DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page.2, filed 07/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-15 under U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) as detailed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier (US 20160202380 A1) in view of Gateman (US 20150301212 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Olivier teaches an ocean bottom seismic node, comprising: a non-metallic pressurized node housing (200), wherein at least one seismic sensor (110), at least one data recording unit (130), and at least one clock (clock) are located within the node housing (200) (wherein the sensor module further comprises one or more of an energy source, a memory, a clock, and a hydrophone). (Paragraphs 39, 34, 29, Claims 6, 15)
Olivier also teaches a hydrophone housing (dome shaped section 260 may be configured to house a hydrophone) coupled to the node housing (200), wherein at least one hydrophone is substantially contained within the hydrophone housing. (Paragraphs 40, 47-48, 50, Claims 15, 22, Figs.2A-2B, 4A-4B)
Olivier does not explicitly teach a detachable hydrophone housing coupled to the node housing.
Gateman teaches a detachable hydrophone housing (9) coupled to the node housing (5). (Fig.3, Paragraph 33)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate a detachable hydrophone housing coupled to the node housing as taught by Gateman in order for storing a large number of seismic node casings and sensor capsules on the deploying/retrieving vessel, and enable deploying and retrieving the seismic nodes in a quick and cost efficient way.
Regarding claim 3, Olivier teaches wherein the node housing is formed substantially of a polymerized material. (Paragraph 63)
Regarding claim 4, Olivier teaches wherein the hydrophone housing is coupled to a side face of the node housing. (Figs.2A-2B, 4A-4B)
Olivier does not explicitly teach a detachable hydrophone housing.
Gateman teaches a detachable hydrophone housing (9). (Fig.3, Paragraph 33)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate a detachable hydrophone housing as taught by Gateman in order for storing a large number of seismic node casings and sensor capsules on the deploying/retrieving vessel, and enable deploying and retrieving the seismic nodes in a quick and cost efficient way.
Regarding claim 5, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one hydrophone is configured to be detached from the node housing when the detachable hydrophone housing is detached from the node housing.
Gateman teaches wherein the at least one hydrophone is configured to be detached from the node housing when the detachable hydrophone housing is detached from the node housing. (Fig.3, Paragraph 33)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the at least one hydrophone is configured to be detached from the node housing when the detachable hydrophone housing is detached from the node housing as taught by Gateman in order for storing a large number of seismic node casings and sensor capsules on the deploying/retrieving vessel, and enable deploying and retrieving the seismic nodes in a quick and cost efficient way.
Regarding claim 7, Olivier teaches wherein the seismic node is substantially in the shape of a cuboid. (Paragraph 55)
Regarding claim 8, Olivier teaches a baseplate coupled to a bottom portion of the node housing, wherein the baseplate is approximately a rectangle. (Paragraphs 60, 75, Figs.5I-5J, 11A-11B)
Regarding claim 10, Olivier teaches wherein the baseplate comprises a plurality of mounting points (573-574) configured to attach an accessory. (Paragraph 60, Figs.5I-5J)
Regarding claim 11, Olivier teaches a plurality of external electrical connectors (210) partially enclosed by the hydrophone housing. (Paragraphs 39-40, Figs.2A-2B)
Olivier does not explicitly teach a detachable hydrophone housing.
Gateman teaches a detachable hydrophone housing (9). (Fig.3, Paragraph 33)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate a detachable hydrophone housing as taught by Gateman in order for storing a large number of seismic node casings and sensor capsules on the deploying/retrieving vessel, and enable deploying and retrieving the seismic nodes in a quick and cost efficient way.
Regarding claim 12, Olivier teaches a plurality of external electrical connectors (210, 270) that are each configured to sit within a recess formed in an external face of the node pressure housing. (Paragraphs 39-40, 44, 57, Figs.2A-3)
Regarding claim 13, Olivier teaches a handling bracket (573) coupled to a top portion of the seismic node. (Paragraphs 60, Figs.5I-5J)
Regarding claim 14, Olivier teaches wherein the handling bracket is coupled to the node housing by a clip-on fitting (574). (Paragraph 60, Figs.5I-5J)
Regarding claim 29, Olivier teaches wherein a cross-sectional area of the seismic node is approximately a rectangle. (Paragraphs 41, 55-57)
Claim(s) 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of Gateman and Rokkan (US 20180106921 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Olivier does not explicitly teach a ballast weight positioned between the node housing and the baseplate.
Rokkan teaches a ballast weight positioned between the node housing and the baseplate. (Paragraphs 24, 26, 37, 40)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate a ballast weight positioned between the node housing and the baseplate in order to locate, retrieve, and/or raise various portions of the cable.
Regarding claim 15, Olivier does not explicitly teach a pressure relief valve, wherein the pressure relief valve is configured to fit within an integrated socket of the node housing.
Rokkan teaches a pressure relief valve (216), wherein the pressure relief valve is configured to fit within an integrated socket of the node housing (110, 202). (Paragraph 30, Figs.2A-2B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate a pressure relief valve, wherein the pressure relief valve is configured to fit within an integrated socket of the node housing in order to release unwanted pressure from seismic node.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier in view of Gateman and Olivier 927 (US 20220120927 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Olivier does not explicitly teach wherein the node housing comprises an injected molded housing formed of polymeric material.
Olivier 927 teaches wherein the node housing comprises an injected molded housing formed of polymeric material. (Paragraph 40, Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Olivier to incorporate wherein the node housing comprises an injected molded housing formed of polymeric material as taught by Olivier 927 in order to have a corrosion free, shock resistant, and affordable housing and can be molded to encapsulate sensor components and related hardware housed within the sensor node.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm 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, 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights