NAVICO HOLDING AS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2022

2021002810 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/624,221 06/15/2017 Alan Lee Proctor 48379/09304 1600 27530 7590 02/23/2022 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP IP Department One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2300 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202 EXAMINER BAGHDASARYAN, HOVHANNES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ip@nelsonmullins.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALAN LEE PROCTOR, DAVID AUSTIN PARKS, and RONALD JOE HORNER ____________ Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Navico Holding AS as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 The Examiner indicated that claims 8, 11, 18, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Non-Final Act. 12. Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 2 CLAIMED INVENTON Appellant’s claimed invention “relate[s] generally to sonar systems and, more particularly, to . . . producing a 3D image of an underwater environment.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 15, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A sonar system comprising: a housing mountable to a watercraft capable of traversing a body of water; a downscan transducer element positioned within the housing and aimed downwardly, wherein the downscan transducer is configured to transmit sonar pulses into the water beneath the watercraft; a first sidescan transducer array positioned within the housing and aimed downwardly and outwardly from a first side of the watercraft, wherein the sidescan transducer array comprises a first sidescan transducer element and a second sidescan transducer element, wherein the first sidescan transducer element is configured to transmit sonar pulses into the water off the first side of the watercraft, wherein the first sidescan transducer element is configured to receive first sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the first sidescan transducer element, and wherein the first sidescan transducer element is configured to convert sound energy of the first sonar returns into first sonar return data, wherein the second sidescan transducer element is configured to receive second sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the first sidescan transducer element, and wherein the second sidescan transducer Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 3 element is configured to convert sound energy of the second sonar returns into second sonar return data, and wherein the first sidescan transducer element is positioned within the housing at a first predetermined distance from the second sidescan transducer element; a second sidescan transducer array positioned within the housing and aimed downwardly and outwardly from a second side of the watercraft, wherein the second side of the watercraft is generally opposite to the first side of the watercraft, wherein the second sidescan transducer array comprises a third sidescan transducer element and a fourth sidescan transducer element, wherein the third sidescan transducer element is configured to transmit sonar pulses into the water off the second side of the watercraft, wherein the third sidescan transducer element is configured to receive third sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the third sidescan transducer element, and wherein the third sidescan transducer element is configured to convert sound energy of the third sonar returns into third sonar return data, wherein the fourth sidescan transducer element is configured to receive fourth sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the third sidescan transducer element, and wherein the fourth sidescan transducer element is configured to convert sound energy of the fourth sonar returns into fourth sonar return data, and wherein the third sidescan transducer element is positioned within the housing at a second predetermined distance from the fourth sidescan transducer element; wherein the downscan transducer element, first sidescan transducer element, and third sidescan transducer element are configured to transmit sonar pulses into the water to provide substantially continuous sonar coverage from one side of the watercraft to an opposite side of the watercraft to provide sonar Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 4 returns to each of the first sidescan transducer array and the second sidescan transducer array; and a sonar signal processor configured to: process the first sonar return data and the second sonar return data based on the first predetermined distance and the third sonar return data and the fourth sonar return data based on the second predetermined distance to generate 3D mesh data that represents sonar returns from the one side of the watercraft to the opposite side of the watercraft. Appeal Br. A-1-A-3 (Claims App.). REJECTION Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maguire (US 2012/0106300 A1, pub. May 3, 2012), Zimmerman (US 2005/0007880 A1, pub. Jan. 13, 2005), and Zhou (US 2013/0016584 A1, pub. Jan. 17, 2013).3 ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner finds that Maguire teaches a first sidescan transducer “configured to receive first sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the first sidescan transducer element, and . . . convert sound energy of the first sonar returns into first sonar return data”; a second sidescan transducer element “configured to receive second sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the first 3 We treat the inclusion of allowable claim 11 and the omission of rejected claim 10 in the rejection heading at page 3 of the Non-Final Office Action as inadvertent error. See Non-Final Act. 11-12 (rejecting claim 10 over Maguire, Zimmerman, and Zhao, and indicating that claim 11 contains allowable subject matter). Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 5 sidescan element, and . . . convert sound energy of the second sonar returns into second sonar return data”; a third sidescan transducer element “configured to receive third sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the third sidescan element, and . . . convert sound energy of the third sonar returns into third sonar return data”; and a fourth sidescan transducer element “configured to receive fourth sonar returns from the sonar pulses produced by the downscan transducer element and the third sidescan element, and . . . convert sound energy of the fourth sonar returns into fourth sonar return data,” as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4-5 (citing Maguire ¶¶ 7-8, Fig. 1). Maguire relates to providing a downscan imaging sonar using a linear transducer. Maguire ¶ 2. Maguire describes that a known method for providing sidescan sonar involves arranging a plurality of conventional transducer elements 10 in an arc (shown in Figure 1) to create a fan-shaped beam pattern 12 that is projected onto a seabed (shown in Figure 2). Id. ¶ 7. A sonar signal processor 22 receives and processes signals from each of the plurality of transducers 26 via a paired transceiver 24. Id. ¶ 8, Fig. 3. Maguire indicates that the inclusion of a large number of transceivers for multibeam sonar systems introduces complexity to sonar signal processing. Id. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill “will understand that [a] transducer converts any sound signal received by the transducer to [an] electrical signal.” Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons that because a sea floor has an irregular shape, “some of the reflections will always reach the transducer if they are more or less oriented in the same direction.” Id.; see also id. (finding it “inherent [that] whatever reflections will reach the transducer will be received”). Yet, the Examiner does not Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 6 provide sufficient evidentiary support or technical reasoning to support the determination that Maguire teaches the particular configurations of first, second, third, and fourth sidescan transducers required by claim 1. For example, Maguire depicts each transducer 26 paired to a transceiver 24 for feeding a signal to sonar signal processor 22. Appeal Br. 13-14 (citing Maguire Fig. 3). Appellant argues that conventional multibeam sonar systems, such as the multibeam sonar system described in the portions of Maguire cited by the Examiner, include a plurality of transducers, each transducer configured to receive sonar returns from its own produced sonar pulses. Appeal Br. 13-14 (citing Maguire Fig. 3). Consistent with Appellant’s argument, Maguire describes producing an array of narrowly focused adjacent conical beams, and receiving sonar signals at each transducer, which is paired with a transceiver. Maguire ¶¶ 7-8, Figs. 2-3. The Examiner does not identify which transducers in Maguire correspond to the claimed downscan transducer element and four sidescan transducer elements, wherein the first sidescan transducer element is positioned a first predetermined distance from the second sidescan transducer element, and the third sidescan transducer element is positioned a second predetermined distance from the fourth sidescan transducer element. Moreover, we find nothing in the cited portions of Maguire indicating that a first sidescan transducer element and a second sidescan transducer element are each configured to receive sonar returns from a downscan transducer element and the first sidescan transducer element; and that third and fourth sidescan transducer elements are each configured to receive sonar returns from the downscan transducer element and the third sidescan transducer element, as required in claim 1. Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 7 In addition, claim 1 requires processing the first and second sonar return data based on the first predetermined distance, and processing third and fourth sonar return data based on the second predetermined distance to generate 3D mesh data. The Examiner determines that this processing is “inherent for bathymetric sonar [and that] this will be shown in the reference bellow [sic].” Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Maguire ¶ 7). Yet, the Examiner does not indicate, and we do not find, anything in paragraph 7 of Maguire disclosing how sonar return data is processed, much less disclosing that first and second sonar return data are processed based on a first predetermined data, and third and fourth sonar return data are processed based on a second predetermined data, as required by claim 1. The Examiner further finds that Maguire does not teach generating 3D mesh data that represents sonar returns from one side of the watercraft to the opposite side of the watercraft. Non-Final Act. 6. However, the Examiner finds that Zimmerman teaches “[u]sing bathymetric sonar to generate 3D mesh data that represents sonar returns from the one side of the watercraft to the opposite side of the watercraft.” Id. at 8 (citing Zimmerman ¶ 36). To the extent that the Examiner finds that paragraph 36 of Zimmerman teaches or suggests that it is inherent for a bathymetric sonar, such as Maguire’s sonar system, to process the claimed first and second sonar return data based on a first predetermined data and third and fourth sonar return data based on a second predetermined data, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidentiary support with technical reasoning to support the finding. Zimmerman pertains to extracting target information from a set of beamformed data. Zimmerman ¶ 3. Zimmerman discloses forming 3D groups “by combining 2D groups created for each vertical slice of peak Appeal 2021-002810 Application 15/624,221 8 data.” Id. ¶ 35. “Two dimensional groups from adjacent vertical slices are compared . . . to determine if they belong in a 3D group together.” Id. ¶ 36. Three dimensional groups comprise 2D groups that are spatially close to one another. Id. However, the cited portion of Zimmerman does not teach or suggest processing the first and second sonar return data based on the first predetermined distance, and processing third and fourth sonar return data based on the second predetermined distance. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent claims 15 and 19 recite similar language as claim 1, and the rejection of these claims does not cure the deficiency discussed in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 15 and 19 and their dependent claims for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9, 10, 12- 17, 19, 20 103 Maguire, Zimmerman, Zhou 1-7, 9, 10, 12-17, 19, 20 REVERSED