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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 objected to because of the following informalities: “at least a” It appears that “a” should be “one”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “a detected subsurface material layers” in lines 14-15. It appears that “a” should not be there. 2) “pf” in line 19. It appears that it should be “of”. 3) “a Fresnel equation calculations” in line 25. It appears that “a” should not be there. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 2 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “at a channel defined frequency and a corresponding bandwidth” in claim 2 lines 2-3 and claim 14 lines 4-5, respectively. It appears that it is the same as the “at a predetermined frequency with a specified bandwidth” mentioned in claim 1 lines 3-4 and claim 13 line 5. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: “at least a high speed analog-to-digital converters” in lines 2-3. It appears that “a” should be “one” and “converters” should be “converter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “4D” in line 2. The acronym 4D should be accompanied by the language it represents when first introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “GPS/IMU” in line 3. The acronyms GPS and IMU should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “producing at least a electromagnetic waves” in line 3. It appears that “a” should be “one” and “waves” should be “wave”. 2) “at least a orthogonally-polarized electromagnetic waves” in lines 4-5. It appears that “a” should be “one” and “waves” should be “wave”. 3) “at least,” in line 16. It appears that it should be “, at least one of:”. 4) “a environmental” in line 18. It appears that “a” should be “an”. 5) “the reflected waves” in lines 1-2 from bottom. It appears that “electromagnetic” is missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “an at least anti-aliasing filters” in lines 2-3. It appears that it should be “at least one anti-aliasing filter”. 2) “ at least a high-speed analog-to-digital converters” in lines 3-4. It appears that “a” should be “one” and “converters” should be “converter”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “at least a nearest neighbor search methods” in lines 3-4. It appears that it should be “at least one nearest neighbor search method”. 2) “at least a subsequent layer properties” in line 6. It appears that it should be “at least one subsequent layer property”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: “at least a temperature control circuits” in line 2. It appears that “a” should be “one” and “circuits” should be “circuit”.
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 1-18 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. “lexicographic imaging based on full polarization analysis” in claim 1 line 1 from bottom, claim 7 line 2 from bottom, and claim 13 lines 1-2 from bottom. “lexicographic imaging” is mentioned in the applicant’s specification paragraphs [0021] and [0041] without describing that what “lexicographic imaging” is and “lexicographic imaging” is not a term of the art. “full polarization analysis” is mentioned in the applicant’s specification paragraphs [0005], [0021] and [0041] without describing that what “full polarization analysis” is, what “full polarization analysis” include, and “full polarization” is not a term of the art.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-6 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claims 8-12 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 7 because each of dependent claims 8-12 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 7.
Claims 14-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13 because each of dependent claims 14-18 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 13.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: 1) "the transmitted waves" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “transmitted waves” is not mentioned. 2) “a detected subsurface material layers” in lines 14-15. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a detected subsurface material layers” in lines 14-15 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 3) “calculate the dielectric permittivity, conductivity, wavelength, and skin depth for the each detected material layer” in lines 15-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because: i) “dielectric permittivity, conductivity, wavelength, and skin depth” are not mentioned; ii) “each detected material layer” is not mentioned. 4) “the parameter estimation calculations” in line 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “parameter estimation calculations” is not mentioned. 5) “the processed reflection data and calculated electromagnetic parameters” in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “processed reflection data” is not mentioned and it is not clear what are “calculated electromagnetic parameters”. 6) “a Fresnel equation calculations” in line 25. It is indefinite because it is not clear that “a Fresnel equation calculations” in line 25 should be “a Fresnel equation calculation” or “Fresnel equation calculations”. 7) “parameter estimation” in line 26. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “parameter estimation” in line 26 relates to the “the parameter estimation calculations” mentioned in line 19-20. 8) “multiple material layers” in line 30. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “multiple material layers” in line 30 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 9) “reflected waves” in line 30. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “reflected waves” in line 30 relates to the “reflected electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 8. 10) “the material layers” in line 31. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “multiple material layers” in line 30 and the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2 “the material layers” in line 31 represents. 11) “the each layer” in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “each layer” is not mentioned. It is not clear whether or not “the each layer” in line 32 relates to “the each detected material layer” mentioned in lines 16-17. 12) “subsurface media” in line 33. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “subsurface media” in line 33 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 13) “electromagnetic parameters” in line 2 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “electromagnetic parameters” mentioned in line 22. 14) “lexicographic imaging based on full polarization analysis” in line 1 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear what “lexicographic imaging” is and what “full polarization analysis” is and/or include. “lexicographic imaging” is not a term of the art. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-6 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the received signals” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received signals” is not mentioned. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: 1) “k2 = Pp2/(tplrp2tp3)” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “k2 = Pp2/(tplrp2tp3)” in line 2 represents, what operation the “k2 = Pp2/(tplrp2tp3)” performs, and what parameters are included. 2) “
PNG
media_image1.png
40
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “
PNG
media_image1.png
40
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” in line 3 represents, what operation the “
PNG
media_image1.png
40
162
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” performs, and what parameters are included. 3) “conductivity and permittivity” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “conductivity and permittivity” in line 3 relates to the “the dielectric permittivity, conductivity” mentioned in claim 1 lines 15-16. 4) “phase shift” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “phase shift” in line 4 relates to the “a total accumulated phase shift” mentioned in line 2. 5) “two-way path loss” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “two-way path loss” in line 4 relates to the “a two-way path loss” mentioned in lines 1-2. 6) “a skin depth of each medium” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a skin depth of each medium” in line 5 relates to the “skin depth for the each detected material layer” mentioned in claim 1 lines 16-17. 7) “α2 and β2 parameters” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “α2 and β2 parameters” represent. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitations: 1) “multiple material layers” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “multiple material layers” in line 7 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 3) “electromagnetic waves” in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “electromagnetic waves” in line 9 relates to the “electromagnetic waves” in line 5. 4) "the transmitted waves" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “transmitted waves” is not mentioned. 5) “the detected subsurface material layers” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “detected subsurface material layers” is not mentioned. And it is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not “the detected subsurface material layers” in line 14 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 6) “calculating, for each detected material layer at least, a dielectric permittivity, a conductivity, a wavelength, and a skin depth” in lines 16-17. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “a dielectric permittivity, a conductivity, a wavelength, and a skin depth” is calculated. 7) “the processed reflection data and calculated electromagnetic parameters” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “processed reflection data” is not mentioned and it is not clear when “calculated electromagnetic parameters” is performed. 8) “the signal transmission and reception” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “signal transmission and reception” is not mentioned. 9) “the environmental sensor data collection” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “environmental sensor data collection” is not mentioned. It is not clear whether “the environmental sensor data collection” in line 23 represents the “collecting a environmental calibration data” mentioned in line 18. 10) “parameter estimation” in line 27. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “parameter estimation” in line 27 relates to the “electromagnetic parameters” mentioned in line 20. 11) “each material layer” in line 30. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each material layer” in line 30 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 12) “the processed reflected waves” in lines 30-31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “processed reflected waves” is not mentioned. 12) “subsurface media” in line 32. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “subsurface media” in line 33 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 13) “electromagnetic parameters” in line 33. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “electromagnetic parameters” in line 33 relates to the “electromagnetic parameters” mentioned in line 20. 14) “lexicographic imaging based on full polarization analysis” in line 2 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear what “lexicographic imaging” is and what “full polarization analysis” is and/or include. “lexicographic imaging” is not a term of the art. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 8-12 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 7 because each of dependent claims 8-12 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitations: 1) “spiral estimation” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “spiral estimation” in line 2 relates to the “spiral estimation” mentioned in claim 7 line 15. 2) “boundaries between media” in line 3. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “media” in line 3 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in claim 7 lines 1-2; ii) it is not clear whether or not the “boundaries” in line 3 relates to the “subsurface layer boundaries” mentioned in claim 7 line 9. 3) “each medium” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each medium” in line 4 relates to the “media” in mentioned line 3. 4) “measured complex signal powers” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear when/where/how the “complex signal powers” in line 5 is measured. 5) “the electromagnetic properties of subsequent layers” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “the electromagnetic properties of subsequent layers” in line 6 relates to the “electromagnetic properties of the detected subsurface material layers” mentioned in claim 7 line 14. 6) “the calculated ratios and coefficients” in lines 6-7. It is indefinite because: i) “calculated ratios” is not mentioned and only one “ratio” is calculated as indicated in line 2; ii) it is not clear which one of the “reflection coefficients” mentioned in line 2 and the “reflection and transmission coefficients” mentioned in claim 7 lines 25-26 the “coefficients” in line 7 represents. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitations: 1) “calculating the electromagnetic parameters” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “calculating the electromagnetic parameters” in “The method”. 2) “a wavelength” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a wavelength” in line 2 relates to the “a wavelength” mentioned in claim 7 in line 17. 3) “the electromagnetic wave” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “at least a electromagnetic waves” and the “at least a orthogonally-polarized electromagnetic waves”, “reflected electromagnetic waves”, “the transmitted waves” mentioned in claim 7 lines 3, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11 “the electromagnetic wave” in line 2 represents. 4) “each medium” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each medium” in lines 2-3 relates to the “subsurface media” mentioned in claim 7 line 4 from bottom. 5) “
PNG
media_image2.png
30
111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “
PNG
media_image2.png
30
111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” in line 3 represents, what operation the “
PNG
media_image2.png
30
111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” performs, and what parameters are included. 6) “transmitted and received responses” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “responses” is not mentioned and it is clear when/where/how “transmitted and received responses” is generated. 7) “a depth of each medium” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a depth of each medium” in line 4 relates to the “a skin depth” in “calculating, for each detected material layer at least, a dielectric permittivity, a conductivity, a wavelength, and a skin depth” mentioned in claim 7 lines 16-17. 8) “determined wavelength” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “determined wavelength” in line 5 relates to the “a wavelength” mentioned in line 2 or the “a wavelength” mentioned in claim 7 in line 17. 9) “the medium” in line 6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not “the medium” in line 6 represents the “each medium” mentioned in lines 2-3. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 10 recites the limitations: 1) “rp and rs” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear what “rp” and “rs” represent. 2) “parallel and perpendicular polarizations” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “parallel and perpendicular polarizations” in lines 2-3 relates to the “parallel and perpendicular polarizations” mentioned in claim 7 line 10. 3) “tp and ts” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what “tp” and “ts” represent. 4) “parallel and perpendicular polarizations” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “parallel and perpendicular polarizations” in lines 3-4 relates to the “parallel and perpendicular polarizations” in lines 2-3. 5) “layer boundaries” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “layer boundaries” in line 5 relates to the “subsurface layer boundaries” mentioned in claim 7 line 9. 6) “the ratio of reflection coefficients across each boundary” in lines 5-6. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “reflection coefficients” in line 5 relates to the “ reflection and transmission coefficients” mentioned in claim 7 lines 25-26; ii) it is not clear whether or not the “each boundary” in line 6 relates to the “layer boundaries” mentioned in line 5. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 11 recites the limitations: 1) “the received signals” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received signals” is not mentioned. 2) “orthogonal polarization channels” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “orthogonal polarization channels” in line 4 related to in “The method”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 12 recites the limitations: 1) “a skin depth for each medium” in line 2. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “a skin depth” in line 2 relates to the “a skin depth” mentioned in claim 7 in line 17; ii) it is not clear whether or not the “each medium” in line 2 relates to the “subsurface media” mentioned in claim 7 line 4 from bottom or relates to the “each detected material layer” mentioned in claim 7 line 16. 2) “a determined attenuation constant α and propagation constant β” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear when/where/how the “attenuation constant α and propagation constant β” is determined in “The method”. 3) “conductivity and permittivity” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “conductivity and permittivity” in lines 3-4 relates to the “a dielectric permittivity, a conductivity” mentioned in claim 7 line 16. 4) “a ratio of phase shift to logarithmic path loss” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “phase shift” and the “path loss” related to. 5) “path loss” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “path loss” in line 5 relates to the “path loss” in line 4. 6) “measured complex signal power magnitude” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear when/where/how the “complex signal power magnitude” is measured. 7) “at least a layer-specific electromagnetic parameter profiles” in lines 5-6. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “at least a layer-specific electromagnetic parameter profiles” in lines 5-6 represents at least one layer-specific electromagnetic parameter profile or represents layer-specific electromagnetic parameter profiles. 8) “dielectric permittivity, conductivity, wavelength, and skin depth.” in lines 6-7. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “dielectric permittivity, conductivity, wavelength, and skin depth” in lines 6-7 relates to the “a dielectric permittivity, a conductivity, a wavelength, and a skin depth” mentioned in claim 7 lines 16-17. And it is not clear whether or not the “permittivity, conductivity, wavelength, and skin depth” in lines 6-7 relates to the “conductivity and permittivity”, the “a skin depth” mentioned in lines 2-4. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 13 recites the limitations: 1) "the transmitted waves" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “transmitted waves” is not mentioned. 2) “detected subsurface material layers” in line 18. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “detected subsurface material layers” in line 18 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in lines 1-2. 3) “each detected material layer” in lines 19-20. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each detected material layer” in lines 19-20 relates to the “detected subsurface material layers” mentioned in line 18. 4) “processed reflection data and calculated electromagnetic parameters” in lines 23-24. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear when/where/how the “reflection data” is processed; ii) it is not clear what the “electromagnetic parameters” is calculated. 5) “electromagnetic waves” in line 31. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “electromagnetic waves” in line 31 relates to the “electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 5. 6) “multiple material layers” in line 32. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “multiple material layers” in line 32 relates to the “multiple material layers” mentioned in in lines 1-2. 7) “reflected waves” in line 32. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “reflected electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 10. 8) “each layer” in line 34. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “multiple material layers” in line 32 and the “multiple material layers” mentioned in in lines 1-2 “each layer” in line 34 related to. 9) “subsurface media” in line 3 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “subsurface media” in 3 from bottom relates to the “subsurface material” mentioned in line 18. 10) “electromagnetic parameters” in line 2 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “electromagnetic parameters” in line 2 from bottom relates to the “electromagnetic parameters” mentioned in line 24. 11) “lexicographic imaging based on full polarization analysis” in lines 1-2 from bottom. It is indefinite because it is not clear what “lexicographic imaging” is and what “full polarization analysis” is and/or include. “lexicographic imaging” is not a term of the art. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 14-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13 because each of dependent claims 14-18 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “transmission channels” in lines 3-4. It is indefinite because it is not clear how the “transmission channels” in lines 3-4 relates to “The apparatus”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitations: 1) “an at least anti-aliasing filters” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “an at least anti-aliasing filters” in lines 2-3 represents a anti-aliasing filter or at least one anti-aliasing filter. 2) “a specified bandwidth” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a specified bandwidth” in line 3 relates to the “a specified bandwidth” mentioned in claim 13 line 5. 3) “the received signals” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received signals” is not mentioned. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 16 recites the limitations: 1) “the ratio rp1/rs1” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “rp1” and the “rs1” represent. 2) “a first boundary” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a first boundary” in lines 2-3 relates to the “subsurface layer boundaries” mentioned in claim 13 lines 10 and/or the “ boundaries between the material layers” mentioned in claim 13 lines 4-5 from bottom. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 18 recites the limitations: 1) “a wavelength of electromagnetic waves in each medium” in line 2. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “a wavelength” in line 2 relates to the “wavelength” mentioned in claim 13 line 19; ii) it is not clear whether or not the “each medium” in line 2 relates to the “subsurface media” mentioned in claim 13 line 3 from bottom or relates to the “each detected material layer” mentioned in claim 13 lines 19-20. 3) “
PNG
media_image3.png
35
116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “
PNG
media_image2.png
30
111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” in line 2 represents, what operation the “
PNG
media_image2.png
30
111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” performs, and what parameters are included. 4) “
PNG
media_image4.png
32
201
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “
PNG
media_image4.png
32
201
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” in line 3 represents, what operation the “
PNG
media_image4.png
32
201
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” performs, and what parameters are included. 5) “
PNG
media_image5.png
32
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “
PNG
media_image5.png
32
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” in line 4 represents, what operation the “
PNG
media_image5.png
32
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” performs, and what parameters are included. 6) “a skin depth of each medium” in lines 4-5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a skin depth of each medium” in lines 4-5 relates to the “skin depth for each detected material layer” mentioned in claim 13 lines 19-20. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights