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 Amendment
The amendment filed 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims 22 and 23 are new.
Claims 4-6, 16 and 19 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 12, 14-15 and 20-21 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 7-15, 17-18, and 20-23 are pending.
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 1-3,7-15,17-18 and 20-23 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.
The terms "wherein the randomized irregularly-spaced
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 1-3,7-15,17-18 and 20-23 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.
The terms "wherein the randomized irregularly-spaced …..that favors a deblending process" and "the randomized irregularly-spaced locations are chosen based on the deblending process" in claims 1 and 20-21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms wherein the randomized irregularly-spaced …..that favors a deblending process" and "the randomized irregularly-spaced locations are chosen based on the deblending process" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms do not have any clear boundaries and do not have any meaningful limitations as having any regular or irregularly spaced locations or any locations would read on the claim. Any change in location would affect deblending and would read on the claim. Indeed the very change in location would change the seismic path which would affect deblending. A person of ordinary skill would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim limitation in order to avoid infringement. The limitations do not meaningfully restrict the claim as it is unclear and arbitrary as what may favor deblending or what may be chosen based on the deblending or even what would be meant by random as any arbitrarily chosen location or routine optimization would read on the claim. There is no explanation or guidance on what is being meant by having locations based on or favoring a deblending process since any change in locations will change the data which will impact the deblending and as such any arbitrary location would read on the claim. Regarding applicants’ arguments against the 112(b) rejection it is pointed out that applicant’s claims being limited to “boosting randomization of interference that favors the deblending process” does not meaningfully restrict the claim. Any routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the design of the seismic survey would read on the claim as any change would change the interference that may or may not improve the deblending meaning the person would be adjusting various variables to obtain an improvement in deblending.
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 1-3, 7-15, 17-18, 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 20190187314 A1) in view of Ji (US 20190011588 A1) and Poole (US 12498500 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Hodges teaches pre-selecting a plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for shooting at least two seismic sources [Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations],….. comprising:
pre-selecting a first grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for a first seismic source of the at least two seismic sources[Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations];
and pre-selecting a second grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations for a second seismic source of the at least two seismic sources,…..; [Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations]
enabling shooting from the least two seismic sources at the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B 0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations]
and wherein the at least two seismic sources are on the one or more source vessels[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B on survey vessel #202],
and the at least two seismic sources include source technologies that differ from each other[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B; See also 0024 and claim 1];
measuring wavefields received from the at least two seismic sources[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has measuring two seismic sources];
associating energy from the wavefields generated by each of the at least two seismic sources with different seismic traces[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has receiving of signals between two seismic sources];
obtaining data from the different seismic traces that are equivalent to different datasets acquired in different surveys using the source technologies that differ from each other[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has separation two seismic sources];
displaying the obtained data from the different seismic traces[Abstract, Claims 1, 13 and 0074, 0078 has display];
and performing an action in response to the different seismic traces and/or the deblended [Abstract, 0048, claims 1 and 6 has adjustment based on signals]
Hodges does not explicitly teach to boost a randomization of interference that favors a deblending process…… wherein the second grid is more coarse than the first grid
Ji teaches that to boost a randomization of interference that favors a deblending process [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]
Poole teaches wherein the second grid is more coarse than the first grid[Abstract concerns deblending and Col 8, Lines 55-60 have different coarseness for different shots meaning shots based on the environment and moreover it would be arbitrary which is the first grid and which is the second since there is no difference in the claims or the specification concerning it]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the seismic survey method of Hodges with the deblending of Ji and different coarseness of Poole in order to use deblending and source separation to separate the signals. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified source time intervals and locations to optimize deblending, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Hodges teaches pre-selecting a plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for shooting at least two seismic sources,[Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations] …..comprising:
pre-selecting a first grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for a first seismic source of the at least two seismic sources[Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations];
and pre-selecting a second grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for a second seismic source of the at least two seismic sources, [Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations]…..;
pre-selecting a plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced time intervals for shooting the at least two seismic sources [Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations]…..;
enabling shooting signals from the at least two seismic sources at the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced time intervals at the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B 0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations],
wherein the at least two seismic sources are on one or more source vessels[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B on survey vessel #202],
the at least two seismic sources include source technologies that differ from each other[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B; See also 0024 and claim 1];…..
the source technologies include arrays of air guns[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A],
the source technologies include low-frequency technologies[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they generate low frequencies],
the source technologies include marine vibrators[Fig 2 has vibratory source #204B],
the first source of the at least two seismic sources emits signals with a pre-selected distribution of energy in frequency [Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they are different], and the second source of the at least two seismic sources emits signals at with a different distribution of energy in frequency from the pre-selected distribution of energy[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they are different], the first source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on the first grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations[0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations], the second source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on the second grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations[0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations], wherein the first source of the at least two seismic sources emits signals with energy distribution stronger at low frequency than the second source of the at least two seismic sources[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they are different],
one or more receivers are built in along streamers towed by the one or more source vessels[Fig 1, 2 has receivers #218],
and the one or more receivers are built in nodes that are deployed on a water body bottom[Fig 2 has receiver on bottom #238];
measuring wavefields received from the at least two seismic sources[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has measuring two seismic sources], wherein the first source of the at least two seismic sources is triggered before energy from the second source of the at least two seismic sources reaches receivers of the wavefields, generating blended seismic measurements from the wavefields, wherein the blended seismic measurements result from the shooting of different of the at least two seismic sources in a same time interval[0024, 0028 and 0035 has near simultaneous source meaning there may be time difference in activation and there is blended measurments];
associating energy from wavefields with different seismic traces[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has receiving of signals between two seismic sources];
obtaining data from the different seismic traces that are equivalent to different datasets acquired in different surveys using the source technologies that differ from each other, wherein the obtained data associated with source technologies that differ from each other provide complementary information about the seismic survey[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has separation two seismic sources];…..
displaying the obtained data from the different seismic traces[[Abstract, Claims 1, 13 and 0074, 0078 has display];
and performing an action in response to the different seismic traces and/or the deblended data. [Abstract, 0048, claims 1 and 6 has adjustment based on signals]
Hodges does not explicitly teach ,….. to boost a randomization of interference that favors a deblending process….. wherein the second grid is more coarse than the first grid ….. to boost the randomization of interference that favors the deblending process …..the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced time intervals and the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations are based on characteristics of the at least two seismic sources,
the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced time intervals and the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations are based on a cost of the seismic survey, …..
deblending the obtained data using the deblending process wherein the deblending process is based on characteristics of the wavefields, the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations are chosen based on the deblending process, and the deblending process is based on iterative source separation.
Poole teaches wherein the second grid is more coarse than the first grid[Abstract concerns deblending and Col 8, Lines 55-60 have different coarseness for different shots meaning shots based on the environment and moreover it would be arbitrary which is the first grid and which is the second since there is no difference in the claims or the specification concerning it]
Ji teaches, …..boost a randomization of interference that favors a deblending process [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]…..
the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced time intervals and the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations are based on characteristics of the at least two seismic sources [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation],
the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced time intervals and the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations are based on a cost of the seismic survey [0005 and 0140 has cost as a factor in the scenarios],…..
the first source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on a first grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations[0004 has different sources at different locations], the second source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on the second grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations[0004 has different sources at different locations],…..
deblending the obtained data using the deblending process [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]
wherein the deblending process is based on characteristics of the wavefields [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation],
the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations are chosen based on the deblending process, [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation],
and the deblending process is based on iterative source separation [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the seismic survey method of Hodges with the deblending of Ji and different coarseness of Poole in order to use deblending and source separation to separate the signals. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified source time intervals and locations to optimize deblending, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Hodges teaches pre-selecting a plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for shooting at least two seismic sources [Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations]…..comprising:
pre-selecting a first grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for a first seismic source of the at least two seismic sources[Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations];
and pre-selecting a second grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations for a second seismic source of the at least two seismic sources, [Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations]
enabling shooting from the at least two seismic sources at the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B 0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations] wherein the first source of the at least two seismic sources emits signals with a pre- selected distribution of energy in frequency 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they are different], and the second source of the at least two seismic sources emits signals at with a different distribution of energy in frequency from the pre-selected distribution of energy[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they are different], the first source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on the first grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations, [0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations] the second source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on second grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations, [0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations] wherein the first source of the at least two seismic sources emits signals with energy distribution stronger at low frequency than the second source of the at least two seismic sources, [Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they are different],
and wherein the at least two seismic sources are on the one or more source vessels[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B on survey vessel #202],
and the at least two seismic sources include source technologies that differ from each other[Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B; See also 0024 and claim 1];
measuring wavefields received from the at least two seismic sources [Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has measuring two seismic sources];
associating energy from the wavefields generated by each of the at least two seismic sources with different seismic traces[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has receiving of signals between two seismic sources];
obtaining data from the different seismic traces that are equivalent to different datasets acquired in different surveys using the source technologies that differ from each other[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has separation two seismic sources];
displaying the obtained data from the different seismic traces[Abstract, Claims 1, 13 and 0074, 0078 has display];
and performing an action in response to the different seismic traces and/or the obtained data. [Abstract, 0048, claims 1 and 6 has adjustment based on signals]
Hodges does not explicitly teach to boost a randomization of interference that favors a deblending process, ….. wherein the second grid is more coarse than the first grid ….. the one source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on a first grid of the pre-selected locations, the another source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on another grid of the pre-selected locations,
Ji teaches boost a randomization of interference that favors a deblending process [0004-0005 have various locations and 0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]
that the one source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on a first grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations [0004 has different sources at different locations], the another source of the at least two seismic sources being triggered on another grid of the plurality of randomized irregularly spaced locations [0004 has different sources at different locations],
Poole teaches wherein the second grid is more coarse than the first grid[Abstract concerns deblending and Col 8, Lines 55-60 have different coarseness for different shots meaning shots based on the environment and moreover it would be arbitrary which is the first grid and which is the second since there is no difference in the claims or the specification concerning it]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the seismic survey method of Hodges with the deblending of Ji and different coarseness of Poole in order to use deblending and source separation to separate the signals. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified source time intervals and locations to optimize deblending, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the plurality of time intervals are irregular. [0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations].
Regarding claim 3, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the plurality of time intervals are randomized. [0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations].
Regarding claim 7, Hodges, does not explicitly teach wherein the deblending process comprises iterative source separation techniques. [0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]
Ji teaches wherein the deblending process comprises iterative source separation techniques. [0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the seismic survey method of Hodges with the deblending and iterative source separation of Ji in order to use deblending and iterating source separation to separate the signals.
Regarding claim 8, Hodges, does not explicitly further comprising using properties of the wavefields in the deblending process.
Ji teaches further comprising using properties of the wavefields in the deblending process. [0066 and claims 1 and 16 have iterative process for deblending and source separation]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the seismic survey method of Hodges with the deblending of Ji in order to use deblending to separate the signals.
Regarding claim 9, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the source technologies comprise arrays of air guns. [Fig 2 has airgun source #204A]
Regarding claim 10, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the source technologies comprise low-frequency source technologies. [Fig 2 has airgun source #204A and vibratory source #204B meaning they generate low frequencies].
Regarding claim 11, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the source technologies comprise marine vibrators. [Fig 2 has vibratory source #204B].
Regarding claim 12, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein first source of the at least two seismic sources is triggered before energy from the second source of the at least two seismic sources reaches receivers of the wavefields, generating blended seismic measurements. [0024, 0028 and 0035 has near simultaneous source meaning there may be time difference in activation and there is blended measurements. See also 0025].
Regarding claim 13, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the obtained data associated with source technologies that differ from each other provide complementary information about the seismic survey. [Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has separation two seismic sources].
Regarding claim 14, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations are configured to facilitate imaging and interpretation of the obtained data from each of the source technologies. [0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations].
Regarding claim 15, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein the plurality of randomized irregularly-spaced locations are configured to affect a cost of the seismic survey. [0024, Claim 1 has them fired at spatial and/or temporal intervals meaning time intervals and locations].
Regarding claim 17, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein one or more receivers are built in along streamers towed by the one or more source vessels. [Fig 1, 2 has receivers #218]
Regarding claim 18, Hodges, as modified teaches that wherein one or more receivers are built in nodes that are deployed on a water body bottom. [Fig 2 has receiver on bottom #238].
Regarding claim 23, Hodges, as modified teaches wherein the action comprises performing an additional survey, selecting a location to drill a wellbore, drilling the wellbore, or any combination thereof.[Abstract, 0048, claims 1 and 6 has adjustment based on signals. Moreover this appears to be an intended use and does not carry much patentable weight]
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges (US 20190187314 A1) in view of Ji (US 20190011588 A1) and Poole (US 12498500 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hapson (US 20230367027 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Hodges, as modified teaches ….. And associating energy from the wavefields generated by each of the at least two seismic sources mapped in the …..with different seismic traces.[Fig 2 and 0025 and claims 1, 6 has receiving of signals between two seismic sources]
Hodges does not explicitly teach mapping the wavefields in sparsity-promoting domain;
Hapson teaches mapping the wavefields in sparsity-promoting domain[0056 and 0063 has data in sparsity promoting domain]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have modified the seismic survey method of Hodges with the sparsity promoting domain of Hapson in order to efficiently solve the equations. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified wavefields to sparsity promoting domains to optimize deblending, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Regarding applicants arguments concerning the 112(a) rejections that support is found in para 0027, 0029, 0081 and 0093 do not offer any meaningful guidance as it simply reads that it can be done without explaining how. Applicant is reading the rejection overly narrowly and their own specification overly broadly. It simply says it is possible based on technical constraints and that it is being done with the goal of deblending in mind. Read another way applicant is simply stating that a person of ordinary skill is implementing routine optimization and design and is attempting to claim the same
Regarding applicants’ arguments against the 112(b) rejection it is pointed out that applicant’s claims being limited to “boosting randomization of interference that favors the deblending process” does not meaningfully restrict the claim. Any routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the design of the seismic survey would read on the claim as any change would change the interference that may or may not improve the deblending meaning the person would be adjusting various variables to obtain an improvement in deblending.
Regarding applicants arguments against the 103 rejection, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is reading the prior art overly narrowly as the prior art of having different sources would result in different signals which have various locations with interference that affects deblending process. This would read on applicant’s broad claims as applicant is claiming having different sources and interference in order to improve deblending. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified source time intervals and locations to optimize deblending, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Rejections are maintained – and no allowable subject matter can be identified at this time.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKAS NMN ATMAKURI whose telephone number is (571)272-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-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.
/VIKAS ATMAKURI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights