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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edme (WO 2015/0109175) in view of Rokkan (2016/0349387).
With respect to claim 1, Edme teaches a cylindrical shaped body ([0038], lines 4-5); a lower end to which a basal cone ([0063], lines 1-2) constituting a Seismic Sensor Module (SSM) ([0041], line1; [0042], lines 3-4) is jointly mounted ([0063], lines 1-2); a support and alignment device aligned with an alignment marker ([0045], lines 1-2; Fig 3: 304; Fig 4, 402); a noise attenuation device ([0033], lines 1-4; [0045], lines 7-10); and a panel for wet connection ([0044], lines 1-2). However, it does not teach a wet connection connector.
Rokkan teaches a wet connection connector ([0095]; lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Edme with the wet connector of Edme since such a modification would have allowed various external electronic components to be coupled to the seismic node for increased functionality.
With respect to claim 2, Edme discloses one or more of: a burial restrictor device, multiple side fins, a lifting eye, and a supporting eye ([0055], lines 1-2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edme in view of Rokkan and Beresford (WO 95/27222).
With respect to claim 3, Edme teaches a basal cone jointly mounted ([0063], lines 1-2), the basal cone constituting a Seismic Sensor Module (SSM) ([0041], line1; [0042], lines 3-4); a support and alignment device aligned with an alignment marker ([0045], lines 1-2; Fig 3: 304; Fig 4, 402); a noise attenuation device ([0033], lines 1-4; [0045], lines 7-10); and a panel for wet connection ([0044], lines 1-2); and one head (Fig 1). However, it does not teach at least two cylindrical sections, each comprising an upper cylindrical section and a lower cylindrical section, each cylindrical section having a diameter such that each cylindrical section, with the exception of the upper cylindrical section, can be tightly slid and inserted into the interior of the next upper cylindrical section, wherein the SPM has an extended configuration in which the at least two cylindrical sections are aligned along the same central geometric axis and are exposed along its entire length, and a compacted configuration wherein each cylindrical section, with the exception of the uppermost cylindrical section, is tightly inserted into the interior of the next upper cylindrical section, such that all cylindrical sections become co-located; and a wet connection connector.
Beresford teaches at least two cylindrical sections, each comprising an upper cylindrical section and a lower cylindrical section, each cylindrical section having a diameter such that each cylindrical section, with the exception of the upper cylindrical section, can be tightly slid and inserted into the interior of the next upper cylindrical section, wherein the SPM has an extended configuration in which the at least two cylindrical sections are aligned along the same central geometric axis and are exposed along its entire length, and a compacted configuration wherein each cylindrical section, with the exception of the uppermost cylindrical section, is tightly inserted into the interior of the next upper cylindrical section, such that all cylindrical sections become co-located (pg 11, lines 247-248; pg 12, lines 268-269, 380-381). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Edme with the telescoping feature of Beresford since such a modification would have allow the length of the module to be adjusted for different desired depths.
Rokkan teaches a wet connection connector ([0095]; lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Edme with the wet connector of Edme since such a modification would have allowed various external electronic components to be coupled to the seismic node for increased functionality.
Claims 4, 13, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edme in view of Rokkan and Beresford, and further in view of Lecerf (2016/0349392).
With respect to claim 4, Edme as modified teaches a triaxial block of seismic sensors consisting of three particle velocity sensors ([0031], lines 2-3, 5-7; [0050]) or three particle acceleration sensors arranged in three mutually orthogonal directions, the SSM further comprising at least one pair of inclination sensors capable of measuring along at least two orthogonal axes ([0045], lines 1-2, 7-10). However, it does not teach the triaxial block being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure.
Lecerf teaches the velocity being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure ([0044], lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the module of Edme with the co-located pressure sensor since such a modification would have assisted in the deghosting of the signals.
With respect to claim 13, Edme as modified teaches a Subsea Seismic Data Acquisition Module (SSDAM), wherein the SSDAM contains one or more batteries for energizing each Seismic Sensor Module (SSM) of each one of the at least one SPM ([0046], lines5-7), a memory for storing recorded seismic data ([0044], lines 8-9), and at least one wet connector for connection to at least one panel of the at least one SPM ([0044], lines 1-2). However, it does not teach a clock for accurate time synchronization.
Lecerf teaches a clock for accurate time synchronization ([0045], lines 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the module of Edme with the clock of Lecerf since such a modification would have allowed to the data to be stored and to be later referenced and compared accurately for processing.
With respect to claim 24, Edme as modified teaches a triaxial block of seismic sensors consisting of three particle velocity sensors or three particle acceleration sensors ([0031], lines 2-3, 5-7; [0050]) arranged in three mutually orthogonal directions, the SSM further comprising at least one pair of inclination sensors capable of measuring along at least two orthogonal axes ([0045], lines 1-2, 7-10). However, it does not teach the triaxial block being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure.
Lecerf teaches the particle motion being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure ([0044], lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the module of Edme with the co-located pressure sensor since such a modification would have assisted in the deghosting of the signals.
With respect to claim 25, Edme teaches the SPM is configured for partial permanent burial ([0072], lines 4-6).
Claims 18, 23, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edme in view of Rokkan, and further in view of Lecerf.
With respect to claim 18, Edme teaches a triaxial block of seismic sensors consisting of three particle velocity sensors ([0031], lines 2-3, 5-7; [0050]) or three particle acceleration sensors arranged in three mutually orthogonal directions, the SSM further comprising at least one pair of inclination sensors capable of measuring along at least two orthogonal axes ([0045], lines 1-2, 7-10). However, it does not teach the triaxial block being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure.
Lecerf teaches the velocity being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure ([0044], lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the module of Edme with the co-located pressure sensor since such a modification would have assisted in the deghosting of the signals.
With respect to claim 13, Edme teaches a Subsea Seismic Data Acquisition Module (SSDAM), wherein the SSDAM contains one or more batteries for energizing each Seismic Sensor Module (SSM) of each one of the at least one SPM ([0046], lines5-7), a memory for storing recorded seismic data ([0044], lines 8-9), and at least one wet connector for connection to at least one panel of the at least one SPM ([0044], lines 1-2). However, it does not teach a clock for accurate time synchronization.
Lecerf teaches a clock for accurate time synchronization ([0045], lines 8-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the module of Edme with the clock of Lecerf since such a modification would have allowed to the data to be stored and to be later referenced and compared accurately for processing.
With respect to claim 26, Edme as modified teaches a triaxial block of seismic sensors consisting of three particle velocity sensors or three particle acceleration sensors ([0031], lines 2-3, 5-7; [0050]) arranged in three mutually orthogonal directions, the SSM further comprising at least one pair of inclination sensors capable of measuring along at least two orthogonal axes ([0045], lines 1-2, 7-10). However, it does not teach the triaxial block being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure.
Lecerf teaches the particle motion being co-located with a seismic sensor sensitive to variations in pressure ([0044], lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the module of Edme with the co-located pressure sensor since such a modification would have assisted in the deghosting of the signals.
With respect to claim 27, Edme teaches the SPM is configured for partial permanent burial ([0072], lines 4-6).
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights