Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/575,405

QUICKSAND AMOUNT OBSERVATION SYSTEM, QUICKSAND AMOUNT OBSERVATION APPARATUS, QUICKSAND AMOUNT OBSERVATION METHOD, AND COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Examiner
BREIER, KRYSTINE E
Art Unit
3645
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
421 granted / 515 resolved
+29.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
529
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§103
51.1%
+11.1% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 515 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartog (2013/0092371) in view of Webster (WO 2016/026815) and Jin (2019/0301276). With respect to claim 1, Hartog teaches a metal tube laid in natural setting ([0038], lines 13-14); an optical fiber cable that is passed through the metal tube ([0038], line 13); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions ([0040], lines 8-9) to: emit a light pulse to the optical fiber cable ([0029], lines 1-2; [0030, lines 3-4; [0039], lines 9-10) and receive, from the optical fiber cable, a back-scattered light generated when the emitted light pulse is transmitted ([0029], lines 2-3, 13-14; [0030], lines 7-10; [0040], lines 3, 6-8); detect a hitting sound generated by hitting of quicksand against the metal tube on the basis of a change in characteristics of the received back-scattered light ([0043], lines 10-15); and calculate a quicksand amount on the basis of characteristics of the detected hitting sound ([0045], lines 8-13; [0047]-[0048]). However, it does not teach specifically laying the metal tube in a river, detecting a sound pressure of the hitting sound; calculating on the basis of the sound pressure of the detected hitting sound and the preset correspondence relationship between the sound pressure of the of the hitting sound and the quicksand amount; and at least one memory storing instructions. Hartog teaches laying the cable in an “earth formation” ([0055], lines 11) along with many variations of disposition, including near water and water/sand ([0048]; [0083]). 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 system of Hartog to be utilized in a river situation since such a modification would fall within the scope of an earth formation and would be easily adapted for river monitoring specifically. Webster teaches detecting a sound pressure of the hitting sound ([0014], lines 9-13); and determining characteristics of a formation based on a sound pressure of the hitting wave ([0014], lines 17-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hartog with the sound pressure detection and use of Weber since such a modification would have allowed for the quick and relatively use of off the shelf programs for fiber optics. Jin teaches at least one memory storing instructions to perform a fiber optic cable data processing method ([0070]). 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 system of Hartog with the memory of Jin because it would allow for the processor to operate efficiently and perform the required steps as desired. With respect to claim 6, Hartog teaches at least one processor configured to execute the instructions ([0040], lines 8-9) to: acquire the result of a detection of a hitting sound generated by hitting of quicksand against a metal tube laid in a earth formation ([0038], lines 13-14) on the basis of a change in characteristics of the received back-scattered light ([0043], lines 10-15); and calculate a quicksand amount on the basis of characteristics of backscattered light received from an optical cable that is passed through the metal tube ([0029], lines 2-3, 13-14; [0030], lines 7-10; [0040], lines 3, 6-8 [0045], lines 8-13; [0047]-[0048]). However, it does not teach specifically laying the metal tube in a river, detecting a sound pressure of the hitting sound; calculating on the basis of the sound pressure of the detected hitting sound and the preset correspondence relationship between the sound pressure of the of the hitting sound and the quicksand amount; and at least one memory storing instructions. Hartog teaches laying the cable in an “earth formation” ([0055], lines 11) along with many variations of disposition, including near water and water/sand ([0048]; [0083]). 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 system of Hartog to be utilized in a river situation since such a modification would fall within the scope of an earth formation and would be easily adapted for river monitoring specifically. Webster teaches detecting a sound pressure of the hitting sound ([0014], lines 9-13); and determining characteristics of a formation based on a sound pressure of the hitting wave ([0014], lines 17-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hartog with the sound pressure detection and use of Weber since such a modification would have allowed for the quick and relatively use of off the shelf programs for fiber optics. Jin teaches at least one memory storing instructions to perform a fiber optic cable data processing method ([0070]). 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 system of Hartog with the memory of Jin because it would allow for the processor to operate efficiently and perform the required steps as desired. With respect to claim 11, Hartog teaches acquiring the result of a detection of a hitting sound generated by hitting of quicksand against a metal tube laid in a earth formation ([0038], lines 13-14) on the basis of a change in characteristics of the received back-scattered light ([0043], lines 10-15); and calculating a quicksand amount on the basis of characteristics of backscattered light received from an optical cable that is passed through the metal tube ([0029], lines 2-3, 13-14; [0030], lines 7-10; [0040], lines 3, 6-8 [0045], lines 8-13; [0047]-[0048]). However, it does not teach specifically laying the metal tube in a river, detecting a sound pressure of the hitting sound; calculating on the basis of the sound pressure of the detected hitting sound and the preset correspondence relationship between the sound pressure of the of the hitting sound and the quicksand amount; and at least one memory storing instructions. Hartog teaches laying the cable in an “earth formation” ([0055], lines 11) along with many variations of disposition, including near water and water/sand ([0048]; [0083]). 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 system of Hartog to be utilized in a river situation since such a modification would fall within the scope of an earth formation and would be easily adapted for river monitoring specifically. Webster teaches detecting a sound pressure of the hitting sound ([0014], lines 9-13); and determining characteristics of a formation based on a sound pressure of the hitting wave ([0014], lines 17-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Hartog with the sound pressure detection and use of Weber since such a modification would have allowed for the quick and relatively use of off the shelf programs for fiber optics. Jin teaches at least one memory storing instructions to perform a fiber optic cable data processing method ([0070]). 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 system of Hartog with the memory of Jin because it would allow for the processor to operate efficiently and perform the required steps as desired. With respect to claims 3 and 8, Hartog teaches identifying a position on the optical fiber cable where the hitting sound is generated on the basis of the time difference between an emission time of the light pulse from the communication unit to the optical fiber cable and a reception time of a back-scattered light from the optical fiber cable ([0052], lines 5-8). With respect to claims 4 and 9, Hartog teaches in which a normal range of a sound pressure of a hitting sound or a normal range of a quicksand amount is preset ([0050], lines 10-18), is further configured to execute the instructions to detect that there is a change in conditions of the river basin when the sound pressure of the detected hitting sound or the calculated quicksand amount deviates from the normal range ([0050], lines 1-5). With respect to claims 5 and 10, Hartog as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach a display unit configured to display the detection status of a change in a river basin status at the generating position of the detected hitting sound while displaying a quicksand amount at the generating position of the detected. Jin teaches a display unit configured to display the detection status of a change in a river basin status at the generating position of the detected hitting sound while displaying a quicksand amount at the generating position of the detected ([0040], lines 1-2; [0041], lines 1-2; [0070]). 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 method of the Hartog with the display of Jin since such a modification would have aided the user in interpretation. 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. 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. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12571930
AUTONOMOUS DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566278
Method and Apparatus for Seismic Data Inversion
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560731
WORK FLOW BASED ACOUSTIC PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554033
AUTOMATED METHODS TO DETERMINE PROPERTIES OF LAMINATED RESERVOIR FORMATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12554031
QUALITY CONTROL AND PRECONDITIONING OF SEISMIC DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+8.5%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 515 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