DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to Amended Claims filed 2/26/2026.
Claims 1-6 are currently amended.
Claims 7-9 are newly added claims.
The current rejection of claims 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to claims 5-6.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite the following limitation “each of the plurality of seafloor observation apparatuses…in which the seafloor observation apparatus”. The claims are objected to for a minor informality. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims are recommended to amend as follows: “wherein each seafloor observation apparatus of the plurality of seafloor observation apparatuses” in lines 4-5.
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 3 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 3 recites the limitation “according to an environment” in line 3. It is unclear if “an environment” refers to the aforementioned “environment” in claim 1 or to something else entirely. Thus, the claim is rejected for vague and indefiniteness.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240125963 A1 hereinafter “Gou” in view of US 20110113891 A1 hereinafter “Hayner” in view of US 11143787 B2 hereinafter “Agersborg”, and further in view of US 20090316524 A1 hereinafter “Tenghamn”.
With regards to claim 1, Gou teaches
A seafloor observation system comprising:
a plurality of seafloor observation apparatuses installed at respective places different from each other, (Gou [0041-44], “In step (b), installations of the acquisition instruments may be controlled, including laying the acquisition instruments to an ocean bottom of the ocean bottom seismic data acquisition work area by ropes, steel cables, or ROV based on coordinates of the pre-designed measurement grid. In some embodiments, the coordinates of the pre-designed measurement grid may be determined by a pre-determined position sequence of optimal deployment data. Deployment data refers to layout data related to the acquisition instruments, such as a count and locations of acquisition instruments. The optimal deployment data refers to deployment data of the acquisition instruments capable of realizing optimal exploration results. In some embodiments, the optimal deployment data may include the count of acquisition instruments and the predetermined location sequence for realizing the optimal exploration results. The predetermined location sequence is a sequence consisting of the predetermined locations. The predetermined locations refer to locations of the acquisition instruments corresponding to the optimal exploration results.”) connected by submarine cables: (Gou [0045-46], “In step (c), instruments in the plurality of ocean bottom submerged buoys and the plurality of ocean surface buoys may be activated, and positioning signals and timing signals received by the GPS and BeiDou satellite signal receiving antennas of the plurality of ocean surface buoys may be sent to the plurality of ocean bottom submerged buoys via the armored opto-electronic composite cables. The instruments in the plurality of ocean bottom submerged buoys and the plurality of ocean surface buoys may be devices used for communication between the plurality of ocean bottom submerged buoys and the plurality of ocean surface buoys. In some embodiments, the instruments may send the positioning signals and the timing signals received by the GPS or the Beidou satellite signal receiving antennas of the plurality of ocean surface buoys to the plurality of ocean bottom submerged buoys via the armored opto-electronic composite cables to achieve applications such as oceanographic measurements and navigation.”)
a land station, (Gou [0037], “In some embodiments, the processor refers to a device or component of the system for acquiring the seismic data of the four-component OBN for processing the seismic data. The processor may be mainly configured to receive, store, analyze, and process the seismic data from the acquisition instruments to extract useful information and features. In some embodiments, the processor may be deployed on the ocean surface seismic source vessel or another data processing center (e.g., a vessel processing data at sea, a ground data processing center, etc.).”) wherein
each of the plurality of seafloor observation apparatuses includes
a plurality of sensors including sensors of different types (Gou [0031], “In some embodiments, the each of the acquisition instruments may include a pressurized chamber. The pressurized chamber may be provided with a three-component fiber optic geophone, a fiber optic acoustic pressure hydrophone, a three-component attitude sensor, a semiconductor light source, an internal opto-electronic conversion module, a modem module, a pre-amplification and A/D conversion module, a data storage module, and a rechargeable battery module.”) installed under the sea in an observation sea area; (Gou [0038], “In some embodiments of the present disclosure, positional adjustment of the acquisition instruments performed by the acquisition instrument adjustment device can ensure an accurate relative position between the acquisition instruments and the ocean surface seismic source vessel, which is conducive to obtaining accurate seismic data. In addition, the seismic data can be extracted and analyzed in time by the processor, which is conducive to the smooth and reliable conduct of the marine seismic exploration work.”)
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, and thereby capable of:
making the memory store software used for data processing of sensor signals output from the plurality of sensors; (Gou [00152-155], “In some embodiments, the processor may perform real-time correction on the timing data of each acquisition instrument in various ways based on the amount of real-time correction. The device may comprise at least one memory and at least one processor. The at least one memory may be configured to store computer instructions. The at least one processor may be configured to execute the whole or part of computer instructions to implement the method for acquiring the seismic data of the four-component OBN. One or more embodiments of the present disclosure provide a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer instructions that, when read by a computer, may direct the computer to execute the method for acquiring the seismic data of the four-component OBN.”)
Gou teaches the submarine cable but does not teach: updating the software in response to update data transmitted from the land station [through the submarine cable] according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed;
However, in an analogous art Hayner teaches updating the software in response to update data [transmitted from the land station through the submarine cable according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed;] (Hayner [0044], “During this process, empirical data is collected from a large sample of devices mounted in a wide variety of ways using different techniques. The collected data can then be used to derive the relationship(s) between the stress measures and the transducer offsets and/or scale factor errors. These relationships can then be programmed into the sensor device or otherwise used to configure the compensation module 1104. This configuration and programming may be as simple as setting some resistance values in a resistor divider network (mentioned above) or updating some coefficients in a software/firmware routine that runs in the sensor device, or in the user's device. Calibration may also be realized by individual testing of each sensor device and providing the calibration information to a "programming" function on a device-by-device basis.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Hayner into the teachings of Gou. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of correlating offset signals and/or scale factor errors generated by a transducer to effectively compensate for stress regardless of physical location (Hayner [0033]).
The combination of Gou and Hayner teaches updating the software in response to update data but does not teach [updating the software in response to] update data transmitted from the land station [through the submarine cable] according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed;
generating observation data by performing data processing of the sensor signal of each of the plurality of sensors by using the software;
However, in an analogous art Agersborg teaches […] update data transmitted from the land station […] (Agersborg Columns 6-7 Lines 65-67 and 1-3, “When the measurements on station 111 are complete, a surface vessel 12 moves the sensor frame 15 with the movable sensor 122 to a next survey station 112, where the measurements are repeated. Reference numeral 13 represent an umbilical for providing power and communication to an ROV 14.”) and (Agersborg Column 8 Lines 19-30, “A landing surface on station 110 enables the ROV14 with suitable connectors to land, e.g. to recharge batteries and activate the permanent tide gauge 121 before a periodic survey, and to download recorded data from the sensor 121 after the survey. The recorded data are corrected for sensor drift due to the unique drift function of the sensor 121.”) according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed; (Agersborg Column 9 Lines 17-35, “Step 220 regards a calibration survey conducted using a movable sensor 122. In some respects, the calibration survey is similar to the gravity-subsidence survey described in the introduction, and may be conducted as part of a periodic survey by the same vessel 12 and movable sensor 122. Thus, the calibration survey in step 220 is compared to the prior art survey in the following example. Similar to a current periodic survey, the calibration survey is preferably conducted in short sequences. Each sequence may start and end on a base station, e.g. a reference station 112. Each station 111 associated with a nearby permanent seafloor sensor 120, 121 is preferably visited at least twice by the movable sensor 122, and each visit involves measuring pressure and/or gravity for e.g. 20 minutes. Variations due to tide, atmospheric pressure etc. may be removed by tidal data, e.g. computed from measurements from permanent seafloor sensors 120, 121. At the end of the calibration survey, the depth of each visited station 111 may optionally be established relative to a reference station 112.”) [Examiner’s Note: An ROV is attached to the sensor apparatus which can receive updated data from the land station through an umbilical. By transmitting the updated drift function for each seafloor sensor, the station provides update data through the wired/cabled transmission, as in Gou, that allows for the eventual updating software as described in Hayner.]
generating observation data by performing data processing of the sensor signal of each of the plurality of sensors by using the software; (Agersborg Columns 8-9 Lines 59-67 and 1-6, “FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating major steps in the method 200 according to the present invention. The loop 261 represents repeated gravity-subsidence surveys with a precision sensor 122 producing a calibration difference for each permanent sensor 120. Loop 271 represents frequent or continuous monitoring surveys between the calibration surveys. Step 280 illustrate a drift function that provides a correction to data measured by a permanent seafloor sensor 120, 121. The drift function d(t) is a function of time unique to each sensor that provides a precise correction to the output signal from the senor at any time after a calibration survey. Step 210 includes all steps required to deploy and initialize the system 100. This may include deploying nearby survey stations 111 and recording constant offsets that are not already provided for previous periodic surveys.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Agersborg into the teachings of Gou in view of Hayner. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner, by generating update data in accordance with the environment by obtaining sensor output values, as in Agersborg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of a seafloor monitoring system that comprises equipment for communication and providing measurements (Agersborg Column 6 Lines 4-16).
The combination of Gou, Hayner, and Agersborg does not teach: transmitting the observation data to the land station through the submarine cable.
However, in an analogous art Tenghamn teaches transmitting the observation data to the land station through the submarine cable. (Tenghamn [0038], "Referring now to FIG. 2A, a seabed sensor cable system 10 according to the present invention includes a seabed sensor cable 20 [through the submarine cable] with multiple spaced-apart seismic sensor units 22. A first end 24 of the cable 20 is connected to a first unmanned vehicle 11 at a water surface 6 and a second end 26 of the cable 20 is connected to a second unmanned vehicle 12.") (Tenghamn [0055], "The present invention, therefore, provides in some, but not in necessarily all, embodiments a method for marine seismic surveying of strata beneath a seafloor beneath water, the method including: locating a sensor cable with sensing apparatus beneath water, the sensor cable having a first end connected to a first unmanned powered vehicle at a surface of the water and a second end connected to a second unmanned powered vehicle at the surface of the water; the method further including moving a seismic source vessel having a seismic source thereon with respect to the cable, activating the seismic source production signals transmitted to the strata below the seafloor, receiving reflected signals from the seafloor with the sensor cable, receiving signals from the sensor cable with the data system on at least one of the unmanned powered vehicles, processing the received signals with the data system, and wherein the remote receiver is located on one of a mother vessel and a land site.")
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 incorporated the teachings of Tenghamn into the teachings of Gou in view of Hayner and further in view of Agersborg. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner, by generating update data in accordance with the environment by obtaining sensor output values, as in Agersborg, with the sensor array as a system to send and receive data including update and observation information, as in Tenghamn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of acquiring data from seabed sensors with cables for communication (Tenghamn [0002]).
With regards to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Gou does not teach wherein the update data is data for changing at least one of a conversion formula and a coefficient according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed.
However, in an analogous art Hayner teaches wherein the update data is data for changing at least one of a conversion formula and a coefficient according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed. (Hayner [0044-45], "In practice, the generation of the corrected output signal 1150 is calibrated in accordance with the particular sensor device such that the desired compensation and correction is achieved. Calibration could be generally accomplished as part of a manufacturing characterization process. During this process, empirical data is collected from a large sample of devices mounted in a wide variety of ways using different techniques. The collected data can then be used to derive the relationship(s) between the stress measures and the transducer offsets and/or scale factor errors. These relationships can then be programmed into the sensor device or otherwise used to configure the compensation module 1104. This configuration and programming may be as simple as setting some resistance values in a resistor divider network (mentioned above) or updating some coefficients in a software/firmware routine that runs in the sensor device, or in the user's device. Calibration may also be realized by individual testing of each sensor device and providing the calibration information to a "programming" function on a device-by-device basis. In various embodiments, the stress to offset or stress to scale factor calculations may include the use of temperature and/or other measures to adjust, modify, or compensate the transducer output signal 1130. For example, the corrected output signal 1150 may be a function of signal(s) 1110, a measured or detected temperature, the transducer output signal 1130, and/or other measured or detected quantities, parameters, conditions, or states.")
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 incorporated the teachings of Hayner into the teachings of Gou. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of correlating offset signals and/or scale factor errors generated by a transducer to effectively compensate for stress regardless of physical location (Hayner [0033]).
The combination of Gou and Hayner teaches wherein the update data is data for changing at least one of a conversion formula and a coefficient according to an environment but does not teach [wherein the update data is data for changing at least one of a conversion formula and a coefficient] according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed.
However, in an analogous art Agersborg teaches […] according to an environment in which the seafloor observation apparatus is installed. (Agersborg Column 9 Lines 17-35, “Step 220 regards a calibration survey conducted using a movable sensor 122. In some respects, the calibration survey is similar to the gravity-subsidence survey described in the introduction, and may be conducted as part of a periodic survey by the same vessel 12 and movable sensor 122. Thus, the calibration survey in step 220 is compared to the prior art survey in the following example. Similar to a current periodic survey, the calibration survey is preferably conducted in short sequences. Each sequence may start and end on a base station, e.g. a reference station 112. Each station 111 associated with a nearby permanent seafloor sensor 120, 121 is preferably visited at least twice by the movable sensor 122, and each visit involves measuring pressure and/or gravity for e.g. 20 minutes. Variations due to tide, atmospheric pressure etc. may be removed by tidal data, e.g. computed from measurements from permanent seafloor sensors 120, 121. At the end of the calibration survey, the depth of each visited station 111 may optionally be established relative to a reference station 112.”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Agersborg into the teachings of Gou in view of Hayner. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner, by generating update data in accordance with the environment by obtaining sensor output values, as in Agersborg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of a seafloor monitoring system that comprises equipment for communication and providing measurements (Agersborg Column 6 Lines 4-16).
Claim 5 is directed to a control method corresponding to the seafloor observation system as disclosed in claim 1. Thus, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium corresponding to the seafloor observation system as disclosed in claim 1. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou in view of Hayner in view of Agersborg and further in view of Tenghamn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20160162519 A1 hereinafter "Stowe"
With regards to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Gou, Hayner, and Agersborg does not teach: wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions, and thereby to update the software in response to the update data, the update data being generated by the land station based on a result of an analysis of the observation data.
However, in an analogous art Tenghamn teaches [wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions, and thereby to update the software in response to the update data,] the update data being generated by the land station based on a result of an analysis of the observation data. (Tenghamn [0050], "As shown in FIG. 5, unmanned surface vehicles in systems and methods according to the present invention may have on-board generators, radio systems, data recording and/or processing systems, and controls for remote operation from a control function (e.g. on a mother vessel or at a land site). In a system80 according to the present invention, the USV's 81 and 82 according to the present invention have a cable 84 (any cable disclosed or referred to herein which may be in any location or position of any cable described above or shown in the drawings) between them in water W above a seafloor S (the cable may be on the seafloor). Each USV 81, 82 has a power generator 83; a data system 85 (e.g. for receiving, recording, buffering, processing and/or transmitting seismic data); a radio communications system 86; and/or a control navigation apparatus 87. Optionally, only one of the USV's has a system 85.") [Examiner's Note: The USV can be a land-based station that processes sensor data which is later used to determine how to update firmware of the deployed monitoring system]
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 incorporated the teachings of Tenghamn into the teachings of Gou in view of Hayner and further in view of Agersborg. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner, by generating update data in accordance with the environment by obtaining sensor output values, as in Agersborg, with the sensor array as a system to send and receive data including update and observation information, as in Tenghamn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of acquiring data from seabed sensors with cables for communication (Tenghamn [0002]).
The combination of Gou, Hayner, Agersborg, and Tenghamn teaches the update data being generated by the land station based on a result of an analysis of the observation data but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions, and thereby to update the software in response to the update data [the update data being generated by the land station based on a result of an analysis of the observation data]
However, in an analogous art Stowe teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions, and thereby to update the software in response to the update data, [...] (Stowe [0094-95], "Computer system 1000 can send messages and receive data, including program code, through the network(s), network link 1020 and communication interface 1018. In the Internet example, a server 1030 might transmit a requested code for an application program through Internet 1028, ISP 1026, local network 1022 and communication interface 1018. The received code may be executed by processor 1004 as it is received, and/or stored in storage device 1010, or other non-volatile storage for later execution [wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions, and thereby to update the software in response to the update data].")
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 incorporated the teachings of Stowe into the teachings of Gou in view of Hayner in view of Agersborg, and further in view of Tenghamn. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner, by generating update data in accordance with the environment by obtaining sensor output values, as in Agersborg, with the sensor array as a system to send and receive data including update and observation information, as in Tenghamn, with a processor in the sensory device configured to execute updated instructions, as in Stowe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of providing a sensory site that can detect and measure physical properties in the ocean (Stowe [0036]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou in view of Hayner in view of Agersborg and further in view of Tenghamn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070101393 A1 hereinafter "Ito".
With regards to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Gou, Hayner, Agersborg, and Tenghamn teaches other than the processing for generating the observation data from the sensor signals by using data transmitted from the land station through the submarine cable but does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to be able to add additional processing [other than the processing for generating the observation data from the sensor signals by using data transmitted from the land station through the submarine cable.]
However, in an analogous art Ito teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to be able to add additional processing […](Ito [0048], "Version renewal (version upgrade) data are classified into: the data prepared on the assumption that version upgrade is performed by overwriting all the contents of the program, etc.; and the data prepared on the assumption that version upgrade is performed by partially overwriting the contents of the program, etc. or adding an additional content to them. Which type of data is adopted depends on e.g. the configuration of the control part (first control part 21A to fourth control part 23A) that carries out the program. Here is assumed the former case where all the contents of the program, etc. are replaced including portions subjected to overwriting and addition of a new content thereto and a portion which has not undergone overwriting.")
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 incorporated the teachings of Ito into the teachings of Gou in view of Hayner in view of Agersborg and further in view of Tenghamn. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner, by generating update data in accordance with the environment by obtaining sensor output values, as in Agersborg, with the sensor array as a system to send and receive data including update and observation information, as in Tenghamn, and updating software of a system, as in Ito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of an arrangement where version renewal data can be downloaded into memory and transferred into storage for update (Ito [0050]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou in view of Hayner in view of Agersborg and further in view of Tenghamn as applied to claims 1 and 5-6 respectively above, and further in view of US 20230025271 A1 hereinafter “Arngren”.
With regards to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Gou, Hayner, Agersborg, and Tenghamn teaches in response to update data transmitted from the land station through the submarine cable but does not teach wherein the updating the software [in response to update data transmitted from the land station through the submarine cable] is performed according to environmental parameters derived from the sensor signals.
However, in an analogous art Arngren teaches wherein the updating the software [in response to update data transmitted from the land station through the submarine cable] is performed according to environmental parameters derived from the sensor signals. (Arngren [0032-34], “Environment is to be construed as one or both of the air surrounding, and effecting the data acquired from a sensor, or a device on which the sensor is attached, which may be the actual communication device or another device which is connected to the communication device [is performed according to environmental parameters derived from the sensor signals]… If the acquired data meet with the predefined conditions, a software updating procedure is initiated by the device, as indicated with step 170 [wherein the updating the software]”)
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 incorporated the teachings of Arngren into the teachings of Gou in view of Hayner in view of Agersborg and further in view of Tenghamn. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system comprising multiple sensory devices installed in different areas to communicate with a land station, as in Gou, and updating sensor program to calibrate and monitor seafloor characteristics to compensate for potential errors, as in Hayner, by generating update data in accordance with the environment by obtaining sensor output values, as in Agersborg, with the sensor array as a system to send and receive data including update and observation information, as in Tenghamn, and updating software in accordance with environmental parameters obtained from the sensor output values, as in Arngren. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of manipulating a sensor if the acquired data determines that the output does not meet the predefined conditions associated under normal operating conditions (Arngren [0028]).
Claim 8 is directed to a control method corresponding to the seafloor observation system as disclosed in claim 7. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 7.
Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium corresponding to the seafloor observation system as disclosed in claim 7. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 TRAVIS VIET TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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.
/T.V.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights