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 03 August 2023. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed for this application.
Drawings
The drawings file on 03 August 2023 are accepted.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is greater than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para [0062], lines 16 and 18, recites “…distal end 211…” in two places and should be “…distal end 221…” (See at least: Para [0057], line 28, recites “…distal end 221…” and figs. of the drawings).
Para [0065], lines 20, recites “…distal portion 211…” and should be “…distal end 221…” (See at least: Para [0057], line 28, recites “…distal end 221…” and figs. of the drawings).
Para [0065], lines 31-32 and 10 (next page), recites “…distal portion 211…” in two places and should be “…distal end 221…” (See at least: Para [0057], line 28, recites “…distal end 221…” and figs. of the drawings).
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.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a sensor" in lines 9-10. Claim 1 line 1 recites “a sensor”. Therefore, it is not clear if the sensor of lines 9-10 is the same or different than the sensor of line 1 or if there are multiple sensors. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based on the independent claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a remote location" in line 2. Claim 12 line 2 recites "a remote location". Therefore, it is not clear "a remote location" of claim 16 is the same or different than "a remote location" of claim 12. The Examiner notes that claim 15 is a multiple dependency claim, and any change to the claim 16 language to “the remote location” will create a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 16 as “the remote location” is not known in claims 1-11 and 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a stand" in line 1. Claim 5 line 2 recites "a stand”. Therefore, it is not clear "a stand" of claim 17 is the same or different than "a stand" of claim 5 and “the stand” of claims 6-8 {which are dependent from claim 5}. The Examiner notes that claim 15 is a multiple dependency claim, and any change to the claim 17 language to “the stand” will create a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 17 as “the stand” is not known in claims 1-4 and 9-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the plurality of legs" in line 3. Claim 6 line 2 recites "a plurality of legs”. Therefore, it is not clear what "the plurality of legs " of claim 17 are in view of claims 1-5 and 9-14 as these claims do not recite "a plurality of legs”. The Examiner notes that claim 15 is a multiple dependency claim, and any change to the claim 17 language to "a plurality of legs” will create a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 17 in view of claims 6-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "an automatic sensor deployment system" in line 1. Claim 1 line 1 recites "an automatic sensor deployment system”. Therefore, it is not clear if the claim 19 “an automatic sensor deployment system” is the same or different than that of the claim 1 “an automatic sensor deployment system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations of "a washing apparatus" in line 2, “a washing fluid reservoir… a washing fluid” in line 3, “at least one nozzle” in line 4 and “at least one conduit” in line 6. Claim 11 recites the limitations of "a washing apparatus" in lines 1-2, “a washing fluid reservoir… a washing fluid” in line 3, “at least one nozzle” in line 4 and “at least one conduit” in line 6. Therefore, it is not clear if the claim 19 listed structure is the same or different of the claim 11 corresponding structure. The Examiner notes that claim 15 is a multiple dependency claim, and any change to the claim 19 language from “a/an” to "the” will create a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 19 in view of claims 1-10 and 12-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Rokkan et al. (US 20170031046 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rokkan et al. discloses an automatic sensor deployment system (overboard system, see at least: abstract, Figs. 1B, 3, 4A-6B and 10-11) for automatically deploying (See at least: para [0050] “…Deployment system may operate in automatic, semi-automatic, or manual processes…” underlined by the Examiner for emphasis) a sensor (seismic nodes 110) from a vessel (a marine vessel 106, see at least fig. 1B) to an underwater position (See at least: para. [0038] “…The marine vessel 106 may deploy the seismic nodes 110 in the body of water or on the floor 104 of the body of water, such as a seabed…” and figs. 1A-1B), the automatic sensor deployment system comprising:
a frame (first container 410, second container 420, third container 430, along with inside structure of horizontal I-beams 542 and sliding frames or beams 544; See at least: figs. 4A-5C, paras. [0052] and [0060]);
a retractable arm (retractable portion of overboard system 500, slewing ring assembly 530 and retraction assembly 540; See at least: para. [0060] and figs. 4A-5C.) supported by the frame, wherein a distal portion (plurality of cylinders 546’s hinge point near the hydraulic motor 534; See at least fig. 5A and para. [0061]) of the retractable arm is configured to be actuated from a retracted position (See at least: para. [0060] “…overboard system is retracted into the container.”) to a deployed position (See at least: figs. 4A-5C showing overboard position and is interpreted as the deployed position) in a direction away from the frame (See at least: figs. 5A-5C how the plurality of cylinders 546 push away from sliding frames or beams 544);
a cable guide (overboard wheel 510; See at least figs. 5A-5C and para [0059] and para. [0062] “…Overboard wheel 510 guides the deployment cable…”) located at the distal portion of the retractable arm (See at least figs. 5A-5C);
a lifting cable (deployment line 108; See at least figs. 1A-1B and para [0039] “…the deployment line 108 may be a metal cable (steel, galvanized steel, or stainless steel). Alternatively, the deployment line 108 may include chain linkage, rope (polymer), wire, or any other suitable material for tethering to the marine vessel 106 and deploying one or more seismic nodes 110.”) supported by the cable guide (See at least: para [0039] “…the deployment line may be stored on a spool or reel or winch…” and para. [0062] “…Overboard wheel 510 guides the deployment cable…”.);
a sensor apparatus (seismic nodes 110; See at least fig. 2A-2B) attached to the lifting cable,
the sensor apparatus comprising a sensor (seismometers; See at least para [0007]) for underwater sensing (See at least para. [0005] “…profile (image) of a geophysical structure under the seafloor…”);
a winch (winch system 412 See at least figs. 4A-4B) configured to retract and let out the lifting cable to raise and lower the sensor apparatus (See at least para [0052] “…configured to hold a node roping/coupling/attaching system… configured to deploy and retrieve cable from a spool of the winch system…”); and
at least one actuator (plurality of cylinders 546; See at least figs. 5A-5C which show linear actuators which are known to be hydraulic, electric or pneumatic, para. [0057] “…may be retracted vertically or horizontally via electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic motors…” Examiner notes that para. [0057] is to show it is known in different ways to power movement) configured to actuate the retractable arm (See at least figs. 5A-5C) and the winch.
Regarding claim 2, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses wherein the winch and the at least one actuator are supported by the frame such that the automatic sensor deployment system can be lifted as a unit (first container 410 or third container 430) via the frame (See at least: para [0052] “a first container 410 configured to hold a winch system 412… a third container 430 configured to hold an overboard unit 432…”. {The Examiner notes that Rokkan et al. shows each the winch and the actuator in their own container, however MPEP § 2144.IV.A. Changes in size/proportion recites “In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.”; and therefore the scaling the process into the same container, scaling down, is also logical.}).
Regarding claim 4, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses wherein the frame comprises a cover (See at least: fig. 3 and para. [0051] “…Each container preferably has a floor, roof, and sidewalls, with various portions removed to facilitate transfer of nodes to, from, and within each container as needed, or to allow service personnel access to the container…”.), wherein the retractable arm in the retracted position, the sensor apparatus, and the winch are collectively enclosed by the cover on at least three sides (See at least: figs. 4A-4C, para. [0051] recited above and para. [0052] “…overboard unit 432 may be retractable into and out of overboard unit container 430…”.).
Regarding claim 9, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses wherein the retractable arm is telescopic (See at least: Figs. 5A-5C showing the plurality of cylinders 546 are telescopic which are part of the overboard system’s 500 retraction assembly 540 ), wherein the retractable arm is configured to extend in length (See at least: Figs. 5A-5C showing extended in length position) when actuated between the retracted position and the deployed position.
Regarding claim 10, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses wherein the lifting cable comprises data transmission cable (See at least: para [0006] “…The cable provides support to the sensors, and acts as a transmission medium for power to the sensors and data received from the sensors…”) for transmitting data from the sensor apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses further comprising: a communication module (control systems; See at least: para. 48 “…In one embodiment, each container has separate control systems for local and/or remote operation of the tasks performed in the container.”) for receiving an instruction signal (operation of the tasks performed in the container) from a remote location (remote), wherein the instruction signal comprises instructions that cause the at least one actuator to actuate the retractable arm (operation of the tasks performed in the container; See at least: para. [0052] overboard unit container 430 and “overboard unit 432 may be retractable into and out of overboard unit container 430.”) and/or the winch (operation of the tasks performed in the container; See at least: para. [0052] first container 410 and winch system 412).
Regarding claim 15, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses a method (method 1000; See at least fig. 10 and para [0077] “…method 1000 for deploying a cable…”) of deploying the sensor apparatus for underwater sensing, the method using an automatic sensor deployment system according to any preceding claim (See at least: Claim 1 rejection above), the method comprising:
actuating the distal portion of the retractable arm from the retracted position to the deployed position (See at least fig. 10, steps 1002-1004 “position an overboard wheel to receive the first node of the plurality of attached nodes”; figs. 5A-5C and para. [0060] “…a plurality of cylinders 546… are fully extended during normal operation of the deployment system and overboard unit, thereby keeping slewing ring assembly 530 in a substantially vertical position.”); and
lowering the sensor apparatus by letting out the lifting cable from the winch (See at least fig. 10, step 1006 and 1010 “Deploy the cable with the first/second node into a body of water” and para. [0077] “…the deployment of cable 108 starts by deploying a length of cable through the deployment system from the winch container 326…” where best understood by the Examiner the winch feeds the cable 108 to the overboard container/overboard wheel 510 and therefore to deploy the node into the water the winch would be letting out the cable 108).
Regarding claim 16, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses further comprising:
receiving instructions from a remote location (See at least: para. [0048] “…each container has separate control systems for local and/or remote operation of the tasks performed in the container…” and para. [0053] “…a remote location such as off of the vessel, and operate the entire node deployment system…”) to deploy the sensor (See at least: para [0077] “method 1000 for deploying a cable”), wherein the actuating the distal portion of the retractable arm and the lowing the sensor are performed automatically (See at least para. [0050] “…Deployment system may operate in automatic, semi-automatic, or manual processes. A partially or entirely automated system reduces man-power requirements for deployment and retrieval operations and increase overall safety, efficiency, and reliability of the seismic survey. Additionally, such embodiments may allow for operation in harsh climates…”) in response to receiving the instructions.
Regarding claim 18, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses comprising:
sensing, by the sensor (See at least: para. [0043] “hydrophone 210… geophones or accelerometers 206… inclinometers, rotation sensors, translation sensors, heading sensors, and magnetometers…) while the sensor is underwater, a property (where the sensors listed in para. [0041] are for sound, angle, tilt, direction, mapping or magnetic field detection) of an underwater region (See at least: para. [0043] “…bottom of the ocean…”);
raising the sensor apparatus by retracting the lifting cable to the winch (See at least: fig. 11 and para [0078] “…block 1102 by retrieving a length of a deployment line 108 with a plurality of attached nodes from a body of water onto a marine vessel. In one embodiment a winch system begins retrieval of the deployed cable 108…”); and
retracting the distal portion of the retractable arm from the deployed position to the retracted position (See at least: para. [0060] “…cylinders may be partially retracted to at least partially elevate, tilt, and/or retract overboard wheel 510 as necessary. Overboard wheel 510 can be retracted into and out of a container for service, maintenance, storage, and/or transport…” fig. 11 steps 1106, 1108, 1112 and para [0078] “…position of overboard wheel 510 may be varied to more effectively retrieve the cable and prevent the cable from falling off overboard wheel 510...” where the Examiner interprets this as partially retracted. Where full retraction is interpreted when the cable and all the nodes are retrieved the overboard wheel is stored or placed in storage in the retracted position.).
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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokkan et al. (US 20170031046 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Rokkan et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor deployment system is no more than 1000 kilograms (See at least: para [0051] “…In some embodiments, the components of the node deployment system may be installed longitudinal in standard or custom-made twenty-foot cargo containers. One embodiment of the node deployment system 320 uses standard sized ISO shipping containers…” in which the Examiner interprets that this is heavier than an empty/unloaded 20 ft cargo container.).
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the size and scale of the process for different sensor deployment.
Applicant disclosed a compact system which is no more than 6 meters (approx. 19.68 ft) (See at least: Application para [0020]) which provides an advantage of taking up less deck space (See at least: Application para. [0021]). The prior art of Rokkan et al. disclosed a modular system using various standard or custom containers performing a function of the overall system. MPEP § 2144.IV.A. Changes in size/proportion recites “In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.”; therefore, the size, shape, weight of the overall system and scaling down the process into one container (the logical reverse of scaling up) are not sufficient to be patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to have designed an overboard deployment system and size it appropriately for the sensor being deployed and retrieved using the weight of the sensor in load/lifting calculations to size the cable, winch, moveable arm and container, as appropriate for the sensor application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the overboard deployment system of Rokkan et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokkan et al. (US 20170031046 A1) and further in view of Westerdahl et al. (WO 2015169357 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Rokkan et al. does not disclose wherein the sensor apparatus comprises a stand (protrusions 242: See at least fig. 2B and paras. [0044]-[0045]) for resting on an underwater surface (seabed See at least fig. 2B and paras. [0045] “…protrusions 242 for engaging the seabed…” and figs. 1A-1B), wherein the stand is collapsible.
Westerdahl et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the sensor apparatus (sensor system (1); See at least: Abstract, figs. 2A-2B and 7d-9) comprises a stand (a plurality of arms (3); See at least: Abstract, figs. 2A-2B and 7d-9) for resting on an underwater surface (seabed; See at least: Abstract), wherein the stand is collapsible (See at least: Abstract “…each arm (3) has a degree of freedom of movement with respect to the central hub (4)…”, figs. 2A-2B and 7d-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified seismic nodes 110 of Rokkan et al. with the sensor system (1) of Westerdahl et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of reducing motion and achieving proper contact with the seabed (See at least: Westerdahl et al. page 10 lines28-36 “…hinged attachment (soft joints) of the arms to the central support structure - providing a tripod like structure - further assists in reducing potential motion (e.g. resonances induced in the frame from sea currents or due to instability on a rough seabed) via the arms, and ensures appropriate contact between the sensors and the seabed particularly where the seabed is uneven or rocks or other projections are present…”).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokkan et al. (US 20170031046 A1) and further in view of Messageot (FR 2725677 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses further comprising a washing apparatus (cleaning station 436, See at least: para [0056] “cleaning station 436 comprises a carriage and a washing unit,”) for cleaning the sensor apparatus (See at least: para [0056] “the washing machine is configured to allow sufficient time to wash, clean, and/or rinse nodes that may be smeared with mud or other debris.”), the washing apparatus comprising:
a washing fluid reservoir () arranged to hold a washing fluid (See at least: para [0056] “…wash with freshwater or seawater.”);
at least one nozzle (a plurality of washing nozzles; See at least: para [0056] “the cleaning station includes a plurality of washing nozzles that spray the nodes from the sides and/or from below, and in other embodiments a plurality of washing nozzles are provided from above the cleaning station and spray the nodes from above.”) for applying the washing fluid from the washing fluid reservoir to the sensor apparatus; and
at least one conduit () for transporting the washing fluid from the washing fluid reservoir to the at least one nozzle.
However, Rokkan et al. does not disclose the structure of a washing fluid reservoir and at least one conduit.
Messageot in a similar field of endeavor (CPC B60S cleaning of vehicles), teaches the washing apparatus (Cleaning device; See at least: translation copy page 1 of 3, Description ) comprising:
a washing fluid reservoir (Cleansing soln. (13); See at least: fig. 1 showing a container for the cleansing solution and translation copy page 1 of 3 abstract) arranged to hold a washing fluid (Cleansing soln. (13));
at least one nozzle (nozzles on the uprights (5a, 5b); See at least: fig. 1 showing a plurality of spray nozzles and translation copy page 1 of 3 abstract) for applying the washing fluid from the washing fluid reservoir (See at least: Fig. 1) to the sensor apparatus; and
at least one conduit (See at least: Fig. 1 where solenoid valve (15) is pointed to for the line from the Cleansing soln. (13) container to the nozzles on the uprights (5a, 5b), and translation copy page 2 of 3 “to open the solenoid valve (15) allowing the spraying of the washing solution (13) on the sides of the vehicle by means of the nozzles placed on the lateral ramps (Sa and 5b)”) for transporting the washing fluid from the washing fluid reservoir to the at least one nozzle.
However, Messageot does not teach the sensor apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified cleaning station 436 of Rokkan et al. with Cleansing soln. (13) container with lines to the nozzles of Messageot with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of spraying at low pressure by means of a sprayer boom provided with nozzles (See at least: Messageot translation page 1 of 3 Description where this solves the problem of cleaning the most dirty parts of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 19, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. The Examiner notes the following claim language is essentially the same as recited in claim 11 rejected above where all the citations of structure would be the same as shown above: using an automatic sensor deployment system comprising a washing apparatus for cleaning the sensor apparatus, the washing apparatus comprising:
a washing fluid reservoir arranged to hold a washing fluid;
at least one nozzle for applying the washing fluid from the washing fluid reservoir to the sensor apparatus; and
at least one conduit for transporting the washing fluid from the washing fluid reservoir to the at least one nozzle,
Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses
the method comprising:
applying the washing fluid (See at least: para [0056] “…wash with freshwater or seawater.”) to the sensor apparatus to clean the sensor apparatus (See at least: para [0056] “The length of the washing machine is configured to allow sufficient time to wash, clean, and/or rinse nodes that may be smeared with mud or other debris.”).
Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 11 above.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokkan et al. (US 20170031046 A1) and further in view of Trail (US 9540076 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses further comprising: a processor (Control system; See at least: para [0048] “each container has separate control systems for local and/or remote operation of the tasks performed in the container…”) configured to coordinate actuation of the distal portion of the retractable arm and the winch to deploy the sensor apparatus (See at least: para [0052] “a first container 410 configured to hold a winch system 412” and “a third container 430 configured to hold an overboard unit 432...” where these containers perform the actions)
However, Rokkan et al. does not specifically disclose a processor thereby leaving it up to a person skilled in the art to design the control system to perform the actions of each container.
Trail in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: a processor (processor 6; See at least: figs. 6-7) configured to coordinate actuation of the distal portion of the retractable arm and the winch to deploy the sensor apparatus (See at least: col. 5 lines 19-34 “The launch and recovery system, upon instructions from the processor 6, can raise the pivot arms with actuators 17a and 17b. In embodiments, the actuators can be hydraulically or electrically driven. In further embodiments, each actuator can connect between a pivot arm and the base frame for rotating the one or more pivot arms between an onboard position and an overboard position. The plurality of actuators can be connected to or be in communication with the processor and the power supply. The launch and recovery system 12, with instructions from the processor 6, can raise the tether management component from the deck of the offshore object 2, and then pivot the pivot arms until the tether management component is positioned overboard of the hull of the offshore object. The tether management component can then be lowered below the water surface 3.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control system of Rokkan et al. with processor of Trail with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of how to design a launch and recovery system with a control system containing communication with acoustic transmitter receiver 19, control pod 72, processor 6, data storage (fig. 7) and power supply 70 (See at least: trail fig. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 20, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. However, Rokkan et al. does not disclose a computer-readable medium (Control system; See at least: para [0048] “each container has separate control systems for local and/or remote operation of the tasks performed in the container…”) comprising instructions (See at least: methods of figs. 10-11), that, when executed by at least one processor (Control system), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 15 (See at least: rejection of Claim 15 above).
However, Rokkan et al. does not explicitly disclose a computer-readable medium… at least one processor.
Trail in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a computer-readable medium (Data storage 9; See at least: fig. 1) comprising instructions (See at least: fig. 7, where data storage 9 contains the instructions of fig. 7), that, when executed by at least one processor (processor 6, See at least: fig. 6), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 15 (See at least: fig. 7 steps 508 “overboard position”, 512 “rotate winches to cause load lines to lower” which relate to claim 15).
Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 13 and claim 15 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokkan et al. (US 20170031046 A1) in view of non-patent literature (NPL) (intermodal container and ISO 688) {Examiner note: see section Additional Relevant Prior Art for NPL citations}.
Regarding claim 14, Rokkan et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Rokkan et al. discloses wherein the automatic sensor deployment system is releasably fastened (See at least: para [0051] standard sized ISO shipping container) onto a deck of a vessel (marine vessel 106; See at least: Fig. 1A-1B).
However, Rokkan et al. does not explicitly disclose that the ISO shipping container is releasably fastened.
The NPL of intermodal container and ISO 688, teaches that shipping containers are releasably fastened (See at least: NPL intermodal container pages 5-6 showing container corner holes (page 5) where twist lock fittings (page 6) are used and are interpreted as the method to releasably fasten containers) onto a deck of a vessel (See at least: NPL intermodal container page 1 showing containers stacked on a large ship; and NPL ISO 688 page 1 showing lifting of a container from a stack (removability)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified ISO shipping container of Rokkan et al. with twist lock fittings of NPL intermodal container with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of securing the container load to the ship with a proven method/device.
Allowable Subject Matter.
Claims 6-8 and 17 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 claim 6, 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 “…wherein the sensor apparatus comprises a bias element configured to bias the plurality of legs open…” The closest prior at of Westerdahl et al. (WO 2015169357 A1) fig. 2B shows hinges 5 that allow arms to pivot and fig. 9 shows the arm movement when lowering to retrieving from the seabed. As best understood by the Examiner there is no bias element as the invention of Westerdahl et al. uses gravity or the motion from the deploying/retrieving line to pivot the arms. See copy of the figs. 2B and 9 below.
Regarding claim 17, 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 “…automatically opening the plurality of legs after starting to actuate the distal portion; and/or closing the plurality of legs after starting to raise the sensor apparatus…” The closest prior at of Westerdahl et al. (WO 2015169357 A1) was considered when viewing the claim language. For the first part, the definition of Automatic -“of a device or mechanism able to activate, move or regulate itself” was considered by the Examiner and no device or mechanism was found that activate the arms to move. For the second part closing was considered in view of fig. 9 and the closed position was interpreted by the Examiner to be the arms together in the up position (See at least: fig. 8) and therefore, the arms are still open when retrieving the sensor (See at least: fig. 9(b)). See copy of the figs. 2B and 9 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1121
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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:
Kawagoe et al. (US 4735526 A) teaches a jack-up rig with ultrasonic sensors (See at least: figs. 13-14 and col. 5 lines18-21 “As shown in FIGS. 13 and 14, ultrasonic transmitter-receivers 222, 223 and 224 are respectively provided on the outer wall of the platform 14 adjacent to each of the legs 12.”).
Omer (US 20080062269 A1) teaches that it is known that ROVs are used for spud can positioning inspection (See at least: para [0008]).
Lee et al. (US 20150246711 A1) teaches static and dynamic real-time monitoring of the seabed, marine environment and marine structure (such as a jack-up rig).
Intermodal Container [online]. wikipedia.org, 2022 [archived on 01 September 2022]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20220901065930/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container>.
ISO 668 [online]. wikipedia.org, 2023 [archived on 18 January 2023]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20230118185442/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_668>.
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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615