that Braun does not explicitly recite a threshold for updating calculated values it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified have such a step, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 2,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (WO 0142812 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Stottlemyer (US 6577557 B1) and Capell (US 5608689 A).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Braun does not explicitly teach, wherein, for each of said different depths, the determined mean velocity value is representative of a harmonic mean of a plurality of local propagation velocities exhibited by sound waves at a respective plurality of depths from the concerned one of said different depths to the depth of the receiving antenna.
Stottlemyer teaches wherein, for each of said different depths, the determined mean velocity value is representative of a harmonic mean of a plurality of local propagation velocities exhibited by sound waves at a respective plurality of depths from the concerned one of said different depths to the depth of the receiving antenna. wherein, for each of said different depths,[Fig 1 has source #20 at different depths; Col 3, lines 1-10 has calculation of depth d and lateral distance x];
Capell teaches the determined mean velocity value is representative of a harmonic mean of a plurality of local propagation velocities exhibited by sound waves at a respective plurality of depths from the concerned one of said different depths to the depth of the receiving antenna. [Col 23, Lines 1-10 and Equation involving harmonic mean velocity calculations]
It would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Braun with the multiple depths of Stottlemyer and harmonic mean velocity calculations of Capell in order to calculate harmonic mean using various depths for more accurate measurement.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (WO 0142812 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Andre (11493627 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Braun does not explicitly wherein the electronic processing unit determines the depth of the concerned element of the sea floor based on the determined mean velocity value.
Andre teaches wherein the electronic processing unit determines the depth of the concerned element of the sea floor based on the determined mean velocity value. [Abstract, Claim 10, Col 7,Lines 1-5, 35-45 and col 8, Lines 60- Col 9 Line 5 have depth estimation on velocity and travel time which is a basic concept in the field of physics]
It would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Braun with the velocity and time calculations of Bandre to determine velocity and depth.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (WO 0142812 A1) in view of Capell (US 5608689 A) and Andre (11493627 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Braun teaches ..... emitting a sound wave in the underwater environment using at least one transmitter[Fig 1 has transmitter #11,];
receiving said sound wave using a receiving antenna comprising several receivers, said receivers outputting a respective plurality of reception signals upon reception of said sound wave [Fig 2, Page 4-5 has reception sensors receiving signals];
determining a propagation constant of the received sound wave, as a function of said reception signals[Page 6, Lines 1-15 has reception direction 1], said propagation constant being equal to the sine of a reception angle indicating the direction of reception of the sound wave with respect to a vertical axis, divided by a local propagation velocity of sound waves at a depth of said receiving antenna[Page 6, equation 1];
determining a propagation time of the sound wave, as a function of the duration separating the times of emission and reception of the sound wave[Page 7, Lines 1-10; See also equation for Ti];
and ..... and updating the estimate of the mean velocity using the mean velocity value recorded in the memory in association with the determined estimate of the depth.[Equation 4 has product of angle and velocity, Page 7-8 has time, constant, depth and speed data on intersection points in figs 3-4 meaning first and second position]
Capell teaches recording, in a memory, a mean velocity profile comprising, in association with each of a plurality of depths, a mean velocity value, said mean velocity value associated with a given one of said plurality of depths being representative of a harmonic mean of a plurality of local propagation velocities exhibited by sound waves at another respective plurality of depths from the given one of said plurality of depths to the depth of the receiving antenna[Abstract has average sound velocity profile and gradient calculations. Col 23, Lines 5-20 has harmonic mean for speed at various depths];.....
Andre teaches determining an estimate of the mean velocity using an initial estimate of the mean velocity, wherein the method includes iteratively executing several times[Abstract, Claim 10 Col 17, lines 30-35 and Col 8, Lines 10-15 has iteration and initial velocity estimate at depth]
determining an estimate of the depth based on said propagation time, said propagation constant and the estimate of the mean velocity,[Abstract, Claim 10, Col 7,Lines 1-5, 35-45 and col 8, Lines 60- Col 9 Line 5 have depth estimation on velocity and travel time which is a basic concept in the field of physics]:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the calculations of Braun with the harmonic mean of Capell to determine sensitivities and the iterative determination of depths based on velocity and time calculations of Andre to determine velocity and depth values.
Regarding claim 11, Braun, as modified teaches that including a further step of determining a lateral deviation with respect to the vertical axis based on said propagation time, said propagation constant and the updated estimate of the mean velocity. [Abstract has depth difference determination. Fig 2 shows lateral deviation; Page 6-7, Equations 1-4; Equation 4 has product of average speed of sound and depth]
Regarding claim 12, Braun, as modified teaches wherein the transmitter and the receiving antenna are fitted on a same sonar system, said sonar system determining the depth difference between the receiving antenna and a submerged element reflecting said sound wave while propagating from the transmitter to the receiving antenna. [Abstract involves sound in water; Fig 2 shows transmission and receiving from elements at depth reflecting waves; ie sonar sending waves to sea floor and determining depth between receiver and submerged element reflecting]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have both on the same system, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun (WO 0142812 A1) in view of Capell (US 5608689 A) and Andre (11493627 B2) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Stottlemyer (US 6577557 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Braun does not explicitly teach wherein the transmitter and the receiving antenna are respectively fitted on two distinct systems situated at different respective depths, a system provided with the receiving antenna determining the depth difference between the receiving antenna and the transmitter.
Stottlemyer teaches that wherein the transmitter and the receiving antenna are respectively fitted on two distinct systems situated at different respective depths, a system provided with the receiving antenna determining the depth difference between the receiving antenna and the transmitter. [Fig 1 has source #20 and receiver #12 at different depths, Col 3, lines 1-10 has calculation of depth d and lateral distance ].
It would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Braun with the separate parts of in order to have one way instead of two way travel. Moreover, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)
Regarding claim 14, Braun does not explicitly teach determining said plurality of local propagation velocities by means of a sounder positioned successively at said other respective plurality of depths; determining the mean velocity profile by computing the harmonic mean velocity profile as a function of said determined plurality of local propagation velocities..
Stottlemyer teaches that determining said plurality of local propagation velocities by means of a sounder positioned successively at said other respective plurality of depths[Fig 1 has source #20 at different depths; Col 3, lines 1-10 has calculation of depth d and lateral distance x];
Capell teaches determining the mean velocity profile by computing the harmonic mean velocity profile as a function of said determined plurality of local propagation velocities. [Col 23, Lines 1-10 and Equation involving harmonic mean velocity calculations].
It would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Braun with the multiple depths of Stottlemyer and harmonic mean velocity calculations of Capell in order to calculate harmonic mean using various depths for more accurate measurement.
Regarding claim 15, Braun, as modifed, teaches ….. and computing the arithmetic mean velocity profile as a function of said determined plurality of local propagation velocities. [Abstract has average speed of sound; Page 10-page 11 has calculations for change in speed with depth]
Stottlemyer teaches that determining said plurality of local propagation velocities by means of a sounder positioned successively at said other respective plurality of depths[Fig 1 has source #20 at different depths; Col 3, lines 1-10 has calculation of depth d and lateral distance x];
Capell teaches ; computing the harmonic mean velocity profile as a function of said determined plurality of local propagation velocities[Col 23, Lines 1-10 and Equation involving harmonic mean velocity calculations];
It would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the sonar of Braun with the multiple depths of Stottlemyer and harmonic mean velocity calculations of Capell in order to calculate harmonic mean or arithmetic mean using various depths for more accurate measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights