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 .
Status of the Claims
This first non-final action is in response to applicant’s original filing on July 09, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 to 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12386068 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the reference patent recite or render obvious all of the limitations recited in in the present claims, with only slight but obvious differences in wording (e.g., when applicant’s present claim terminology is read in light of applicant’s arguments and the specification amendments in the present application), and with the limitations in the present claims corresponding to limitations in the reference patent claims as shown in the following claim correspondence table:
Claims in Present Application 19/264,024
Claims in U.S. Patent 12386068 (reference patent)
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 11
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that Claim 11 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does Claim 11 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method (process) which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 11. A method for artificial intelligence (AI) bathymetry, the method comprising:
receiving, by at least a computing device, a map comprising a plurality of bathymetric survey areas;
selecting, by the least a computing device, a bathymetric survey area from the plurality of bathymetric survey areas as a function of at least a frequency of mapping;
generating, by the at least a computing device, a path datum as a function of the selected bathymetric survey area and a survey resolution;
transmitting, by the at least a computing device, the path datum to an autonomous navigation module installed on a boat; and
receiving, by the at least a computing device, a bathymetric image from at least a communication module, wherein the communication module is communicatively connected to a sonic unit.
The method in claim 11 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The limitations of claim 11 highlighted above merely consist of determining a path datum based on selected bathymetric survey area. This is equivalent to a person, upon receiving a map comprising a plurality of bathymetric survey areas to determines a path datum based on selected bathymetric survey area and a survey resolution.
Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 11 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The at least a computing device merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
Further, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Still further, the transmitting step is claimed generically and amounts to mere extra solution activity.
As such, the additional limitations of claim 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 11 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Estimating and determining data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by general purpose computing devices, such as the devices in Claim 11.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since Claim 11 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 1, please see the rejection above with respect to Claim 11 which is commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to an apparatus and Claim 11 being drawn to a corresponding method. As such, since claims 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 7 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more, as the limitations are either further part of the mental process or are additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application using a similar analysis as applied to Claim 11 above.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, 11, 15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Koda (US 20100131133A1) in view of Dunkle (US 20120130571 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Koda teaches an apparatus for artificial intelligence (AI) bathymetry (Koda, Unmanned boat automatic survey device, it surveys at least underwater or water bottom condition during the navigation (S5), and displays and store the surveyed underwater or water bottom condition (S6)), the apparatus comprising:
at least a computing device, wherein the at least a computing device is configured to ( [0039] a remote control wireless controller computer 30 (“computer 30”)):
receive a map comprising a plurality of bathymetric survey areas ( [0069] The display switch 23 is provided on the front of the wireless controller system 20 and is used to display the topographical map of a place being surveyed as well as a reference survey line entered using the operating switches 24 and a plurality of survey routes generated from the reference survey line together with the topographical map of the place being surveyed, [0077] the unmanned boat 10 conducts underwater and water bottom surveys while it is tracing the survey routes in the specified order upon receiving a survey instruction);
select a bathymetric survey area from the plurality of bathymetric survey areas as a function of at least a frequency of mapping (Fig. 9 survey areas F and G);
generate a path datum as a function of the selected bathymetric survey area and a survey resolution ( [0095] underwater and water bottom surveys automatically by generating a plurality of survey routes as straight line segments extending at a fixed interval perpendicular to a survey line that forms an entered reference survey line as a reference, and causing the unmanned boat 10 for automatic survey to navigate automatically along said plurality of survey routes; Since the interval (survey resolution) between the adjacent survey routes can be freely designated, a more detailed survey of the water bottom, for example, can be accomplished easily, if so desired, by setting the interval between the survey routes narrower and causing the unmanned boat 10 to navigate at a narrower interval);
transmit the path datum to an autonomous navigation module installed on a boat ( [0015] [0051] The unmanned boat 10 is equipped with a drive device 11, a power source 12, a steering device 13, a reception/transmission antenna 14, a control device 15, a GPS antenna 16, a present position computation device 17, survey equipment 18, Fig. 5; [0109] The transmitted survey route is received by the control device 15, and the control device 15 controls the drive device 11 and the steering device 13 checking the present position by GPS, referencing the present position and the survey route in order to trace the survey route accurately, Fig. 5); and
receive a bathymetric image from at least a communication module ([0111] The display control unit 28 processes the survey data and displays them on the display 23. Its image is like the image shown in FIG. 9. According to this image, the hatched area G is how the water bottom looks, while the area F appearing between the water surface and the water bottom represents a school of fish.),
wherein the communication module is communicatively connected to a sonic unit( [0063]-[0065] The survey equipment 18 is a device for surveying underwater and water bottom conditions. The survey equipment 18 is equipped with a ultrasonic vibrator to radiate ultrasonic waves of a specific frequency or ultrasonic waves of different frequencies and to receive ultrasonic waves reflected by water bottom, etc.).
Koda does not explicitly teach but Dunkle teaches the specific limitations of select a bathymetric survey area from the plurality of bathymetric survey areas as a function of at least a frequency of mapping ( [0033]-[0041] Because a waterway such as a river is dynamic and its course may alter and change over time, especially after floods, the … mile markers 105 should be periodically updated from new surveys. Selecting survey area (mile makers) based on river course changes (frequency)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a boat automatic survey device, as taught by Koda, selecting a bathymetric survey area from the plurality of bathymetric survey areas as a function of at least a frequency of mapping, as taught by Dunkle, as Koda and Dunkle are directed to vehicle survey (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using selecting a bathymetric survey area from the plurality of bathymetric survey areas as a function of at least a frequency of mapping to keep the course of a navigable waterway accessible.
Regarding claim 11, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 1, which is commensurate in scope to claim 1, with claim 1 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 11 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 5, Koda teaches wherein generating the path datum comprises determining a traversal path as a function of a desired traversal direction (claim 11, survey route designating unit for designating survey routes with designated directions and at a designated interval within a stored loop-like route).
Regarding claim 15, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 5, which is commensurate in scope to claim 15, with claim 5 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 15 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 8, Koda teaches wherein the at least a computing device is further configured to: select a survey map corresponding to the bathymetric survey area; and transmit the survey map to the autonomous navigation module ([0069] The display switch 23 is used to display the topographical map of a place being surveyed; [0087] ).
Regarding claim 18, please see the rejection above with claim 8, which is commensurate in scope to claim 18, with claim 8 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 18 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 9, Koda does not explicitly teach but Dunkle teaches the specific limitations of wherein the at least a computing device is further configured to determine the frequency of mapping as a function of historical data of a shipping channel ([0009], several electronic databases related to the course of a navigable waterway are accessible to a computer. One database contains the results of a survey of the river (historical data of a shipping channel), in which points, called mile markers, are identified at intervals along the course of the river from a fixed reference point. [0030] The database may also contain other information from a survey, such as the width and depth of the channel and the direction of the course of the waterway 100 at the mile marker 105. [0033]- [0041] Because a waterway such as a river is dynamic and its course may alter and change over time, especially after floods, the Mile Marker Database 105 should be periodically updated from new surveys).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a boat automatic survey device, as taught by Koda, selecting a bathymetric survey area from the plurality of bathymetric survey areas as a function of at least a frequency of mapping, as taught by Dunkle, as Koda and Dunkle are directed to vehicle survey (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using selecting a bathymetric survey area from the plurality of bathymetric survey areas as a function of at least a frequency of mapping to keep the course of a navigable waterway accessible.
Regarding claim 19, please see the rejection above regarding claim 9, which is commensurate in scope to claim 19, with claim 9 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 19 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Koda (US20100131133 A1) in view of Dunkle (US 20120130571 A1) in view of Donderici (US 20160194948 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Koda as modified by Dunkle does not explicitly teach but Donderici teaches wherein the at least a computing device is further configured to determine the survey resolution as a function of an average depth of an area to be traversed (Donderici, because the increased depth of investigation increases the area or volume that must be measured, the resolution of the resulting measurement decreases).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a boat automatic survey device, as taught by Koda as modified by Dunkle, determining the survey resolution as a function of an average depth of an area to be traversed, as taught by Donderici, as Donderici, Koda and Dunkle are directed to vehicle survey (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using determining the survey resolution as a function of an average depth of an area to be traversed to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 12, please see the rejection above regarding claim 2, which is commensurate in scope to claim 12, with claim 2 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 12 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Koda (US20100131133 A1) in view of Dunkle (US 20120130571 A1) in view of Sanchez (US 20220055655 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Koda teaches receive a plurality of bathymetric data from the at least a communication module (Fig. 5, [0135] The survey data stored in the storage unit 27 of the wireless controller system 20 is transmitted to the computer 30 to be analyzed);
Koda as modified by Dunkle does not explicitly teach but Sanchez teaches determining the survey resolution as a function of survey criteria, wherein the survey criteria comprise at least an error rate of the plurality of bathymetric data ( [0008] small errors in determined position (data errors) accumulate as the cumulative number of sampled measurements increases, so that the determined position becomes less accurate overtime (resolution decreases)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a boat automatic survey device, as taught by Koda as modified by Dunkle, determining the survey resolution based on an error rate of data, as taught by Sanchez, as Koda, Sanchez and Dunkle are directed to vehicle survey (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using determining the survey resolution based on an error rate of data to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 13, please see the rejection above regarding claim 3, which is commensurate in scope to claim 13, with claim 3 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 13 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Koda (US20100131133 A1) in view of Dunkle (US 20120130571 A1) in view of Sanchez (US 20220055655 A1) in view of Zimmerman (US 20200379104 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Koda as modified by Dunkle as modified by Sanchez does not explicitly teach but Zimmerman teaches machine learning algorithms using training data for analyzing survey data ( [0006] Seafloor determinations by the model are improved with training data from a variety of sources. [0040] Whether the model is a CNN or other type of supervised machine learning algorithm, the model is trained with inputs… The algorithm generates as output…). The only difference between Zimmerman and present application is the input to and the output from the machine-learning model.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a boat automatic survey device, as taught by Koda as modified by Dunkle as modified by Sanchez, using machine learning model to analyze measurement data by selecting an input and output, as taught by Zimmerman, as Koda, Sanchez, Zimmerman and Dunkle are directed to vehicle survey (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using machine learning model to analyze measurement data to improve prediction and survey accuracy.
Regarding claim 14, please see the rejection above with regard claim 4, which is commensurate in scope to claim 14, with claim 4 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 14 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Koda (US20100131133 A1) in view of Dunkle (US 20120130571 A1) in view of Rzhanov (US 20200132456 A1)
Regaring claim 6, Koda as modified by Dunkle does not explicitly teach but Rzhanov teaches the at least a computing device is further configured to detect one or more gaps in the plurality of bathymetric data; and determining the traversal path comprises determining the traversal path as a function of the one or more gaps, wherein the traversal path traverses at least a portion of the one or more gaps (Abstract, eliminate gaps in image detection for fault-proof collection of imagery for an underwater survey. [0040] Without accurate positioning of the underwater system, even carefully planned surveys sometimes leave gaps or areas of insufficient non-consecutive overlap that introduce errors in resulting maps;[0055]- [0056] The above formula provides the upper limit of the linear speed that guarantees that there will be no gaps in detected area; [0063])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a boat automatic survey device, as taught by Koda as modified by Dunkle, determining the traversal path based on the one or more gaps, as taught by Rzhanov, as Koda, Rzhanov and Dunkle are directed to vehicle survey (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using determining the traversal path based on the one or more gaps to improve survey accuracy.
Regarding claim 16, please see the rejection above with regard claim 6, which is commensurate in scope to claim 16, with claim 6 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 16 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Koda (US20100131133 A1) in view of Dunkle (US 20120130571 A1) in view of Rzhanov (US 20200132456 A1) in view of Shell (US 6449215 B1)
Regarding claim 7, Koda as modified by Dunkle as modified by Rzhanov does not explicitly teach but Shell teaches wherein detecting the one or more gaps comprises detecting the one or more gaps using a fast Fourier transform (Shell, Processor 34 implements a bathymetric image processing algorithm on forward-looking sonar data 28. The ensuing description pertains to just one example of a bathymetric image processing algorithm that produces bathymetric data that is suitable for use by three-dimensional imaging module 16. The weighted elements are beamformed using a two-dimensional limited angle fast Fourier transform (FFT) beamformer).
FFT is a well-known algorithm in image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present invention to modify, a boat automatic survey device, as taught by Koda as modified by Dunkle as modified by Rzhanov, detecting the one or more gaps using a fast Fourier transform, as taught by Rzhanov, as Koda, Shell, Rzhanov and Dunkle are directed to vehicle survey (same field of endeavor), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility using detecting the one or more gaps using a fast Fourier transform to detect image features (enhancement, restoration, compression).
Regarding claim 17, please see the rejection above with regarding claim 7, which is commensurate in scope to claim 17, with claim 7 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 17 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over by Koda (US 20100131133 A1) in view of Dunkle (US 20120130571 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20210302966 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Koda as modified by Dunkle does not explicitly teach but Zhang teaches a system and method for monitoring aquatic environments and achieving a complete assessment of the aquatic environment. Specifically, with respect to the instant claims, Zhang teaches (see paragraphs 0008, 0017, 0021, 0031, 0033, 0047, 0053) identifying an underwater landmark (waypoint), register the bathymetric image to a map location as a function of the underwater landmark and communicating or transmitting the registered bathymetric image to a remote device.
Therefore, in view of Zhang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system/method of Koda as modified by Dunkle by identifying an underwater landmark in the bathymetric image, register the bathymetric image to a map location as a function of the underwater landmark and communicating or transmitting the registered bathymetric image to a remote device so as to achieve a complete assessment of the aquatic environment.
Regarding claim 20, please see the rejection above regarding claim 10, which is commensurate in scope to claim 20, with claim 10 being drawn to an apparatus and claim 20 being drawn to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGLI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8040. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 am-5 pm EST.
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 Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313)446-6519. 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 571-272-100.
/J.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
