DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The claim elements do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
References
D1: US20140078865 COSTE et al. March 20, 2014
D2: US20150316675 Brizard et al. November 5, 2015
D3: US20190302286 MOLDOVEANU et al. October 3, 2019
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1.
With regards to claims 1 and 11, the D1 reference discloses the utilization of a seismic data collection system (Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of seismic sources positioned on or under a first surface, each of the plurality of seismic sources configured to generate at least one seismic signal (¶ 0022); a plurality of seismic sensors positioned on or under a second surface to form a seismic data collection area with the plurality of seismic sources, each of the plurality of seismic sensors configured to record at least one reflected seismic signal in response to the generated at least one seismic signal (¶ 0022); a plurality of unmanned vehicles (150, 360, ¶ 0038) configured to travel within and adjacent to the seismic data collection area, each of the unmanned vehicles configured to collect the recorded at least one reflected seismic signal from the plurality of seismic sensors (¶¶ 0027, 0040: "harvest seismic data''); and a control system (configured to perform operations, comprising: instructing the plurality of unmanned vehicles to travel to and within the seismic data collection area ¶ 0040); instructing at least one of the plurality of unmanned vehicles to travel from the seismic data collection area to download the collected at least one reflected seismic signal recorded from the plurality of seismic sensors (¶¶ 0043, 0044); and instructing the at least one of the plurality of unmanned vehicles to return to or into the seismic data collection area to further collect at least one reflected seismic signal recorded from the plurality of seismic sensors (¶ 0041: "monitor the quality of the seismic data being acquired during a seismic survey so that corrective action may be taken" -- this implies that the data is retrieved while the survey is still running, and thus more data will have to be retrieved afterwards).
With regards to claims 2 and 12, the D1 reference discloses the plurality of seismic sensors is communicably decoupled from the control system (¶ 0040: cable-free blind system).
With regards to claims 3 and 13, the D1 reference discloses the plurality of seismic sources are a Vibroseis system which is capable of generating at least one seismic signal at one or more regular intervals (¶ 0022).
With regards to claims 4 and 14, the D1 reference discloses cable-free blind system (¶ 0040).
With regards to claims 5 and 15, the D1 reference discloses wirelessly collect data from each cable-free blind node (¶ 0040).
With regards to claims 6 and 16, the D1 reference discloses checking a quality of the download (¶¶ 0041, 0058).
With regards to claims 7 and 17, the D1 reference discloses the first surface comprises a terranean surface, the second surface comprises the terranean surface (¶ 0022), and the plurality of unmanned vehicles comprise a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles (150, 360, ¶ 0038).
Claims 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D2.
With regards to claims 1, 9, 11, and 19, the D2 reference discloses the utilization of a seismic data collection system, comprising: a plurality of seismic(¶ 0006) sources (Fig. 8: 300, 400) positioned under a water’s surface, each of the plurality of seismic sources configured to generate at least one seismic signal; a plurality of seismic sensors (FIG. 8: 304) positioned under a seabed (FIG. 8: 204) to form a seismic data collection area with the plurality of seismic sources, each of the plurality of seismic sensors configured to record (¶¶ 0007, 0048) at least one reflected seismic signal in response to the generated at least one seismic signal; a plurality of unmanned underwater vehicles (400), configured to travel within and adjacent to the seismic data collection area (¶ 0047), each of the unmanned vehicles configured to collect the recorded at least one reflected seismic signal from the plurality of seismic sensors (¶ 0049); and a control system configured to perform operations, comprising: instructing the plurality of unmanned vehicles to travel to and within the seismic data collection area instructing at least one of the plurality of unmanned vehicles to travel from the seismic data collection area (¶ 0049: 700) to download (transfer) the collected at least one reflected seismic signal recorded from the plurality of seismic sensors (¶ 0055); and instructing the at least one of the plurality of unmanned vehicles to return (¶ 0050) to or into the seismic data collection area to further collect at least one reflected seismic signal recorded from the plurality of seismic sensors.
With regards to claims 2 and 12, the D2 reference discloses the plurality of seismic sensors is communicably decoupled from the control system (FIG. 2, ¶¶ 0008, 0049).
With regards to claims 3 and 13, the D2 reference discloses the plurality of seismic sources is configured to generate at least one seismic signal at one or more regular intervals to generate seismic wavefields. (¶ 0006).
With regards to claims 4 and 14, the D2 reference discloses storing the recorded seismic wavefields. (¶ 0034).
With regards to claims 5 and 15, the D2 reference discloses wirelessly collect data from each cable-free node (¶ 0049).
With regards to claims 6 and 16, the D2 reference discloses checking a quality of the download (¶¶ 0028, 0030).
With regards to claims 10 and 20, the D2 reference discloses a towed array of seismic sources coupled to a support vessel (¶ 0006).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over D1 or D2 as applied above, and further in combination with D3.
The difference between the D1 or D2 references and claims 8 and 18 is that the claims recites the utilization of a specific source, explosives. The D3 reference teaches that it was well known in the art to utilize explosives as sources (¶ 0005). It would have been obvious to modify the D1 or D2 reference to utilize explosives as sources as motivated by the D3 reference to enable the D1 or D2 system to be deployed where other sources would have more difficulty reaching.
Also in view of 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007), the aforementioned combination of familiar elements according to known methods as shown above is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Examiner Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dan Pihulic whose telephone number is 571-272-6977. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Isam Alsomiri, can be reached on 571-272-6970.
/Daniel Pihulic/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645