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 .
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
In the instant case, instant Claims 1-2 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-7 of copending Application No. 19/044,926 in view of Thomspon et al. (US 2006/0159524). Copending claims 6-7 do not recite “a node manipulator configured to transfer each of the plurality of seismic nodes to and from the seabed” of instant Claims 1-2 and 21. However, using manipulators for transferring seismic nodes to and from the seabed was old and well-known, as evidenced by Thompson, and the selection of a transfer means, such as a manipulator, appropriate for a given intended use only requires routine skill in the art, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hartland (US 2020/0049849); and/or Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartland (US 2020/0049849), in view of CGG (WO 2014/096265); and/or Claims 4-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meech et al. (US 2019/0265378), in view of CGG (WO 2014/096265); and/or Claims 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meech et al. (US 2019/0265378) and CGG (WO 2014/096265), in view of Hartland (US 2020/0049849); and/or Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2019/0054982), in view of Watt et al. (WO 01/21476); and/or Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Qingdao (CN 114 475 985).
The current application is related to PCT/GB2024/050269 and the current claims are substantially similar in scope to the corresponding PCT claims. By adopting and incorporating herein by reference the explanations of the closest prior art as set forth in the Search Report, 1 the examiner meets the burdens of 35 U.S.C. 132(a)2 [e.g., insomuch as the reasons for rejection and references are stated and the Search Report provides such information as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing the prosecution of this application] and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2)3 [e.g., insomuch as the explanations of the Search Report are sufficient to make the pertinence of each reference apparent]. See the copy of the Search Report filed in this current application on the attached PTO Form 892.
Further regarding the disclosure of Hartland with respect to at least claim 1, Hartland discloses a node manipulator (e.g., para. 31, 57), and the skid comprises a variable buoyancy system (para. 52), as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See MPEP 1893.03(e)(II) which permits the examiner to adopt any portion or all of any report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA that would be relevant to U.S. practice, e.g., explanations of prior art, etc.
235 U.S.C.132(a): Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection or requirement made, the Director shall notify the applicant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of his application; and if after receiving such notice, the applicant persists in his claim for a patent, with or without amendment, the application shall be re-examined. No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. [emphasis added]
3 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2): In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified. [emphasis added]