DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 11th June, 2026. Claim(s) 1 was amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesy extended by applicant(s) throughout the prosecution of this application.
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (NO) 20220220 filed on 18th February, 2022.
Specification
The lengthy specification (more than 20 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 and 08/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 6-10 of 11), filed 11th June, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claim(s) 1under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant presented Prior Art in IDS, TAWEESINTANANON KITTINAT ET AL: “Distributed acoustic sensing for near-surface imaging using submarine telecommunication cable: A case study in the Trondheimsfjord, Norway”, GEOPHYSICS, vol. 86, no. 5, 18 August 2021 (2021-08-18), pages B303-B320, XP093045588, US ISSN: 0016-8033, DOI: 10.1190/geo2020-0834.1 in view of TENGHAMN (GB 2592703 A) are fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amended Claim(s). However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as described below. Claim(s) 1 has been amended; therefore, Claim(s) 1-9, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented Prior Art in IDS, ZHANG (CN 112162312 A) in view of TENGHAMN (GB 2592703 A); Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG view of TENGHAMN as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of BEITZ (US 2018/0364384 A1); Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG view of TENGHAMN as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of DELLINGER (EP 3227725 B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented Prior Art in IDS, ZHANG (CN 112162312 A) in view of TENGHAMN (GB 2592703 A).
Referring to Claim 1, ZHANG teaches a method for performing a long-offset refraction seismic survey of a subsurface area of interest (“The strain and stress change of the gas explosion source, that is, the strain and stress induced in the horizontal direction of the optical fiber after the reflection, refraction (body wave) and interface propagation (surface wave) of the underground stratum during the propagation process of the artificial seismic wave excited by the gas explosion source”) using a fiber-optic cable positioned on or inside the seafloor and extending between a first cable end closer to the area of interest and a second cable end further from the area of interest (see Fig.1 and “the distributed acoustic sensor fiber array 2 is mainly used to sense the seabed formation at high density and long distance”), the method comprising:
positioning the fiber-optic cable at the seafloor, burying the fiber-optic cable underneath the seafloor, or using a fiber- optic telecommunications cable at the seafloor or buried underneath the seafloor, connecting an interrogator to an end of the fiber-optic cable, wherein the interrogator is configured to emit light into the cable through the end and detect reflected light from the cable (see Fig.10);
simultaneously activating one or more low frequency seismic sources at multiple positions along a source line and operating the interrogator to collect seismic refraction data (see Fig.1 that discloses several sources [1] and “the gas explosion source 1 is mainly used to excite artificial source seismic waves with strong energy in the beach and shallow waters and the seabed, including surface waves and body waves”);
wherein the source line extends between a first source activation position closer to the area of interest and a second source activation position further from the area of interest, and wherein activating the source comprises activating the source in at least the first and the second activation positions, wherein the cable and source line extend in opposite directions away from the area of interest (see Fig.1 the offset between the sources is 10 km), and
processing the collected refraction data to build up an image of or extract information about the subsurface area of interest (see Figs.13 and 14).
ZHANG doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more seismic sources is a low frequency source with an output peaking between 1 Hz and 30 Hz
TENGHAMN teaches the one or more seismic sources is a low frequency source with an output peaking between 1 Hz and 30 Hz ([0058]: long offsets (8-50 km) for full waveform inversion with low frequency (1 Hz-30Hz) and further discloses measuring optical fibers that are towed by a vessel)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in ZHANG with one or more seismic sources low frequency source with an output peaking between 1 Hz and 30 Hz taught in TENGHAMN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved the acquisition of low-frequency seismic data for subsurface imaging and full-waveform inversion as taught by TENGHAMN ([0005]; [0044]; [0065])
Referring to Claim 2, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein activating the one or more low frequency seismic sources at multiple positions along the source line comprises directing a source along a travel path that extends between the first source activation position and the second source activation position whilst activating the source ([0049]-[0050]; Fig. 1: Source/vessel arrangement).
Referring to Claim 3, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 2, comprising steering the source such that it travels from the first source activation position to the second source activation position ([0049]-[0050]).
Referring to Claim 4, ZHANG teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the cable extends in a substantially straight line from the first cable end to the second cable end, and wherein the source line extends in-line with the cable in the opposite direction ([0034]).
Referring to Claim 5, ZHANG teaches a method according to claim 4, wherein the first cable end and the first source activation position are each located directly above the area of interest ([0041]).
Referring to Claim 6, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more seismic sources is a low frequency source with an output peaking between 1 Hz and 40 Hz ([0058]).
Referring to Claim 7, ZHANG teaches a method according to claim 1any of claims 1 to 6, wherein the fiber-optic cable is coupled to or close to a power cable or is part of a telecommunications cable ([0032]; [0014]).
Referring to Claim 8, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the source is an air-gun source and the method comprises varying the SPI and/or source volume dependent on horizontal offset between the source and the first cable end ([0050]; [0073]-[0074]).
Referring to Claim 9, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 8, wherein the method comprises decreasing the SPI and/or increasing the source volume as the offset increases ([0065]; [0073]-[0078]).
Referring to Claim 13, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the horizontal distance between the first source activation position and the second source activation position is substantially equal to the length of the cable from which reflections are detected ([0050]).
Referring to Claim 14, ZHANG teaches a method according to claim 1, comprising arranging the fiber-optic cable on the seafloor prior to connecting the interrogator thereto ([0039]-[0042]).
Referring to Claim 15, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the fiber-optic cable comprises a section of a longer fiber-optic cable ([0046]; Fig. 1, 230).
Referring to Claim 16, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the second source activation position is offset at least 15 km from the first cable end ([0003]).
Referring to Claim 17, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the fiber-optic cable comprises all or part of a telecommunications cable or is coupled to or adjacent a power cable ([0061]).
Referring to Claim 19, TENGHAMN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein processing comprises de-aliasing the data ([0073]).
Referring to Claim 20, ZHANG teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the data recorded and processed represents primarily refracted acoustic waves ([0048]).
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG view of TENGHAMN as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of BEITZ (US 2018/0364384 A1).
Referring to Claim 10, ZHANG teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein but doesn’t explicitly teach the source is a vibrator or vibrator array, and the method comprises varying the sweep length dependent on the horizontal offset between the source and the first cable end.
BEITZ the source is a vibrator or vibrator array ([0022]), and the method comprises varying the sweep length dependent on the horizontal offset between the source and the first cable end ([0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in ZHANG with the vibrator or vibrator array source taught in Sharp with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have increased energy content in lower frequencies that reach deeper objectives as taught by BEITZ ([0042]).
Referring to Claim 11, BEITZ teaches a method according to claim 10, wherein the method comprises increasing the sweep length as the offset increases ([0042]).
Referring to Claim 12, BEITZ teaches a method according to claim 11, wherein the method comprises controlling the sweep length such that it increases proportionally to the increase in horizontal offset ([0042]).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG view of TENGHAMN as applied to Claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of DELLINGER (EP 3227725 B1).
Referring to Claim 18, ZHANG teaches a method according to claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the method comprises selecting a sampling interval and group-length of the fiber-optic cable based on the effective bandwidth of the subsurface reflection or refraction data of interest and the Nyquist sampling theorem.
DELLINGER selecting a sampling interval and group-length of the fiber-optic cable based on the effective bandwidth of the subsurface reflection or refraction data of interest and the Nyquist sampling theorem ([0074]; [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed in ZHANG with selecting a sampling interval and group-length of the fiber-optic cable taught in Sharp with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have attenuated the naturally occurring background seismic noise as taught by DELLINGER ([0118]).
Examiner’s 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
Applicants’ 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights