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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the seismic sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously, claim 36 recites “at least one seismic sensor”, so it is unclear whether or not claim 36 only includes one seismic sensor, or may include multiple seismic sensors. Therefore the claim is unclear and thus indefinite. It is the examiner’s interpretation that “the seismic sensor” is intended to read “the at least one seismic sensor”.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, the claims are rejected due to their respective dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 22-23, 26-27, 29-31, 35-36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naes (US 20170017003 A1, “Naes”).
Regarding claim 20, a seismic node comprising: at least one seismic sensor ([0032], internal electrical components may include one or more hydrophones); a pressure resistant inner structure comprising a first wall, a second wall, and one or more supporting elements extending between the first and second walls, the pressure resistant inner structure defining one or more cavities configured to contain pressure sensitive components (node’s pressure housing may be coupled to or substantially surrounded by external non-pressurized housing)(Fig. 3 (310) illustrates the pressurized housing having a first and second wall)([0045] pressurized housing may include a plurality of cast storage compartments for sensors and batteries that also provide increased support to the node structure); and a separate waterproof sealing skin surrounding the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor and configured to shield the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor from water ([0046], node comprises non-pressurized housing that substantially surrounds the pressurized housing)([0049] non-pressurized housing may be configured such that the interior dimensions of non-pressurized housing and the storage compartments are substantially watertight).
Regarding claim 22, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses the one or more supporting elements comprise at least one additional wall, and wherein the first and second walls of the pressure resistant inner structure together form a substantially continuous outer surface configured to support the sealing skin(Fig. 3 (310) illustrates the pressurized housing having a first and second wall)(Fig. 3, [0040] pressurized housing may be asymmetrical and has a plurality of multifaceted sides)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that each of the facets of the multifaceted sides constitutes and additional wall)([0045] pressurized housing may include a plurality of cast storage compartments for sensors and batteries that also provide increased support to the node structure).
Regarding claim 23, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses the sealing skin is formed of a plastics material ([0046], node comprises non-pressurized housing that substantially surrounds the pressure housing)([0049] non-pressurized housing may be configured such that the interior dimensions of non-pressurized housing and the storage compartments are substantially watertight).
Regarding claim 26, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses wherein the pressure resistant structure is a metal frame ([0041], pressurized housing may be made from aluminum).
Regarding claim 27, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 26. Naes further discloses the pressure resistant structure is an aluminium frame ([0041], pressurized node housing may be constructed from aluminum).
Regarding claim 29, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses wherein the one or more seismic sensors comprise at least one hydrophone received within a cavity in an outer surface of the pressure resistant structure([0034], various portions of non-pressurized node housing may be open and expose the pressurized node housing as needed such as for the hydrophone)([0049] storage compartment may be exposed to water and allow seawater coupling to one or more pressure responsive devices such as the hydrophone, which is placed on the outside surface of the pressurized housing).
Regarding claim 30, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 29. Naes further discloses the hydrophone is embedded within the sealing skin([0049] storage compartment may be exposed to water and allow seawater coupling to one or more pressure responsive devices such as the hydrophone, which is placed on the outside surface of the pressurized housing. Various portions of non-pressurized housing may be open and expose the pressured node housing and expose pressurized node housing as needed, such as for the hydrophone)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the non-pressurized housing being configured such to expose the hydrophone allows the outer surface of the hydrophone to extend through the non-pressurized housing and is equivalent to the hydrophone being embedded within the non-pressurized housing).
Regarding claim 31, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses the at least one seismic sensor comprises at least one motion sensor and at least one pressure sensor ([0032] the internal electrical components may include one or more hydrophones, one or more geophones 206 or accelerometers, and a data recorder)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that an accelerometer is a motion sensor).
Regarding claim 35, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses wherein the seismic node is a seabed seismic node ([0034] non-pressurized housing provides many functions including coupling the node to the seabed).
Regarding claim 36, the claim is a method claim corresponding to claim 20 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 38, Naes discloses the method according to claim 36. Naes further discloses positioning one or more pressure sensitive components within a cavity of the pressure resistant structure prior to application of the sealing skin(Implicit, [0045] pressure housing may include a plurality of cast storage compartments for sensors and batteries that also provide increased support to the node structure)([0046], pressurized node housing is enclosed or encapsulated in non-pressurized housing)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that as the pressurized housing is enclosed or encapsulated within the non-pressurized housing, the pressure sensitive components would implicitly be positioned within the cavity prior to the application of the non-pressurized housing).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Postic et al. (US 20190353815 A1, “Postic”).
Regarding claim 21, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes may not explicitly teach the sealing skin is molded over the pressure resistant structure.
Postic teaches the sealing skin is molded over the pressure resistant structure ([0042]-[0046] cathedral style inner structure is easy to mold by plastic injections, and the buoyant body as whole is cast in a pre-made polyethylene or similar plastic coating mold which is cast as a single structure. Buoyant body is configured to be attached to bottom plate. Coupling arrangement of the buoyant body to a bottom plate provides a single waterproof housing for the seismic nodes and facilitates maintenance and repair of any internal components)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic nodes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seismic node of Naes, to include the molded sealing skin of Postic with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing waterproof housing for the seismic nodes and facilitating maintenance and repair of any internal components [0046].
Regarding claim 25, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes may not explicitly disclose the sealing skin comprises a single piece of material.
Postic teaches the sealing skin comprises a single piece of material ([0042], buoyant body is cast as a single structure and may be cast in a pre-made polyethlyene).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic nodes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seismic node of Naes, to include the molded sealing skin of Postic with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing waterproof housing for the seismic nodes and facilitating maintenance and repair of any internal components [0046].
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Naes (US 20160349386 A1, “Naes 2”).
Regarding claim 24, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 23. Naes may not explicitly disclose the plastics material is polyurethane.
Naes 2 teaches the plastics material is polyurethane([0030], nodes may include a pressurized housing surrounded by a non-pressurized housing. each external housing may be made of materials such as polyurethane).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic nodes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seismic node of Naes, to include the polyurethane sealing skin of Naes 2 with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of protecting the node from shocks or rough treatment, providing stability on the seabed, and assisting in stacking/storing/alignment/and handling of nodes [0030].
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Ray et al. (US 20040257913 A1, “Ray”).
Regarding claim 32, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes may not explicitly disclose at least one antenna positioned between an outer surface of the pressure resistant inner structure and the sealing skin.
Ray teaches at least one antenna positioned between an outer surface of the pressure resistant inner structure and the sealing skin (Fig. 4, [0048]. Radio antennae (44) is positioned with a radio unit (45) that is within the case (12))(Fig. 4 illustrates that the radio antennae and radio unit are positioned within a window of the case)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the case of Ray is equivalent to the pressurized housing of Naes and therefore the radio antenna would be positioned between an outer surface of the Naes’ pressurized housing and non-pressurized housing via the window).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic nodes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seismic node of Naes, to include the radio antenna positioning of Ray with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of permitting tracking of the individual units as they are handled during deployment and retrieval [0047].
Regarding claim 33, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes may not explicitly disclose at least one antenna located behind a window in an outer surface of the pressure resistant inner structure.
Ray teaches at least one antenna located behind a window in an outer surface of the pressure resistant inner structure(Fig. 4, [0048]. Radio antennae (44) is positioned with a radio unit (45) that is within the case (12))(Fig. 4 illustrates that the radio antennae and radio unit are positioned within a window of the case)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the case of Ray is equivalent to the pressurized housing of Naes and therefore the radio antenna would be positioned between an outer surface of the Naes’ pressurized housing and non-pressurized housing via the window).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic nodes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seismic node of Naes, to include the radio antenna positioning of Ray with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of permitting tracking of the individual units as they are handled during deployment and retrieval [0047].
Regarding claim 34, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses a panel embedded within, or positioned on, the sealing skin, wherein the panel is configured to attach a handle to the seismic node ([0035], housing comprises handling means to allow handling of the device within water. Handling means may include a protruding handle)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the handling means being configured to allow handling of the device in water implicitly means it would be either embedded within or positioned on the sealing skin (or non-pressurized housing)).
Naes may not explicitly disclose and at least one antenna located behind a window in the panel.
Ray teaches, and at least one antenna located behind a window in the panel (Fig. 4, [0048]. Radio antennae (44) is positioned with a radio unit (45) that is within the case (12))(Fig. 4 illustrates that the radio antennae and radio unit are positioned within a window of the case)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic nodes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the seismic node of Naes, to include the radio antenna positioning of Ray with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of permitting tracking of the individual units as they are handled during deployment and retrieval [0047].
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Goldner et al. (US 6278823 B1, “Goldner”).
Regarding claim 37, Naes discloses the method according to claim 36. Naes may not explicitly disclose applying the sealing skin over the pressure resistant structure by overmolding the sealing skin onto an outer surface thereof.
Goldner teaches applying the sealing skin over the pressure resistant structure by overmolding the sealing skin onto an outer surface thereof ([column 4, lines 1-5], overmold is made of a material such as plastic, rubber, or any other suitable elastomer which seals and protects the sensor assembly from the environment and forms a seal on the node).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of seismic nodes, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Naes, to include the overmolded sealing skin of Goldner with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of sealing and protecting the sensor assembly from the environment and forming a seal on the node [column 4, lines 1-5].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 28, Naes discloses the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses a thickness of the sealing skin is between 2 mm and 10 mm([0046], node comprises non-pressurized housing that substantially surrounds the pressurized housing)([0049] non-pressurized housing may be configured such that the interior dimensions of non-pressurized housing and the storage compartments are substantially watertight)(Naes fails to explicitly or implicitly disclose any thickness of the non-pressurized housing in a manner that reads upon the claim limitation).
Naes 2 teaches a thickness of the sealing skin is between 2 mm and 10 mm([0030], nodes may include a pressurized housing surrounded by a non-pressurized housing. each external housing may be made of materials such as polyurethane, however Naes 2 fails to explicitly or implicitly disclose any thickness of the non-pressurized housing in a manner that reads upon the claim limitation).
Postic teaches a thickness of the sealing skin is between 2 mm and 10 mm ([0042], buoyant body is cast as a single structure and may be cast in a pre-made polyethylene, however Naes 2 fails to explicitly or implicitly disclose any thickness of the non-pressurized housing in a manner that reads upon the claim limitation. No other identified prior art teaches the limitation regarding the thickness of the sealing skin with sufficient motivation to combine)
Conclusion
Herrmann et al. (US 20130083622 A1, “Herrmann”) which discloses an underwater node for seismic surveys
Koc et al. ("Hardware design of seismic sensors in wireless sensor network." International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 9.9 (2013): 640692., “Koc”) which discloses hardware design of seismic nodes
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645