DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21July2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Pending
1-15
Objected
11-12, and 14-15
112b
1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14-15
102
1-7, and 9-15
103
8
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The formulas are not populating correctly. Please ensure a clean copy of the claims are added to clearly show the formulas being claimed.
Claim(s) 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation "said program" should read "said computer program" for the purpose of clarity and consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation "the steering method" should read "the method for steering the vessel" for the purpose of clarity and consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation "the sources" should read "the plurality of sources" for the purpose of clarity and consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 14-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the corresponding hypothetic courses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position of said at least one point". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the corresponding location of the streamer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the following limitations,
"the time"
"the distance"
"the cross flow"
"the water velocity vector"
"the unit tangent"
"the traction"
"the physical friction/resistance factors"
"the stiffness"
"the force".
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 1 and 4, It is unclear if “the plurality of trajectories” is one of “the plurality of different trajectories” introduced.
Claim(s) 6-7, It is unclear if “the plurality of the modelled trajectories” is one of “the plurality of different trajectories” introduced.
Claim 7 contains the limitation "the one" which is indefinite. It is unclear what "the one" is referring to.
Claim(s) 14-15 contains the limitation "the method" which is indefinite. It is unclear if the method is referring to the method for seismic data or steering a vessel.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 8, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected due to being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claims are replete with errors and thorough review should be conducted to address them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Welker US 20110286302.
Welker discloses,
Claim 1; A method for steering a vessel, the vessel towing a streamer or a plurality of streamers, referred to as a streamer spread([0009] Discloses the need for steering devices for boats towing streamers 18 or a streamer array 19), wherein the method comprises: acquiring or determining a desired trajectory for at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread([0134] Knowledge of the trajectory is gained by reading the "P190" data produced from the prior survey. These trajectories may then be compared to a trajectory that can likely be acquired considering the selected acquisition hardware. If, however, a principal objective is conventional coverage, pre-plot lines will determine the survey tracks); acquiring or determining water current values([0009]The control systems described above rely upon particular inputs (e.g., marine current) to determine information (e.g., passive streamer shape) useful in controlling a seismic survey towing vessel); defining a plurality of different hypothetic courses for the vessel([0316] and Fig. 7 discloses a plurality of different courses for the vessel), and, for each of said different hypothetic courses of the vessel, modelling a trajectory for the streamer or the streamer spread in function of the corresponding hypothetic course of the vessel([0140] and Fig. 9 discloses that the trajectory of the streamers are affected by the course of the vessel) and in function of said water current values, so as to obtain a plurality of different trajectories for the streamer or the streamer spread; determining, among said different hypothetic courses for the vessel, a target course for the vessel in function of said plurality of modelled trajectories for the streamer or the streamer spread(Figs. 11-12 shows the plurality of different trajectories of the streamers based on vessel trajectory and water current), and in function of said desired trajectory of said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread, so that the position of said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread, that results from the determined target course of the vessel, follows said desired trajectory or follows a trajectory that is included in a predefined width corridor that contains said desired trajectory([0201] Discloses during the execution of the survey, the optimum track, based on tidal or other currents, can be adjusted based on the actual positions realized along the survey line. A no-change scenario occurs when the actual trajectory realized is within the limits set for the planned track. The no-change corridor limits will be derived from both the error estimates associated with the combined source and receiver position estimates and the steering constraints thought to give the optimum result); and steering the vessel according to the determined target course([0246] to [0248] Discloses steering the vessel based on the optimum calculated results).
Claim 2; Wherein said desired trajectory is a preplot line(Figs. 5-7 show pre plot lines).
Claim 3; Wherein said at least one point is a point positioned at the center of the streamer or of the streamer spread(Fig. 1B shows that there are many points or sensors along the streamer).
Claim 4; Wherein each of the plurality of trajectories for the streamer or the streamer spread, is modelled also in function of a given vessel speed associated to the corresponding hypothetic course for the vessel([0331] and Fig. 10 discloses and shows a plurality of trajectories for the streamer spread along the desired steering track, [0175] Discloses that speed is a factor of the method,).
Claim 5; Wherein the plurality of different hypothetic courses for the vessel is obtained by: starting a modelling with a first hypothetic course for the vessel to model a corresponding trajectory for the streamer or the streamer spread, and generating each next hypothetic course for the vessel in function of a deviation between the desired trajectory for said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread, and the previously modelled trajectory for the streamer or the streamer spread obtained according to the previous hypothetic course for the vessel([0331] In addition to orientation, a mean cross-line coordinate, in the vessel relative coordinate frame can be computed for steering purposes. This means the streamer front end can be used as a target. Accordingly, FIG. 10 shows the streamer front end centers being fitted to a desired steering track, Fig. 10 shows a model of several possible trajectories of the streamers based on the front end center tracks which is the vessel).
Claim 6; Wherein determining the target course for the vessel comprises the step of applying an inversion process, that uses as inputs the plurality of the modelled trajectories of the streamer or streamer spread, to determine said target course for the vessel([0316] and Fig. 7 Discloses a similar method to the inversion process as disclosed in the spec where several modelled trajectories are calculated and the optimal one is chosen).
Claim 7; Wherein the inversion process comprises the determination, among the plurality of the modelled trajectories of the streamer or streamer spread, of the one that is the closest with the desired trajectory for said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread([0372] After the optimal shot point target coordinates and/or streamer shape changes are deemed acceptable, they are used in the spread model to generate optimal spread control element drive commands. These commands are then simulated within the spread model to give the operating states. These operating states are also checked against limits beyond which failures may occur. If it is determined that any of the limits must be exceeded to realize the optimal shot point target coordinates and/or streamer shape changes desired, the limiting spread control element is constrained and an alternate set of drive commands is computed).
Claim 9; Wherein modelling a trajectory of the streamer or of the streamer spread includes modelling a shape C of the streamer or streamer spread that moves when being towed by the vessel through the water([0030] "Spread body shape" is a mathematical function describing the shape of any of the towed spread components. As an example, a streamer cable may be assumed to have a straight line shape from end to end), said modelling of the shape C being based on: a given trajectory P of the beginning point of the streamer or of the streamer spread, and associated given speed of said beginning point([0042] actual set of coordinates that any spread component occupies during the survey is tracked); and the water current V at the corresponding location of the streamer or of the streamer spread([0091] Discloses that wind and wave action and currents applied to the lines is used to build a representation of the area being surveyed).
Claim 10; Wherein said step of modelling the shape C of the streamer or streamer spread, is also based on at least one of the following parameters: a force exerted by steering device(s)( [0100] These operating states can be translated into forces exerted by the steering devices. The sum of these forces, distributed over the length of a streamer 18 or connected to the points on the source array).
Claim 12; When said program is executed on one or more computer(s) or processor(s) of a navigation system of a vessel([0213] Discloses that computer -executable instruction and computer-readable mediums are located on board the vessel).
Claim 13; A navigation system for steering a vessel towing a streamer or a streamer spread in water, wherein the navigation system is configured for executing the steps of a method according to of Claim 1([0045] Discloses a navigation system that can execute the method of claim 1).
Claim 14; A method for seismic data acquisition([0005] Discloses marine seismic acquisition involving on or more vessels towing at least one seismic streamer) with a streamer vessel towing a streamer or a streamer spread(11 is a marine vessel that is towing streamers 18), and with a source vessel towing one or a plurality of sources, the source vessel being distinct from the streamer vessel or being formed by the streamer vessel(Fig. 1A shows the source vessel 11 is towing sources such as 16 that are distinct from the vessel); wherein the method includes applying the steering method of Claim 1 to the streamer vessel and the streamer or streamer spread, to determine a target course for the streamer vessel and to steer the streamer vessel according to the target course(Fig. 10 and [0331] Disclose and show that the method is used to determine the target course of the vessel and streamers).
Claim 15; Wherein sources are towed above a point of the streamer or streamer spread and the target course for the streamer vessel is determined so that the sources remain on top of said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread(Fig. 1B shows the sources 16 are towed above a point of the streamer and [0089] discloses that the sources are provided with a GPS as well as steering devices allowing them to remain on top of the streamer).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welker US 20110286302 in view of Beasley US 20100014381.
Regarding claim(s) 8, Welker discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1, 6, and 7.
However, Welker fails to disclose:
Claim 8; Wherein said determination step in the inversion process is obtained by executing a steepest descent method applied to the modelled trajectories of the streamer or streamer spread with regard to the desired trajectory for said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread.
Beasley teaches a similar device in the same field of seismic surveys.
Beasley teaches,
Claim 8; Wherein said determination step in the inversion process is obtained by executing a steepest descent method applied to the modelled trajectories of the streamer or streamer spread with regard to the desired trajectory for said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread([0059] As examples, as can be appreciated by one of skill in the art, such techniques as a Genetic Algorithm, Simulated Annealing Algorithm, Steepest Descent Algorithm or Conjugate Gradient Algorithm may be used to determine optimal survey parameters, in other embodiments of the invention).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said determination step in the inversion process is obtained by executing a steepest descent method applied to the modelled trajectories of the streamer or streamer spread with regard to the desired trajectory for said at least one point of the streamer or of the streamer spread as taught by Beasley, for the purpose of [0059] determining optimal survey parameters and reducing the need to make large adjustments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/John C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669