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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amendments filed May 12th, 2026, the following has occurred: claims 20 and 36 have been amended; claims 20-38 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed May 12th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Naes (US 20170017003 A1, “Naes”) in view of Lee (KR 20020085660 A, “Lee”) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
On pg. 4 of Applicants Remarks, Applicant argues that due to the alleged allowability of independent claims 20 and 36, the dependent claims are therefore in condition for allowance. As noted in the response to arguments with respect to claims 20 and 36, above, the rejections of the claims 20 and 36 are maintained under new grounds, as necessitated by Applicants amendments. Therefore, the rejections of the dependent claims are also maintained under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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) 20, 22-23, 25-27, 29-31, 35-36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes (US 20170017003 A1, “Naes”) in view of Lee (KR 20020085660 A, “Lee”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 20, Naes discloses
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 (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);
Naes fails to teach
and a separate waterproof sealing skin surrounding the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor and configured to form a closed chamber within which the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor are contained in order to shield the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor from water.
Lee teaches and a separate waterproof sealing skin surrounding the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor and configured to form a closed chamber within which the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor are contained in order to shield the pressure resistant inner structure and the at least one seismic sensor from water(pg. 5, elastic waterproof membrane (20) is a stretchable material having a certain thickness and a sealed form of a certain shape. The sensor (10) is located within the inner space. The internal side of the waterproof membrane is filled with a dielectric liquid material (21) that equalizes the pressure surrounding the sensor (10). Waterproof membrane ensures the prevention of water intrusion and allows the original function and structure of the sensor to be maintained).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seismic node of Naes, to include the teachings of Lee in order to yield an underwater seismic sensor that is completely protected from the surrounding underwater environment in order to measure underwater vibrations via vibrations propagating through the waterproof membrane and the dielectric liquid material in order to extend the life of the sensor by protecting it from damage and performance degradation. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Regarding claim 22, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses
the one or more supporting elements comprise at least one additional wall(Fig. 3 (310) illustrates the pressurized housing having a first and second 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, [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, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further discloses
the [non-pressurized housing] 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).
Lee further teaches
[a sealing skin] (pg. 5, elastic waterproof membrane (20) is a stretchable material having a certain thickness and a sealed form of a certain shape. The sensor (10) is located within the inner space.)
Therefore the combination of Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches “the sealing skin is formed of a plastics material”.
Regarding claim 25, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Lee further teaches
the sealing skin comprises a single piece of material (Implicit, pg. 3, waterproof membrane is formed of a stretchable rubber material having a shape such that it surrounds the sensor and accommodates the liquid dielectric).
Regarding claim 26, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
wherein the pressure resistant structure is a metal frame ([0041], pressurized housing may be made from aluminum).
Regarding claim 27, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 26. Naes further teaches
the pressure resistant structure is an aluminium frame ([0041], pressurized node housing may be constructed from aluminum).
Regarding claim 29, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
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, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 29. Naes further teaches
the hydrophone is embedded within the [non-pressurized housing] ([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).
Lee further teaches
[a sensor embedded within the sealing skin] (pg. 5, elastic waterproof membrane (20) is a stretchable material having a certain thickness and a sealed form of a certain shape. The sensor (10) is located within the inner space.)
Therefore the combination of Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches “the hydrophone is embedded within the sealing skin”.
Regarding claim 31, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
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).
Regarding claim 35, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
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, as modified Lee teaches the method according to claim 36. Lee further teaches
positioning one or more pressure sensitive components within a cavity of the pressure resistant structure prior to application of the sealing skin(Implicit, (pg. 5, elastic waterproof membrane (20) is a stretchable material having a certain thickness and a sealed form of a certain shape. The sensor (10) is located within the inner space… liquid dielectric is filled within the waterproof membrane in order to form an equilibrium pressure with the outside water pressure to prevent deformation of the sensor)
.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Lee and Postic et al. (US 20190353815 A1, “Postic”).
Regarding claim 21, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes, as modified in view of Lee fails to 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 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seismic node of Naes, in view of the teachings of Lee, to further include the teachings of Postic in order to yield an underwater seismic node having a durably-cast water-resistant outer structure such that the outer waterproof structure can withstand physical contact with the underwater environment without puncturing or breaking, facilitating maintenance and repair of the internal components, and thus increasing the lifespan of the seismic node. Making such a modification amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale B.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Lee and Naes (US 20160349386 A1, “Naes 2”).
Regarding claim 24, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 23. Naes, as modified in view of Lee fails to teach
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 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seismic node of Naes, in view of the teachings of Lee, to further include the teachings of Naes 2 in order to yield an underwater seismic node in which a polyurethane waterproof sealing skin surrounds the internal components such that the seismic node is protected from shocks or rough treatment, is provided stability on the seabed, and is assisted in stacking/storing/handling/ and alignment. Making such a modification amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR rationale B.
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Lee and Ray et al. (US 20040257913 A1, “Ray”).
Regarding claim 32, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
[a pressure resistant inner structure] ([0045] pressurized housing may include a plurality of cast storage compartments for sensors and batteries that also provide increased support to the node structure)
Lee further teaches
[a sealing skin surrounding a sensor] (pg. 5, elastic waterproof membrane (20) is a stretchable material having a certain thickness and a sealed form of a certain shape. The sensor (10) is located within the inner space)
Naes, as modified in view of Lee fails to teach
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).
Therefore the combination of Naes, as modified in view of the teachings of Lee and Ray teaches “at least one antenna positioned between an outer surface of the pressure resistant inner structure and the sealing skin”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seismic node of Naes, in view of the teachings of Lee, to further include the teachings of Ray to yield an underwater seismic node that is able to communicate recorded data without requiring retrieval such that the seismic node may operate continuously, and further allow the individual units to be tracked to facilitate any potentially required retrieval efforts at the end of a seismic survey. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Regarding claim 33, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
[A pressure resistant inner structure] ([0045] pressurized housing may include a plurality of cast storage compartments for sensors and batteries that also provide increased support to the node structure)
Naes, as modified in view of Lee fails to teach
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 [case](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).
Therefor the combination of Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches “at least one antenna located behind an window in an outer surface of the pressure resistant inner structure”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seismic node of Naes, in view of the teachings of Lee, to further include the teachings of Ray to yield an underwater seismic node that is able to communicate recorded data without requiring retrieval such that the seismic node may operate continuously, and further allow the individual units to be tracked to facilitate any potentially required retrieval efforts at the end of a seismic survey. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Regarding claim 34, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
a panel embedded within, or positioned on, [non-pressurized housing], 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).
Naes, as modified in view of Lee fails to teach 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 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seismic node of Naes, in view of the teachings of Lee, to further include the teachings of Ray to yield an underwater seismic node that is able to communicate recorded data without requiring retrieval such that the seismic node may operate continuously, and further allow the individual units to be tracked to facilitate any potentially required retrieval efforts at the end of a seismic survey. Making such a modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale A.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naes in view of Lee and Goldner et al. (US 6278823 B1, “Goldner”).
Regarding claim 37, Naes, as modified in view of Lee teaches the method according to claim 36.
Naes further teaches
[a pressure resistant structure] ([0045] pressurized housing may include a plurality of cast storage compartments for sensors and batteries that also provide increased support to the node structure)
Lee further teaches
[a sealing skin] (pg. 5, elastic waterproof membrane (20) is a stretchable material having a certain thickness and a sealed form of a certain shape. The sensor (10) is located within the inner space.
Naes, as modified in view of Lee fails to teach
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 [sensor assembly] 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 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the seismic node of Naes, as modified in view of the teachings of Lee, to further include the teachings of Goldner to yield an underwater seismic node with a waterproofing overmold that is custom manufactured to the dimensions and geometry of the node to improve the sealing and protective qualities of the sealing skin such that the node is better protected from the surrounding environment. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve similar devices. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale C.
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, as modified in view of Lee teaches the seismic node according to claim 20. Naes further teaches
a thickness of the [non-pressurized housing] Naes fails to explicitly or implicitly disclose any thickness of the non-pressurized housing in a manner that reads upon the claim limitation).
Lee further teaches
a thickness of the sealing skin is between
Naes, as modified in view of Lee fails to teach
a thickness of the sealing skin is between 2 mm and 10 mm
Naes 2 teaches a thickness of the sealing skin 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 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights