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
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments filed on 5/28/2025. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Claim 4 is new. Claims 1 and 4 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraphs [0017]-[0018] of the amended disclosure, the phrase SNAIL is defined as “Single Nonlinear Anisotropic/Isotropic Inductor,” however, based on the original disclosure and claims, it appears that the “SNAIL” component is a lens, not an inductor.
In paragraph [0021] of the amended disclosure, the phrase “deposited as electromagnetic signals into alpha particles” is unclear and confusing as to the reference to alpha particles.
In paragraph [0022], the phrase “is designed to tunnel filtered signals” is unclear what is designed to tunnel filtered signals, whether the landing barrier, the primary permeable semi-resistive material, or the conductive and photosensitive impurities. In paragraph [0020], tunneling signals are described as the signals that tunnel through partition 100 of the SNAIL section. Then paragraph [0022] describes the tunneled signals being “projected and filtered” from the SNAIL section. It is unclear whether the SNAIL section is only tunneling signals through, or if it is also filtering the signals as they tunnel through. It is not clear whether “tunneling” and “filtering” are meant to mean the same thing, given that later in paragraph [0023] the signals are described as “projected and tunneling” through the SNAIL section. Paragraph [0023] further describes “filtered signals tunneling through the landing barrier” which appears as there is a second tunneling of signals through the landing barrier. The statements appear to be circular and confusing.
In paragraph [0023], the phrase “is used to subsequently phase gradient filtered signals” is unclear what “phase gradient” means, and what is designed to do the “phase gradient,” of signals, whether the landing barrier, the layered plurality of dissimilar permeable semi-resistive materials, or the conductive and photosensitive impurities. It is also unclear what “mitigating a filtered signal” means.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the fourth limitation, last line, “a said SYNXAPPS ARRAY” should be “the SYNSAPPS ARRAY” to avoid antecedent issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In amended claim 1, the SYNXAPPS array is described as “a primary permeable semi-resistive material, infused with the doping of granulated conductive and photo-sensitive impurities distributed within the primary permeable semi-resistive material, for filtering electromagnetic signals and allowing electromagnetic signals to permeate throughout the primary permeable semi-resistive material.” However, in paragraphs [0007] and [0010] of the original disclosure, it states the SYNXAPPS ARRAY is “a semi-resistive quantum flux capacitor” that “transforms every gradient amplitude signal by its dimensional vertex, linear, and/or field intensities of a volumetric convolutional power wavelet for data processing and wave function spectroscopy.” The original disclosure does not describe the SYNXAPPS array as a filter.
Therefore, the new amended disclosure appears to include new subject matter when describing the SYXAPPS ARRAY in paragraphs [0022]-[0023] as “designed to tunnel filtered signals, and limit amplitudes of tunneling signals by filtering a resistive signal mitigated throughout the material” and “used to subsequently phase gradient filtered signals, by mitigating a filtered signal detected near a subsequent set of geometrically and topologically arranged leads…”
If phrases in the original disclosure, such as, “transforms every gradient amplitude signal,” “modify its power intensity,” and “modify the flux capacitance” are all intending to mean “filter” then the specification should explain how these terms are the same as filtering and strive to maintain consistent language throughout the description and the claims. Further, a filter is typically described in terms of pass/block specific wavelengths/frequencies. Therefore the phrases “tunneling electromagnetic signals,” “resulting electromagnetic signals” “residual electromagnetic signals” stated in claim 4 are unclear as to the type of signals being tunneled, and which signals are the resultant and the residual signals.
Claim 4 states a lens filters, partitions, and refracts signals in the first limitation, and the second limitation implies the lens also diffuses signals. However, original disclosure describes the SNAIL component as a lens that “correlates a quantized convolution capture of volumetric data relative the gradient rotation curvature of the device” and “translates power density signals” through a “filtered semi-translucent geometric lens.” It is not clear where in the original disclosure the lens is described as refracting and diffusing signals.
Claim 4 also states “phasing electromagnetic signals…” to “phase gradient filtered electromagnetic signals… with a convolution of detected electromagnetic leads,” however it is unclear where this step is described in the original disclosure.
Further, claim 4 states “stabilizing motion disturbances in detected electromagnetic signals” as well as “mediate the vibration, inertia, and renormalization of filtered electromagnetic signals detected” but there is no description in the original disclosure of how disturbances are stabilized, nor any description of mediating vibration, inertia, and normalization of signals. Claim 4 further states “for signal calibration and phased multiplex filtering,” however, the original disclosure does not describe signal calibration nor phased multiplex filtering.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the amendments correct minor editorial problems, and added paragraphs [0016]-[0024] to “clarify annotated drawings, provide antecedent basis for subject matter introduced, and to correct minor editorial problems.”
As explained above, the amendments have introduced new matter and there is a lack of explanation for numerous terms introduced in the claims. Although the amended disclosure does attempt to clarify and simplify the description of the invention, applicant has not pointed out where the new and amended claims are supported in the original disclosure.
Conclusion
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.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
/MONICA T TABA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878