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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones (WO 2013/105075).
With respect to claim 1, Jones discloses firing a first source array at a first time of a first shot timing distribution comprising first time values according to a firing schedule ([0049], lines 9-10; [0083]); and firing a second source array at a second time of a second shot timing distribution comprising second time values subsequent to firing the first source array and prior to another firing of the first source array according to the firing schedule ([0049], lines 10-11; [0084]; [0085], lines 1-2), wherein at least a portion of the second shot timing distribution overlaps with the first shot timing distribution or the at least a portion of the second shot timing distribution is separated from the first shot timing distribution by less than a predetermined period of time ([0065], lines 4-5; [0085], lines 8-10), wherein the first time and the second time of the firing schedule are separated by at least the predetermined period of time ([0049], lines 10-11).
With respect to claim 2, Jones discloses firing the first source array at a third time of the first shot timing distribution comprising the first time values subsequent to firing the second source array at the second time according to the firing schedule, wherein the third time and the second time of the firing schedule are separated by at least the predetermined period of time (Figs 3a-c).
With respect to claim 3, Jones discloses firing a third source array at a third time of a third shot timing distribution comprising third time values subsequent to firing the second source array and prior to the another firing of the first source array according to the firing schedule, wherein at least a portion of the third shot timing distribution overlaps with the second shot timing distribution or the at least a portion of the third shot timing distribution is separated from the second shot timing distribution by less than the predetermined period of time, wherein the third time and the second time of the firing schedule are separated by at least the predetermined period of time ([0068]).
With respect to claim 8, Jones discloses the firing schedule is calculated in conjunction with movement of a vessel along a shot line of a seismic acquisition ([0049]).
With respect to claim 9, Jones discloses towing the first source array and the second source array behind the vessel ([0040], line 3).
With respect to claim 16, Jones discloses disposing the first source array comprising a plurality of seismic sources over a seismic survey region prior to firing the first source array; and disposing the second source array comprising a second plurality of seismic sources over the seismic survey region prior to firing the second source array (Fig 1).
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 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Fu (2022/0299668).
With respect to claim 7, Jones teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the firing schedule is loaded into a controller of a vessel towing the first source array and the second source array prior to movement of the vessel along a shot line of a seismic acquisition.
Fu teaches the firing schedule is loaded into a controller of a vessel towing the first source array and the second source array prior to movement of the vessel along a shot line of a seismic acquisition ([0054], lines 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jones with the firing schedule loading of Fu since such a modification would have ensured that the correct firing schedule is used for the survey and increased the percentage of available survey time in a survey.
With respect to claim 10, Jones teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach positioning the first source array at a fixed first distance from a vessel towing the first source array and the second source array; and positioning the second source array at a fixed second distance from the vessel, wherein the fixed second distance differs from the fixed first distance ([0080]; Fig 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jones with the positioning of Fu since such a modification would have moved the blending noise so that it no longer conflicts with signal and furthermore improve deblending operations.
With respect to claim 11, Jones as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach utilizing a tether having a first length to position the first source array at the fixed first distance from the vessel; and utilizing a second tether having a second length to position the second source array at the fixed second distance from the vessel.
Fu teaches utilizing a tether having a first length to position the first source array at the fixed first distance from the vessel; and utilizing a second tether having a second length to position the second source array at the fixed second distance from the vessel ([0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jones with the tethers of Fu since such a modification would have ensured proper positioning of the sources with a well-known and common system
With respect to claim 12, Jones as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach altering a length of a tether coupled to the second source array to position the second source array at the fixed second distance from the vessel.
Fu teaches altering a length of a tether coupled to the second source array to position the second source array at the fixed second distance from the vessel ([0082], lines 6-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jones with the tethers of Fu since such a modification would have ensured proper positioning of the sources with a well-known and common system.
With respect to claim 13, Jones as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach altering a length of a tether coupled to a third source array to position the third source array at a fixed third distance from the vessel.
Fu teaches altering a length of a tether coupled to a third source array to position the third source array at a fixed third distance from the vessel (Fig 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jones with the tethers of Fu since such a modification would have ensured proper positioning of the sources with a well-known and common system.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Fu, and further in view of Sørli (7466632).
Jones as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach selecting a first group of seismic sources within the first source array that have a first offset distance from a center of the first source array along the shot line direction; and selecting a second group of seismic sources within the second source array that have a second offset distance from a center of the second source array along the shot line direction, wherein the second offset distance from the center of the second source array is different from the first offset distance from the center of the first source array.
Sørli teaches selecting a first group of seismic sources within the first source array that have a first offset distance from a center of the first source array along the shot line direction (Col 4, lines 48-50); and selecting a second group of seismic sources within the second source array that have a second offset distance from a center of the second source array along the shot line direction (Col 4, lines 51-53, 65-67; Col 5, lines 1-2), wherein the second offset distance from the center of the second source array is different from the first offset distance from the center of the first source array (Fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jones with the source group selection of Sørli since such a modification would have allowed for optimal center-of -source positioning of the sources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights