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 1-2, 4-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement (US 2020/0183029 A1) in view of Bar-Zeev (US 10,676,192 B1) or Chan (US 10,336,453 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Clement teaches a sealed enclosure delimiting an internal volume[Fig 3 shows probe with hollow compartment #52], .....
at least one geophysical sensor, said at least one geophysical sensor being at least one of: arranged inside the enclosure, and being fully surrounded by the material, or being fixed on the contact surface, or being printed on the contact surface[Abstract, claim 1, Fig 3 has sensor #54 inside the probe].
Clement does not explicitly teach at least a part of the enclosure being deformable into at least one stable configuration in which a contact surface of the enclosure is deformed by the surface of the ground against which the contact surface is in contact, the enclosure being at least partially filled with a material configured to be deformed by the surface of the ground.
Chan teaches at least a part of the enclosure being deformable into at least one stable configuration in which a contact surface of the enclosure is deformed by the surface of the ground against which the contact surface is in contact, the enclosure being at least partially filled with a material configured to be deformed by the surface of the ground,[Col 23, Line 60 to Col 24, Line 15 and Figs 4A-D, 5A-E, 6A-E, 10A-B, 11A-B, 16A-B, 17A-B all have bag and fill material surrounding package for protection of cargo and being semi-rigid meaning deformable].
Bar-Zeev teaches that at least a part of the enclosure being deformable into at least one stable configuration in which a contact surface of the enclosure is deformed by the surface of the ground against which the contact surface is in contact, the enclosure being at least partially filled with a material configured to be deformed by the surface of the ground,[Fig 2a has airbag #110 to absorb impact when dropped on the ground and protect package #108 meaning the airbag can deform]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the probe in Clement with the airbag of Bar-Zeev or the containment pod of Chan in order to use package protection such as airbags or fill material to absorb impact and prevent damage to sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Clement, as modified teaches that comprising a transmitter and/or receiver arranged inside the enclosure. [0091 and Fig 3 has emitter #56 to transmit and receive].
Regarding claim 4, Clement, as modified teaches that comprising a battery and/or a data storage, the battery and/or the data storage being connected to the geophysical sensor and being arranged inside the enclosure[0118 has power unit # 58 containing battery, 0114 has emitter #56 containing processor and memory]
Regarding claim 5, Clement, as modified teaches that comprising holder fixed to the enclosure[0126 has launching unit #34 with a mechanical retainer holding the probe].
Regarding claim 6, Clement, as modified teaches that wherein the enclosure is a closed pocket[Fig 3 shows probe with enclosed hollow compartment #52].
Regarding claim 7, Clement, as modified teaches that wherein the geophysical sensor is a geophone or/and an accelerometer. [0035, 0110-0112 has geophone and accelerometer].
Regarding claim 8, Clement, as modified teaches that comprising a device configured to slow the sensor device when the sensor device is dropped at a predetermined height from an airborne platform[0076 has parachute to slow the probe].
Regarding claim 9, Clement, as modified teaches that wherein at least a region of the enclosure and/or at least a region of the geophysical sensor is biodegradable. [Abstract, 0019-0032, Claim 1 has biodegradable enclosure].
Regarding claim 10, Clement does not explicitly teach wherein the at least a part of the enclosure is reversibly deformable into a plurality of different stable configurations.
Chan teaches wherein the at least a part of the enclosure is reversibly deformable into a plurality of different stable configurations [Col 23, Line 60 to Col 24, Line 15 and Figs 4A-D, 5A-E, 6A-E, 10A-B, 11A-B, 16A-B, 17A-B all have bag and fill material surrounding package for protection of cargo and being semi-rigid meaning deformable; The figures also show various configurations].
Bar-Zeev teaches wherein the at least a part of the enclosure is reversibly deformable into a plurality of different stable configurations [Fig 2a has airbag #110 to absorb impact when dropped on the ground and protect package #108 meaning the airbag can deform, Figs 4A-C, 5A-C show various configurations]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the probe in Clement with the airbag of Bar-Zeev or the containment pod of Chan in order to use package protection in different shapes to better protect different sensor shapes.
Regarding claim 11, Clement, as modified teaches that at least a sensor device according to,claim 1, and at least one deployment platform configured to carry the sensor device[Fig 1, 5 has flying vehicle to deploy sensor; See also 0074-0075].
Regarding claim 12, Clement, as modified teaches that wherein the sensor device is removably fixed to the deployment platform. [Fig 1, 5 has flying vehicle to deploy sensor; See also 0074-0075].
Regarding claim 13, Clement, as modified teaches that providing a deployment platform carrying a sensor device according to claim 1: positioning the deployment platform above a ground target, and setting up the sensor device on the ground at the ground target. [Fig 1, 5 has flying vehicle to deploy sensor; See also 0074-0075].
Regarding claim 14, Clement, as modified teaches that wherein the setting up of the sensor device comprises dropping the sensor device from the deployment platform at a predetermined height above the ground or comprises laying the sensor device on a surface of the ground with the deployment platform. [Fig 1, 5 has flying vehicle to deploy sensor; See also 0074-0075].
Regarding claim 16, Clement, as modified teaches that wherein the deployment platform is an unmanned aerial vehicle or an unmanned ground vehicle. [Fig 1, 5 has flying vehicle to deploy sensor; See also 0074-0075].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement (US 2020/0183029 A1) in view of Bar-Zeev (US 10,676,192 B1) or Chan (US 10,336,453 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerhard Herzog (US 3,062,315 A).
Regarding claim 3, Clement, as modified implies but does not explicitly teach that comprising an antenna connected to the transmitter and/or receiver, the antenna being arranged through the enclosure [0115 has emitter communicating to antenna of telecom system #40].
Gerhard Herzog teaches that comprising an antenna connected to the transmitter and/or receiver, the antenna being arranged through the enclosure [Fig 1 has antennas #19, 20 coming out of enclosure #12, #21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the probe in Clement with the antennas of Gerhard Herzog in order for the antenna to not be blocked by the enclosure to get a better signal.
Moreover it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the antenna going outside the enclosure, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement (US 2020/0183029 A1) in view of Bar-Zeev (US 10,676,192 B1) or Chan (US 10,336,453 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Postel (US 2014/0307525 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Clement does not explicitly teach providing a retrieving platform, providing a sensor device according to claim 1, disposed on a surface of the ground, positioning the retrieving platform above the sensor device, fixing the sensor device to the retrieving platform, and carrying the sensor device with the retrieving platform.
Postel teaches that providing a retrieving platform, providing a sensor device according to claim 1, disposed on a surface of the ground, positioning the retrieving platform above the sensor device, fixing the sensor device to the retrieving platform, and carrying the sensor device with the retrieving platform. [0024-0026 and Fig 2B has retraction unit #220 retrieving sensor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the probe in Clement retraction unit of Postel in order to retrieve sensors to recover and reuse it.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645