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 05/15/2025 and 04/29/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the submission of information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
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. (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.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”).
Regarding claim 12. Betts discloses a 360-degree sonar imaging device (title of invention: 360 degree imaging sonar), wherein the sonar imaging device (Fig 19) comprises: a housing (Fig 19, housing include a pod housing 172) defining an axis (Fig 19, vertical center axis thereof parallel to shaft 164); at least one sonar transducer element (Fig 19, sonar 160) positioned within the housing (sonar 160 within pod housing 172); and a motor (Fig 19, stepper motor 166) within the housing (172) and operable to cause the at least one sonar transducer element to at least partially rotate about the axis to adjust a facing direction thereof relative to the axis to enable receipt of sonar returns to be obtained from the at least one sonar transducer element for formation of a 360-degree sonar image ([0069] lines 13-17), wherein the motor (166) and the at least one sonar transducer element (160) are mounted offset from the axis (Fig 20, sonar elements 160 and motor 166 combined are offset from vertical axis of shaft 164, or shaft 114 of Fig 3) and wherein the housing defines an annular opening about the axis and sized to enable either a shaft to pass therethrough while still allowing the 360-degree sonar imaging device to be operable (Fig 19, shaft 164 pass through the sonar elements 160, and housing 172 includes other structural elements such as circuit board elements 168 and 170, which shaft 164 pass through annular opening of the circuit board 168 shown in Fig 20).
Regarding claim 13, Betts discloses wherein the housing (Fig 19, pod housing 172 and circuit boards 168, 170 and rotating carrier 162 combined) defines a first portion (162) and a second portion (172), wherein the motor (166) is operable to cause rotation of the first portion (162) of the housing (Fig 19, rotating carrier 162 rotates by motor via shaft 164, see [0071] for details) relative to the second portion (172), and wherein the at least one sonar transducer element (Fig 19, 160) is mounted in the first portion (162) of the housing (172 and 168, 170 and 162 combined).
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) 1, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20220018958A1, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”) in view of Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses a system for a watercraft ([0007] and Fig 1, fish finder transducer mount apparatus), the system (fish finder transducer mount apparatus) comprising: an elongated shaft defining an axis (Fig 1, shaft 70 with vertical axis); a 360-degree sonar imaging device (Fig 1, a directional transducer 76 capable of rotating about 360 degrees ) attached to the shaft (70), wherein the sonar imaging device (76) comprises at least one sonar transducer element ([0025], Fig 1, one transducer element 76 shown), wherein the sonar imaging device (76) comprises a housing (Figs 1 and 2, 76 has an clamp body 12 and conical housing combined to form housing) and the at least one sonar transducer element is positioned within the housing (Fig 1, 76, note: it is conventional knowledge that conical shaped directional transducer has an sonar transducer element within the conical shaped housing to perform the active sonar scanning functions);
However, Wagner fails to disclose the following: and a motor within the housing and operable to cause the at least one sonar transducer element to at least partially rotate about the axis to adjust a facing direction thereof relative to the axis to enable receipt of sonar returns to be obtained from the at least one sonar transducer element for formation of a 360-degree sonar image, wherein the motor and the at least one sonar transducer element are mounted offset from the axis of the shaft and wherein the housing defines an annular opening about the axis and sized to enable either the shaft or a second shaft to pass therethrough while still allowing the 360-degree sonar imaging device to be operable.
However, Betts teaches the following: and a motor (Figs 19 and 20, stepper motor 166) within the housing (Fig 19, pod housing 172) and operable to cause the at least one sonar transducer element to at least partially rotate about the axis to adjust a facing direction thereof relative to the axis to enable receipt of sonar returns to be obtained from the at least one sonar transducer element for formation of a 360-degree sonar image ([0069] lines 13-17), wherein the motor and the at least one sonar transducer element are mounted offset from the axis of the shaft (Fig 20, sonar elements 160 and motor 166 combined are offset from vertical axis of shaft 164, or shaft 114 of Fig 3) and wherein the housing defines an annular opening about the axis and sized to enable either the shaft or a second shaft to pass therethrough while still allowing the 360-degree sonar imaging device to be operable (Fig 19, shaft 164 pass through the sonar elements 160, and housing 172 includes other structural elements such as circuit board elements 168 and 170, shaft 164 pass through annular opening of the circuit board 168 shown in Fig 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 and modify Wagner by Betts based on the following rationales: referring to Figs 1 and 2 of Wagner, the clamp body 12, the complicated gearing system 80, and the complicated handle system are required to mount and provide rotation for the directional sonar transducer 76 via shaft 70. In addition, continuous back and forth rotational movement is required by person rotating the handle to provide the 360-degree scan coverage. On the other hand, the overall transducer setup for Betts is much simpler than Wagner, by having just the pod housing 172 at the end of a shaft containing the sonars 160 and a stepper motor 166 and electronics/circuit boards therein to provide the necessary automated rotational movements for the sonars 160. Thus, complicated gearing system and bulky clamp body alongside complicated and tedious handle rotation system of Wagner are completely eliminated by Betts. As a result, above discussions of benefits of Betts over Wagner could then be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Wagner, serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Wagner by Betts, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Wagner and Betts are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 6, Wagner fails to disclose wherein the housing defines a first portion and a second portion, wherein the motor is operable to cause rotation of the first portion of the housing relative to the second portion, and wherein the at least one sonar transducer element is mounted in the first portion of the housing.
However, Betts teaches wherein the housing (Fig 19, pod housing 172 and circuit boards 168, 170 and rotating carrier 162 combined) defines a first portion (162) and a second portion (172), wherein the motor (166) is operable to cause rotation of the first portion (162) of the housing (Fig 19, rotating carrier 162 rotates by motor via shaft 164, see [0071] for details) relative to the second portion (172), and wherein the at least one sonar transducer element (Fig 19, 160) is mounted in the first portion (162) of the housing (Fig 19, 172 and 168, 170 and 162 combined).
Regarding claim 7, Wagner fails to disclose wherein the housing of the 360-degree sonar imaging device is attached circumferentially around the shaft.
However, Betts teaches wherein the housing of the 360-degree sonar imaging device is attached circumferentially around the shaft (Fig 19, housing 172 is attached circumferential around shaft 164).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Wagner by Betts based on same rationales previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20220018958A1, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”) in view of Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”), and further in view of Miller (US 20140092709A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miller”).
Regarding claim 2, Wagner and Betts, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises at least three linear sonar transducer elements.
However, Miller teaches wherein the 360-degree sonar imaging device comprises at least three linear sonar transducer elements (Figs 1 and 10, three sonar components 18A, 18B and 18C, [0036] and [0047] last 4 lines, third component 18C generates a third ultrasonic signal in the downward direction beneath the marine vessel)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Wagner by Miller in view of Betts based on the following rationales: referring to Wagner, which fails to disclose of three linear sonar transducer elements. referring to Fig 19 of Betts, which has two offset sonar elements 160 to perform the side scans. However, the 360-degree coverage provided by the offset sonars 160 of Betts are directed away from a particular distance from the boat as shown by Fig 30. In other words, there is a “blind-spot” for sonar scans directly underneath the boat. On the other hand, Miller specifically teaches in [0036] and [0047] last 4 lines, third component 18C generates a third ultrasonic signal in the downward direction beneath the marine vessel, and thus there is no-blind spot for sonar scan directly underneath the boat for Miller. Furthermore, Wagner and Betts adopt conventional transducer technology and material for fan beam transducer. On the other hand, Miller in [0028] describes that piezoelectric ceramic puck elements instead of conventional fan-shaped ultrasonic beams are used for the sonar transducer components 18A, 18B, 18C. Given that PVDF of this piezoelectric ceramic puck element is smaller in size and volume than conventional sonar elements, the resulting sonar transducer package of Miller may also be smaller or lower profile, than that of Wagner and Betts. As a result, above discussions of benefits of Miller over both Betts and Wagner could then be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Wagner and Betts, thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by Miller, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Miller, Wagner and Betts are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 3, Wagner and Miller combined teach wherein a conical or square transducer element is paired with each of the at least three linear sonar transducer elements, and wherein each of the conical or square transducer elements is used to create fish arches for sonar imagery for the linear sonar transducer element with which the conical or square transducer element is paired (Wagner: Fig 1, conical directional transducer can be paired with the 360-degree three elements transducer of Miller, [0025] last 4 lines, directional transducer of a fish finder).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Wagner by Miller in view of Betts based on same rationales previously discussed for claim 2 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 4, Wagner fail to disclose wherein the motor is operable to cause each linear sonar transducer element to adjust a respective facing direction along an arc of angles about the shaft in a back and forth manner.
However, Betts teaches wherein the motor is operable to cause each linear sonar transducer element to adjust a respective facing direction along an arc of angles about the shaft in a back and forth manner (Figs 19 and 20, stepper motor 166) [0070] Fig 30).
Regarding claim 5, Wagner fail to disclose wherein the motor causes the facing direction of each linear sonar transducer element of the 360-degree sonar imaging device to adjust between a 0-degree reference point and a point that is 120 degrees from the 0-degree reference point.
However, Betts teaches wherein the motor causes the facing direction of each linear sonar transducer element of the 360-degree sonar imaging device to adjust between a 0-degree reference point and a point that is 120 degrees from the 0-degree reference point ([0114]: default angle is 100-degree angle in front of the boat, sector scan 124 in Fig 7 and 140, 142 in Fig 11 appears to be about 120 degrees).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Wagner by Betts based on same rationales previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20220018958A1, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”) in view of Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”), and further in view of Baker (US 20240219545A, hereinafter referred to as “Baker”).
Regarding claim 8, Wagner and Betts fail to disclose or teach further comprising the second shaft, wherein the second shaft is disposed within the shaft and is rotatable with respect to the shaft.
However, Baker teaches further comprising the second shaft, wherein the second shaft is disposed within the shaft and is rotatable with respect to the shaft.
(Fig 5, outer shaft 104, inner shaft 106 to freely rotate versus outers shaft, [0024] a transducer mounted at the lower end of the inner shaft turns with the shaft, meanwhile, outer shaft can be used for mounting to clamp 102, that fastens the head 30 to the shaft assembly 32, see [0024] the clamp 100 holds the outer shaft 104 in a fixed position relative to the housing 50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Wagner by Baker based on the following rationales: referring to Figs 1 and 2 of Wagner, the clamp body 12, the complicated gearing system 80, and the complicated handle system are required to mount and provide rotation for the directional sonar transducer 76 via shaft 70. In addition, continuous back and forth rotational movement is required by person rotating the handle to provide the 360-degree scan coverage. On the other hand, the overall transducer setup for Baker is much simpler and easier to use than Wagner, by having the housing 50 and motor 58 and clamp 102 in combination with the outer shaft 104 shown in Fig 5 of Baker eliminates complicated gearing system and bulky clamp body alongside complicated, bulky and tedious handle manual rotation system of Wagner. Compared to Wagner, with the clamp body 12 and gearing system and shaft 90 and handle system 94, the housing 50 and motor 58 and clamp 102 in combination with the outer shaft 104 taught by Baker are much more compact. Referring to Betts, the 360 degree sonar assembly is relatively fixed in position with respect to the trolling motor 112 assembly shown in Figs 2 and 3. On the other hand, the setup of the bracket assembly 22 of Baker shown in details in Fig 6, and in usage in Fig 1, allows the capability of significant freedom of flexible spatial arrangement of the sonar transducer assembly with respect to the trolling motor assembly for Baker. As a result, above discussions of benefits of Baker over both Betts and Wagner could then be serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft of Wagner and Betts by Baker, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Baker, Wagner and Betts are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 10, Wagner and Betts fail to disclose or teach wherein a trolling motor system is at least partially connected to the shaft via one or more support arms.
However, Baker teaches wherein a trolling motor system is at least partially connected to the shaft via one or more support arms (Fig 1, trolling motor M is connected to shaft 32 via bracket assembly 22).
Regarding claim 11, Wagner and Betts fail to disclose or teach wherein a trolling motor shaft corresponding to a trolling motor of the trolling motor system and the shaft are configured to rotate independently of each other.
However, Baker teaches wherein a trolling motor shaft corresponding to a trolling motor of the trolling motor system and the shaft are configured to rotate independently of each other (Fig 1, trolling motor M is attached to a separate shaft, independent from shaft 62 of the sonar transducer T).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Wagner by Baker in view of Betts based on same rationales previously discussed for claim 8 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 20220018958A1, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”) in view of Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”), and further in view of LSMount product page at lsmouts.com, (hereinafter referred to as “LSMount”).
Regarding claim 9, Wagner and Betts fail to disclose or teach wherein the shaft and the 360-degree sonar imaging device are configured to be stowable in the watercraft together and are configured to be deployable from the watercraft together.
However, LSMount teaches wherein the shaft and the 360-degree sonar imaging device are configured to be stowable in the watercraft together and are configured to be deployable from the watercraft together (page 3, sonar devices and shafts are stowable in the watercraft in photo).
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 Wagner and Betts and LSMount based on the rationale that Wagner and Betts fail to disclose of shafts and sonar devices being stowable inside watercraft when not in use. On the other hand, LSMount express teaches of mounting features for sonar devices and shafts to be stowable in the watercraft, which facilitate ease of storage. As a result, above discussed benefit offered by LSMount can be easily adapted to the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft of Wagner and Betts, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by LSMount, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Wagner and Betts and LSMount are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim(s) 14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”) in view of Miller (US 20140092709A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miller”).
Regarding claim 14, Betts discloses a system for a watercraft (Fig 2), the system (Fig 3, MSS assembly 100) comprising: an elongated shaft (Fig 2, shaft 114) defining an axis (Fig 2, vertical axis for shaft); a 360-degree sonar imaging device (Fig 19, sonar assembly 106) attached to the shaft (Figs 3 and 19), wherein the sonar imaging device (106) comprises at least two sonar transducer elements (Fig 19, two sonar elements 160), wherein the sonar imaging device (106) comprises a housing (Fig 19, pod housing 172 and circuit boards 168, 170 and rotating carrier 162 combined) and the at least two sonar transducer elements are positioned within the housing (Fig 19, two sonar elements 160 within 172), wherein the housing (Fig 19, pod housing 172 and circuit boards 168, 170 and rotating carrier 162 combined) defines a first portion (Fig 19, rotating carrier 162) and a second portion (Fig 19, 172); and a motor (Fig 19, stepper motor 166) within the housing (172) and operable to cause the at least two sonar transducer elements (160) to at least partially rotate about the axis to adjust a facing direction thereof relative to the axis to enable receipt of sonar returns to be obtained from the at least two sonar transducer elements for formation of a 360-degree sonar image ([0069] lines 13-17), wherein the motor (166) is operable to cause rotation of the first portion (162) of the housing relative to the second portion (Fig 19, rotating carrier 162 rotates by motor via shaft 164, see [0071] for details, relative to the second portion (172)), and wherein the at least two sonar transducer elements are mounted in the first portion of the housing (Fig 19, two transducers 160 mounted in first portion (162)).
However, Betts fails to disclose wherein the sonar imaging device comprises at least three sonar transducer elements,
However, Miller teaches wherein the sonar imaging device comprises at least three sonar transducer elements (Figs 1 and 10, three sonar components 18A, 18B and 18C, [0036] and [0047] last 4 lines, third component 18C generates a third ultrasonic signal in the downward direction beneath the marine vessel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine and modify Betts by Miller based on the following rationales: referring to Fig 19 of Betts, which has two offset sonar elements 160 to perform the side scans. However, notice that the 360-degree coverage provided by the offset sonars 160 of Betts are directed away from a particular distance from the boat as shown by Fig 30. In other words, there is a “blind-spot” for sonar scans located directly underneath the boat. On the other hand, Miller specifically teaches in [0036] and [0047] last 4 lines, third component 18C generates a third ultrasonic signal in the downward direction beneath the marine vessel, and thus there is no-blind spot for sonar scan directly underneath the boat because of the presence of the third sonar transducer for Miller. Furthermore, Betts adopts conventional transducer technology and material for fan beam transducer. On the other hand, Miller in [0028] describes that piezoelectric ceramic puck elements instead of conventional fan-shaped ultrasonic beams are used for the sonar transducer components 18A, 18B, 18C. Given that PVDF of this piezoelectric ceramic puck element is smaller in size and volume than conventional sonar elements, the resulting sonar transducer package of Miller may also be smaller or lower profile, than that of Betts. As a result, above discussions of benefits of Miller over Betts could then be easily adapted to modify the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft taught by Betts, thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by Miller, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Miller and Betts are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Regarding claim 16, Betts discloses wherein the motor causes the facing direction of each sonar transducer element of the 360-degree sonar imaging device to adjust between a 0-degree reference point and a point that is 120 degrees from the 0-degree reference point ( [0114] default angle is 100-degree angle in front of the boat, sector scan 124 in Fig 7 and 140, 142 in Fig 11 appears to be about 120 degrees).
Regarding claim 17, Betts discloses wherein the housing of the 360-degree sonar imaging device is attached circumferentially around the shaft (Fig 19, housing 172 is attached circumferential round shaft 164).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”) in view of Miller (US 20140092709A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miller”), and further in view of Wagner (US 20220018958A1, hereinafter referred to as “Wagner”), 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”).
Regarding claim 15, Betts and Miller fail to disclose or teach wherein a conical or square transducer element is paired with each of the at least three sonar transducer elements, and wherein each of the conical or square transducer elements is used to create fish arches for sonar imagery for the sonar transducer element with which the conical or square transducer element is paired.
However, Wagner and Miller combined teach wherein a conical or square transducer element is paired with each of the at least three sonar transducer elements, and wherein each of the conical or square transducer elements is used to create fish arches for sonar imagery for the sonar transducer element with which the conical or square transducer element is paired (Fig 1, conical directional transducer can be paired with the 360 degree three elements transducer of Miller, [0025] last 4 lines, directional transducer of a fish finder; 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;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Betts and InDepth Video in view of Wagner based on the following rationale: referring to Fig 1 of Wagner, a directional transducer 76 and a non-directional transducer 64 are mounted adjacent to one another on a same boat. 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 on the same boat. 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 Betts, in view of teaching of Wagner, serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Betts and InDepth Video in view of Wagner, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Betts, InDepth Video and Wagner are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”) in view of Miller (US 20140092709A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miller”), and further in view of LSMount product page at lsmouts.com, (hereinafter referred to as “LSMount”).
Regarding claim 18, Betts and Miller fail to disclose or teach wherein the shaft and the 360-degree sonar imaging device are configured to be stowable in the watercraft together and are configured to be deployable from the watercraft together.
However, LSMount teaches wherein the shaft and the 360-degree sonar imaging device are configured to be stowable in the watercraft together and are configured to be deployable from the watercraft together (page 3, sonar devices and shafts are stowable in the watercraft in photo).
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 Betts and LSMount in view of Miller based on the rationale that Betts and Miller fail to disclose of shafts and sonar devices being stowable inside watercraft when not in use. On the other hand, LSMount express teaches of mounting features for sonar devices and shafts to be stowable in the watercraft, which facilitate ease of storage. As a result, above discussed benefit offered by LSMount can be easily adapted to the sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft of Betts and Miller, and serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify by LSMount, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Betts and LSMount and Miller are all analogous art belonging to the field of sonar transducer mounting system for fish finding designed for a watercraft.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betts (US 20130215719A, hereinafter referred to as “Betts”) in view of Miller (US 20140092709A1, hereinafter referred to as “Miller”), and further in view of Baker (US 20240219545A, hereinafter referred to as “Baker”).
Regarding claim 19, Betts and Miller fail to disclose or teach wherein a trolling motor system is at least partially connected to the shaft via one or more support arms.
However, Baker teaches wherein a trolling motor system is at least partially connected to the shaft via one or more support arms (Fig 1, trolling motor M is connected to shaft 32 via bracket assembly 22).
Regarding claim 20, Betts and Miller fail to disclose or teach wherein a trolling motor shaft corresponding to a trolling motor of the trolling motor system and the shaft are configured to rotate independently of each other.
However, Baker teaches wherein a trolling motor shaft corresponding to a trolling motor of the trolling motor system and the shaft are configured to rotate independently of each other (Fig 1, trolling motor M is attached to a separate shaft, independent from shaft 62 of the sonar transducer T).
Regarding claims 19 and 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 and modify Betts by Baker in view of Miller based on the following rationales: referring to Betts, the 360 degree sonar assembly is relatively fixed in position with respect to the trolling motor 112 assembly shown in Figs 2 and 3. On the other hand, the setup of the bracket assembly 22 of Baker shown in details in Fig 6, and in usage in Fig 1, allows the capability of significant freedom of flexible spatial arrangement of the sonar transducer assembly with respect to the trolling motor assembly for Baker. Referring to Miller, which fails to discuss of any trolling motor shaft with respect to shaft of transducer.
As a result, above discussions of benefits of Baker over both Betts and Miller could then be serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify sonar transducer mounting system to watercraft of Betts by Baker in view of Miller, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Baker, Betts and Miller 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. Pelin (US 20180120431A1) discloses a sonar transducer assembly for mounting to watercraft. Crawford (US 20220373662A1) discloses a sonar steering system. Pendergraft (US 20230011068A1) discloses a trolling motor foot pedal-controlled sonar device. Hesse (US 20230393251A1) discloses a forward-facing sonar mount on boat. Bird (US 20250012910A1) discloses a sonar transducer mount for attachment to troller motor. Freeman (US 20230375700A1) disclose a sonar target locking system.
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
Prosecution Insights