DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 13 September 2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR2102761, filed on 19 March 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 September 2023 was
considered by the examiner. {Examiner notes there were two duplicate patent documents listed where the second of each were not considered.}.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0053] line 12 recites “the pusher 13”. Para. [0045] line 1 recites “movement system 13” and para. [0075] line 18 recites “pushing device 133”. Therefore, it is not clear the intent of para. [0053] line 12 as it does not match with the structure recited in at least para [0045] or [0075].
Para. [0084] line 1 recites “raising system 13”. Para. [0045] line 1 recites “movement system 13”. Therefore, it is not clear the intent of para. [0045] line 1 as it does not match with the structure recited in at least para [0045].
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (See at least: para. [0008]). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 4-5 recite “one lateral side of the ship,;” with a common and semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is: “…means of a recovery system as claimed in claim 1…” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “low” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 lines 10-11 recite “a low position” which the term “low” is relative to a direction with a distance from another structure. To correct this the Applicant may use “a first position” and further define, as necessary, “the first position”.
The term “high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 1 lines 11-12 recite “a high position” which the term “high” is relative to a direction with a distance from another structure. To correct this the Applicant may use “a second position” and further define, as necessary, “the second position”.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based on at least the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). {Examiner notes that the below rejections would also warrant additional/similar dependent rejections, however for clarity and compactness will only provide this one dependent rejection.}
Claims 3 and 16 all recite the term “low”. The term “low” in these claims are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To correct this the Applicant may use “the first position” and further define, as necessary, “the first position”.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8, 16 and 19 all recite the term “high”. The term “high” in these claims are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. To correct this the Applicant may use “the second position” and further define, as necessary, “the second position”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a low position" in line 6. Claim 1 lines 10-11 recite “a low position”. Therefore, it is not clear if this is the same or a different “low position”. To correct this the Applicant may amend this to either be “the first position” or “a third position” and further define, as necessary the intent. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a high position" in line 7. Claim 1 lines 11-12 recite “a high position”. Therefore, it is not clear if this is the same or a different “high position”. To correct this the Applicant may amend this to either be “the second position” or “a fourth position” and further define, as necessary the intent. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a seismometer" in lines 4-5. Claim 1 recite “an ocean-bottom seismometer”. Therefore, it is not clear if the “seismometer" of claim 4 is the same or different than that of claim 1’s preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a seismometer" in line 7. Claim 1 recite “an ocean-bottom seismometer” and claim 4 lines 4-5 recite "a seismometer". Therefore, it is not clear if the “seismometer" of claim 8 is the same or different than that of claims 1 or 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the deck" in line 3. The structure of “a deck” was not introduced or found in the claim tree of 1-2-9, therefore is unknown. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 5. The limitation of “an axis” was not introduced or found in the claim tree of 1-10, therefore is unknown. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the hull" in line 6. The structure of “a hull” was not introduced or found in the claim tree of 1-10, therefore is unknown. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the deck" in line 3. The structure of “a deck” was not introduced or found in the claim tree of 1-10-11, therefore is unknown. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the length and/or the height" in line 2. The limitation of “a length” and “a height” was not introduced or found in the claim tree of 1-10-14, therefore are unknown. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the sea" in line 2. The limitation of “a sea” was not introduced or found in claims 1 or 18, therefore is unknown. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a seismometer" in lines 7-8. Claim 18 line 1 recite “an ocean-bottom seismometer”. Therefore, it is not clear if the “seismometer" of lines 7-8 is the same or different than that of line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the/said second hollow structure" two times in lines 3-4. The structure of “a second hollow structure” was not introduced or found in the claim tree of 1-2-4-19, therefore is unknown. {Examiner notes “a second hollow structure” is found introduced in claim 3.}. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a seismometer" in line 5. Claim 1 recite “an ocean-bottom seismometer” and claim 4 lines 4-5 recite "a seismometer". Therefore, it is not clear if the “seismometer" of claim 19 is the same or different than that of claims 1 or 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration' s element “…a guide device comprising a guide barrier that has an end adapted to be coupled to the ship, the guide barrier being adapted to define with the hull of the ship a zone guiding the ocean-bottom seismometer toward the receiving device…”. The closest prior art of Greer (GB 2507532 A) discloses a receiving device (receiver recovery buoy 90; See at least: figs. 10A-C and “Receiver Recovery” section starting on page 10) and a guide device (first and second hulls 96 and 98; See at least: figs. 10A-C and “Receiver Recovery” section starting on page 10) which are part of the receiving device. The Applicant discloses that the guide device includes a guide barrier which is separate and in front of the capture path from the receiving device (See at least: claim 1 “toward the receiving device”). Greer does not disclose a separate guide barrier in front of the receiving device’s capture path. The Examiner considered the prior art of Xu et al. (CN 107487424 A) which teaches a flexible fishing net to act as a guide barrier, however the combination with the prior art of Greer requires modifications that are not taught by either and therefore would be considered as a hindsight combination. See below for a combined selection of both prior arts discussed above.
PNG
media_image1.png
1125
1142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 18, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration' s element “…by means of a recovery system as claimed in claim 1… steering the ship in such a manner as to cause the seismometer to enter the guide zone defined between the hull of the ship and the guide device of the recovery system…”. Claim 18 is interpreted that the preamble is reciting all the claim 1 structure and thereby limits the method of claim 18 to prior art which discloses or teaches all the structure of claim 1. The prior art of Greer (GB 2507532 A)’s claim 25 has a similar method to recover the seismometer (seabed receiver 1; See at least: figs. 10A-C, “Receiver Recovery” section starting on page 10 and claim 25 “A method of recovering a seabed receiver of the type comprising a central unit and a plurality of sensor arms pivotally mounted to the central unit, comprising: deploying a recovery buoy as specified in any of claims 20 to 22 from the vessel; sailing the vessel to a vicinity where a seabed receiver is floating on the sea surface ready for recovery; sailing the recovery buoy to the receiver so that the receivers central unit engages with the angled portion of the capture veins owing to the forward motion of the recovery buoy, thereby to capture the receiver; and lifting the receiver from the recovery buoy onto the vessel.”). However, Greer does not disclose the “…the guide zone defined between the hull of the ship and the guide device…” where the guide device is interpreted with the claim 1 language. Therefore, claim 18 is allowed for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 1 above.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Greer (GB 2507532 A) teaches a seabed receiver (See at least: fib. 6D).
Greer (GB 2507534 A) teaches a recovery buoy 90 comprises a hull 96,98 and a plurality of capture veins 102 for seabed receivers (See at least: figs. 10A-C).
Xu et al. (CN 107487424 A) a spacecraft offshore recovery method and device (See at least: Abstract and Figs. 1-2).
Nicholls (US 20100239406 A1) teaches an apparatus and method for recovering equipment from within a body of water (See at least: fig. 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615