Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/419,248

APPARENT RESISTIVITY MEASURING SYSTEM AND METHOD USING SEMI-AIRBORNE ELECTROMAGNETIC METHOD

Non-Final OA §101§102§103
Filed
Jan 22, 2024
Examiner
MCANDREW, CHRISTOPHER P
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Institute Of Geology And Geophysics Chinese Academy Of Sciences
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
820 granted / 957 resolved
+17.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
22 currently pending
Career history
979
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.8%
-38.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 957 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 3-5, & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites "perform calculation to obtain tippers....", "perform calculation to obtain impedance, Cagniard apparent resistivity and fitted apparent resistivity....", perform inversion," and so forth. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of "magnetic field sensor", "electric field sensor", and "processor" appear to be well understood, routine, and conventional elements that are recited generically only to obtain the data required to implement the abstract idea and therefore neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The other listed claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they only address well-known types of sensors or other common elements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wojniak (Wojniak, Wayne Stanley. "A magnetotelluric sounding at the Tucson magnetic and seismological observatory." (1979).). Regarding Independent claim 1, Wojniak teaches: An apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, comprising: a magnetic field sensor for acquiring magnetic field response data (Pages 1 & 2 of introduction reproduced below.); an electric field sensor for acquiring electric field response data (Pages 1 & 2 of introduction reproduced below.); and a processor (See pages 64-66 of Chapter 4 titled Data processing wherein the Fortran programs are discussed. A computer processor was necessarily used.), wherein the magnetic field sensor and the electric field sensor each are connected to the processor, and the processor is configured to perform calculation to obtain tippers (See pages 11-12, 32, & 140.) according to the magnetic field response data, perform calculation to obtain impedance (See pages 22-26, 79-83, & elsewhere throughout the paper.), Cagniard apparent resistivity (See pages 64-65 of Chapter 4 titled Data processing wherein the Cagniard and apparent resistivities are disclosed being calculated. See Fig. 5.25.) and fitted apparent resistivity (See pages 64-65 of Chapter 4 titled Data processing wherein the Cagniard and apparent resistivities are disclosed being calculated. See also page 84 wherein the apparent resistivity is exclusively addressed. See Fig. 5.24) according to the magnetic field response data and the electric field response data, and perform inversion (See page 4 as highlighted below. See also page 140 highlighted below.) according to one or more kinds of data of the tippers, the fitted apparent resistivity, the impedance and the Cagniard apparent resistivity to obtain underground resistivity (See Abstract and the topic of this paper.). PNG media_image1.png 716 668 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 246 634 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 320 638 media_image3.png Greyscale PNG media_image4.png 842 608 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak teaches the electric field sensor is arranged outside an annulus of a receiving coil (See pages 1-2 wherein the two sensors are disclosed. The magnetometer has a coil and is necessarily outside of the electric field sensor.). Regarding claim 5, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak teaches the magnetic field response data is three-component magnetic field response data, and the electric field response data is two-component electric field response data (See page 30 highlighted below.). PNG media_image5.png 422 650 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak teaches the processor calculates fitted apparent resistivity on the basis of the horizontal electric field response data of a single x direction and the magnetic field response data of a single vertical component (See pages 64-65 of Chapter 4 titled Data processing wherein the Cagniard and apparent resistivities are disclosed being calculated. See Fig. 5.25.); the processor calculates impedance (See pages 22-26, 79-83, & elsewhere throughout the paper.) and Cagniard apparent resistivity in x and y directions on the basis of the electric field response data in a horizontal direction and the magnetic field response data in the horizontal direction (See pages 64-65 of Chapter 4 titled Data processing wherein the Cagniard and apparent resistivities are disclosed being calculated. See Fig. 5.25.); and the processor calculates tippers on the basis of the magnetic field response data utilizing three components (See pages 11-12, 32, & 140.). Regarding claim 7, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak teaches the electric field sensor is a spherical capacitive electric field sensor or a box type capacitive electric field sensor (Pages 1 & 2 of introduction reproduced below wherein a voltmeter is a box with capacitors.). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 8, 13-15, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojniak (Wojniak, Wayne Stanley. "A magnetotelluric sounding at the Tucson magnetic and seismological observatory." (1979).) in view of Zhang et al (Zhang, Jifeng, Rihua Huang, and Bing Feng. "A synthetic aperture for land controlled-source electromagnetic surveys." Journal of Applied Geophysics 174 (2020): 103945.). Regarding claim 8, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak does not explicitly teach an apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claims 1. Zhang teaches an apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claims 1 (See Introduction page 2 column 2.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Wojniak such that an apparent resistivity measuring method uses a semi-airborne electromagnetic method because this a well-know, reliable technique which allows one to gather subsurface imaging information. Regarding claim 13, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak teaches the electric field sensor is a spherical capacitive electric field sensor or a box type capacitive electric field sensor (Pages 1 & 2 of introduction reproduced below wherein a voltmeter is a box with capacitors.). Wojniak does not explicitly teach the apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 4. Zhang teaches the apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 4 (See Introduction page 2 column 2.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Wojniak such that an apparent resistivity measuring method uses a semi-airborne electromagnetic method because this a well-know, reliable technique which allows one to gather subsurface imaging information. Regarding claim 14, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak teaches the electric field sensor is a spherical capacitive electric field sensor or a box type capacitive electric field sensor (Pages 1 & 2 of introduction reproduced below wherein a voltmeter is a box with capacitors.). Wojniak does not explicitly teach the apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 5. Zhang teaches the apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 5 (See Introduction page 2 column 2.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Wojniak such that an apparent resistivity measuring method uses a semi-airborne electromagnetic method because this a well-know, reliable technique which allows one to gather subsurface imaging information. Regarding claim 15, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak teaches wherein the electric field sensor is a spherical capacitive electric field sensor or a box type capacitive electric field sensor (Pages 1 & 2 of introduction reproduced below wherein a voltmeter is a box with capacitors.). Wojniak does not explicitly teach the apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 6. Zhang teaches the apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 6 (See Introduction page 2 column 2.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Wojniak such that an apparent resistivity measuring method uses a semi-airborne electromagnetic method because this a well-know, reliable technique which allows one to gather subsurface imaging information. Regarding claim 18, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak does not explicitly teach an apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 4. Zhang teaches an apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 4 (See Introduction page 2 column 2.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Wojniak such that an apparent resistivity measuring method uses a semi-airborne electromagnetic method because this a well-know, reliable technique which allows one to gather subsurface imaging information. Regarding claim 19, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak does not explicitly teach an apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 5. Zhang teaches apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 5 (See Introduction page 2 column 2.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Wojniak such that an apparent resistivity measuring method uses a semi-airborne electromagnetic method because this a well-know, reliable technique which allows one to gather subsurface imaging information. Regarding claim 20, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak does not explicitly teach an apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 6. Zhang teaches an apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 6 (See Introduction page 2 column 2.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Wojniak such that an apparent resistivity measuring method uses a semi-airborne electromagnetic method because this a well-know, reliable technique which allows one to gather subsurface imaging information. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-3, 9-12, & 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant. Regarding claim 2, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak does not explicitly teach the electric field sensor comprises: a sensing unit comprising two capacitance modules symmetrically distributed and having the same size, wherein capacitance is calculated by measuring voltages of the two capacitance modules, and the electric field response data is calculated and obtained by means of the capacitance; and a readout unit comprising an integration module and an amplifier, wherein the integration module is configured to condition a frequency response curve of the electric field sensor into a flat straight line. Regarding claim 3, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak does not explicitly teach the electric field sensor further comprises: a gyroscope for detecting an attitude deflection angle of the electric field sensor. Regarding claim 9, The apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 8, comprising acquiring magnetic field response data; acquiring electric field response data; and performing calculation to obtain tippers according to the magnetic field response data, performing calculation to obtain impedance, Cagniard apparent resistivity and fitted apparent resistivity according to the magnetic field response data and the electric field response data, and performing inversion according to one or more kinds of data of the tippers, the fitted apparent resistivity, the impedance and the Cagniard apparent resistivity to obtain underground resistivity. Regarding claim 10, The apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 9, comprising acquiring the three-component magnetic field response data; acquiring the two-component electric field response data; calculating fitted apparent resistivity on the basis of horizontal electric field response data of a single x direction and magnetic field response data of a single vertical component; calculating impedance and Cagniard apparent resistivity in both x and y directions on the basis of the electric field response data in a horizontal direction and the magnetic field response data in the horizontal direction; calculating tippers on the basis of the magnetic field response data utilizing three components; and performing inversion according to one or more kinds of data of the tippers, the fitted apparent resistivity, the impedance and the Cagniard apparent resistivity to obtain underground resistivity. Regarding claim 11, The apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 2, wherein the electric field sensor is a spherical capacitive electric field sensor or a box type capacitive electric field sensor. Regarding claim 12, Wojniak teaches all elements of claim 3, upon which this claim depends. Wojniak does not explicitly teach the apparent resistivity measuring system using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method according to claim 3, wherein the electric field sensor is a spherical capacitive electric field sensor or a box type capacitive electric field sensor. Regarding claim 16, An apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 2. Regarding claim 17, An apparent resistivity measuring method using a semi-airborne electromagnetic method, wherein measurement is performed by using the measuring system according to claim 3. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30. 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 on 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. /CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601796
PHASE DIFFERENCE MEASUREMENT DEVICE, MEASUREMENT METHOD, AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596141
QUANTUM ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12578368
ROTATION MECHANISM FOR MEASURING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571753
END-OF-LIFE SENSORS FOR FABRICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571828
SOLID STATE ELECTRIC FIELD SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 957 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month