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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oscarsson-Nage (2020/0393584 A1)
With respect to Claim 8, Oscarsson-Nage teaches a method of marine seismic surveying (Fgiure 1-6, method inherent to system #100), the method comprising: connecting a marine dipole source (Figure 4B, #110 – [0026]-[0027]) to a surface vessel (102), wherein the seismic dipole source includes a moveable plate (202/204) configured to be moveable in water; moving the surface vessel (102) through a body of water (104) over an undersea formation ([0015]-[0016]); generating low frequency seismic signals ([0026]) by oscillating the moveable plate (202/204) of the seismic dipole source (110), wherein a resonance inherently depends on an equivalent water mass acting on a surface of the moveable plate (202/204); and receiving reflected low frequency seismic signals by a plurality of sensor streamers (112/114). Note that the plates #202/204 are in directed contact within water, and the resonance will inherently depend on an equivalent water mass acting on a surface of the moveable plate in the same way as Applicant’s by virtue of the direct contact between the two, when the source generates resonance.
With respect to Claim 9, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein the low frequency seismic signals are generated by moving a sound emitting surface (outer surface of paltes 202/204) by one or more linear motors (Oscarsson-Nage, 208A/B, [0029]) and one or more spring elements ([0020]).
With respect to Claim 10, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein the low frequency seismic signals comprise a plurality of up-going waves and first down-going waves ([0027]).
With respect to Claim 11, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein the up-going waves are substantially 180 degrees out of phase of the first down going waves ([0027] – note the seismic emanations result in an up-going wave and a down-going wave with opposite polarity).
With respect to Claim 12, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein it is inherent that reflecting the up- going ([0027]) waves off of a surface of the body of water resulting in second down-going waves in the same way as Applicant’s up-going waves as a matter of physics.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oscarsson-Nage (2020/0393584 A1) in view of Tenghamn (2017/0299739).
With respect to Claim 13, Oscarsson-Nage teaches the method of claim 8.
Oscarsson-Nage fails to teach combining the first down-going wave and the second down-going wave in-phase resulting in a third down-going wave.
Tenghamn ‘739 teaches a similar seismic dipole source wherein the low frequency seismic signals comprise a plurality of up-going waves (26) and first down-going waves (24) ([0019], [0028]); reflecting the up-going waves (26) off of a surface (22) of the body of water resulting in second down-going waves (27); and further comprising combining the first down-going wave (24) and the second down-going wave in-phase (27) resulting in a third down-going wave (29).
While the source of Oscarsson-Nage likely functions in this manner so as to not create destructive interference between the reflected wave and first going down wave, because Oscarsson-Nage does not specify this method of operation, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Oscarsson-Nage, with the apparatus of Tenghamn ‘739 so as to avoid potential destructive interference between the reflected wave and the going down wave, such that the combined/third wave may retain amplitudes at low frequencies (see Tenghamn, [0019])
Claims 1-7 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oscarsson-Nage (2020/0393584 A1) in view of Tenghamn (2016/0334541 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Oscarsson-Nage teaches a marine dipole source (Figure 4B, #110 – [0026]-[0027]) comprising: a moveable plate (202/204) connected to a surface vessel (102) by a deployable structure (could be cable #118 of Figure 1, or Figure 6, #118/120 – [0033]), wherein the movable plate (202/204) is configured to be moveable in water; one or more drivers (208A/208B) configured to oscillate the moveable plate (202/204); and one or more spring elements ([0020]) connected to the moveable plate (202/204).
Oscarsson-Nage fails to teach wherein the one or more spring elements connected to a moveable plate configured to generate resonance in a frequency band of interest, and wherein the resonance depends on an equivalent water mass acting on a surface of the moveable plate.
Tenghamn ‘541 teaches a similar marine source, wherein it is known to incorporate one or more spring elements (Figure 3, #135; Figure 8, #146) connected to a moveable plate (131/142) are configured to generate resonance in a frequency band of interest ([0064]-[0067]), and wherein the resonance depends on an equivalent water mass acting on a surface of the moveable plate (131/142, when combined with plates 202/204 of Oscarsson-Nage). Note [0068] discloses plates acting against the surrounding water, and [0070] and [0112] disclose density/load of water against the vibrator, which inherently includes the resonance generated via the springs as the resonance generated through the springs will be propagated through the water, so the resonance will be dependent on a water mass acting on the surface of the moveable plate as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Oscarsson-Nage, with the apparatus of Tenghamn ‘541 so as to increase the functionality of the seismic vibrator of Oscarsson-Nage by incorporating springs to generate a second system resonance frequency within a seismic frequency range of interest (see Tenghamn ‘541, [0064]-[0066]).
With respect to Claim 2, Oscarsson-Nage and Tenghamn ‘541 teach wherein the one or more drivers (Oscarsson-Nage, 208A/B; Tenghamn, 133) comprises linear motors (Oscarsson-Nage, [0029]; Tenghamn, Page 12, claim 6).
With respect to Claim 3, Tenghamn ‘541 teaches wherein the one or more spring elements (135/146) are adjustable to the frequency band of interest ([0075]-[0077]).
With respect to Claim 4, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein it is obvious that the deployable structure (118) is configured to position the moveable plate 1-10 meters below a sea surface ([0017]). Note that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. It is noted that the deployable structure (118) has ability to position the moveable plate 1-10 meters below a sea surface, Oscarsson-Nage teaches that “the source cable 118 may be relatively parallel to the surface of the body of water 104, while in other embodiments, the source cable 118 may utilize depth control mechanisms, for example, to locate more than one acoustic projector 110 at a plurality of different depths,” which is considered to satisfy this limitation
With respect to Claim 5, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein it is obvious that the deployable structure (118 or 118/120) is of a streamlined form to reduce drag when towed. It is noted that the term “streamlined” is vague and undefined, as the cable structure #118 or cable/sled structure #118/120 could be formed in a less hydrodynamic shape or size that would increase drag as compared to the current cable #118 or cable/sled structure #118/120, therefore, it is considered to be “of a streamlined form to reduce drag when towed” as claimed. Further, the disclosure only refers to a “streamlined form” in [0006] without giving any details. Because it is possible to design a cable and/or sled that will be less streamline having greater drag than the cable of Oscarsson-Nage, in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the Oscarsson-Nage cable #118 or cable/sled structure #118/120 is considered to be “of a streamlined form to reduce drag when towed”, as claimed.
With respect to Claim 6, Oscarsson-Nage and Tenghamn ‘541 teach wherein the moveable plate (Oscarsson-Nage, #202/204; Tenghamn, #133) vibrates at a frequency from 0.1-25 Hz (Oscarsson-Nage, [0026]; Tenghamn, [0062]-[0063]).
With respect to Claim 7, Oscarsson-Nage and Tenghamn ‘541 teach comprising a control system operable to control a frequency of the moveable plate, one or more drivers, and one or more spring elements (Oscarsson-Nage, #108, [0025]-[0031]; Tenghamn, [0065] and [0079]-[0088], [0095], [0102]).
With respect to Claim 14, Oscarsson-Nage teaches a marine seismic surveying system (Figures 1-6, #100) comprising: a moveable surface vessel (102); a marine dipole source (Figure 4B, #110 – [0026]-[0027]) connected to the moveable surface vessel (102), wherein the marine dipole source (110) includes a moveable plate (202/204) configured to be moveable in water and one or more spring elements ([0020]); a control system (108) for the marine dipole source (110) on the moveable surface vessel (102); and at least one sensor (114) configured to receive acoustic energy generated by the marine dipole source (110).
Oscarsson-Nage fails to teach wherein the one or more spring elements are configured to generate resonance, wherein the resonance depends on an equivalent water mass acting on a surface of the moveable plate.
Tenghamn ‘541 teaches a similar marine source, wherein it is known to incorporate one or more spring elements (Figure 3, #135; Figure 8, #146) connected to a moveable plate (131/142) are configured to generate resonance ([0064]-[0067]), and wherein the resonance depends on an equivalent water mass acting on a surface of the moveable plate (131/142, when combined with plates 202/204 of Oscarsson-Nage). Note [0068] discloses plates acting against the surrounding water, and [0070] and [0112] disclose density/load of water against the vibrator, which inherently includes the resonance generated via the springs as the resonance generated through the springs will be propagated through the water, so the resonance will be dependent on a water mass acting on the surface of the moveable plate as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Oscarsson-Nage, with the apparatus of Tenghamn ‘541 so as to increase the functionality of the seismic vibrator of Oscarsson-Nage by incorporating springs to generate a second system resonance frequency within a seismic frequency range of interest (see Tenghamn, [0064]-[0066]).
With respect to Claim 15, Oscarsson-Nage as modified teaches the marine dipole source of claim 14. Oscarsson-Nage further teaches that “the source cable 18 may be relatively parallel to the surface of the body of water 6, while in other embodiments, the source cable 18 may utilize depth control mechanisms, for example, to locate more than one marine seismic vibrator 10 at a plurality of different depths” ([0017]), such that the marine dipole source (110) is positioned at an obvious, but unspecified distance below the moveable surface vessel (102)
Oscarsson-Nage as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the marine dipole source is positioned 1-10 meters below the moveable surface vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the marine dipole source is positioned 1-10 meters below the moveable surface vessel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, selecting a deployment depth of 1-10 meters below the moveable surface vessel for the marine dipole source would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, and there is nothing in Oscarsson-Nage as modified to suggest that the claimed depth would render the device inoperable.
With respect to Claim 16, Oscarsson-Nage and Tenghamn ‘541 teach wherein the control system (Oscarsson-Nage, #108, [0025]-[0031]; Tenghamn, [0065] and [0079]-[0088], [0095], [0102]) is operable to control the marine dipole source such that the marine dipole source operates at resonance for all frequencies from 0.5 to 10 Hz (Oscarsson-Nage, [0026]; Tenghamn, [0062]-[0063]).
With respect to Claim 17, Oscarsson-Nage teaches comprising streamers (112/114) spaced laterally apart from one another trailing behind the moveable surface vessel (102).
With respect to Claim 18, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein each of the streamers (112/114) comprise at least one sensor (114) for generating response signals in response to the acoustic energy emitted from the dipole source (110) after interaction with one or more subsurface formations ([0015]).
With respect to Claim 19, Oscarsson-Nage teaches wherein the at least one sensor (defined by devices for detecting signals generated by the seismic sensors within recording system #106 – [0013]) is positioned on a solid marine surface (defined by vessel #102).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oscarsson-Nage (2020/0393584 A1) in view of Tenghamn (2016/0334541 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Williamson (2020/0393583).
With respect to Claim 20, Oscarsson-Nage as modified teaches the marine dipole source of claim 14. Oscarsson-Nage as modified further teaches a moveable surface vessel (102).
Oscarsson-Nage as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the moveable surface vessel is autonomous.
Williamson teaches a similar moveable surface vessel (130) for a marine seismic survey deployment, wherein the moveable surface vessel (130) is autonomous ([0033]).
Because Oscarsson-Nage as modified is silent as to how the moveable surface vessel #4 operates (i.e., manned, unmanned, autonomous, etc.), and Williamson teaches wherein a similar vessel can be manned, unmanned or autonomous, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Oscarsson-Nage as modified, with the apparatus of Williamson so as to provide simple substitution of one known marine seismic survey moveable surface vessel operating type (i.e. autonomous/non-autonomous) for another, to provide the predictable result of an autonomous vessel being capable of deploying the seismic survey of Oscarsson-Nage as modified. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20have 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. The Examiner considers the obvious combination of Oscarsson-Nage, Tenghamn and Williamson to teach all of the limitations as claimed by Applicant.
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 JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights