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.
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(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourgeois et al. (US 6,338,023, hereafter Bourgeois)
With respect to claim 1, Bourgeois teaches a bathymetric survey method comprising the steps of traversing a first survey line with a first lead vessel while mapping the seabed and water depth beneath the first vessel dynamically generating an adjacent survey line, as the first vessel traverses the first survey line, based on mapping data acquired from traversing the first survey line and traversing the adjacent survey line while mapping the seabed and water depth beneath the first vessel. (col. 3, lines 4-22, 52-67; col. 4, line 61 – col. 5, line 14)
Although Bourgeois does not explicitly teach a second vessel, trailing the first vessel and traversing the adjacent survey line, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Bourgeois to use an additional survey vessel in order to complete the survey in less time.
With respect to claim 2, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, teaches the adjacent survey line is generated such as to minimise overlap between a first swath of seabed corresponding to the first survey line and a second swath of seabed corresponding to the adjacent survey line. (col. 4, line 61 – col. 5, line 14)
With respect to claim 3, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, obviously teaches the adjacent survey line is generated by the first vessel and transmitted to the second vessel as the first vessel traverses the first survey line in order to perform the survey as efficiently as possible.
With respect to claim 4, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, obviously teaches the second vessel begins traversing the adjacent survey line while the first vessel is traversing the first survey line in order to perform the survey as efficiently as possible.
With respect to claim 5, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, teaches utilising an unmanned first and/or second vessel. (col. 3, lines 4-22)
With respect to claim 6, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, teaches utilising an autonomous first and/or second vessel. (col. 3, lines 4-22)
With respect to claim 7, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, teaches
comprising projecting a multi-beam sonar signal from the first and/or second vessel to map the seabed and water depth. (col. 1, lines 41-52, col. 3, lines 52-67)
With respect to claim 8, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, obviously teaches utilising a plurality of second vessels to conduct the survey so that the survey could be completed in the shortest possible amount of time.
With respect to claim 9, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, obviously teaches that all but the rearmost second vessel generate a respective adjacent survey line which the adjacent second vessel traverses so that the additional survey lines could be used as soon as possible for maximum efficiency.
With respect to claim 10, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, obviously teaches that the first vessel dynamically generates an adjacent survey line for each of the port and starboard sides of the first vessel; and a pair of the second vessels simultaneously traverse the adjacent survey lines aft of the first vessel as this would allow two additional vessels to begin their survey as quickly as possible.
With respect to claim 11, Bourgeois teaches a bathymetric survey system comprising a first lead vessel including a bathymetric transducer operable to map the seabed and water depth beneath the first vessel when traversing a first survey line; and a processor operable to dynamically generate an adjacent survey line, as the first vessel traverses the first survey line, based on mapping data acquired from the bathymetric transducer. (col. 3, lines 4-22, 52-67; col. 4, line 61 – col. 5, line 14)
Although Bourgeois does not explicitly teach a second vessel including a bathymetric transducer operable to map the seabed and water depth beneath the second vessel when traversing the adjacent survey line, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Bourgeois to include an additional survey vessel in order to complete the survey in less time.
With respect to claim 12, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, teaches the first and/or the second vessel are unmanned. (col. 3, lines 4-22)
With respect to claim 13, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, teaches the first and/or the second vessel are autonomous. (col. 3, lines 4-22)
With respect to claim 14, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, obviously teaches the processor is located on the first vessel and the first and second vessels are adapted for direct or indirect communication therebetween so that the survey can be carried out in a coordinated manner between the vessels.
With respect to claim 15, Bourgeois, as modified to include a second vessel, teaches the processor is operable to generate the adjacent survey line such as to minimise overlap with the first survey line. (col. 4, line 61 – col. 5, line 14)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s assertion that “The Office Action alleges that Bourgeois addresses the same problem as the invention but using only a single vessel”, the examiner does not entirely agree with this assertion because it depends on how one defines the problem that is being addressed. Although the method of Bourgeois ultimately completes the same task as that of the claimed invention, the rejection is based upon the teachings of Bourgeois in view of the knowledge of one having ordinary skill in the art which solves a different problem than that which is addressed by Bourgeois alone.
Bourgeois teaches a survey system which uses sensor data and an automated system to evaluate an area to be surveyed and determine a path of movement for a survey vessel in order to minimize the amount of overlap in the area that is surveyed. Bourgeois does not, as applicant correctly points out, discuss carrying out the survey operation with a plurality of survey vessels.
However, it is well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that a survey process could be more quickly carried out with a plurality of vessels performing the survey operation simultaneously. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Bourgeois to control the movement of a plurality of survey vessels in order to complete the survey in a shorter amount of time. Further modifications of the process to have a second vessel trailing the first one in order to make use of the data generated by the first vessel would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art in order to make the process operational.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jill E Culler whose telephone number is (571)272-2159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/JILL E CULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights