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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Speer (US PAT 8,910,902).
(Figure 1 of Speer is provided below with annotations for the applicant’s convenience)
PNG
media_image1.png
546
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Figure 19 of Speer is provided below with annotations for the applicant’s convenience)
PNG
media_image2.png
250
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Figure 15 is provided below with annotations for the applicant’s convenience)
PNG
media_image3.png
264
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Speer discloses an airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) for magnetic geosurveys (See Col. 1, lines 35-40 of Speer), the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) being configured to be towed by an aircraft (See 108 in figure 1 of Speer)
in an upright operating position (See the upright position 124 in figure 1 of Speer) and comprising: a frame (See 1302 in figure 13 of Speer) which is elongated in a longitudinal direction (See the vertical direction in which 1302 extends as shown in figure 13 of Speer), the longitudinal direction (See the vertical direction in which 1302 extends as shown in figure 13 of Speer) corresponding, in the upright operating position (See the vertical direction in which 1302 extends as shown in figure 13 of Speer is the operating position), to a vertical direction (See the vertical direction in which 1302 extends as shown in figure 13 of Speer), an anchor assembly (See the part annotated “A” in figure 1 of Speer above), the anchor assembly (See the part annotated “A” in figure 1 of Speer above) being connected to the frame (See the part annotated “A” in figure 1 of Speer above) and being configured for attachment of one or more towlines (See 110 in figure 1 of Speer above) to the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer), and one or more sensor holders (See the part annotated “B” in figure 19 of Speer above), each of the one or more sensor holders (See the part annotated “B” in figure 19 of Speer above) being connected to the frame (See 1406 in figure 19 of Speer) and configured for an attachment of a sensor (See 1702 in figure 19 of Speer); wherein the frame (See 1406 in figure 19 of Speer) is configured to be collapsible from the operating position (See Col. 12, lines 1-17 in view of Col. 13, lines 4-8 of Speer) to a transport configuration (See Col. 12, lines 1-17 in view of Col. 13, lines 4-8 of Speer), a length (See Col. 12, lines 1-17 of Speer discloses the adjustment of dimensional length of the frame via the erecting cable tightness) of the device along the longitudinal direction (See Col. 12, lines 1-17 of Speer discloses the adjustment of dimensional length of the frame via the erecting cable tightness) being shorter in the transport configuration than in the operating position (See Col. 12, lines 1-17 of Speer discloses the adjustment of dimensional length of the frame via the erecting cable tightness).
With respect to claim 2, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) according to claim 1, wherein the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) further comprises a folding joint assembly (See the annotated “C” in figure 19 of Speer above) for collapsing the device from the operating position to the transport configuration (See Col. 12, lines 1-17 in view of Col. 13, lines 4-8 of Speer), the folding joint assembly being located between at least one of the one or more sensor holders (See the part annotated “B” in figure 19 of Speer above) and the anchor assembly (See 1722 in figure 19 of Speer), an axis of rotation of the folding joint assembly (See the axial direction which is in-line with the element “C” in a length-wise direction as shown in figure 19 of Speer above) being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See the direction which is perpendicular to the element “C” in a length-wise direction as shown in figure 19 of Speer above).
With respect to claim 3, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) according to claim 1, wherein the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) further comprises a sensor yaw angle adjustment joint (See Col. 11, lines 4-11 of Speer) configured for yaw-angle adjustment of at least one of the one or more sensor holders (See Col. 11, lines 4-11 of Speer), the sensor yaw angle adjustment joint (See Col. 11, lines 4-11 of Speer) being located between the anchor assembly (See the part annotated “A” in figure 1 of Speer above) and the at least one of the one or more sensor holders (See the part annotated “B” in figure 19 of Speer above), and wherein a yaw axis (See “F” in figure 15 of Speer above), about which the sensor yaw angle adjustment joint (See Col. 11, lines 4-11 of Speer) is rotatable, extends parallel to the longitudinal direction (See “F” extends in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction as shown in figure 15 of Speer above).
With respect to claim 4, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more sensor holders (See the part annotated “B” in figure 19 of Speer above) comprises a sensor pitch angle adjustment joint (See Col. 11, lines 4-11 of Speer) and a sensor receptacle (See the annotated “D” in figure 19 of Speer), the sensor receptacle (See the annotated “D” in figure 19 of Speer) being configured to be attached to a sensor (See 1702 in figure 19 of Speer); the sensor pitch angle adjustment joint (See Col. 11, lines 4-11 of Speer) being located between the sensor receptacle (See the annotated “D” in figure 19 of Speer) and the frame (See 1302 in figure 13 of Speer), the sensor pitch angle adjustment joint (See Col. 11, lines 4-11 of Speer) further connecting the sensor receptacle (See the annotated “D” in figure 19 of Speer) to the frame (See 1302 in figure 13 of Speer) rotatably around an axis of rotation which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See “C” in figure 19 of Speer above which points to the axis of rotation of the extended piece) for pitch angle adjustment of the sensor receptacle (See the annotated “D” in figure 19 of Speer).
With respect to claim 5, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device (1) according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more sensor holders (See the part annotated “B” in figure 19 of Speer above) is configured to be fixed to the frame (See 1302 in figure 13 of Speer) in at least two different positions along the longitudinal direction (See the position of “B” represented by the position shown in figure 19 of Speer above in view of the same element shown in figure 18 of Speer).
With respect to claim 14, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) according to claim 1, wherein the frame (See the part annotated “A” in figure 1 of Speer above) is composed of rods (See the annotated “F” in figure 1 of Speer above) connected by crosslinks (See the annotated “G” in figure 1 of Speer above).
With respect to claim 17, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) according to claim 1, wherein the anchor assembly comprises a towline fixation member which is configured to be fastened to at least one towline (See Col. 4, lines 16-29 of Speer), wherein the towline fixation member is located between two aerodynamic centers (See the annotated point “A” in figure 1 of Speer which lies between the plurality of aerodynamic centers [118]) which are determined at two different operational airspeeds (See Col. 5, lines 13-22 in view of Col. 8, lines 1-17 of Speer).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andreasen et al. (WO 2022/105990) [Cited by the applicant].
With respect to claim 6, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the frame comprises at least two parallel rods and wherein at least one of the one or more sensor holders is connected to the at least two parallel rods. However, Andreasen does disclose the frame comprises at least two parallel rods (See parallel elements [38] in figure 1 of Andreasen) and wherein at least one of the one or more sensor holders is connected to the at least two parallel rods (See the sensor holders [40] in figure 1 of Andreasen). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Speer to include the features disclosed by Andreasen because doing so enables a rigid and stable carrier platform.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Polzer et al. (US PUB 2011/0175604), hereinafter Polzer.
With respect to claim 16, Speer discloses the airborne sensor carrier device (See 102 in figure 1 of Speer) according to claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein the frame is made from non-magnetic material. However, Polzer does disclose wherein the frame is made from non-magnetic material (See paragraph [0083] of Polzer). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Speer to include the feature disclosed by Polzer because doing so enables efficient transmission of the surveying EM radiation to and from the airborne sensor carrier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13, 15 and 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 7, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the airborne sensor carrier device comprises a crossbar assembly which extends perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Claims 8-12 depend from objected to claim 7 and are therefore also objected to.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the airborne sensor carrier device comprises an antenna mount which is mounted on the frame, the antenna mount being configured for attachment of an antenna and comprising an antenna fold-up joint for pivoting the antenna between the operating position and the transport configuration.
With respect to claim 15, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein one or more sensor holders is arranged slidably between two parallel rods.
With respect to claim 18, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the sensor yaw angle adjustment joint connects an upper part of the frame rotatably to a lower part of the frame, wherein the upper part comprises the anchor assembly, whereas the lower part comprise at least one of the sensor holders.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the folding joint assembly is located between the sensor yaw angle adjustment joint and the anchor assembly.
With respect to claim 20, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the one or more sensor holders comprise a clamping device which can be released for changing the position and be fastened for fixing the position along the frame during flight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PUB 2019/0018164 discloses a system and method for airborne geophysical exploration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights