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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 11/07/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-13, 15-23, 26-31, and 33-36 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 33 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11-13, 15-16, 23, 26-27 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier (US 20160202380 A1) in view of McCoy (US 5283767 A), Pauer (US 5412622 A) and Mancini (US 20210088687 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Olivier teaches an seismic node (ocean bottom seismic sensor device 100) for deployment to the seabed, comprising: a pressurized node housing (housing 200) (In general, any housing that is capable of withstanding expected environmental pressure when the seismic sensor device is deployed), wherein at least one seismic sensor (seismic sensors 110), at least one data recording unit (hydrophone)(the timing device 130 may be a resonator, crystal, or oscillator configured to generate a timing signal for recording seismic data), and at least one clock (the timing device may be configured to receive an external clock signal from a master clock, and generate a clock signal for the seismic sensor device 100 based on the received external clock signal) are located within the pressurized node housing (FIGS. 2A-B illustrate exemplary housings for a seismic sensor device, e.g., the sensor station 100 of FIG. 1, according to an embodiment of the invention. All electronic components such as sensors, batteries, memory, and other circuitry may be contained within the housing 200). (Paragraphs 6, 29-31, 34-36, 39-42, Claim 15, Figs.1-3)
Olivier also teaches wherein the at least one seismic sensor (110) includes one or more of a geophone or an accelerometer (the seismic sensors 110 may include any number and combination of sensors such as hydrophones, geophones, accelerometers, or the like). (Paragraph 29, Fig.1)
Olivier also teaches wherein the node housing (200) comprises an internal buoyancy chamber. (Paragraphs 61, 39-42, Figs.2-5H) Applicant states in paragraph 57 of their specification “An internal buoyancy chamber exists inside the node housing, which may be simply the space between the components inside the housing”, Oliver teaches space in-between the components 110 and the housing 200 of the sensor device and predefined depth for the station 585 may be adjustable by selecting an appropriate buoyancy for the vessel body, meaning that the seismic station 580 may have a specific gravity that is equal to that of the sea water surrounding the seismic station 580.
Olivier also teaches wherein the node housing (200) comprises a center of gravity (the cut out section may be populated with material in such a way that the center of gravity of the seismic sensor station is maintained at or near one or more seismic sensors) and a center of buoyancy (The predefined depth for the station 585 may be adjustable by selecting an appropriate buoyancy for the vessel body, meaning that the seismic station 580 may have a specific gravity that is equal to that of the sea water surrounding the seismic station 580), wherein the center of gravity is below the center of buoyancy (In order to float above the seabed, the seismic station 580 may have a specific gravity that is lighter than that of the sea water column in which the seismic station 580 is suspended). (Paragraphs 52, 61)
Olivier also teaches wherein the node housing (200) is tubular (the housing 200 may have a substantially cylindrical shape) and has a length to a diameter ratio wherein the length is bigger. (Paragraphs 39-42, Figs.2-3)
Olivier does not explicitly teach an autonomous seismic node and wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 4:1 or greater and at least one detachable anchor weight removably attached to the lower section of the node housing and wherein the seismic node is positively buoyant in water, the at least one anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water and the combination of the seismic node and the at least one anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water and wherein the node housing has an upper section and a lower section disposed at different axial positions along the length, the internal buoyancy chamber is in the upper section of the node housing and the one or more of the geophone or the accelerometer is in the lower section of the node housing, wherein both the upper and lower sections are part of the same pressurized node housing.
McCoy teaches an autonomous seismic node (an autonomous teleoperated data acquisition system includes a portable free drifting instrument package 2 for cyclically collecting oceanic and/or fresh water environmental data over a range of depths) and wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 4:1 or greater (Forming the housing 6 as a long cylindrical pressure housing with a length to diameter ratio of 10 or more.). (Col.8, lines 43-47, Col.3, lines 13-19, Fig.1)
Pauer teaches at least one detachable anchor weight (14) removably attached to the lower section of the node housing (The mechanism 62 is a force-activated device which is separated upon receiving a threshold force). (Col.5, line 54-Col.6, line 32, Fig.2)
Pauer also teaches wherein the seismic node (10, 12) is positively buoyant in water, the at least one anchor weight (anchor weight 14) is negatively buoyant in water, and the combination of the seismic node and the at least one anchor weight (apparatus 10) is negatively buoyant in water. (Abstract, Col.4, lines 19-30, Col.6, lines 13-32, Col.5, lines 54-57, Figs.1-2)
Mancini teaches wherein the node housing (14) has an upper section (left side of fig.3 and fig.8) and a lower section (right side of fig.3 and fig.8) disposed at different axial positions along the length, the internal buoyancy chamber (16) is in the upper section of the node housing and the one or more of the geophone or the accelerometer (seismic sensors may include geophones, hydrophones and/or accelerometers) (76a, 76b) is in the lower section of the node housing, wherein both the upper and lower sections are part of the same pressurized node housing. (Paragraphs 165, 197, Figs.3,8) Mancini teaches, as illustrated in fig.8, the upper and lower portions of the node is encapsulated in the housing (14) and the upper portion (left side of fig.8) houses the buoyancy system (16) and the lower portion (right side of fig.8) houses the sensor (76b) which is a geophones, hydrophones and/or accelerometers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate an autonomous seismic node and wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 4:1 or greater as taught by McCoy in order to cyclically collect oceanic and/or fresh water environmental data over a range of depths without the constant input of a user and to provide a low drag body during profiling (See Col.8, lines 43-47, Col.3, lines 13-19 of McCoy) and further modify Olivier to incorporate at least one detachable anchor weight removably attached to the lower section of the node housing and wherein the seismic node is positively buoyant in water, the at least one anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water and the combination of the seismic node and the at least one anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water as taught by Pauer in order to connect various components throughout the device in a stable manner to achieve the highest possible accuracy of measurements (See Col.4, lines 31-55 of Pauer) and separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array. (See Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12 of Pauer) and further modify Olivier to incorporate wherein the node housing has an upper section and a lower section disposed at different axial positions along the length, the internal buoyancy chamber is in the upper section of the node housing and the one or more of the geophone or the accelerometer is in the lower section of the node housing, wherein both the upper and lower sections are part of the same pressurized node housing as taught by Mancini in order to receive seismic energy either directly from the source 12, via reflection from the seabed, or after reflection/refraction of seismic energy at boundaries within the seabed.
Regarding claim 2, Olivier teaches wherein the node housing (200) has a length to diameter ratio wherein the length is bigger. (Figs.2A-2B)
Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 8:1 or greater.
McCoy teaches wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 8:1 or greater (Forming the housing 6 as a long cylindrical pressure housing with a length to diameter ratio of 10 or more.). (Col.8, lines 43-47, Col.3, lines 13-19, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 8:1 or greater as taught by McCoy in order to provide a low drag body during profiling. (See Col.8, lines 43-47, Col.3, lines 13-19 of McCoy)
Regarding claim 6, Olivier teaches a detachable lifting cage (450) coupled to an upper section of the node housing (410). (Paragraphs 47-49, 55, Figs.4A-D)
Regarding claim 7, Olivier teaches an upper end cap assembly coupled to the upper section via a first connector (connector 210); and a lower end cap assembly coupled to the lower section via a second connector (connector 270). (Paragraphs 40, 57, 58, 60 Figs.2A-4D, 5I-J)
Olivier does not explicitly teach an upper end cap assembly coupled to the upper section via a first plurality of clips; and a lower end cap assembly coupled to the lower section via a second plurality of clips.
Pauer teaches an upper end cap assembly (Top half of 10 in Fig.2) coupled to the upper section via a first plurality of clips (38, 39); and a lower end cap assembly (Bottom half of 10 in Fig.2) coupled to the lower section via a second plurality of clips (38, 39). (Col.4, lines 31-55, Figs.2-4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate an upper end cap assembly coupled to the upper section via a first plurality of clips; and a lower end cap assembly coupled to the lower section via a second plurality of clips as taught by Pauer in order to connect various components throughout the device in a stable manner to achieve the highest possible accuracy of measurements. (See Col.4, lines 31-55 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 8, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first and second plurality of clips is flat.
Pauer teaches wherein each of the first and second plurality of clips (38-39) is flat. (Col.4, lines 31-55, Figs.2-4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein each of the first and second plurality of clips is flat as taught by Pauer in order to connect various components throughout the device in a stable manner to achieve the highest possible accuracy of measurements. (See Col.4, lines 31-55 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 11, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the lower cap assembly comprises a release mechanism for a detachable anchor weight.
Pauer teaches wherein the lower cap assembly (Bottom half of 10 in Fig.2) comprises a release mechanism (62) for a detachable anchor weight (14). (Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 32, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the lower cap assembly comprises a release mechanism for a detachable anchor weight as taught by Pauer in order to separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array. (See Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 12, Olivier teaches wherein at least one of the upper and lower end cap assemblies (542, 552, 591) comprise a polymer material (plastic, polyurethane). (Paragraphs 57-58, 63, Figs.5F-5L)
Regarding claim 13, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one detachable anchor weight is configured to be released from the seismic node by an acoustic signal.
Pauer teaches wherein the at least one detachable anchor weight (14) is configured to be released from the seismic node (12, 10) by an acoustic signal (initial shock forces) (The mechanism 62 is a force-activated device which is separated upon receiving a threshold force). (Col.5, line 54-Col.6, line 32, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the at least one detachable anchor weight is configured to be released from the seismic node by an acoustic signal as taught by Pauer in order to separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array. (See Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 15, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one anchor weight is coupled to the node housing via a flexible tether.
Pauer teaches wherein the at least one anchor weight (anchor weight 14) is coupled to the node housing (capsule float 12) via a flexible tether (cables 30). (Figs.1-4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the at least one anchor weight is coupled to the node housing via a flexible tether as taught by Pauer in order to maintain the sensor array in both horizontal and vertical stable orientation within an underwater environment. (See Col.2, lines 64-68 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 16, Olivier teaches wherein the at least one device (450) is directly coupled to the node housing (410). (Fig.4A)
Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one anchor weight is directly coupled to the node housing.
Pauer teaches wherein the at least one anchor weight (14) is directly coupled to the node housing (12). (Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the at least one anchor weight is directly coupled to the node housing as taught by Pauer in order to maintain the sensor array in both horizontal and vertical stable orientation within an underwater environment. (See Col.2, lines 64-68 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 23, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the seismic node comprises a positively buoyant section and a negatively buoyant section, wherein the negatively buoyant section is removably detached from the positively buoyant section.
Pauer teaches wherein the seismic node (10) comprises a positively buoyant section (capsule float 12) and a negatively buoyant section (anchor weight 14), wherein the negatively buoyant section is removably detached (62) from the positively buoyant section. (Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12, Col.4, lines 19-30, Col.6, lines 13-32, Col.5, lines 54-57, Figs.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the seismic node comprises a positively buoyant section and a negatively buoyant section, wherein the negatively buoyant section is removably detached from the positively buoyant section as taught by Pauer in order to separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array. (See Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 26, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the anchor weight comprises a seabed coupling device that is directly coupled to the node housing.
Pauer teaches wherein the anchor weight (14) comprises a seabed coupling device (18 (18a-18b), 60, 62) that is directly coupled to the node housing (12). (Col.5, line 54-Col.6, line 32, Figs.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the anchor weight comprises a seabed coupling device that is directly coupled to the node housing as Pauer in order to allow the anchor weight to settle onto the ocean floor. (See Col.5, line 54-Col.6, line 25 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 27, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the seabed coupling device comprises a plate.
Pauer teaches wherein the seabed coupling device (18 (18a-18b), 60, 62) comprises a plate (Elements 18 (18a-18b) and 62 seem to be connected to a plate as seen on the bottom portion of Fig.2). (Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the seabed coupling device comprises a plate as Pauer in order to allow the anchor weight to settle onto the ocean floor. (See Col.5, line 54-Col.6 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 33, Olivier teaches a method for deploying an seismic node to the seabed (A method for deploying sensor systems in a seismic survey, wherein each system includes a sensor module that is detachably coupled to a vessel.), comprising: providing a seismic node (ocean bottom seismic sensor device 100) on a back deck of a marine vessel (back deck of a seismic vessel configured to deploy and retrieve seismic sensor stations), wherein the seismic node (ocean bottom seismic sensor device 100) comprises a pressurized node housing (housing 200) (In general, any housing that is capable of withstanding expected environmental pressure when the seismic sensor device is deployed), wherein at least one seismic sensor (seismic sensors 110), at least one data recording unit (hydrophone)(the timing device 130 may be a resonator, crystal, or oscillator configured to generate a timing signal for recording seismic data), and at least one clock (the timing device may be configured to receive an external clock signal from a master clock, and generate a clock signal for the seismic sensor device 100 based on the received external clock signal) are located within the pressurized node housing, wherein the at least one seismic sensor includes one or more of a geophone or an accelerometer,. (Paragraphs 77, 6, 29-31, 34-36, 39-42, Claims 15, 21-22, Figs.1-3)
Olivier also teaches wherein the node housing (200) is tubular (the housing 200 may have a substantially cylindrical shape) and has a length to a diameter ratio wherein the length is bigger. (Paragraphs 39-42, Figs.2-3)
Olivier also teaches wherein the node housing (200) comprises an internal buoyancy chamber. (Paragraphs 61, 39-42, Figs.2-5H) Applicant states in paragraph 57 of their specification “An internal buoyancy chamber exists inside the node housing, which may be simply the space between the components inside the housing”, Oliver teaches space in-between the components 110 and the housing 200 of the sensor device and predefined depth for the station 585 may be adjustable by selecting an appropriate buoyancy for the vessel body, meaning that the seismic station 580 may have a specific gravity that is equal to that of the sea water surrounding the seismic station 580.
Olivier also teaches wherein the node housing (200) comprises a center of gravity (the cut out section may be populated with material in such a way that the center of gravity of the seismic sensor station is maintained at or near one or more seismic sensors) and a center of buoyancy (The predefined depth for the station 585 may be adjustable by selecting an appropriate buoyancy for the vessel body, meaning that the seismic station 580 may have a specific gravity that is equal to that of the sea water surrounding the seismic station 580), wherein the center of gravity is below the center of buoyancy (In order to float above the seabed, the seismic station 580 may have a specific gravity that is lighter than that of the sea water column in which the seismic station 580 is suspended). (Paragraphs 52, 61)
Olivier does not explicitly teach an autonomous seismic node coupling and wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 4:1 or greater and coupling a detachable anchor weight to the lower section of the node housing while the seismic node is on the back deck of the marine vessel and deploying the seismic node with the coupled anchor weight from the surface vessel to the bottom of the ocean by free-fall of the seismic node and wherein the node housing has an upper section and a lower section disposed at different axial positions along the length, the internal buoyancy chamber is in the upper section of the node housing and the one or more of the geophone or the accelerometer is in the lower section of the node housing, wherein both the upper and lower sections are part of the same pressurized node housing.
McCoy teaches an autonomous seismic node (an autonomous teleoperated data acquisition system includes a portable free drifting instrument package 2 for cyclically collecting oceanic and/or fresh water environmental data over a range of depths) and wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 4:1 or greater (Forming the housing 6 as a long cylindrical pressure housing with a length to diameter ratio of 10 or more.). (Col.8, lines 43-47, Col.3, lines 13-19, Fig.1)
Pauer teaches coupling a detachable anchor weight (14) to the lower section of the node housing (10, 12) while the seismic node is on the back deck of the marine vessel (150). (Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 32, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 12, Col.4, lines 31-55, Figs.1-2, 6)
Pauer also teaches wherein the seismic node (10, 12) is positively buoyant in water, the at least one anchor weight (anchor weight 14) is negatively buoyant in water, and the combination of the seismic node and the at least one anchor weight (apparatus 10) is negatively buoyant in water. (Abstract, Col.4, lines 19-30, Col.6, lines 13-32, Col.5, lines 54-57, Figs.1-2)
Pauer also teaches deploying the seismic node with the coupled anchor weight from the surface vessel (A first mode is indicated generally at reference numeral 10' wherein the apparatus is configured as a passive listening device which may be deployed from a surface ship or air-dropped into position via an aircraft. In any case, the apparatus 10' is deployed such that the anchor 14 exits the capsule float 12 in a manner to pull the sensor array 20 into its operational configuration) to the bottom of the ocean by free-fall of the seismic node (The cable 18 accepts the initial shock forces imposed upon deployment and the anchor 14 settles onto the ocean floor 104). (Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 32, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 12, Col.4, lines 31-55, Figs.1-2, 6)
Mancini teaches wherein the node housing (14) has an upper section (left side of fig.3 and fig.8) and a lower section (right side of fig.3 and fig.8) disposed at different axial positions along the length, the internal buoyancy chamber (16) is in the upper section of the node housing and the one or more of the geophone or the accelerometer (seismic sensors may include geophones, hydrophones and/or accelerometers) (76a, 76b) is in the lower section of the node housing, wherein both the upper and lower sections are part of the same pressurized node housing. (Paragraphs 165, 197, Figs.3,8) Mancini teaches, as illustrated in fig.8, the upper and lower portions of the node is encapsulated in the housing (14) and the upper portion (left side of fig.8) houses the buoyancy system (16) and the lower portion (right side of fig.8) houses the sensor (76b) which is a geophones, hydrophones and/or accelerometers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate an autonomous seismic node and wherein the housing has a length to a diameter ratio of 4:1 or greater as taught by McCoy in order to cyclically collect oceanic and/or fresh water environmental data over a range of depths without the constant input of a user and to provide a low drag body during profiling (See Col.8, lines 43-47, Col.3, lines 13-19 of McCoy) and further modify Olivier to incorporate coupling a detachable anchor weight to the lower section of the node housing while the seismic node is on the back deck of the marine vessel and wherein the seismic node is positively buoyant in water, the at least one anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water, and the combination of the seismic node and the at least one anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water and deploying the seismic node with the coupled anchor weight from the surface vessel to the bottom of the ocean by free-fall of the seismic node as taught by Pauer in order to connect various components throughout the device in a stable manner to achieve the highest possible accuracy of measurements (See Col.4, lines 31-55 of Pauer) and separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array. (See Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12 of Pauer) and further modify Olivier to incorporate wherein the node housing has an upper section and a lower section disposed at different axial positions along the length, the internal buoyancy chamber is in the upper section of the node housing and the one or more of the geophone or the accelerometer is in the lower section of the node housing, wherein both the upper and lower sections are part of the same pressurized node housing as taught by Mancini in order to receive seismic energy either directly from the source 12, via reflection from the seabed, or after reflection/refraction of seismic energy at boundaries within the seabed.
Regarding claim 34, Olivier does not explicitly teach coupling the anchor weight to the bottom of the ocean.
Pauer teaches coupling the anchor weight (14) to the bottom of the ocean (ocean floor 104). (Col.6, line 13-46, Fig.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate coupling the anchor weight to the bottom of the ocean as taught by Pauer in order to separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array and allow the anchor weight to settle onto the ocean floor. (See Col.5, line 54-Col.6, line 25 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 35, Olivier teaches retrieving the node housing from the bottom of the ocean. (Paragraphs 48, 77)
Regarding claim 36, Olivier does not explicitly teach releasing the anchor weight from the node housing based on an acoustic signal and surfacing the node housing near a surface of a body of water.
Pauer teaches releasing the anchor weight (14) from the node housing (12) based on an acoustic signal (initial shock forces) (The mechanism 62 is a force-activated device which is separated upon receiving a threshold force) and surfacing the node housing near a surface of a body of water (the difference in buoyancy as between the capsule float 12 and the anchor 14 may allow the apparatus to float, i.e., it will reach a buoyancy level at which it stays for operation.). (Col.5, line 54-Col.6, line 61, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate releasing the anchor weight from the node housing based on an acoustic signal and surfacing the node housing near a surface of a body of water as taught by Pauer in order to separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array. (See Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12 of Pauer)
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini and Postic (US 20180222560 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first plurality of clip fits within a first plurality of corresponding recesses on the upper section and the upper end cap assembly and the second plurality of clip fits within a second plurality of corresponding recesses on the lower section and the lower end cap assembly.
Postic teaches wherein each of the first plurality of clip (305) fits within a first plurality of corresponding recesses (303) on the upper section (301) and the upper end cap assembly and the second plurality of clip (305) fits within a second plurality of corresponding recesses on the lower section (311) and the lower end cap assembly. (Paragraph 43, Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein each of the first plurality of clip fits within a first plurality of corresponding recesses on the upper section and the upper end cap assembly and the second plurality of clip fits within a second plurality of corresponding recesses on the lower section and the lower end cap assembly as taught by Postic in order to form a non-water tight housing or enclosure. (See Paragraph 43 of Postic)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini and Wei (CN 113353218 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached, citations begin with first paragraph/sentence on cited page and descend so on).
Regarding claim 10, Olivier teaches wherein the upper end cap assembly (260) is coupled to a hydrophone (hydrophone), and an electronic connector (210). (Paragraphs 40, 6, 29-30, 37, 50, Claim 15, Figs.2A-5J)
Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the assembly is coupled to an acoustic transducer and a satellite transducer.
Wei teaches wherein the assembly (Fig.1) is coupled to, an acoustic transducer (acoustic positioning transducer 105) and a satellite transducer (The communication device comprises a satellite communication device, a radio communication device 111, and at least one underwater acoustic positioning transducer 105. the satellite communication device is used for obtaining satellite positioning information by the subsea node; the radio communication device is used for receiving external instruction and sending the position information of itself by the subsea node. The underwater acoustic positioning transducer is used for underwater acoustic communication of underwater node.). (Page.4, Paragraph 10, Claims 4-5, Figs.1-4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the assembly is coupled to, an acoustic transducer and a satellite transducer as taught by Wei on order to obtain satellite positioning information by the subsea node and establish underwater acoustic communication of underwater node and receive the distribution and recovery instruction information and calculate the position deviation of the distribution position or the recovery position. (See Page.4, Paragraph 10 and Page.5, Paragraph 5 of Wei)
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini and Amit (US 20200299916 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one anchor weight comprises a first anchor weight and a second anchor weight, wherein the first anchor weight is directly attached to the node housing, wherein the second anchor weight is coupled to the first anchor weight via a tether, wherein the first anchor weight is positioned between the seismic node and the second anchor weight, wherein the first and second anchor weights can be released from the seismic node by an acoustic signal.
Amit teaches wherein the at least one anchor weight comprises a first anchor weight (144a-144c) and a second anchor weight (148a-148c.), wherein the first anchor weight is directly attached (140a-140c) to the node housing (105), wherein the second anchor weight (148a-148c.) is coupled to the first anchor weight (144a-144c) via a tether (146a-146c), wherein the first anchor weight (144a-144c) is positioned between the seismic node (105) and the second anchor weight (148a-148c.), wherein the first and second anchor weights can be released from the seismic node (The cables 140a-140c are tightened or released). (Paragraph 48, 57, Figs.4-5)
Pauer teaches releasing an anchor weight by an acoustic signal (initial shock forces) (The mechanism 62 is a force-activated device which is separated upon receiving a threshold force). (Col.5, line 54-Col.6, line 32, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the at least one anchor weight comprises a first anchor weight and a second anchor weight, wherein the first anchor weight is directly attached to the node housing, wherein the second anchor weight is coupled to the first anchor weight via a tether, wherein the first anchor weight is positioned between the seismic node and the second anchor weight, wherein the first and second anchor weights can be released from the seismic node as taught by Amit in order to keep the column vertical, for example, in response to forces from currents, waves, tides, earthquakes and the like, exerted on the column (See Paragraph 48 of Amit) and further modify Olivier to incorporate releasing an anchor weight by an acoustic signal as taught by Pauer in order to separate the anchor weight from the device without damaging any elements of the sensor array. (See Col.5, line 62-Col.6, line 12 of Pauer)
Regarding claim 18, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the second anchor weight couples to the seabed.
Amit teaches wherein the second anchor weight (148a-148c.) couples to the seabed (117). (Paragraph 43, 47-48, Fig.4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the second anchor weight couples to the seabed as taught by Amit in order to keep the column vertical, for example, in response to forces from currents, waves, tides, earthquakes and the like, exerted on the column (See Paragraph 48 of Amit)
Regarding claim 19, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the combination of the seismic node and the first anchor weight is neutrally buoyant in water.
Pauer wherein the combination of the seismic node (10, 12) and the first anchor weight (anchor weight 14) is neutrally buoyant in water. (Col.4, lines 19-30, Claim 1, Figs.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the combination of the seismic node and the first anchor weight is neutrally buoyant in water as taught by Pauer in order to enable simplified signal processing techniques to achieve sound source discrimination in both azimuth and elevation within an underwater environment. (See Abstract of Pauer)
Regarding claim 20, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the combination of the seismic node, the first anchor weight, and the second anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water.
Pauer teaches wherein the combination of the seismic node (10, 12) and the first anchor weight (anchor weight 14) is negatively buoyant in water. (Abstract, Col.4, lines 19-30, Col.6, lines 13-32, Col.5, lines 54-57, Figs.1-2)
Amit teaches wherein the combination of the first anchor weight (144a-144c), and the second anchor weight (148a-148c.) is negatively buoyant in water. (Paragraph 43, 47-48, Fig.4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the combination of the seismic node and the first anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water as taught by Pauer in order to enable simplified signal processing techniques to achieve sound source discrimination in both azimuth and elevation within an underwater environment (See Abstract of Pauer) and further modify Olivier to incorporate wherein the combination of the first anchor weight, and the second anchor weight is negatively buoyant in water as taught by Amit in order to keep the column vertical, for example, in response to forces from currents, waves, tides, earthquakes and the like, exerted on the column (See Paragraph 48 of Amit)
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini and DeLucca (US 9055736 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Olivier does not explicitly teach a flotation jacket configured to surround the node housing.
DeLucca teaches a flotation jacket (56) configured to surround the node housing (59). (Col.10, line 62- Col.11, line 17, Figs.12, 17)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate a flotation jacket configured to surround the node housing as taught by DeLucca in order to increase the holding power for the electronics housing and have the device float (See Col.11, line 64-Col.12, line 3 and Col.10, line 62- Col.11, line 17 of DeLucca).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini, Amit and DeLucca.
Regarding claim 22, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the combination of the node housing and a flotation jacket is positively buoyant in water.
DeLucca teaches wherein the combination of the node housing (59) and a flotation jacket (56) is positively buoyant in water (75). (Col.10, line 62- Col.11, line 17, Figs.12, 14-17)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the combination of the node housing and a flotation jacket is positively buoyant in water as taught by DeLucca in order to increase the holding power for the electronics housing and have the device float (See Col.11, line 64-Col.12, line 3 and Col.10, line 62- Col.11, line 17 of DeLucca).
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini and Sheshtawy (US 20080093082 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the seabed coupling device comprises a tripod base.
Pauer teaches wherein the seabed coupling device (18 (18a-18b), 60, 62) comprises a base (Fig.2 illustrates a designed base (Bottom section of fig.2)). (Fig.2)
Sheshtawy teaches a seabed coupling device comprising a tripod base (307, 301). (Figs.4-7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the seabed coupling device comprises base as Pauer in order to connect various components throughout the device in a stable manner to achieve the highest possible accuracy of measurements (See Col.4, lines 31-55 of Pauer) and further modify Olivier to incorporate a seabed coupling device comprising a tripod base as taught by Sheshtawy in order to penetrate a few feet into the soft sea bottom (See Paragraphs 30, 52, 54 of Sheshtawy).
Claim(s) 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini and Kenny Sr (US 4697958 A).
Regarding claim 29, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the seabed coupling device comprises a ribbed spear.
Kenny Sr teaches wherein the seabed coupling device (2) comprises a ribbed spear (anchor spear 12). (Figs.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the seabed coupling device comprises a ribbed spear as taught by Kenny Sr in order to embed the device, through the anchor spear, approximately one to one and one-half times its length below the sea bed level (See Col.6, lines 29-37 of Kenny Sr).
Regarding claim 30, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the seabed coupling device comprises an open-ended pipe base.
Kenny Sr teaches wherein the seabed coupling device (2) comprises an open-ended pipe base (16). (Figs.1-2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the seabed coupling device comprises a ribbed spear as taught by Kenny Sr in order to allow a limited axial sliding movement (See Col.3, lines 61-64 of Kenny Sr).
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of McCoy, Pauer, Mancini and Conti (GB 2443044 A, all citations provided from machine translation).
Regarding claim 31, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the anchor weight comprises a biodegradable material.
Conti teaches wherein the anchor weight (605) comprises a biodegradable material. (Abstract, Claim 1, Fig.6B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the anchor weight comprises a biodegradable material as taught by Conti in order have Carbon emission reduction and reduce pollution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takashi (JP 3464200 B2) which is directed to a method of underground structure exploration, a direct exploration method for directly obtaining information on the underground structure by boring the ground and obtaining a sample, and a method for observing and measuring a physical signal from the underground and analyzing it.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm 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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645