DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 19 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "The system of claim 16" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Applicant probably intended system claim 19 to depend on system claim 18 and not method claim 16.
References
D1: US20140198609 WELKER et al. July 17, 2014
D2: US6965849 Cao et al. November 15, 2005
D3: US20230213669 Yu et al. July 6, 2023
D4: US20180052246 Hartland February 22, 2018
D5: CN110208851 ZHANG et al. September 6, 2019
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2.
With regards to claims 1 and 18 the D1 reference discloses drilling a borehole in a seafloor with a drill bit coupled to an end of a drill string extended from a drilling rig (Fig. 5, ¶ 0007); ; deploying a plurality of autonomous (¶ 0028: automatic control) underwater vehicles (20) on the seafloor (Abstract) in a first geometry (¶ 0051: grid) relative to the borehole, each AUV (20) including a seismic receiver (50); and receiving the seismic energy emitted from the drill bit with the seismic receiver of each AUV. The difference between the D1 reference and claim 1 is that the claim recites the utilization of seismic energy emitted from the drill bit. The D2 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize seismic energy emitted from the drill bit (column 1, lines 30-40) as the drill bit advances to extend the borehole. It would have been obvious to modify the D1 reference to utilize seismic energy emitted from the drill bit as motivated by the D2 reference to enable the D1 system to perform a reverse vertical seismic profile survey (Abstract, column 1, lines 14-40).
With regards to claim 2, the D2 reference teaches the utilization of a walkaway geometry (column 1, lines 30-40) to obtain a reverse vertical seismic profile.
With regards to claim 3, the D1 reference discloses recording seismic data (¶¶ 0031, 0036, 0039).
With regards to claim 4, the D1 reference discloses utilizing a second geometry (Abstract: redeployment) different from the first geometry (¶ 0022: the self-propelled underwater vehicle may be iteratively programmed to continually reposition itself at different areas of the seafloor in order to fill gaps).
With regards to claim 5, the D1 reference discloses analyzing the seismic data from the plurality of AUVs recorded while in the first geometry (¶ 0022: the self-propelled underwater vehicle may be iteratively programmed to continually reposition itself at different areas of the seafloor in order to fill gaps).
With regards to claim 6, the D2 reference discloses the utilization of top sensors (12, 113).
With regards to claim 7, the D1 reference discloses recovering (¶ 0044: retrieving the underwater vehicles 20) the plurality of AUVs from the seafloor; and downloading the seismic data from the plurality of AUVs.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 8, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in combination with D3.
Claims 8 and 13 additionally recites the utilization of a walkaway geometry and a walkaround geometry. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize walkaway geometry and a walkaround geometry (see ¶¶ 0038-0039). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination of references to utilize a walkaway geometry and a walkaround geometry as motivated by the D3 reference to enable the system to extract anisotropic parameters of an underground stratum (see ¶ 0039).
With regards to claims 10, the D1 reference capable of placing the underwater vehicles in any pattern and the D3 reference teaches configurations to obtain three-dimensional data with walk around configurations.
With regards to claim 15, the D2 reference discloses the utilization of top sensors (12, 113).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 and D3 as applied to claims 8, 10, 13, and 15 above, and further in combination with D4.
Claims 11, 16, and 19 additionally recites the utilization of a basket. The D4 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize a basket (see ¶ 0039). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination of references to utilize a basket as motivated by the D4 reference to assist the system with launching underwater vehicles (see ¶ 0039).
With regards to claims 12, 17, and 20, the D4 reference teaches the utilization of ROV to assist with placement of sensors (see ¶ 0039).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in combination with D2 and D3 as applied to claims 8, 10, 13, and 15 above, and further in combination with D5.
Claims 9 and 14 additionally recites the utilization of concentric circle geometric configurations. The D5 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize concentric circle geometric configurations (see Figs. 7(a) & &(b) and ¶ 0062). It would have been obvious to modify the previous combination of references to utilize a concentric circle geometric configurations as motivated by the D5 reference to assist the system with a practical three-dimensional VSP data collection configuration (see ¶ 0062).
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Isam Alsomiri, can be reached on 571-272-6970.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645