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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12 December 2025. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-22 are currently presented in the instant application. In response to the restriction requirement on 22 October 2025, claims 1-13 and 17 have been elected with traverse.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the election requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
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.
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) 1-14 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer (Publication No.: US 2013/0062464 A1, herein known as D1), in view of Mogue et al. (Patent No.: US 6,845,936 B1, herein known as D2)
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses a kit for assembling an airborne unitary structure of an array of geophysical sensors ([0034]), the unitary structure being configured to be towed by an aircraft (helicopter 108 in Fig. 1), the kit comprising:
a linkage assembly, the linkage assembly being configured to rigidly connect the structure together (see Figs. 8-13 for the x-wing for the towed sensor array with sensor array 806);
wherein the linkage assembly is configured to be assembled in a first configuration and in a second configuration, wherein the first configuration differs from the second configuration in at least one of a distance (collapsed and expanded as seen in the final “first” configuration of Figs. 8-11 and the initial “second” configuration of Fig. 12, or middle “second” configuration of Fig. 13).
D1 does not disclose a kit comprising at least two sensor modules each sensor module of the at least two sensor modules being configured to house at least one of the geophysical sensors (only one sensor array is shown in the figures).
D2 teaches an airborne unitary structure of an array of geophysical sensors (abstract) configured to be towed by an aircraft (helicopter 11) with multiple sensors (22, 22’, 22’’, and 24) arranged at each of the end points of each “wing” section (Fig. 2). This is stated to be desired for utilizing separate sensors for the type of survey being performed, and in the case of magnetic measurements “a separation of 3 meters between the sensors is desirable.” (Column 3 lines 55-65). D2 further describes that the vertical boom sections are able to be detachably secured so that different lengths can be used or telescopically constructed (Column 4 lines 21-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the kit of D1 by arranging additional sensors at the ends of each “wing” of the X-wing configuration (or alternatively at other locations of the box and bi-plane orientations of the other D1 embodiments) to allow for different survey sensing to be completed or alternatively to prevent interference between sensors as taught by D2. It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize more than one sensor array to obtain more data, as it has been held that a duplication of parts is an obvious variant over the prior art of record.
Alternatively, it would also have been obvious to modify the kit of D2 by making the vector platform of D2 collapsible or put together with assembly/disassembly as taught by D1 in order to provide easier transport. D2 already supports this sort of design with the linkages (boom sections) that can be removed and interchanged with other booms of different lengths, but a kit itself is not explicitly disclosed/taught.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses a kit wherein the linkage assembly comprises at least one collapsible rod assembly (A-frame strut 1302 of the X-wing variant, or alternatively the entire exterior box frame of Figs. 14-19 of D1).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly disclose a kit wherein the linkage assembly is configured to house an electric line connecting the at least two sensor modules.
However, power is run from the helicopter to the towed vehicle of D1 through, for example, a power line 546 (see Fig. 5; [0043]) and in D2 Column 4 lines 21-40, it discusses how electronic components 39 are housed within the central housing (linkage) 20, and that all the instruments feed information or data to those electronics, which are then recorded in the housing or “may be transmitted to the towing aircraft via the tow cable”. Both of these descriptions describe required wiring, either for power or data transmission, between the sensors and the core electronics of each towed vehicle, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the wiring through the physical structure of the aircraft to prevent snagging/damage during operation.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses a kit wherein the linkage assembly comprises a first configuration of a rod assembly and a second configuration of a rod assembly, the first configuration being configured to connect the at least two sensor modules at the first distance, the second configuration being configured to connect the at least two sensor modules at the second distance, and the first configuration and the second configuration of the rod assembly being configured to be interchangeable with one another (the extended and collapsed states of the combination, in either direction; for D1 in view of D2, the sensors located on the wing tips of the X wing will be collapsed beside each other in the folded down state, and in D2 in view of D1, if both vertical booms are replaced with smaller vertical booms, or the two vertical booms are removed and placed alongside each other, would have the sensor modules in a different distance than the first configuration).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses a kit wherein the kit comprises a plurality of linkage rods, the plurality of linkage rods being configured to compose the linkage assembly and form a truss (the A-frame of the X-wing design of D1 or alternatively the supports 2002 of the bi-plane design).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the combination of D1 and D2 does not explicitly disclose a kit wherein each of the at least two sensor modules is configured to be located at a node of the truss (claim 6) or wherein at least one of the at least two sensor modules is configured as a load-bearing structure of the truss (claim 7).
However, it has been held that a rearrangement of parts is an obvious variant over the prior art of record. The sensor array of D1 is attached to the A-frame strut ([0089]) and in the combination the array is broken into multiple sensors in light of D2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the locations of these sensors to be arranged along the A-frame strut, and intrinsically would be considered load-bearing.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses a kit wherein the kit comprises modules configured to compose at least one of the at least two sensor modules, the modules comprising at least two different, interchangeable tip modules (D2 module pods 22, 22’, 22’’, and 24, that are stated to be fitted with different sensors 21 depending on the type of survey being performed; Column 3 lines 55-65).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses a kit wherein the kit comprises modules configured to compose at least one of the at least two sensor modules, the modules comprising at least one type of empennage module (D2 in view of D1, D2 further has rear module housing 38 which can hold further sensing devices, and is part of the tail section; Column 4 lines 21-40; D1 in view of D2 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the explicit tail sections as seen in Figs. 9-11 of the X-wing or Fig. 23 of the bi-plane could have a module arranged due to the magnetic sensor restrictions as described above, or as a rearrangement of parts to utilize more of the aircraft for additional sensor means such as seen in D2).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses a kit wherein the kit comprises modules configured to compose at least one of the at least two sensor modules, the modules comprising at least one type of fuselage module (D2 in view of D1; the sensor pods can be considered part of the fuselage, or alternatively both central housing 20 and the housing 38 can be considered “fuselage modules”, which either communicate with the sensor modules, or can have sending modules themselves, as described above; D1 in view of D2, the sensor arrays are arranged on the A-frame fuselage body of the X-wing).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of D1 and D2 further discloses a kit wherein the kit comprises modules configured to compose at least one of the at least two sensor modules, the modules comprising at least one type of geosensor module, a geosensor module being configured to house at least one of the geophysical sensors (both the sensor array of D1 and the modules of D2 can comprise geophysical sensors as described in claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 12, see the rejections of claims 8-11 above.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of D1 and D2 discloses an airborne unitary structure for an array of geophysical sensors, the structure being configured to be towed by an aircraft and composed of modules of a kit according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 14, see the rejection of claims 1 and 12 above.
With respect to claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above. The assembly of both the designs of D1 in view of D2 and D2 in view of D1 would require the method of assembling.
With respect to claims 18-22, see the rejections of claims 2 and 3-7 above, respectively.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dossing Andreasen et al. (Patent No.: US 11,500,120 B2)
Partner (Publication No.: US 2016/0061984 A1)
Bouwer (Patent No.: US 9,205,922 B1)
Allen (Publication No.: US 2015/0048834 A1)
Klinkert (Patent No.: US 6,244,534 B1)
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
1/10/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852