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 .
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are 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.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation "the at least six sonar transducer arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12, 10, and 1, from which claim 15 depends, do not recite “at least six sonar transducers”, but rather “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three sonar transducer arrays”, so it is unclear whether “the at least six sonar transducer arrays” is referring to both the “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three sonar transducer arrays”, or a different set of sonar transducer arrays entirely. It appears the limitation “at least six transducer arrays” is carried over from claim limitations recited in parent application 18/140,990. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation "the at least six sonar transducer arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12, 10, and 1, from which claim 15 depends, do not recite “at least six sonar transducers”, but rather “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three sonar transducer arrays”, so it is unclear whether “the at least six sonar transducer arrays” is referring to both the “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three sonar transducer arrays”, or a different set of sonar transducer arrays entirely. It appears the limitation “at least six transducer arrays” is carried over from claim limitations recited in parent application 18/140,990. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2, 4-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 4-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. US 12,306,353. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 1 is identical in scope compared to claim 1 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 2 is identical in scope compared to claim 1 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Regarding claims 4-10, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of the corresponding claims of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 4-10 are identical in scope compared to claims 4-10 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in claims 8-10 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 12 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 11 is identical in scope compared to claim 12 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 13 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 12 is identical in scope compared to claim 13 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 14 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 13 is identical in scope compared to claim 14 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 15 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 14 is identical in scope compared to claim 15 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 16 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 15 is identical in scope compared to claim 16 of 12,306,353.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 17 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 16 is identical in scope compared to claim 17 of 12,306,353.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 18 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 17 is identical in scope compared to claim 18 of 12,306,353.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 19 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 19 is identical in scope compared to claim 19 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 20 of prior U.S. Patent 12,306,353. Claim 19 is identical in scope compared to claim 20 of 12,306,353 even though the wording between the claims is slightly different. Note, “at least six sonar transducer arrays”, as recited in prior U.S. Patent No. 12,306,353, is the same thing as “at least three first sonar transducer arrays” and “at least three second sonar transducer arrays”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 2, 4-17, and 19-20 are allowed over prior art, but stand rejected under statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting, as well as 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (claims 15 and 16).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over prior art:
Regarding claim 1, Clark (US 20210165068 A1, “Clark”) (the closest identified prior art) discloses a sonar transducer assembly (Fig. 1 (102)) mountable to a watercraft (Fig. 1 (100)), the sonar transducer assembly comprising:
a housing (Fig. 5 (605));
at least three first sonar transducer arrays positioned within the housing in a circumferential pattern around a first center point such that the at least three first sonar transducer arrays are aimed outwardly and downwardly from the first center point (Fig. 3, [0070], three array assembly (310) that is designed to provide continuous sonar coverage utilizing beamformed sonar return beams. The sonar assembly 310 includes a first array (340), a second array (330), and a third array (320))(Fig. 3 illustrates three arrays being pointed outwardly and downwardly with respect to a center point),
wherein the at least three first sonar transducer arrays are positioned within a first horizontal mounting plane(Fig. 3, [0070], three array assembly (310) that is designed to provide continuous sonar coverage utilizing beamformed sonar return beams. The sonar assembly 310 includes a first array (340), a second array (330), and a third array (320))(Fig. 3 illustrates three arrays being positioned relative to a horizonal plane of reference);
wherein each of the
wherein the plurality of transducer elements are configured to operate at a fixed phase shift and vary in frequency so as to beamform multiple sonar return beams for receiving sonar return data from a portion of an underwater environment ([0016], plurality of sonar transducer elements are configured to operate at fixed phase shift and vary in frequency so as to beamform multiple sonar return beams),
wherein each of the sonar return beams (e.g., beam 280) between a first range of angles (θ.sub.1) 281 and between a second range of angles (θ.sub.2) 282.)
wherein the first range of angles is separated from the second range of angles by a gap range of angles ([0066], By operating the transducer elements at a fixed phase shift, the two range of angles can be covered with sonar beams, but there is also a gap (e.g., indicated by the range of angles β) that is not able to be covered by the frequency steered sonar return beams.)(However the first and second range of angles of Clark correspond to a second range of angles originating from transducer arrays housed within a single housing and are grouped together, rather than from two separate three array groupings),
Clark fails to teach two separate dedicated three transducer array assemblies that are arranged circumferentially around a center point with respect to a horizontal mounting plane such that the ranges of angles of a first three transducer array assembly covers the gaps of coverage between a second range of angles associated with a second three transducer array assembly. Furthermore, Clark at [0070] teaches that the total coverage of the three transducer array assembly achieves an angular coverage of 135 degrees, so even duplicating the system two include two three transducer array assemblies would only result in the coverage of 270 degrees, rather than the required 360 degree coverage, as required by the claim limitations)
Clark fails to teach
at least three second sonar transducer arrays positioned within the housing in a circumferential pattern around a second center point such that the at least three second sonar transducer arrays are aimed outwardly and downwardly from the second center point, wherein the at least three second sonar transducer arrays are positioned within a second horizontal mounting plane
wherein each of the at least three first sonar transducer arrays and the at least three second sonar transducer arrays comprises a plurality of transducer elements
wherein each of the at least three first sonar transducer arrays and the at least three second sonar transducer arrays are configured to beamform sonar return beams through a first range of angles and a second range of angles
and wherein the at least three first sonar transducer arrays and the at least three second sonar transducer arrays are positioned and aimed relative to each other so that each of the gap range of angles is covered by a first range of angles or a second range of angles of at least one adjacently aimed sonar transducer array of the at least three first sonar transducer arrays or the at least three second sonar transducer arrays such that beamformed multiple sonar return beams from the at least three first sonar transducer arrays and the at least three second sonar transducer arrays collectively provide simultaneous sonar return data corresponding to 360-degree coverage of the underwater environment relative to the watercraft.
Emura et al. (JP 2020153825 A, “Emura”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation)
at least three second sonar arrays are provided along the circumferential direction of the cylinder and an accompanying receiver array is similarly arranged)(pg. 3, receiver arrays may be arranged with a predetermined elevation or dip angle)(however the transmitter arrays and receiver arrays of Emura are not transducer arrays, rather they are separate transmitter and receiver arrays. Furthermore, the transmitter and receiver arrays are not grouped into respective sonar transducer assemblies that would generate the required first and second ranges of angles.)
wherein each of the
However, Emura makes no recitation regarding using two separate three transducer array assemblies to create a first range of angles covered as well as a second range of angles that is positioned in order to cover a gap in the range of angles associated with the first range of angles.)
however the teachings of Emura rely of dedicated transmitter arrays and receiver arrays which are fundamentally different than transducer arrays. Furthermore, Emura teaches that low-frequency transmitter/receiver array (Fig. 2A (21)) is arranged orthogonally to the high frequency receiver array (23), such that one having ordinary skill in the art would not look to the teachings of Emura in order to modify the teachings of Clark in an effort to yield the claimed invention. Finally, Emura does not have issues associated with gaps in processed sonar return data and does not teach the required limitations with respect to a first set of three transducer arrays being aimed relative to a set of second three sonar transducer arrays in order to fill in gaps in coverage between the two sets of transducer arrays)
Nishimora et al. (JP 2004347319 A, “Nishimora”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation) teaches
at least three second sonar transducer arrays positioned within the housing in a circumferential pattern around a second center point such that the at least three second sonar transducer arrays are aimed outwardly and downwardly from the second center point, wherein the at least three second sonar transducer arrays are positioned within a second horizontal mounting plane (Fig. 5 , pg. 6, transducer (1) is constituted by a plurality of rows of ultrasonic transducer arrays. Transducer is installed on the bottom of a ship with a cylindrical shape and vertical axis)
wherein each of the at least three first sonar transducer arrays and the at least three second sonar transducer arrays comprises a plurality of transducer elements(Fig. 5 , pg. 6, transducer (1) is constituted by a plurality of rows of ultrasonic transducer arrays. Transducer is installed on the bottom of a ship with a cylindrical shape and vertical axis)
wherein each of the at least three first sonar transducer arrays and the at least three second sonar transducer arrays are configured to beamform sonar return beams through However Nishimora fails to teach dedicated first and second ranges of angles or that respective transducer arrays have their own angular ranges in the same manner as the claimed invention)
Nishimora fails to teach the positioning of sets of three transducer arrays in a manner such that angles covered by a respective set of three transducer arrays fills the gaps in angular coverage of another set of three transducer arrays, as Nishimora fails to teach any angular coverage gaps. No other identified prior art teaches this limitations either wholly or in part with sufficient motivation to combine).
Regarding claims 2-18, the claims are indicated as allowed due to their respective dependence upon an allowed base claim.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore indicated as containing allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore indicated as containing allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 3 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependency upon a claim indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependency upon a claim indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Bachelor et al. (US 20050007882 A1) which discloses systems and methods for implementing frequency-steered sonar arrays
Rowe (US 6678210 B2) which discloses sonar frequency division beamforming for sonar arrays
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
