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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s Election/Restriction response filed 6/24/2026.
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 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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 7, 10-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Critsinelis et al. (US 8,961,071) in view of Jankiewicz (US 4,262,379).
Regarding claim 1, Critsinelis discloses:
A subsea structure monitoring system comprising: a base device configured to be secured to a subsea structure (see fig 1A, ref 13); a release mechanism disposed within the base device (see at least col 7, line 63 – col 8, line 24), wherein the release mechanism has a default state and a released state (see fig 1A and fig 1B); a buoy coupled to the release mechanism (inherent to operation as described above), wherein the buoy comprises a housing (see fig 1B) that houses a communication module (see fig 1B housing GPS device that emits signal 15) and a switch (the device required to perform the action of col 8, lines 9-13 is considered a switch); releasing the buoy when the subsea structure moves a threshold distance from a default position (see at least col 7, line 63 – col 8, line 24 – triggering event), wherein the release mechanism, when in the released state, releases the buoy, and wherein the buoy, upon being released, is configured to float toward a surface of the water and activate the communication module using the switch (see at least col 8, lines 9-13).
Critsinelis does not disclose specific details of the buoy and release mechanism including:
a trigger that is configured to convert the release mechanism from the default state to the released state, wherein the release mechanism is converted from the default state to the released state when the trigger exerts a minimum threshold force on the release mechanism, wherein the minimum threshold force is applied by the trigger.
Jankiewicz teaches an underwater device including a trigger that is configured to convert the release mechanism from the default state to the released state, wherein the release mechanism is converted from the default state to the released state when the trigger exerts a minimum threshold force on the release mechanism, wherein the minimum threshold force is applied by the trigger (see at least col 3, line 50 – col 4, line 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the trigger of Jankiewicz with the device of Critsinelis for the purpose of providing details to a trigger in order for the device of Critsinelis to function as described.
Regarding claim 2, Critsinelis as modified discloses that the GPS is powered by a battery (see at least col 8, lines 14-21). The battery would necessarily be inactive and only switched on in response to deploying the buoy because the GPS cannot communicate from the bottom of the ocean and would otherwise needlessly deplete the battery while the buoy is inactive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to only activate the battery in response to the triggering event.
Regarding claim 7, Critsinelis as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the material being non-metallic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a non-metallic material for the purpose of improving corrosion resistance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, Critsinelis as modified discloses:
The subsea structure monitoring system of Claim 1, wherein the subsea structure moves the threshold amount from the default position in any direction (the movements described in col 1, lines 15-36 include any direction).
Regarding claim 11, Critsinelis as modified discloses:
The subsea structure monitoring system of Claim 1, further comprising: a buoy tether having one end coupled to the release mechanism and an opposite end coupled to the buoy (see Jankiewicz fig 4, ref 20).
Regarding claim 12, Critsinelis as modified discloses:
The subsea structure monitoring system of Claim 1, wherein the communication module is configured to communicate a position of the base device on the subsea structure (see Critsinelis col 8, lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 13, Critsinelis as modified discloses:
The subsea structure monitoring system of Claim 1, wherein the subsea structure comprises a pipeline, and wherein the base device comprises a pipe clamp that clamps around the pipeline (see at least Critsinelis fig 1A).
Regarding claim 14, Critsinelis as modified discloses:
The subsea structure monitoring system of Claim 1, wherein the trigger comprises a base device tether assembly having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the release mechanism, and wherein the second end is configured to be anchored to a non-transient object. (see Jankiewicz fig 4, ref 20).
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of claims 1 and 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8, 9, 19, and 20 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 made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm EST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights