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 3/11/2026.
Note: The Examiner respectfully notes that Claims 14-18 are withdrawn, and any future amendment must indicate as such as withdrawn is the proper status identifier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-9 directed towards the restriction requirement,
On first note, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant is now traversing the restriction requirement for the first time because applicant disagrees with the manner in which the previous restriction was interpreted, but where applicant, respectfully, did not timely traverse the restriction. As noted previously, applicant’s election was treated as an election without traverse because applicant did not point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement. As such, applicant has not reserved the right to later traverse the restriction/election. As explained in the previous restriction/election, “To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144.”
That stated, for completeness, applicant argues that the elected species V (Figure 14) does include receiver coils connected in series as required in Claim 14, because receiver coils 8 and 9 are connected in series. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Coils 8 and 9 are seen above, and these coils are, respectfully, by definition not connected in series. In order to be connected in series, those elements in series must have the same current going through them. As explained in Series Circuits and the Application of Ohm’s Law from All About Circuits, “In a series circuit, all components are connected end-to-end to form a single path for current flow,” and an example of which is seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
120
126
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The reason coils 8 and 9 from applicant’s Figure 14, seen above, are not connected in series is due to the middle branch that connects elements 8,9 and 76,77 indicated below:
PNG
media_image3.png
440
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Because of this branch, current flowing in coil 8 will not be the same as current flowing in coil 9, as part of the current flowing in coil 8 will branch off and flow into the adjacent elements 76,77 and vice versa.
Applicant notes that Figure 3 discloses that coils 8 and 9 are in series, and the Examiner respectfully agrees with that statement, but Figure 3 shows a different configuration than Figure 14. In Figure 3, there is no branch between coils 8 and 9, and the same current flowing through coil 8 will flow through coil 9 as seen below:
PNG
media_image4.png
270
298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 3 and 14 do not show the same receiver coil configuration, as non-elected Figure 3 does show receiver coils in series, while elected Figure 14 does not show receiver coils in series as explained above. Applicant, respectfully, has not provided an explanation specifically addressing why the coils 8 and 9 in Figure 14 are in series, and as explained above, these coils are not in series. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the restriction is maintained and is final.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-10 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that not all previous rejections have been responded to. For example, the Examiner previously raised an issue with regard to the filter device, but no response or amendments have been made with regard to this feature. As such, this rejection is repeated.
Second, applicant argues that a partial oscillator circuit has been defined by components as found in paragraph [0050] of the published application. The Examiner however respectfully notes that the section being identified comes from a non-elected embodiment utilizing a different configuration than the elected embodiment. As such, what is disclosed for non-elected Figure 3 would not reasonably provide support for elected Figure 14. Furthermore, while applicant can act as his or her own lexicographer, the original disclosure must nevertheless reasonably clearly set forth the metes and bounds for any particular term or phrase relied upon in the claims. The elected embodiment of Figure 14 does not reasonably set forth such metes and bounds, and in fact this embodiment does not reasonably define or explain a partial oscillator. Furthermore, the Examiner also notes that while applicant may act as his or her own lexicographer, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what a partial oscillator is, in that a circuit either is or is not an oscillator. The Examiner has previously raised this issue because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the metes and bounds of reciting a partial oscillator in contrast with an oscillator, and the original disclosure, within the confines of the elected embodiment, does not reasonably set forth such an explanation. Applicant does not reasonably identify what would be considered a partial oscillator within the elected embodiment, nor identify why such a feature would have been recognized as one as originally disclosed. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, and the rejection is repeated.
With regard to the arguments on pages 10-11 directed towards Nishio et al. (Nishio) (US 2009/0167299 A1) in view of Dhakal et al. (Dhakal) (A Compact Microstrip Triple-Band Bandstop Filter with Rectangular Meandered SIR for WiMAX Applications),
Applicant argues that Dhakal does not disclose two or three notch filters for providing one bandstop filter having a single elimination band. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that such a feature is not claimed. Claim 1 makes no mention of one bandstop filter or a single elimination band. Instead, this claim only requires a group of notch filters, with a first having a central filter frequency, a second having a second filter frequency lower than the first, and a third having a third filter frequency higher than the first. This is precisely what is disclosed in Dhakal and seen in Table I, with three filter frequencies of 2.42 GHz, 6.40 GHz, and 10.15 GHz disclosed.
Applicant then argues aspects of the disclosure, such as how the notch filters provide frequencies that partially overlap as disclosed in Figure 12. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that such features are not claimed, and the prior art is not required to meet those figures not claimed or solve or disclose the same issues as found in applicant’s disclosure. The prior art reasonably discloses the notch filters and their associated frequencies, as claimed, and thus respectfully disagrees.
As to the arguments presented against the new claims, these arguments are moot in light of the newly applied art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4, 6-9, 12, 21, and 22 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 “a filter device configured for filtering multiple partial signals out of the receiver signal, each of the partial signals being associated with one of the operating frequencies, and an analysis device configured for analyzing the partial signals, wherein the filter device is configured for band-elimination filtering each of the partial signals which is associated with one of the operating frequencies with regard to all others of the operating frequencies” on lines 8 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what the partial signals are in light of the disclosure, and it is unclear what signals are and are not removed by way of filtering. Applicant expressly claims that the filter device is configured “for filtering multiple partial signals out” on line 8. As is well-known, filtering something out means to remove it. Such an interpretation is supported for example, by the definition of the phrase “filter out” which is defined to mean “remove by passing through a filter” per https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/filter%20out. As such, applicant is expressly claiming the removal of the partial signals by way of the band-elimination filter. A band-elimination filter, or band-stop filter, is a filter that passes all signals except those in a stop-band which are removed by way of attenuation.
This issue is raised because as best understood, the partial signals are actually the signals used by the analysis device as even expressly claimed. As such, these signals cannot be “filtered out” as they are the actual signals that the system uses for analysis. The above phrase is therefore indefinite because it is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the partial signals are filtered out, and it is unclear what signals are and not removed or attenuated by way of the band-elimination filter.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that, as claimed, the partial signals for each respective frequency are filtered out, while the other frequencies are allowed to pass.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “each multi-resonant oscillator circuit comprises interconnected partial oscillator circuits” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. At issue here is that is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what constitutes a partial oscillator circuit. A circuit is either an oscillator or it is not an oscillator. While the construction of such a circuit may vary based upon components and intended use, it is unclear what would cause a circuit to be considered partial oscillator circuit as opposed to merely an oscillator circuit. The metes and bounds of what would and would not be considered a partial oscillator circuit are therefore unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting an oscillator circuit to be a partial oscillator circuit.
As to Claims 4, 6-9, 12, 21, and 22,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishio et al. (Nishio) (US 2009/0167299 A1) in view of Dhakal et al. (Dhakal) (A Compact Microstrip Triple-Band Bandstop Filter with Rectangular Meandered SIR for WiMAX Applications).
PNG
media_image5.png
398
780
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
367
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Nishio discloses An apparatus for detecting metal objects in and on articles moving relative to the apparatus, the apparatus comprising a transmitter device (2) including a transmitter coil (L1) and configured for generating a magnetic alternating field at multiple operating frequencies using the transmitter coil (Paragraphs [0043],[0045] / note signal generation means (1) includes two overlapping signals at frequencies F1 and F2, and the coil will generate a magnetic alternating field when the signals are input into the coil), a receiver device (see above top figure) including at least one receiver coil ((4) / one of the coils in the above figure) and configured for detecting the magnetic alternating field influenced by the moving articles (for example (3)) and for outputting a receiver signal as a function of the detected magnetic alternating field (Paragraph [0049]), a filter device (6,8a,8b) configured for filtering multiple partial signals out of the receiver signal (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0050]-[0052]), each of the partial signals being associated with one of the operating frequencies (Paragraphs [0051],[0052] / note each channel receives one signal at a respective one of frequencies F1 or F2), (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0051]-[0053]).
Nishio is silent as to the manner in which the filters 6, 8a,8b are implemented, but it does disclose that plural signals are received at different frequencies, and that the filters function to respectively remove one of these frequencies such that each channel (channels 7a-9a and 7b-9b) only receives one of the respective F1 and F2 signals, and therefore does not disclose the filter device is configured for band-elimination filtering each of the partial signals which is associated with one of the operating frequencies with regard to all others of the operating frequencies, the filter device comprises a group of notch filters for each of the partial signals and for each of the others of the operating frequencies to be band-elimination filtered, each group of the notch filters comprises a first notch filter having a first central filter frequency, and at least one of a second notch filter having a second central filter frequency which is lower than the first central filter frequency, and a third notch filter having a third central filter frequency which is higher than the first central filter frequency, wherein within each group of the notch filters: the first notch filter has a first blocking range around the first central filter frequency; the second notch filter has a second blocking range around the second central filter frequency that is downwards shifted from the first blocking range; and the third notch filter has a third blocking range around the third central filter frequency that is upwards shifted from the first blocking range, wherein the first blocking range and at least one of the second blocking range or the third blocking range combine to define a broadened blocking range around the first central filter frequency.
Dhakal discloses the filter device (see above bottom figure) is configured for band-elimination filtering each of the partial signals which is associated with one of the operating frequencies with regard to all others of the operating frequencies (Page 613, Right Column, First full paragraph which explains that when one of the three frequencies F1-F3 is received, that frequency will be filtered out by a stopband while the others are allowed to pass, and thus each signal at each frequency will be filtered out but the others allowed to pass), the filter device comprises a group of notch filters for each of the partial signals and for each of the others of the operating frequencies to be band-elimination filtered (see above bottom figure and note each arrow identifies one of the notch filters), each group of the notch filters comprises a first notch filter having a first central filter frequency, and at least one of a second notch filter having a second central filter frequency which is lower than the first central filter frequency, and a third notch filter having a third central filter frequency which is higher than the first central filter frequency (Page 613, Right Column, First full paragraph which explains that each of the notch filters will filter at a respective F1, F2, and F3 frequency), wherein within each group of the notch filters Figure 3): the first notch filter has a first blocking range around the first central filter (F2) frequency (Page 613, Right Column, First full paragraph, Page 614, Table and Left paragraph); the second notch filter has a second blocking range around the second central filter frequency (F1) that is downwards shifted from the first blocking range (Page 613, Right Column, First full paragraph, Page 614, Table and Left paragraph); and the third notch filter has a third blocking range around the third central filter frequency (F3) that is upwards shifted from the first blocking range (Page 613, Right Column, First full paragraph, Page 614, Table and Left paragraph), wherein the first blocking range and at least one of the second blocking range or the third blocking range combine to define a broadened blocking range around the first central filter frequency (Page 613, Right Column, First full paragraph, Page 614, Table and Left paragraph / note the three frequences reasonable establish a broadened blocking range defined around the central frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nishio to include a band-elimination filter for each channel to therefore disclose the filter device is configured for band-elimination filtering each of the partial signals which is associated with one of the operating frequencies with regard to all others of the operating frequencies, the filter device comprises a group of notch filters for each of the partial signals and for each of the others of the operating frequencies to be band-elimination filtered, each group of the notch filters comprises a first notch filter having a first central filter frequency, and at least one of a second notch filter having a second central filter frequency which is lower than the first central filter frequency, and a third notch filter having a third central filter frequency which is higher than the first central filter frequency, wherein within each group of the notch filters: the first notch filter has a first blocking range around the first central filter frequency; the second notch filter has a second blocking range around the second central filter frequency that is downwards shifted from the first blocking range; and the third notch filter has a third blocking range around the third central filter frequency that is upwards shifted from the first blocking range, wherein the first blocking range and at least one of the second blocking range or the third blocking range combine to define a broadened blocking range around the first central filter frequency as taught by Dhakal in order to advantageously utilize a filter that is advantageously miniaturized in size as compared to single of dual band filters (Page 612, Left Column, Lines 10-12), and thus advantageously allow the device to be made smaller while also permitting multiple frequencies to be detected while reduce errors from interference due to unwanted frequencies.
As to Claim 4,
Nishio in view of Dhakal does not disclose wherein the second central filter frequency of the second notch filter is by 1 % to 10% lower than the first central filter frequency of the first notch filter, and the third central filter frequency of the third notch filter is by 1 % to 10 % higher than the first central filter frequency of the first notch filter.
Dhakal however discloses the different frequencies are used for the bandstop filter and that different frequencies can be used (Page 612, Introduction and II Design and Theoretical Analysis / note that Triple-band BSFs are used to suppress specific bands of frequencies and that frequencies such as 2.42GHz, 6.47GHz, and 10.30GHz can be suppressed), thereby demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nishio in view of Dhakal to optimize the band-elimination filter frequencies to therefore include the second central filter frequency of the second notch filter is by 1 % to 10% lower than the first central filter frequency of the first notch filter, and the third central filter frequency of the third notch filter is by 1 % to 10 % higher than the first central filter frequency of the first notch filter given the above disclosure and teaching of Dhakal in order to advantageously allow for the use of signals having frequencies close to each other but ensure that only the desired frequencies were passed, thereby eliminating noise.
As to Claim 6,
Nishio does not disclose the filter device comprises at least one of a band pass filters, a low pass filter and a high pass filter for each partial signal, wherein each edge of the respective filter keeps a distance of at least 10 % of the operating frequency with which the respective partial signal is associated to the operating frequency with which the respective partial signal is associated.
Dhakal discloses the filter device comprises at least one of a band pass filters, a low pass filter and a high pass filter for each partial signal (Page 613, Right Column, First full paragraph which explains that each of the notch filters will filter at a respective F1, F2, and F3 frequency), (see above bottom figure / note the triple-band stop filter is formed from a combination of high and low pass filters), wherein each edge of the respective filter keeps a distance of at least 10 % of the operating frequency with which the respective partial signal is associated to the operating frequency with which the respective partial signal is associated (Page 612, Introduction and II Design and Theoretical Analysis / note that Triple-band BSFs are used to suppress specific bands of frequencies and that frequencies such as 2.42GHz, 6.47GHz, and 10.30GHz can be suppressed / note the fractional bandwidths are such that the above 10% margin would be present).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nishio to include the filter device comprises at least one of a band pass filters, a low pass filter and a high pass filter for each partial signal, wherein each edge of the respective filter keeps a distance of at least 10 % of the operating frequency with which the respective partial signal is associated to the operating frequency with which the respective partial signal is associated given the above disclosure and teaching of Dhakal in order to advantageously allow for the use of signals having frequencies close to each other but ensure that only the desired frequencies were passed, thereby eliminating noise.
As to Claim 7,
Nishio discloses wherein at least one of the transmitter coil and the at least one receiver coil is part of a multi-resonant oscillator circuit which has a resonance frequency at each of the multiple operating frequencies (Paragraph [0045[ / note the resonance that occurs at the two frequencies F1 and F2 due to the combination of the inductor coil L1 and a respective capacitor C1 or C2).
As to Claim 8,
Nishio discloses each multi-resonant oscillator circuit comprises interconnected partial oscillator circuits (Figure 1 / note the inductor coil L1 and respective capacitors C1 or C2), (Paragraph [0045]).
As to Claim 9,
Nishio discloses the interconnected partial oscillator circuits include a series oscillator circuit and a parallel oscillator circuit (Figure 2 / note the two parallel LC circuits and series connected T1b or C1 or C2 circuits), (Paragraph [0055]).
As to Claim 12,
Nishio discloses each multi-resonant oscillator circuit, at each of the multiple operating frequencies, has a quality factor of at least 10 (Paragraph [0065]).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishio et al. (Nishio) (US 2009/0167299 A1) in view of Dhakal et al. (Dhakal) (A Compact Microstrip Triple-Band Bandstop Filter with Rectangular Meandered SIR for WiMAX Applications) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Yamada (US 2018/0367121).
As to Claims 21 and 22,
Nishio in view of Dhakal disclose wherein within each group of the notch filters (see rejection of Claim 1): the first notch filter has a first blocking range around the first central filter frequency (see rejection of Claim 1); the second notch filter has a second blocking range around the second central filter frequency that is downwards shifted from the first blocking range (see rejection of Claim 1):; and the third notch filter has a third blocking range around the third central filter frequency that is upwards shifted from the first blocking range (see rejection of Claim 1), wherein the first blocking range and at least one of the second blocking range or the third blocking range combine to define a broadened blocking range around the first central filter frequency (see rejection of Claim 1):
Nishio in view of Dhakal do not disclose the second notch filter has a second blocking range around the second central filter frequency that is downwards shifted from the first blocking range such that the second blocking range partially overlaps with the first blocking; and the third notch filter has a third blocking range around the third central filter frequency that is upwards shifted from the first blocking range such that the third blocking range partially overlaps with the first blocking range.
Yamada discloses the second notch filter (one of the middle parallel resonators, such as 12) has a second blocking range around the second central filter frequency that is downwards shifted from the first blocking range such that the second blocking range partially overlaps with the first blocking (Figure 2B), (Paragraphs [0066],[0093],[0108],[0109] / note the stopband for each of the resonators (filters) partially overlaps the stopband of an adjacent resonator); and the third notch filter (one of the resonators such as 14) has a third blocking range around the third central filter frequency that is upwards shifted from the first blocking range such that the third blocking range partially overlaps with the first blocking range (Figure 2B), (Paragraphs [0066],[0093],[0108],[0109] / note the stopband for each of the resonators (filters) partially overlaps the stopband of an adjacent resonator).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nishio in view of Dhakal to include the second notch filter has a second blocking range around the second central filter frequency that is downwards shifted from the first blocking range such that the second blocking range partially overlaps with the first blocking; and the third notch filter has a third blocking range around the third central filter frequency that is upwards shifted from the first blocking range such that the third blocking range partially overlaps with the first blocking range as taught by Yamada in order to advantageously widen the elimination band (Paragraph [0010]) by using a relatively simple configuration and to be able to remove even more unwanted signals to thereby further minimize error.
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
Prosecution Insights