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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 12/5/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The declaration filed 12/5/2025 is acknowledged.
With regard to the declaration,
Note: While the declaration is addressed below, the Examiner respectfully notes that the declaration does not reasonably address the specific issues previously raised, and instead presents arguments pertaining to why the declarant believes written description exists.
As to page 3,
On first note, applicant references paragraph numbers, but no such numbers are present in the original disclosure. This response presumes that this declaration refers to the paragraph numbers of the published application.
Here, it is argued that the phrase “ideal function representing an ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil defined by the rectangular wave pulse signal” is supported in Figure 3 and in various paragraphs from the disclosure. However, at no point does the declaration reasonably identify what the ideal function is in light of the disclosure. The declaration initially notes that ideal current waveform in Figure 3B, but this waveform is not rectangular. The declaration then references other features such as an error, but it does not reasonably explain which of these features is the ideal function. Whether an error can correspond to a current having characteristics, such as those argued from Figure 3E, does not reasonably identify an ideal function.
The Examiner raised specific issues regarding the ideal function, such as how the original disclosure expressly states that the ideal transmitter function is M(s) = k/s, but why such an equation raises an issue. While it is unclear if this is the function intended as the ideal function as claimed, it is the only reasonably disclosed function. The declaration does not reasonably address the manner in which the equation itself is obtained, as at least one variable, k, is not reasonably defined in the disclosure. Whether the equation can be used or error values can be found does not reasonably explain what the actual ideal function is or the manner in which applicant obtains such a function. In short, this issue can be addressed by simply identifying what the ideal function is in the original disclosure, and if it is the above equation, demonstrating what these values are in the context of the original disclosure. The declaration does not reasonably identify or explain where in the original disclosure applicant explains the manner in which this ideal function is obtained. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Page 4,
The Examiner acknowledges the arguments and disclosure, but the issue remains to the extent that the ideal function, as claimed, has not been reasonably identified or explained. To the extent that the equation noted above is the ideal function, the equation is not reasonably explained as previously noted. As such, this issue is addressed simply by again identifying what the ideal function is in the disclosure, and if the above noted equation, then an explanation, within the four corners of the original disclosure, of what this equation is. The arguments presented do not reasonably expressly state what the ideal function is nor address the previously raised issue of certain unexplained elements necessary for the equation and why the equation itself raises an issue.
As to Page 5,
The Examiner respectfully notes that the previous issues pertaining to the phrase noted by the declaration were directed towards the use of the term “mimicking.” The declaration makes no mention of this term, and applicant has removed the term from the claims. As such, this issue is respectfully moot.
As to Page 6,
The Examiner respectfully notes that the previous rejection was in regard to applicant claiming a reference magnetic field, and not a first magnetic field. No issue was raised with regard to a first magnetic field, and the declaration does not address the use of the term “reference magnetic field.” While the digital processing unit may generate digital signals that constitute a reference for a magnetic field, this, respectfully, is not the same thing as a reference magnetic field.
As to Page 7,
Here the declaration again references the error signal and its relationship between the ideal function and the rectangular wave pulse signal. However, the issue being raised is solely directed towards what the ideal function of the claim is intended to be, and not the manner in which it is used in a mathematical operation. The declaration then states that the ideal function corresponds to a function that characterizes the ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil defined by the rectangular wave pulse signal and the manner which it can be used. However, the declaration does not reasonably explain where this is found in the original disclosure, why it must be interpreted in this manner, and what the relationship is between this ideal function and the ideal transmitter function equation noted above. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments, and notes that those amendments that overcome the previous rejections are withdrawn, and those that do not are repeated below. The declaration noted herein has been addressed above. For example, the declaration does not specifically identify what the ideal function is, and to the extent that it is the ideal transmitter function equation, it does not reasonably address the issues previously noted regarding this equation.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-8 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments, and notes that those amendments that overcome the previous rejections are withdrawn, and those that do not are repeated below. The declaration noted herein has been addressed above.
Applicant argues that the ideal sample should not be interpreted to be the same as the ideal function, but no further explanation is presented to demonstrate what the ideal sample is, as claimed, and why it is different than the ideal function. As such, the difference and relationship between the ideal sample and ideal function is unclear, and the rejection is repeated below. This issue is simply addressed by identifying what the ideal sample is and explaining why it is different than the ideal function.
With regard to the arguments on pages 8-9 directed towards the previous 112(d) rejections,
The Examiner acknowledges applicants argument pertaining to the previous raised issue under 112d, where applicant argues that by stating in a dependent claim “wherein A,” the scope is further limited by excluding apparatuses that have B and do not have A. However, this is precisely the issue being raised. While it is proper to further limit A, by claiming “wherein A,” applicant is excluding B. However, excluding a feature that was either required or at least an option found in a parent claim fails to include all limitations previously claimed, because such a claim removes option B as expressly noted by applicant. Removing option B is the same as removing a claim feature that was previously present in a parent claim, and would therefore not include all limitations found in a parent claim. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, and this issue is repeated.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-12 directed towards the previous 102 rejections in view of Heger et al. (Heger) (US 2008/0297158),
Applicant argues that Heger compares a received signal to a flat line in order to account for misalignment between the coils, and that the flat line is not an ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil that is defined by a rectangular wave pulse signal. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As best understood, what applicant’s invention is directed towards is the recognition that the actual waveform sent to the transmitter coil is not the actual waveform in the coil because parasitic effects alter the waveform in the transmitter coil. Applicant discloses the actual current sent to the transmitter coil in Figure 3A. In Figure 3B, applicant shows the ideal magnetic field that should be generated by the transmitter coil. In Figure 3C, applicant shows the actual magnetic field transmitted. As best understood, applicant obtains a difference between the actual magnetic field detected at the sensor (Figure 3C) and the ideal magnetic field in (Figure 3B) to obtain the signal in Figure 3D that is used to generate a feedback magnetic field to correct for the difference between these two magnetic fields. As such, while applicant refers to the ideal function as one representing an ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil, it is also the ideal magnetic field received at the sensor when no object is present, as they should be the exact same thing when no object is present. To that effect, in light of the disclosure, what applicant is claiming is that a magnetic field is detected by a sensor which provides an output representative of that magnetic field, and that output is compared against a signal representing an ideal or desired magnetic field. By claiming that the ideal function “represents” an ideal magnetic field, it is not required to be the actual current that would be expected for the ideal magnetic field, and instead, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that it is only required to represent such an ideal magnetic field in some manner.
Heger reasonably discloses such a claim feature. Like applicant, Heger also generates a rectangular waveform (601 in Figure 8A), which is in turn converted to the sinusoidal signal (602 in Figure 8B) by a driver circuit (amplifier 106) as explained in paragraph [0053]. Signal 602 is placed into a transmit coil (100), and a received version is shown as signal 603 in Figure 8C before distortion correction (paragraph [0054]). The system then applies nulling, and where the detected signal becomes 606 in Figure 8F. The system recognizes an issue by determining a difference between the detected magnetic signal 606 in Figure 8F and a desired signal, which is the ideal function (ideal signal) representing an ideal magnetic field which, with such a field being a zero magnetic field. The process compares these signals, and adjusts the null signal (error signal) transmitted to one of the receiver coils until the magnetic field from this receiver coils drives the difference to below a threshold (paragraph [0056] / note the process is iterative). As such, both applicant and Heger compare a detected signal to an ideal or desired signal, and use feedback to achieve a close match between the two signals. Heger therefore reasonably discloses the argued claim feature, because under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it performs the same function as applicant in a substantially same manner. Also note that even a DC signal can be represented as a function as it is a function of time. That stated, applicant does not claim or require an actual formula, and instead is reasonably only requiring a signal as the ideal function. This is because the output of applicant’s sensor is a signal, and it is this signal that applicant expressly claiming from which the difference is determined.
With regard to the arguments on pages 12-16 directed towards the previous 103 rejections in view of Heger et al. (Heger) (US 2008/0297158) in view of Nelson et al. (Nelson) (US 2003/0052684),
Here applicant argues impermissible hindsight, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably identify what particular feature of the rejection is relying upon impermissible hindsight. Further, the argued feature is one that Heger anticipates, and thus impermissible hindsight is not applicable. Lastly, applicant argues that the prior art does not recognize applicant’s benefits, but the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no requirement that the prior art recognize the same benefits as applicant or that the rejection be motivated for the similar reasons as applicant. As explained in MPEP 2144(IV), “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).”
Applicant then argues that the inventor identified a problem others did not, but the examiner respectfully notes that such an argument is not applicable to a rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 102, and further, that applicant has not submitted any evidence to support this argument. While applicant presents attorney argument, such argument is not reasonably sufficient to establish non-obviousness. See MPEP 2145(I).
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
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, 6, 7, 15, 17, 20, and 21 are 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “ideal function representing an ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil defined by the rectangular wave pulse signal” on lines 12-13 lacks proper written description.
This phrase is indefinite for the reasons explained below, because it is unclear if the ideal function is actually a mathematical equation, or if it is a signal representing such an equation. In either case, the Examiner notes that the only disclosure for such a feature is found in the middle of page 35, where applicant explains that this function is M(s) = k/s. Applicant explains that k is a scaling value calculated according to the measurement results of the digital processing unit, but applicant provides no other information explaining the manner in which this scaling value is obtained. Applicant does not reasonably provide any guidance as to the manner in which applicant obtains this scaling value, such as any desired value or what the scaling value is intended to represent. Furthermore, the remaining portion of this equation, 1/s, is stated to be an equivalent to the Laplace transform of the integral process in the time domain. While a Laplace transform is well-known, 1/s is the Laplace transform when a function equals 1. Without further explanation as to what is meant by stating that 1/s is an equivalent Laplace transform, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements this function.
The phrase “wherein the processor is configured to determine a distortion in the first magnetic field generated by the transmit coil by determining a difference between the detection of the first magnetic field and an ideal function representing an ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil defined by the rectangular wave pulse signal” in the second to last paragraph introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above difference is made, in that applicant does not reasonably establish what two features from which a difference is taken. As best understood, what applicant’s invention is directed towards is the recognition that the actual waveform sent to the transmitter coil is not the actual waveform in the coil because parasitic effects alter the waveform in the transmitter coil. Applicant discloses the actual current sent to the transmitter coil in Figure 3A. In Figure 3B, applicant shows the ideal magnetic field that should be generated by the transmitter coil. In Figure 3C, applicant shows the actual magnetic field transmitted. As best understood, applicant obtains a difference between the actual magnetic field detected at the sensor (Figure 3C) and the ideal magnetic field in (Figure 3B) to obtain the signal in Figure 3D that is used to generate a feedback magnetic field to correct for the difference between these two magnetic fields. However, what applicant does not disclose is what specific value or feature is actually compared. A sensor can only provide a signal representing a detected magnetic field expressed as either a voltage or current. A magnetic field however is represented in different units, such as in Teslas. Applicant does not reasonably establish whether applicant actually determines the strength of the magnetic field with respect to time, and compares that against some other feature, or if applicant merely uses the output of the sensor as the detected magnetic field, because it is representative of such a feature. Further, applicant does not reasonably establish what this detected magnetic field is compared against. This is because the “ideal function” as claimed could be a mathematical function such as M(s) = k/s, but it could also be the sensor signal itself or a magnetic field determined from the sensor signal. This issue is raised because whether the claimed detected reference magnetic field is merely the output of the sensor or a magnetic field determined from the sensor, neither are themselves mathematical functions. A signal can reasonably be compared against another signal, but it cannot reasonably be compared against a mathematical function. The original disclosure does not reasonably make clear what specific features are being compared to arrive at the claimed difference. To that extent, the above phrase introduces new matter, because the original disclosure does not reasonably originally disclosure the difference as now claimed. Only to the extent that it is determined that such a feature does not introduces new matter, then this feature lacks proper written description for the same reasons. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this feature is implemented, because it does not reasonably disclose what two specific features are being compared to arrive at the claimed difference. This feature also raises an issue of written description because the equation M(s) = k/s is also not reasonably explained as rejected above.
As to Claims 6, 7, 15, 17, 20, and 21,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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, 6, 7, 15, 17, 20, and 21 are 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “ideal function representing an ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil defined by the rectangular wave pulse signal” on lines 12-13 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by an ideal function, and it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. In one instance, applicant describes the ideal transmit function as M(s) = k/s on page 35. However, Claim 1 expressly requires that a difference is determined between a detected reference magnetic field and the ideal function. A detected reference magnetic field is a magnetic field that is detected by the at least one sensor. A sensor is only reasonably capable of generating a signal representative of the detected magnetic field. However, a signal itself cannot reasonably be compared to a mathematical function (ideal function). Even to the extent that the signal is converted into a magnetic field by the processor, a feature that is not claimed, a magnetic field, like a signal, is also not a formula and thus cannot reasonably be compared to a mathematical function. It is therefore unclear what is meant by this phrase, as it is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what two features from the disclosure are actually used by the processor to obtain the claimed difference. As best understood, while applicant claims an ideal function, this function is actually a signal that can be described by a function, and it is this signal that is compared to a signal from the sensor representing the a detected magnetic field. In light of this, for the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is interpreted as such.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the processor is configured to employ the conversion output to compare a received signal to an ideal sample” on lines 5-6 is indefinite.
Claim 1 now recites that the processor is configured to determine a difference between the detected reference magnetic field and an ideal function representing an ideal magnetic field. As best understood, the above phrase from Claim 7 is reciting them same thing as amended Claim 1 but using different terminology. For example, the above claimed comparison, as best understood, is the same as the difference now recited in Claim 1. Similarly, as best understood, the above recited “ideal function” from Claim 1 is the same as the “ideal sample” in Claim 7. Applicant is not using a physical sample, as best understood, and is instead using an ideal waveform in a comparison. This ideal waveform is the ideal function of Claim 1, and as best understood, is also the ideal sample of Claim 7. As such, the difference and relationship between the above Claim 7 phrase and “the processor is configured to determine a difference between the detected reference magnetic field and an ideal function representing an ideal magnetic field” as now recited in Claim 1 is unclear.
As to Claims 6, 7, 15, 17, 20, and 21,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the metal detector further comprises the at least one field correction coil” on lines 2-3 is rejected failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 expressly provides two options, where either the transmit coil or the field correction coil generate an additional magnetic field, thus claiming two distinct embodiments. By reciting that the metal detector includes the field correction coil, applicant no longer allows for one of the two options (embodiments) where it is the transmit coil that generates the additional magnetic field, in light of the disclosure, because applicant is forcing the field correction coil to be present in the claim. This claim therefore does not include all of the limitations from Claim 1, because it does not include the option where it is the transmit coil that generates the additional magnetic field as recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “at least one turn of the transmit coil generates the additional magnetic field” on lines 2-3 is rejected failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 expressly provides two options, where either the transmit coil or the field correction coil generate an additional magnetic field, thus claiming two distinct embodiments. By reciting that the metal detector includes the transmit coil that generates the additional magnetic field, applicant no longer allows for one of the two options (embodiments) where it is the field correction coil that generates such a field, in light of the disclosure, because applicant is forcing the transmit coil option to be present in the claim. This claim therefore does not include all of the limitations from Claim 1, because it does not include the option where it is the field correction coil that generates the additional magnetic field as recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “further comprising the at least one field correction coil, which is configured to apply a corrective signal generated in at least one controlled current source” on lines 1-3 is rejected failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 expressly provides two options, where either the transmit coil or the field correction coil generate an additional magnetic field, thus claiming two distinct embodiments. By reciting that the metal detector includes the field correction coil, applicant no longer allows for one of the two options (embodiments) where it is the transmit coil that generates the additional magnetic field, in light of the disclosure, because applicant is forcing the field correction coil to be present in the claim. This claim therefore does not include all of the limitations from Claim 1, because it does not include the option where it is the transmit coil that generates the additional magnetic field as recited in Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heger et al. (Heger) (US 2008/0297158).
Heger discloses A metal detector, comprising: a processor (300) (Paragraph [0059]), a transmit coil (100 or 100,201) driven with a rectangular wave pulse signal (Figure 2 / note square wave from 104 or square wave 601 in Figure 8A), a receive coil (200-1), a driver circuit (106) (Figure 7), wherein the processor is configured to control the driver circuit to drive the transmit coil with the rectangular wave pulse signal to generate a first magnetic field by the transmit coil (Figure 7), (Paragraphs [0052],[0060]), at least one sensor (200-2) configured to provide detection of the first magnetic field generated by the transmit coil (Paragraph [0038]), wherein the processor is configured to determine a distortion in the first magnetic field generated by the transmit coil by determining a difference between the detection of the first magnetic field and an ideal function representing an ideal magnetic field of the transmit coil defined by the rectangular wave pulse signal (Paragraph [0056] / note a signal representative of the detected magnetic field at 606 in Figure 8F is compared against an ideal expected signal (ideal function) representative of the ideal expected magnetic field generated by the transmit coil, and a difference is determined therebetween), wherein the processor is configured to eliminate the distortion by causing the transmit coil or at least one field correction coil (201) to generate an additional magnetic field that is based on said difference and/or by causing an altering of a current by a voltage applied to the transmit coil based on said difference (Paragraphs [0033],[0049],[0056] / note the nulling signal 212,605 is used in the calibration process to eliminate the distortion by generated an additional magnetic field from one of the receiver coils), (Figure 4B), (Paragraph [0037]).
As to Claim 6,
Heger discloses at least one magnetic receiver input circuit (206) configured to convert a magnetic field signal detected as a potential difference by the at least one sensor (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0029] / note the amplifier will convert the detected voltage into an amplifier signal, and provide it as intended, and thus appropriate, to the subsequent circuitry).
As to Claim 7,
Heger discloses wherein the metal detector further comprises at least one analog digital converter and/or multi channeled analog digital converter configured to perform a conversion and provide the conversion output, wherein the processor is configured to employ the conversion output to compare a received signal to an ideal sample (Paragraph [0035] / note the controller has an ADC that will convert the detected signal, which will allow for the above claimed comparison).
As to Claim 15,
Heger discloses the metal detector further comprises the field correction coil (201) (Figure 4B), (Paragraph [0037]).
As to Claim 17,
Heger discloses at least one turn of the transmit coil is configured to generate the additional magnetic field, and wherein an output of a controlled current source (the portion of 300 that is controlled to generate signals (212)) is connected to winding of the transmit coil (Figure 4B), (Paragraph [0037] / note the transmitter coil can be considered the combination of 100 and 201 / and note that Heger also discloses this feature when the field correction coil alternative is selected from Claim 1).
As to Claim 20,
Heger discloses the at least one field correction coil (201), which is configured to apply a corrective signal generated in at least one controlled current source Figure 4B), (Paragraph [0037]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heger et al. (Heger) (US 2008/0297158) in view of Nelson et al. (Nelson) (US 2003/0052684).
As to Claim 21,
Heger does not disclose the at least one sensor comprises a magnetoresistive sensor.
Nelson discloses that it is known in the art to use coils or magnetoresistive sensors or fluxgates or Hall-effect sensors to detect magnetic fields in metal detection art (Paragraphs [0003],[0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Heger to include adding to the already disclose sensor or replacing the already disclosed sensor to therefore include the at least one sensor comprises a magnetoresistive sensor given the above disclosure and teaching of Nelson in order to advantageously provide a backup sensor in case one sensor fails or is damaged, and in order to use a more sensitive sensor that can provide more direct detail of the magnetic field such as the intensity of the field and the degree by which this intensity changes.
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858