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 1/21/2026.
No prior art is applied as the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data; and S4: arranging a staggered observation array composed of receiving stations in each staggered array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data” as is current claimed in Claim 1, in the combination, and as best understood.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the combination of the basic array areas, the staggered array areas, the receiving stations in both areas, and the mixed stimulus system, as claimed in the combination, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because As explained in more detail below in the 112 rejections, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which all of the above noted areas, receiver stations, and mixed stimulus systems are implemented together, as claimed, so as to understand how applicant is implementing the claim features. No single figure or combination of figures reasonably explains the full scope of the claim features. Such a figure is reasonably necessary for an understanding of the invention, which is therefore required. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-7 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: Si: 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, and determining a plurality of mixed stimulus system arrangement positions within the area to be explored; S3: arranging a basic observation array composed of receiving stations in each basic array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data; and S4: arranging a staggered observation array composed of receiving stations in each staggered array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data” on lines 1 to the end lacks proper written description.
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, pertaining to step S2, 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, and determining a plurality of mixed stimulus system arrangement positions within the area to be explored, followed by claiming S3: arranging a basic observation array composed of receiving stations in each basic array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires 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.
Next, applicant claims determining a plurality of mixed stimulus system arrangement positions within the area to be explored, but applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which these positions are determined. First, applicant does not reasonably disclose that the above noted emission sources are mixed stimulus systems. Second, applicant does not provide any explanation as to the process by which the above positions for the mixed stimulus system are determined.
2) Applicant then claims S4: arranging a staggered observation array composed of receiving stations in each staggered array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data
However, first, 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.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “wherein the staggered observation array and the basic observation array follow an arrangement principle of the mixed stimulus system being shared and the receiving stations being densified” on lines 2-4 lacks proper written description.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand what the claimed “arrangement principle” is as claimed. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain what this arrangement principle is, or the manner in which the mixed stimulus system is shared between the two arrays as claimed. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any arrangement principle is implemented, and is completely silent as to the manner which the mixed stimulus system is shared as claimed. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this system is used for both arrays as claimed. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description as a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “wherein the adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data, specifically comprises the following steps: Al: turning on a mixed stimulus system to stimulate the plurality of polarization modalities comprising the single field source, the differential field source, and the integral field source successively, and acquiring data by each receiving station, and at this time, enabling an idle charging mode for other mixed stimulus systems; and A2: turning on other mixed stimulus systems in sequence to perform observation according to step Al” on lines 3 to the end lacks proper written description.
Applicant claims “enabling an idle charging mode for other mixed stimulus systems,” but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to what such a mode is or the manner in which it is implemented. An idle charging mode is not a well-known mode of operation, and the original disclosure is completely silent on such a mode. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which such a mode is implemented or what applicant means by claiming such a mode. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonable recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “separating all the acquired data into two parts: artificial source signals and natural source signals; identifying and extracting a time domain signal and a frequency domain signal from the artificial source signals and natural source signals, respectively, to obtain resistivity information and polarizability information of an underground medium; and performing holographic synthesized inversion imaging on all the acquired data” on lines 4 to the end lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant implements the above claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant states in the disclosure that the data processing is all prior art. However, applicant does not reasonably identify any specific mechanism of the prior art to implement this claim feature. There is, respectfully, no evidence on the record that a person of ordinary skill would understand the manner that the claim features are implemented, and would not reasonably recognize any specific manner to implement the claims, as the original disclosure provides no guidance as to any example of the manner in which this data can be processed as claimed. The original disclosure is completely silent as to any manner of implementing the above claim feature, which therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 2-7,
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 1-7 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: Si: 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, and determining a plurality of mixed stimulus system arrangement positions within the area to be explored; S3: arranging a basic observation array composed of receiving stations in each basic array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data; and S4: arranging a staggered observation array composed of receiving stations in each staggered array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data” 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, pertaining to step S2, 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, and determining a plurality of mixed stimulus system arrangement positions within the area to be explored, followed by claiming S3: arranging a basic observation array composed of receiving stations in each basic array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires 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.
Next, applicant claims determining a plurality of mixed stimulus system arrangement positions within the area to be explored, but applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which these positions are determined such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the full scope of the claims. First, applicant does not reasonably disclose that the above noted emission sources are mixed stimulus systems. Second, applicant does not provide any explanation as to the process by which the above positions for the mixed stimulus system are determined. 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.
2) Applicant then claims S4: arranging a staggered observation array composed of receiving stations in each staggered array area successively, and adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data.
However, first, 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 received between the basic array and staggered array areas. The first issue here is that the relationship between the claimed sources are unclear. It is unclear if applicant is re-using the some of the same sources from the basic area and the staggered area, or if applicant is using different sources. As such, the relationship of these sources between these two areas are unclear as applicant is distinctly reciting them but where they are not clearly distinct. The second 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 4,
The phrase “wherein the adjusting each mixed stimulus system one by one such that the mixed stimulus system stimulates a plurality of polarization modalities comprising a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source successively, during which each receiving station acquires data, specifically comprises the following steps: Al: turning on a mixed stimulus system to stimulate the plurality of polarization modalities comprising the single field source, the differential field source, and the integral field source successively, and acquiring data by each receiving station, and at this time, enabling an idle charging mode for other mixed stimulus systems; and A2: turning on other mixed stimulus systems in sequence to perform observation according to step Al” on lines 3 to the end is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims “enabling an idle charging mode for other mixed stimulus systems,” but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to what such a mode is or the manner in which it is implemented. An idle charging mode is not a well-known mode of operation, and the original disclosure is completely silent on such a mode. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand the manner in which such a mode is implemented or what applicant means by claiming such a mode, and thus such a person would not reasonably recognize the fully scope of the claim feature or how to interpret such a feature.
2) Applicant recites “a single field source, a differential field source, and an integral field source” in the above phrase, but where such features were already recited in Claim 1. As best understood, they refer to the same claim features but are being distinctly recited when they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these sources and those recited in claim 1 are therefore unclear.
3) Applicant recites “the single field source, the differential field source, and the integral field source” in the above phrase, but where such features were twice recited previously. Claims 1 and 4 distinctly recite these features, and it is unclear which sources these phrases are intended to reference.
As to Claims 2-7,
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) CN 108957560A to LIU et al. which discloses the use of receiving stations and electrodes to perform underground exploration, but does not disclose the use of three different modes of operation including a single source, differential source, and integral source mode as claimed, 2) CN 106291719A to YUAN et al. which discloses the use of receiving stations and sources in an array, but does not disclose the use of three different modes of operation including a single source, differential source, and integral source mode as claimed, and 3) CN 106249304 A to Wang et al. which discloses a source and receiver array for underground detection, but does not disclose the use of three different modes of operation including a single source, differential source, and integral source mode as claimed.
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
Prosecution Insights