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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 7/29/2026.
No prior art is applied as the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “and adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the first receiving stations in the basic array area acquire data,” and “adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the second receiving station acquire data” as is current claimed in Claim 1, in the combination, and as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the Objects to the Drawings section on page 8,
On first note, applicant has added new Figure 9, but where the top of the page says “Replacement Sheets.” MPEP 608.02(d), explains “Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d)” (emphasis added). As such, the new figure is being treated as a new sheet. Any future addition of any new figure must be labeled as “New Sheet” consistent with the above rule.
That stated, no specific arguments are presented as to why the replacement drawings are supported by the original disclosure, and the Examiner respectfully disagrees that new Figure 9 is supported. Nowhere in the original disclosure does it show or explain that the stations and sources line up or are even placed in the manner now shown in Figure 9, or reasonably convey that applicant intended the stations to be implemented in the manner now shown. This figure is in fact evidence of the previous issue, that the original disclosure does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill the manner in which applicant is implementing the invention, because it is different than many other possible interpretations. For example, the stations of Figure 3 could have been overlayed across the entirety of Figure 2 for the basic array. What is shown in Figure 3 is disclosed as a plurality of mixed stimulus systems, and thus what is shown could have been the entirety of all receiving stations and emission sources for the basic array. This is in contrast to applicant’s now placing all of the stations and sources of Figure 3 into a single dashed box for the basic array as now seen in Figure 9. This reasonably demonstrates that what applicant is now showing is at most an obvious variant, but not inherent, implicit, or explicitly disclosed. However, any feature added must find express, inherent, or implicit disclosure, or else that feature is new matter.
This new drawing is therefore objected to for introducing new matter, and the previous drawing objection is repeated.
With regard to the arguments on pages 8-9 directed towards the previous 112 rejections,
Applicant initially states that the amended features of S3 and S4 are supported by the disclosure, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited sections provide proper support for the claim features. For example, and as previously raised, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which either array includes both receiving stations and mixed stimulus stations. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which these features are used together as previously explained.
Applicant then argues that the new feature of “wherein the positions of the second receiving stations are staggered with positions of the first receiving stations and do not overlap with mixed stimulus system arrangement positions, and wherein the mixed stimulus system is an emission source” is supported in paragraphs [0057]-[0059] and Figures 4A-4G. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the original disclosure is completely silent about any overlapping or lack thereof, and thus such a feature introduces new matter. Second, the original disclosure provides no guidance or explanation as to what the mixed stimulus system arrangement positions are, and thus such a feature is also not reasonably supported or explained.
The Examiner respectfully notes that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any of the different configurations from Figures 4A-4G are used with the areas shown in Figure 2. The Examiner has explained why such a feature raises an issue, but notes that no response has been provided with regard to this issue. While applicant has included a new Figure 9 to demonstrate a way to implement such a feature in part, this figure introduces new matter. The original disclosure does not disclose such a location for the sources, and such a feature is, respectfully, not inherent or implicit to the disclosure. Such a feature also does not reasonably demonstrate the manner that any of the configurations in Figures 4A-4G would be implemented in the different areas.
In fact, what is shown in Figure 9 is further not supported due to the fact that a large amount of the areas have no receiving or emission stations. For example, what is shown in Figure 3 could be the totality of all stations for the entirety of all dashed boxes in Figure 2 for the basic array, and repeated again across all boxes for the staggered array. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any of this is implemented as a complete invention, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize support or possession for these features.
The Examiner further respectfully notes that similar issues were previously raised, and while the Examiner acknowledges applicant’s attempt to provide support with new Figure 9, such support cannot be added after the filing of the application. Applicant, respectfully, does not explain why the original disclosure provides support for this figure or reasonably address all of the previously raised issues. While applicant does point to many different paragraphs from the disclosure, applicant, respectfully does not explain why any of these particular paragraphs provide support.
No specific arguments are raised in the remaining portion of the remarks, and while applicant does identify various paragraphs for support, applicant does not explain why any of these paragraphs provide such support or overcome the previously raised issues. The Examiner therefore respectfully notes that those amendments that overcome the previously raised issues are withdrawn, and those that do not or raise new issues are presented below.
Specification
The amendment filed 7/29/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Newly added Figure 9 and any corresponding reference to this figure, such as in paragraph [0041] in the amended specification, introduce new matter. The original disclosure does not state or disclose what is now shown in this new figure or referenced in the amended disclosure. As explained above, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the receiver stations and emission sources are positioned relative to any particular location inside any of the areas or arrays, such as that shown in Figure 2. Applicant does not explain why this feature is inherent, implicit, or explicit, and a review of the disclosure does not show or disclose the stations and sources positioned as now amended. The amendment to the drawings adding Figure 9, and the amendment to the specification describing Figure 9 therefore introduce new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 2, 4-6, and 8 are 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “A holographic electromagnetic exploration method based on full-area observation alternating coverage integral-difference mixed stimulus, comprising:
S1: determining an area to be explored and a core target area of the area to be explored;
S2: dividing the area to be explored into a plurality of basic array areas, dividing the core target area into a plurality of staggered array areas,
S3: performing the following steps successively for each basic area array of the plurality of basic array areas: arranging a basic observation array composed of first receiving stations in the basic array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the basic array area, wherein the first receiving stations are basic array receiving stations
and adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the first receiving stations in the basic array area acquire data; and
S4: performing the following steps successively for each staggered array area of the plurality of staggered array areas:
arranging a staggered observation array composed of second receiving stations in the staggered array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the staggered array, wherein the second receiving stations are staggered array receiving stations; and
adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the second receiving station acquire data;
wherein positions of the second receiving stations are staggered with positions of the first receiving stations and do not overlap with mixed stimulus arrangement positions, and wherein the mixed stimulus system is an emission source” on lines 1 to the end introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
While specific issues are raised below, the entirety of the above claim is stated to introduce new matter because the entirety of the claim reads on and is impacted by newly presented Figure 9, but where this figure introduces new matter. Because claims are read in light of the disclosure, the scope of the claim is impacted and interpreted in light of the disclosure, which now includes Figure 9. However, the configuration and placement of the stations and sources in Figure 9 was not originally disclosed as explained in the above specification objection. As such, any impact on the scope of Claim 1 due to Figure 9 introduces new matter, because this interpretation of the invention and related claim scope were not originally presented.
While specific issues are raised below, the entirety of the above claim is stated to lack proper written description because the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the claim is implemented. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant is doing or why applicant is making any of the claimed decisions to reasonably be able to implement the claim.
1) The first issue is that applicant is claiming
S2: dividing the area to be explored into a plurality of basic array areas, dividing the core target area into a plurality of staggered array areas, followed by claiming
S3: performing the following steps successively for each basic area array of the plurality of basic array areas:
arranging a basic observation array composed of first receiving stations in the basic array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the basic array area, wherein the first receiving stations are basic array receiving stations; and
adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the first receiving stations in the basic array acquire data, followed by claiming
S4 performing the following steps successively for each staggered area array of the plurality of staggered array areas:
arranging a staggered observation array composed of second receiving stations in the staggered array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the staggered array, wherein the second receiving stations are staggered array receiving stations; and
adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the second receiving station acquire data.
As to New Matter,
This feature introduces new matter because, read in light of new Figure 9, the original disclosure does not originally disclose the scope of interpreting the placement of the stations and sources in the manner shown in the Figure 9. Because this figure impacts the scope of the above claim feature, the above claim feature introduces new matter.
This feature introduces new matter because applicant now claims “the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively,” but where such a feature was not originally disclosed in steps S3 and S4. Applicant is not claiming plural “polarization modalities” for each of the above features, such as the single field source, but where these features were not originally disclosed to have plural polarization modalities. The original disclosure stated that there were a plurality of polarization modalities, but only because it included more than one type of source, such as a single field source and a differential field source. The original disclosure does not disclose that each source itself has a plurality of polarization modalities. In fact, original paragraph [0013] makes clear that each source has one modality and thus does not include plural modalities. Paragraph [0013] expressly states “the polarization modality of the single field source” and “the polarization modality of the differential field source,” for example, and is therefore referencing “a” polarization modality for these respective sources, and thus one polarization modality per source. This phrase therefore introduces new matter, because the original disclosure does not disclose plural polarization modalities for each source as now claimed.
As to Lacking Written Description,
PNG
media_image1.png
863
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above, for the basic array, applicant explains, in Figure 2, what a basic array area and a core target area are with respect to each other, but applicant never relates any of these features to an specific receiving station or emission source. While Figure 3 shows receiving stations and emission sources as seen above, applicant does not explain the manner in which Figure 2 and Figure 3 relate. The receiving stations shown in Figure 3 cannot reasonably be defined into 9 symmetrical basic array areas as seen in Figure 2, because Figure 3 discloses 7 rows of receiving stations. Because a uneven number of receiving stations are shown, the same areas shown in Figure 2 cannot reasonably be defined. While receiving stations could be shared by adjacent basic arrays areas, that would create uneven and overlapping basic array areas, which is not shown or disclosed. As such, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above noted areas are defined so as to include the later claimed receiving stations mixed stimulus system.
Applicant then claims, for the staggered array, S4: arranging a staggered observation array composed of second receiving stations in the staggered array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the staggered array, and then claims various sources that are adjusted in the staggered array. However, applicant does not provide any explanation to what a staggered observation is and how it relates to the core target area. As best understood, the solid lined boxes in Figure 2 define the target areas as seen above. However, when referencing these boxes to that seen in Figure 3, none of the arrays are staggered. In fact, all receiving stations are uniformed distributed as seen in Figure 3. The Examiner acknowledges that elected Figure 4A is explained to disclose a staggered array of receiving stations, but applicant does not reasonably disclose how this pertains to receiving stations from the basic arrays. Applicant does not explain is applicant is introducing new receiving stations in addition to those shown in Figure 3, which presumably are the receiving stations for the basic array, and if so, where they are placed with respect to the basic arrays. Applicant does not explain if applicant is re-using the same receiving stations already disclosed for the basic receiving stations, and if so, how they are implemented. The receiving stations, as best understood, cannot reasonably be staggered in the manner shown in Figure 4A because they would overlap with the emission source.
In short, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the three different areas are defined, where the receiving stations are placed with respect to each of these areas, how the receiving stations for the basic array relate to those of the staggered array, and where the staggered area receiving stations are located within the core target area and with respect to the receiving stations of the receiving array. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim features.
3) Lastly, applicant is now claiming “wherein positions of the second receiving stations are staggered with positions of the first receiving stations and do not overlap with mixed stimulus arrangement positions, and wherein the mixed stimulus system is an emission source” in the last paragraph of the claim. However, the original disclosure does not support this claim feature, as nowhere in the original disclosure does it state that the second receiving stations are staggered with positions of the first receiving stations, or that these stations do not overlap with mixed stimulus arrangement positions. The original disclosure is completely silent on this feature, which is further impacted by the fact that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the stations are placed within any of the areas.
Furthermore, applicant does not reasonably disclose that the mixed stimulus system is an emission source, especially one distinct from any of the above noted sources. Applicant does not reasonably explain what a mixed stimulus system is to reasonably demonstrate possession. This claim in fact states that the mixed stimulus system “stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising” various sources. Meaning, the system, as best understood, causes sources to function, such as the single field source, but that does not make the system itself a source. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the system as a source, and thus would not recognize that applicant had possession for this claim feature.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “Al: turning on one of the plurality of mixed stimulus systems in the basic array area with other mixed stimulus systems in the plurality of mixed stimulus systems waiting to be turned on, to stimulate the plurality of polarization modalities comprising the single field source polarization modalities, the differential field source polarization modalities, and the integral field source polarization modalities successively, and acquiring data by the first receiving stations in the basic array; and A2: turning on the other mixed stimulus systems in sequence to perform observation according to step Al” in the last two paragraphs introduces new matter.
Applicant claims “turning on one of the plurality of mixed stimulus systems in the basic array area with other mixed stimulus systems in the plurality of mixed stimulus systems waiting to be turned on,” but the original disclosure does not state that the other systems are waiting to be turned on. While applicant may successively stimulate different sources, this does not mean that all basic array sources are not all simultaneously stimulated. Meaning, as best understood, the successive stimulation of the sources has to do with changing the mode of the sources to go from a single source mode to a differential mode, for example. However, all sources from the entirety of the basic array area can be activated simultaneously in this manner, where all sources are initially simultaneously in the single source mode, and then successively changed to the differential source mode. Applicant does not originally disclose the manner in which the individual mixed stimulus systems for the entire area are or are not activated related to each other, and thus does not originally the above claim feature.
Furthermore, applicant does not limit which “other” mixed stimulus systems are being referenced in this phase, and such other systems could refer to all systems, including those of the staggered array. Applicant does not reasonably disclose that other systems, which can be all other systems including those of the staggered array, are waiting to be turned on. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “B1: turning on one of the plurality of mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array area with other mixed stimulus systems in the plurality of mixed stimulus systems waiting to be turned on, to stimulate the plurality of polarization modalities comprising the single field source polarization modalities, the differential field source polarization modalities, and the integral field source polarization modalities successively, and acquiring data by the second receiving stations in the staggered array area; and B2: turning on the other mixed stimulus systems in sequence to perform observation according to step B1” in the last two paragraphs introduces new matter.
Applicant claims “turning on one of the plurality of mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array area with other mixed stimulus systems in the plurality of mixed stimulus systems waiting to be turned on,” but the original disclosure does not state that the other systems are waiting to be turned on. While applicant may successively stimulate different sources, this does not mean that all staggered array sources are not all simultaneously stimulated. Meaning, as best understood, the successive stimulation of the sources has to do with changing the mode of the sources to go from a single source mode to a differential mode, for example. However, all sources from the entirety of the staggered array area can be activated simultaneously in this manner, where all sources are initially simultaneously in the single source mode, and then successively changed to the differential source mode. Applicant does not originally disclose the manner in which the individual mixed stimulus systems for the entire area are or are not activated related to each other, and thus does not originally the above claim feature.
Furthermore, applicant does not limit which “other” mixed stimulus systems are being referenced in this phase, and such other systems could refer to all systems, including those of the basic array. Applicant does not reasonably disclose that other systems, which can be all other systems including those of the basic array, are waiting to be turned on. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1, 2, 4-6, and 8 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “A holographic electromagnetic exploration method based on full-area observation alternating coverage integral-difference mixed stimulus, comprising:
S1: determining an area to be explored and a core target area of the area to be explored;
S2: dividing the area to be explored into a plurality of basic array areas, dividing the core target area into a plurality of staggered array areas,
S3: performing the following steps successively for each basic area array of the plurality of basic array areas: arranging a basic observation array composed of first receiving stations in the basic array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the basic array area, wherein the first receiving stations are basic array receiving stations
and adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the first receiving stations in the basic array area acquire data; and
S4: performing the following steps successively for each staggered array area of the plurality of staggered array areas:
arranging a staggered observation array composed of second receiving stations in the staggered array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the staggered array, wherein the second receiving stations are staggered array receiving stations; and
adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the second receiving station acquire data;
wherein positions of the second receiving stations are staggered with positions of the first receiving stations and do not overlap with mixed stimulus arrangement positions, and wherein the mixed stimulus system is an emission source” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
While specific issues are raised below, the entirety of the above claim is stated to be indefinite because the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the claim is implemented, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant is doing or why applicant is making any of the claimed decisions to reasonably be able to implement the claim. Such a person would therefore not understand how to interpret the claims so as to understand what applicant is doing to divide up the areas to be explored in the claimed manner.
1) The first issue is that applicant is claiming that each source is a plurality of polarization modalities, where the claim recites “the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively,” but where such a feature was not originally disclosed in steps S3 and S4. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain what such a feature means or how it should be interpreted. It is unclear how each source, including the single emission source, can have a plurality of polarization modalities, such as what each modality is, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the full scope of the claim. The original disclosure is completely silent as to how a modality should be interpreted, or how any of the sources, including the single source, can have more than one polarization modality. This phrase is therefore indefinite.
2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming that the mixed stimulus system is an emission source in the last paragraph, but this raises several issues.
More than one mixed stimulus system was previously recited with regard to both the basic and staggered arrays. Reciting “the mixed stimulus system” is indefinite, because it is unclear which system this phrase is referencing. Claim 1 now recites one or more mixed stimulus systems for the basic array area, and one or more mixed stimulus systems for the staggered array. The above phrase could refer to any one of these systems, making it unclear which system this phrase is referencing.
Second, applicant is claiming “an emission source” on the last line of the claim, but this recitation is completely distinct from any of the previously recited sources. As best understood, the previously recited sources represent all sources that the emission source can be, leaving no source in the disclosure available to be the emission source as now claimed. As such, this emission source cannot be distinct from any of the previous sources, making its relationship to any of the previously recited sources unclear.
Third, while applicant no longer claims determining the mixed stimulus system arrangement positions, this phrase is still indefinite as it is unclear what these positions are, especially in light of new Figure 9. It is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted, in light it is unclear what position in the disclosure would be considered a mixed stimulus system arrangement position. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand the full scope of the claim feature in light of the disclosure.
3) Next applicant is claiming S2: dividing the area to be explored into a plurality of basic array areas, dividing the core target area into a plurality of staggered array areas, followed by claiming
S3: performing the following steps successively for each basic area array of the plurality of basic array areas:
arranging a basic observation array composed of first receiving stations in the basic array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the basic array area, wherein the first receiving stations are basic array receiving stations; and
adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the first receiving stations in the basic array acquire data, followed by claiming
S4 performing the following steps successively for each staggered area array of the plurality of staggered array areas:
arranging a staggered observation array composed of second receiving stations in the staggered array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the staggered array, wherein the second receiving stations are staggered array receiving stations; and
adjusting each mixed stimulus system of the one or more mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising single field source polarization modalities, differential field source polarization modalities, and integral field source polarization modalities successively, during which the second receiving station acquire data.
PNG
media_image1.png
863
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above, applicant explains, in Figure 2, what a basic array area and a core target area are with respect to each other, but applicant never relates any of these features to an specific receiving station or emission source. While Figure 3 shows receiving stations and emission sources as seen above, applicant does not explain the manner in which Figure 2 and Figure 3 relate. The receiving stations shown in Figure 3 cannot reasonably be defined into 9 symmetrical basic array areas as seen in Figure 2, because Figure 3 discloses 7 rows of receiving stations. Because a uneven number of receiving stations are shown, the same areas shown in Figure 2 cannot reasonably be defined. While receiving stations could be shared by adjacent basic arrays areas, that would create uneven and overlapping basic array areas, which is not shown or disclosed. As such, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above noted areas are defined so as to include the later claimed receiving stations mixed stimulus system, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand how applicant is implementing this claim feature, in light of the disclosure. Such a feature is therefore indefinite because a person of ordinary skill would not reasonably understand the full scope of the claims in light of the disclosure.
Applicant then claims, for the staggered array, S4: arranging a staggered observation array composed of second receiving stations in the staggered array area, and arranging one or more mixed stimulus systems at different positions of the staggered array, and then claims various sources that are adjusted in the staggered array. However, applicant does not provide any explanation to what a staggered observation is and how it relates to the core target area. As best understood, the solid lined boxes in Figure 2 define the target areas as seen above. However, when referencing these boxes to that seen in Figure 3, none of the arrays are staggered. In fact, all receiving stations are uniformed distributed as seen in Figure 3. The Examiner acknowledges that elected Figure 4A is explained to disclose a staggered array of receiving stations, but applicant does not reasonably disclose how this pertains to receiving stations from the basic arrays. Applicant does not explain is applicant is introducing new receiving stations in addition to those shown in Figure 3, which presumably are the receiving stations for the basic array, and if so, where they are placed with respect to the basic arrays. Applicant does not explain if applicant is re-using the same receiving stations already disclosed for the basic receiving stations, and if so, how they are implemented. The receiving stations, as best understood, cannot reasonably be staggered in the manner shown in Figure 4A because they would overlap with the emission source.
In short, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the three different areas are defined, where the receiving stations are placed with respect to each of these areas, how the receiving stations for the basic array relate to those of the staggered array, and where the staggered area receiving stations are located within the core target area and with respect to the receiving stations of the receiving array. It is unclear if applicant is merely moving receiving stations already part of the basic area into a staggered formation, or if applicant is adding new receiving stations for the staggered area in addition to those from the basic array area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not fully understand the claim features, as such a person would not reasonably understand how the staggered areas are being implemented, especially in relation to the basic array area. Such a person would further not understand whether applicant is re-using the same receiving stations from the basic array or was using new additional stations for the staggered array. Such a person would further not understand where the staggered stations are positioned with respect to the other stations depicted in Figure 3, or in short, how any of the receiving stations in the staggered array are being implemented, in light of the disclosure.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that some of the receiving stations of the basic array area can be considered the stations for the staggered array, and that any two stations adjacent each other can be considered staggered.
3) Lastly, applicant claims three different modes of excitation in the above claim, specifically one using a single field source, one using a differential field source, and one using an integral field source. Each of these is distinctly recited between the basic array and staggered array areas. The issue is that it is unclear what an integral field source or differential field source must be within the context of the original disclosure. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant shows examples of an integral field source in Figures 7A-7D, and that applicant can act as his or her own lexicographer. However, an integral field source is not a reasonably well-known concept, and applicant does not reasonably explain what an integral field source is or define such a source in the disclosure. For example, what applicant shows are different examples of two current paths in four different configurations. However, other configurations can exist, such as from A1 to A2 and A2 to B1, or from A2 to B1 and B1 to B2. It is unclear if these or other similar current direction combinations would or would not be considered an integral field source. The metes and bounds of what would and would not be considered an integral field source are therefore unclear, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the full metes and bounds for this feature. Similarly, the differential field source is not reasonably defined. While applicant shows examples of such a source in Figures 8A-8D, it is unclear if other current directions would or would not be considered differential sources. For example, applicant shows current from A1 to O and B1 to O is a differential source. However, it is unclear if A1 to A2 and B1 to A2 would likewise also be considered a differential source in the context of the disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably establish the metes and bounds of what applicant does and does not consider a differential source or an integral source so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to interpret the claim features. These features are therefore indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that any two current paths can be said to be an integral source, and any two opposing current paths can be said to be a differential source.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the mixed stimulus system” on line 3 is indefinite. Claim 1 now recites one or more mixed stimulus systems for the basic array area, and one or more mixed stimulus systems for the staggered array. The above phrase could refer to any one of these systems, making it unclear which system this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “Al: turning on one of the plurality of mixed stimulus systems in the basic array area with other mixed stimulus systems in the plurality of mixed stimulus systems waiting to be turned on, to stimulate the plurality of polarization modalities comprising the single field source polarization modalities, the differential field source polarization modalities, and the integral field source polarization modalities successively, and acquiring data by the first receiving stations in the basic array; and A2: turning on the other mixed stimulus systems in sequence to perform observation according to step Al” in the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
It is unclear what “other” mixed stimulus systems are being referenced in the above phrase and how they related to any of the other mixed stimulus systems. Applicant does not limit which “other” mixed stimulus systems are being referenced in this phase, and such other systems could refer to all systems, including those of the staggered array. Applicant also does not use any antecedent basis for this phrase, making it unclear what other systems are being referenced, as all such systems have already been accounted for by the prior recited systems of the basic and staggered arrays in Claim 1. The “other” systems in this claim are being distinctly recited from those of Claim 1, but where they cannot reasonably be distinct in light of the disclosure. The difference and relationship between these systems are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the mixed stimulus system” on lines 3, 5, 7, and 9 is indefinite. Applicant recites “one or more mixed stimulus systems” in Claim 1 for the basic array and for the staggered array area, which therefore includes one or more such systems. As such, reciting “the mixed stimulus system” is indefinite because it is unclear which system this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “B1: turning on one of the plurality of mixed stimulus systems in the staggered array area with other mixed stimulus systems in the plurality of mixed stimulus systems waiting to be turned on, to stimulate the plurality of polarization modalities comprising the single field source polarization modalities, the differential field source polarization modalities, and the integral field source polarization modalities successively, and acquiring data by the second receiving stations in the staggered array area; and B2: turning on the other mixed stimulus systems in sequence to perform observation according to step B1” in the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
It is unclear what “other” mixed stimulus systems are being referenced in the above phrase and how they related to any of the other mixed stimulus systems. Applicant does not limit which “other” mixed stimulus systems are being referenced in this phase, and such other systems could refer to all systems, including those of the staggered array. Applicant also does not use any antecedent basis for this phrase, making it unclear what other systems are being referenced, as all such systems have already been accounted for by the prior recited systems of the basic and staggered arrays in Claim 1. The “other” systems in this claim are being distinctly recited from those of Claim 1, but where they cannot reasonably be distinct in light of the disclosure. The difference and relationship between these systems are therefore unclear.
As to Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
