DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment filed 01/19/2026 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: There is nowhere in the application as filed which mentions “wherein, in use, the first and second regions are inserted into the soil below a soil surface such that the generated seismic wave signal is transmitted from the second region through the soil to the first region” as required by the claim limitation added in the amendment as filed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Furthermore the added limitation is taught by secondary reference Nelson, referenced in the previous office action and discussed below.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 13, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krumhansl (2011/0103186) in view of Nelson (5432305).
With respect to claim 1, Krumhansl discloses a body for insertion into the soil ([0042], lines 6-7; [0050], line 2), a seismic sensor located at a first region of the body ([0041], lines 2-3; [0050], line 3; [0055], line 5-6); and a seismic generator located at a second region of the body for emitting seismic signals ([0041], line 2), wherein the seismic generator comprises a hammer ([0057], line 8), a biasing member for biasing the hammer into contact with a surface ([0057, lines 11-14), and an actuator operable to move the hammer against the bias away from the surface to a primed position and to release the hammer from the primed position for impacting the surface to generate a seismic wave signal ([0057, lines 17-18). However, it does not teach wherein, in use, the first and second regions are inserted into the soil below a soil surface such that the generated seismic wave signal is transmitted from the second region through the soil to the first region.
Nelson teaches wherein, in use, the first and second regions are inserted into the soil below a soil surface (Fig 3) such that the generated seismic wave signal is transmitted from the second region (Col 3, lines 57-58) through the soil (Col 3, lines 58-60) to the first region (Col 3, lines 60-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the probe of Krumhansl with the underground positioning of Nelson since the modification would have allowed the user more control of the area of the subsurface which is imaged.
With respect to claim 2, Krumhansl teaches the body comprises a tubular housing ([0055], line 1).
With respect to claim 8, Krumhansl teaches the surface is an interior surface of the body ([0057], lines 16-17).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Krumhansl teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach a damper mounted to one of the hammer and the surface for damping vibrations generated when the hammer impacts the surface and one or more damper elements between sections of the body for damping vibrations transmitted therethrough.
Nelson teaches a damper mounted to one of the hammer and the surface for damping vibrations generated when the hammer impacts the surface (Col 3, lines 40-43) and one or more damper elements between sections of the body for damping vibrations transmitted therethrough (Col 3, lines 40-43).
With respect to claim 15, Krumhansl teaches wherein the body comprises a detachable coupling operable for detaching the first region of the body from the second region for separating the seismic sensor from the seismic generator ([[0053]-[0054]).
With respect to claim 16, Krumhansl teaches a controller for controlling the actuator to move the hammer to the primed position and then to release it for impacting the surface to generate a seismic wave signal and for receiving input signals received by the seismic sensor ([0061]).
With respect to claim 17, Krumhansl teaches inserting the seismic soil probe into soil ([0057], lines 5-7); generating seismic wave signals by controlling the actuator to repeatedly move and release the hammer to impact the surface ([0057], lines 7-18); and detecting the seismic wave signals as the seismic soil probe is moved through different depths of soil ([0059], lines 1-3). However, it does not teach the first and second regions are inserted into the soil below a soil surface such that the generated seismic wave signal is transmitted from the second region through the soil to the first region.
Nelson teaches the first and second regions are inserted into the soil below a soil surface (Fig 3) such that the generated seismic wave signal is transmitted from the second region (Col 3, lines 57-58) through the soil (Col 3, lines 58-60) to the first region (Col 3, lines 60-61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the probe of Krumhansl with the underground positioning of Nelson since the modification would have allowed the user more control of the area of the subsurface which is imaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 9-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
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 KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645