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 12/4/2025.
No prior art is being applied against claims 12 and 13 for the reasons previously stated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 10-11,
First, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the boxes shown in Figure 2 are TH, TM, and TL as argued. Applicant, respectfully, presents no specific argument or evidence to support that these boxes are TH, TM and TL. The Examiner acknowledges that these boxes could be TH, TM, and TL, but also notes that these boxes could also represents what is inside just one of TH, TM, and TL. This is because the original disclosure does not reasonably explain what is included within each box in order to readily recognize what each box contains. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the instant drawing amendments introduce new matter.
Applicant then argues that the module 140 is known, but the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no evidence that the module is known, and further notes that a device must be well-known in order to avoid having to provide more detail. That stated, a module is a concept and not any specific well-known device. Applicant notes certain components that are stated to be part of the module, but such an explanation does not reasonably demonstrate what the module is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any particular device from the listing of parts provided by applicant. For example, disclosing a module containing a semiconductor substrate and transistors would not reasonably demonstrate written description, because it would not reasonably identify any particular device such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what applicant’s module is. The above description would reasonably include a microprocessor, memory, and a magnetic sensor, thus preventing a person of ordinary skill in the art from reasonably recognize what the module is to demonstrate possession.
Applicant then points to EP 4033272 A1, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a reference does not overcome the issue. First, nowhere in the original disclosure does applicant reference this document with regard to the claimed module. Applicant does not originally demonstrate any intent to rely upon any specific component of the noted reference as the module, nor make any particular connection to that reference. It is in fact common for applications to cite background prior art from which they do not include nor intend to reference any particular component. That stated, this reference does not disclose any recognizable module within the context of the disclosure, nor does applicant, respectfully, identify any specific component or set of components from this reference that were intended to be the module, along with a reasonably connection to this specific component of the prior art and the instant application to demonstrate the intent to rely upon that particular component.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and the objection is repeated.
With regard to the arguments on pages 12-14 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
Applicant argues that in paragraphs 11-17, the drawings provide clarity to the previously raised issues. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that, as explained above, the drawings do not reasonably address the previously raised issues pertaining to the drawings.
Second, even to the extent that these drawing amendments did define the circuits, numerous other issues were also raised in paragraphs 11-17, and the drawing amendments do not reasonably address these issues. For example, the Examiner explained that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any one of the winding taps connect to any of circuits 14A, 14B, 14C or the manner in which any of the taps are selected. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which these circuits shown in Figure 2 are controlled or otherwise implemented in the claimed manner.
Applicant argues that the claim language used in Claim 2 has been amended, but no further explanation is presented as to why these amendments overcome the previously raised issues. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any circuit selects as claimed.
Applicant makes similar arguments pertaining to Claim 8 and notes paragraphs [0041]-[0042], but these paragraphs do not reasonably address the previously raised issues. These paragraphs do not reasonably explain what the channel selector is, nor the manner in which it performs the type of selecting being claimed.
Applicant incorporates previous remarks for claims 10-12, and the Examiner respectfully does the same and directs applicant’s attention to the above response and rejections found below.
Applicant argues that for Claims 14, 15, and 17, Figure1 and paragraph [0045] provide support. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the logic table provided by applicant is not found in the original disclosure, and this table, respectfully, is not reasonably disclosed. In fact, no frequency of any kind is even mentioned in paragraph [0045] to allow this table to be created. The original disclosure does not reasonably describe the claimed subject matter, and applicant does not reasonably identify where such features are sufficiently supported such that a person of ordinary skill would reasonably recognize support for the claim features.
The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 14-16 directed towards Lyon (US 2017/0176364) in view of Candy (US 2015/0168584),
Applicant argues that Lyon teaches a single excitation path and that the claimed invention utilizes multiple excitation channels. The Examiner respectfully notes that multiple excitation channels are not claimed. Claim 1 does recite a plurality of individually selectable excitation circuits and tuning capacitors, but Lyon disclose such a feature as explained below. Applicant then argues that the claims require a channel selector for individually selecting these channels, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a feature is not claimed. The claims neither recite the term “channel” nor require any feature to be individually selectable. The prior art discloses the claim features as presented and as explained in the rejection found below.
Applicant then argues that Lyon does not disclose the type of switches used by applicant, but the Examiner respectfully notes that Lyon is not required to disclose the same type of switches argued by applicant when such features are not claimed. Claims are afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a semiconductor switch, in light of the disclosure, is any switch that reasonably relies upon some type of semiconductor technology. While applicant may use MOSFETs, the prior art is not required to, and is permitted to use alternative switch technology so long as it is semiconductor in nature. The NPN switches noted by applicant are semiconductor switches, and thus would meet the claim requirements. Note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). To the extent that applicant later does claim MOSFETs, such feature are met by the prior art rejections as explained below.
Applicant then argues that the power transistors form amplifier wings are not switching elements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that a MOSFET transistor is inherently a switch. The entire function of a MOSFET is to act as a switch where it turns on and off based upon applied signals to the MOSFET. As such, regardless of whether it is used in an amplifier function or not, it is a semiconductor switch. That stated, what applicant is arguing is not disclosed by Lyon, and applicant is therefore relying upon what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know without evidence, but where evidence is required (see MPEP 2145(I)).
The prior art discloses the claimed invention, under a broadest reasonable interpretation. The prior art is not required to implement the claims in the specific manner disclosed by applicant, as it is improper to read limitations into the claims from the disclosure. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, and directs applicant’s attention to the rejections found below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because applicant discloses three boxes respectively labeled TH, TM, and TL in Figure 1. These boxes are shown as part of the circuit of Figure 1, but it is unclear if these features are physical circuit components, and if so, it is unclear what these boxes are intended to represent. Applicant explains that these boxes “indicate that the selected excitation circuits 14A, 14B, 14C are tuned to a high, medium and low frequency, respectively” in paragraph [0051]. However, this does not reasonably explain what is inside each box or what the box represents. For example, it is unclear if each box includes an A,B,C tap connection as seen in Figure 2, and if so, it is unclear what configuration for each box is included in each box. Furthermore, these three boxes may not be physical boxes and may merely describe the signal input to 14A,B,C. As such, these three boxes stand objected to because it is unclear whether these boxes are physical located within the circuit, and it is unclear what elements are part of each box in light of the disclosure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, 1) the isolated driver of Claim 8, 2) the diodes of Claim 10, 3) the isolated drivers and LED of Claim 11, and 4) the diodes, drivers, control resistor, and control loop of Claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The replacement Figure 2 introduces new matter, because it designates TH, TM, and TL in the boxes seen in figure, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably convey such a feature.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-7 and 9-17 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.
Note: Written description is not directed towards a person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably recognizing the manner in which applicant implements a claim feature, and not whether any particular way was well-known to implement a claim feature. While applicant can rely upon that which is well-known or conventional, applicant must reasonably make this clear by, for example, referencing a well-known device that was well-known for the particular purpose being claimed. When the original disclosure is completely silent on an issue that requires explanation, applicant is not reasonably relying upon that which is well-known, as there is no such indication. Furthermore, when the original disclosure does not reasonably provide enough disclosure to reasonable recognize the manner in which applicant implements a claim feature, the same issue exists as a person of ordinary skill in the art would still not reasonably recognize the manner in which the claim feature is implemented. See for example “Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed. While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought” (Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-1572).
In light of the above, the following rejections are presented:
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a coupling transformer comprising an input winding configured to be energized by an input signal with a selected operating frequency and an output winding including multiple tappings, each pair of tappings being selectable among the multiple tappings to define an associated partial winding consisting of the turns of the output winding that extend between the tappings of the selected pair; a plurality of individually selectable excitation circuits, each of the excitation circuits being configured for energization of the transmitter coil from an associated one of the partial windings” on lines 4-11 lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which any of the selectable taps from the output winding are connected to any of the first plurality of selectable excitation circuits, or the manner in which any of the winding taps are selectable.
Applicant explains that winding 143T has selectable partial windings created by selecting one of the winding taps 143A, 143B, or 143C. These three winding taps are connected either respectively directly to the input for switches 141A, 141B, and 141C, or are connected to circuits TH, TM, TL.
The first issue raised is whether elements TH, TM, and TL are physical circuits or are merely explaining that each of the three excitation circuits 14A, 14B, and 14C are for a high, medium, and low frequency. As explained above, paragraph [0051] explains “The designations “TH”, “TM”, and “TL” appearing in FIGS. 1 and 2 indicate that the selected excitation circuits 14A, 14B, 14C are tuned to a high, medium and low frequency, respectively.” As such, what are shown as boxes for TH, TM, and TL which are physically connected in the electrical circuit may not be physically present in the circuit as they merely “indicate” the frequency of the a selected circuit 14A, 14B, and 14C. To that extent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize whether any one of these three boxes actually represent a circuit component.
The second issue is that it is applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any one of the winding taps connect to any of circuits 14A, 14B, 14C. Applicant does show element 150 in Figure 2 as having three sets of what are, as best understood, selectable connections. This could mean that each box TH, TM, and TL have a set of three selectable connections, with the top set being TH, the middle set being TM, and the bottom set being TL. However, this is not necessarily the case, as Figure 1 shows that a three line bus at element 150 that extends from the taps 143A, 143B, and 143C. Meaning, a three line bus will only have three lines, and this disclosure may therefore mean that only three lines exist, with one line connecting to 14A, one line connecting to 14B, and one line connecting to 14C. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which the taps 143A-C connect to circuits 14A-C.
To the extent that each circuit 14A-C have three selectable taps such as what is shown in Figure 2, the disclosure raises a further issue because the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant selects any of these taps and the device that performs the selection. Applicant does disclose a logic table in Figure 2 for boxes TH, TM, and TL, but the logic table shows the exact same logic for each of TH, TM, and TL. Furthermore, Figure 2 shows the exact same line C selected in all three instances. What the original disclosure does not provide is any explanation as to the manner in which the taps are selected, such as a logic table, thresholds, or any other decision making process explaining why one line, such as line C, is selected as opposed to any other line. The disclosure is completely silent as to why any device would select any of the lines. Furthermore, the disclosure is completely silent as to any device or component that performs the selection. While applicant does disclose a channel selector 140 in Figure 1, applicant does not disclose that this device is what controls any selection of the taps or the manner in which it makes such a selection.
Applicant expressly discloses that one of the taps 143A-C are selected which it explains “By the first semiconductor switching devices 141A, 141B, 141C the second terminal 212 of the transmitter coil 21 is connectable to one of the transformer tappings 143A, 143B, 143C” in paragraph [0041]). However, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any particular tap is selected, why any one particular tap is selected over the two other, or the device that performs such a selection. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
The phrase “a channel selector configured to generate the first and second control signals, wherein said channel selector is arranged between the tappings and the excitation circuits to establish individual connections between the excitation circuits and selected ones of the partial windings, and wherein the channel selector comprises an isolated driver, for each one of the first switching devices and the second switching devices, where control lines are galvanically isolated from control inputs of the first switching devices and the second switching devices” on the last paragraph introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
As to New Matter,
Applicant is expressly claiming that the channel selector is “arranged between the tappings and the excitation circuits to establish individual connections between the excitation circuits and selected ones of the partial windings,” but the original disclosure does not disclose such a feature. The original disclosure clearly states that the channel selector is element 140, and the multi-way tap-selector is element 150. The only figure showing the channel selector is in Figure 1, and this channel selector is not located between the tappings and excitation circuits as claimed. Instead, the multi-way tap selector 150 is located in the claimed manner, but this selector is not disclosed to be a channel selector. Furthermore, the channel selector is not located between the tappings and partial windings as claimed to establish any connection. The multi-way tapping selector cannot be the device referenced, because applicant also claims that the channel selector is configured to generate the control signals, and the selector 140 is not originally disclosed to generate such signals. No single device is reasonably disclosed that meets all of the above claim features, and the above phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Written Description,
1) At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which channel selector is implemented or the manner in which it generates the control signals as claimed. Applicant does originally disclose that the channel selector can include a driver, but a driver alone is not reasonably capable of making decisions as to what control signals to generate and the manner in which they should be generated. The control signals are generated in order to selectively activate various combinations of six different switching devices 141A-C and 142A-C as seen in Figure 1. However, a driver is only reasonably capable of generating a signal, and it not reasonably capable of decisions that are necessary in order to selectively active combinations of the above noted switches. Applicant does not reasonably disclose any circuit component that is part of the channel selector that could reasonably active or control the switches to selectively activate the switches, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the channel selector decides which switches to activate. As evidence, the Examiner notes US 6,807,071 which discloses numerous examples of an isolated driver in Figures 1, 3, and 6-9, none of which would reasonably be capable of performing the above function of the channel selector as claimed. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements this claim feature.
2) The above phrase further lacks proper written description to the extent that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the isolated driver or plurality of isolated drivers are implemented. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which one or more drivers are implemented so as to allow the claimed control signals to be generated in the claimed manner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the driver or drivers are implemented, and this phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
3) For completeness, the Examiner further notes that as already explained in the above rejection of Claim 1, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which element 150, which is the multi-way tap selector is implemented. The disclosure does not reasonably make clear what this feature is, such as how it relates to the TH, TM, and TL blocks, what specific features it comprises, such as how many taps are present and where they are located, the manner in which the taps are selected, or the device that controls the taps. The above rejection of Claim 1 is herein incorporated and applied against the above claim phrase, and applicant is therefore directed to the above explanation.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “each bi-directional-MOS-FET unit comprises a first MOS-FET and a second MOS-FET, each having a source terminal, a drain terminal and a gate terminal, the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are connected one another; the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are each connected, respectively, with one of identical first terminals of two diodes, the second terminals of the two diodes are each connected with the drain terminal of the first MOS-FET or the second MOS-FET” on lines 2 to the end lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the diodes are implemented. Applicant does not show them in any figure, and applicant does not sufficiently disclose where they are located in the circuit such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing them. Applicant does disclose, in the above claim, that the source terminals are connected with identical first terminals of two diodes, which are connected each with their second terminal to the drain of the first or second MOS-FET. However, this recitation does not reasonably establish the number of diodes used or where they are located. First, applicant does not reasonably establish whether each MOS-FET has one diode or two diodes. Applicant claims for “each” MOS-FET, certain features exist as recited above. Such a recitation can reasonably mean that each MOS-FET has two diodes. However, merely reciting that a source of two MOS-FETS are connected to these two diodes does not reasonably establish where the diodes are located or how they are connected with each other. This is further noted because the source terminals of both MOS-FETS are connected together, making it unclear where two diodes would be located be connected to this combined MOS-FET unit without further explanation. Regardless of whether there are four diodes (one per each MOS-FET) or two diodes in total, the original disclosure does not reasonably establish the manner in which they are connected. Second, applicant then claims that the diodes are connected to the drain terminal of one of the first or second MOS-FET, respectively. This phrase, while indefinite for the reasons explained below, reasonably means that either there are four diodes, with two diodes of the first MOS-FET connected to the drain of that MOS-FET, or that there are two diodes in total, which are connected to one of the first or second MOS-FET. This further raises an issue because it does not reasonably establish, in the combination, where these diodes are connected in the circuit. Applicant specifically shows the implementation of this bi-directional MOS-FET circuit, such as 141A in Figure 1, but this circuit does not include any diodes. Two or four diodes cannot simply be inserted into this circuit without further explanation as to the manner in which they are connected and where they are placed. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably establish the manner in which the diodes are implemented. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements these diodes, and this phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “light emitting diodes, wherein input lines of the isolated drivers assigned to the first switching devices and the second switching devices of the excitation circuits are each connected each to respective one of the light emitting diodes, wherein the input lines are connected in series, and wherein output lines of the isolated drivers are connected to input terminals of the first switching devices and the second switching devices of the excitation circuits” on lines 3 to the end lacks proper written description.
Applicant is going beyond merely reciting that the output of a channel selector is input into an isolated driver, and is instead now claiming further details, such as how an LED is connected to the input lines of the drivers which are connected in series. However, such a disclosure does not reasonably establish the manner in which such a feature is implemented, including the location of the LED, what else it is connected to, and the manner in which this particular combination is implemented. The original disclosure does not reasonably establish the manner in which the above feature is implemented, as no drawing is provided showing the claimed configuration, and where the original disclosure does not reasonably describe a complete circuit such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing such a circuit. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “the light emitting diodes of the isolated drivers are connected in series with a control resistor thereby forming a control loop that is connected to an output of a constant voltage supply device” on lines 2-4 lacks proper written description. At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above claim feature is implemented. Applicant does not show any of the above claim feature in a figure, and applicant does not reasonably describe the manner in which these features are connected or implemented to reasonably establish possession. For example, applicant does not reasonably show the manner in which the LEDs are connected with a control resistor to form a control loop. Merely because these elements are connected to each other does not reasonably form a loop. This phrase further raises an issue because it is unclear how many diodes are required in the claim, as it is unclear whether each driver has one associated diode or more than one. Because applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this phrase is implemented, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner applicant is implementing this feature from the claim language alone. Applicant does not reasonably establish the manner in which the loop is implemented or where these features are connected so as to reasonably demonstrate possession of the above claim feature. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “a computer system having a control program installed thereon for operating the channel selector, wherein the control program is configured to, when executed, cause the channel selector to select operating frequencies and one or ones of the excitation circuits” on lines 3 to the end lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the control program and the manner in which a computer implements it to select operating frequencies and excitation circuits. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain any of these features, such as by way of a formula, flow chart, or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which applicant implements these claim features. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the manner in which these features are implemented to demonstrate possession.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the control program is configured to, when executed, cause the operating frequencies and the one or ones of the excitation circuits to be alternatingly changed or keyed during a process of measuring conveyed goods between at least two settings or operating frequencies” on lines 2-6 lacks proper written description. At issue here is that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the control program and the manner in which a computer implements it to select operating frequencies, excitation circuits, or setting frequencies. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain any of these features, such as by way of a formula, flow chart, or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which applicant implements these claim features. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the manner in which these features are implemented to demonstrate possession.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “the control program, when executed, is configured to control the frequency generator to thereby select the operating frequencies and the one or ones of the excitation circuits” on lines 2-5 lacks proper written description.
At issue here, similar to that noted in above Claim 14, is that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the control program and the manner in which a computer implements it to select operating frequencies and excitation circuits. The original disclosure does not reasonably explain any of these features, such as by way of a formula, flow chart, or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which applicant implements these claim features. There is no reasonable explanation as to the manner in which any frequency generator is controllable or otherwise controlled by a computer implementing a control program, including the manner in which it operates such a generator. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize the manner in which these features are implemented to demonstrate possession.
As to Claims 2-7 and 9-17,
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 1-7 and 9-17 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 coupling transformer comprising an input winding configured to be energized by an input signal with a selected operating frequency and an output winding including multiple tappings, each pair of tappings being selectable among the multiple tappings to define an associated partial winding consisting of the turns of the output winding that extend between the tappings of the selected pair; a first plurality of individually selectable excitation circuits, each of the excitation circuits being configured for energization of the transmitter coil from an associated one of the partial windings” on lines 4-11 is indefinite.
Similar to the issues raised in Claim 1 above under the 112(a) rejection, it is unclear how the above claim phrase should be interpreted. It is unclear what applicant means by reciting that the tappings are selectable because it is unclear, in light of the disclosure, how applicant implements any form of selection. It is unclear if boxes TH, TM, and TL are physical boxes, and if so, it is unclear what specific components are found within each box. Claim limitations are read in light of the disclosure, but the disclosure does not reasonably make clear how such features can or should be interpreted because it is unclear how applicant implements these features. As such, this phrase is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that any manner of allowing the winding taps to be connected to excitation circuits would make the taps and circuits be “selectable.”
The phrase “a second plurality of individually selectable tuning capacitors” on line 1 of the last paragraph is indefinite. The use of terms such as “first” and “second” may be used to distinguish between difference groups of related components, but at issue here is applicant does not previously recited a first plurality of individual selectable tuning capacitors. Applicant does recite a first plurality of individually selectable excitation circuits, but such circuits are not capacitors. Reciting a second plurality as is done above reasonably implies that a first plurality of selectable tuning capacitors was previously recited or otherwise exists in the claim, but where no such feature is positively recited. Meaning, if applicant’s intent were to merely distinguish the above phrase from the first plurality of individually selectable excitation circuits, applicant could recite a first plurality of individually selectable tuning capacitors, as such a phrase is distinguished from the excitation circuits. As such, it is unclear how many pluralities of individually selectable tuning capacitors are present in the claim.
The phrase “a channel selector configured to generate the first and second control signals, wherein said channel selector is arranged between the tappings and the excitation circuits to establish individual connections between the excitation circuits and selected ones of the partial windings, and wherein the channel selector comprises an isolated driver, for each one of the first switching devices and the second switching devices, where control lines are galvanically isolated from control inputs of the first switching devices and the second switching devices” on the last paragraph is indefinite.
1) No singular device is disclosed to implement all of the above claim features, as best understood, applicant is combining aspects of the multi-way tap selector and the channel selector and is considering this the channel selector. However, no such device is originally disclosed, and it is therefore unclear how the channel selector should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that a controlling device and the switches it controls can collectively be considered a channel selector.
2) This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear how many isolated drivers are required in the claim. Reciting that the channel selector, for each of the switching devices, could reasonably mean that one isolated driver is used for each of the switching devices. Such a phrase could also reasonably mean that there are at least two isolated drivers, one per each switching device. The above phrase is indefinite because the scope of this claim feature can be interpreted in more than one reasonable manner, making it is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that any device that includes at least one isolated driver and generates the required control signals meets the claim feature.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “each bi-directional-MOS-FET unit comprises a first MOS-FET and a second MOS-FET, each having a source terminal, a drain terminal and a gate terminal, the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are connected one another; the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are each connected, respectively, with one of identical first terminals of two diodes, the second terminals of the two diodes are each connected with the drain terminal of the first MOS-FET or the second MOS-FET” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the diodes are implemented, and thus, it is unclear how many diodes are required in the claim. Applicant does disclose, in the above claim, that the source terminals are connected with identical first terminals of two diodes, which are connected each with their second terminal to the drain of the first or second MOS-FET. However, this recitation does not reasonably establish the number of diodes used or where they are located, in that applicant does not reasonably establish whether each MOS-FET has one diode or two diodes. Applicant claims for “each” MOS-FET, certain features exist as recited above. Such a recitation can reasonably mean that each MOS-FET has two diodes. Applicant later recites that the diodes are connected to the drain terminal of one of the first or second MOS-FET, respectively. The use of term “respectively” reasonably means that each MOS-FET has two diodes. However, the claim also switches between what “each” MOS-FET includes to referring to all MOS-FETs. For example, applicant initially recites that each MOS-FET has a source, drain, and gate, but then states “with the source terminals connected …” where applicant then clearly switches to referring to both MOS-FETs and not just what each one includes. As such, the scope of this claim is unclear, because it is unclear how many diodes are included, and it is unclear how they are associated with each particular MOS-FET. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that two total diodes are required in the claim.
As to Claims 2-7 and 9-17,
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US 2017/0176364) in view of Candy (US 2015/0168584).
As to Claims 1 and 16,
Lyon discloses A metal detection apparatus comprising: a balanced coil system comprising a transmitter coil (21), a first receiver coil (31), and a second receiver coil (32) (Paragraph [0039]), (Figure 2); a coupling transformer (1) comprising an input winding (13A,B) configured to be energized by an input signal with a selected operating frequency and an output winding (13C) including multiple tappings (Paragraphs [0047],[0048]), (Figure 2), each pair of tappings being selectable among the multiple tappings to define an associated partial winding consisting of the turns of the output winding that extend between the tappings of the selected pair (Paragraph [0048] / note selecting tappings create the claimed partial winding), (Figure 2); a plurality of individually selectable excitation circuits (one circuit is T plus 14A,15,221,222,223, other is T’ plus 14B,15,221,222,223) (Paragraph [0048]),(Figure 2), each of the excitation circuits being configured for energization of the transmitter coil from an associated one of the partial windings and comprising an associated first switching device (T or 14A for a first switching device and T’ or 14B for a second switching device) connected so as to open and close the associated excitation circuit in response to an associated first control signal (Paragraph [0051] / note the switches are able to open and close in response to a control signal, and associated signals set to the switches, such as -Ub and/or 52A,52B; can be those signals)),(Figure 2), each of the first switching devices being a semiconductor switching device (Paragraphs [0026],[0027] / note NPN and MOSFET); and a plurality of individually selectable tuning capacitors (221,222,223), each of the tuning capacitors having a second switching device (23) associated therewith connected so as to open or close a resonance circuit including the transmitter coil and the associated tuning capacitor in response to an associated second control signal (54) (Figure 2 / note each capacitor has its own switching connection and thus its own switching device in combination with the physical switch 23), wherein each of the second switching devices comprises an electro-mechanical relay switching device (Figure 2 / note the switch 23 shown is shown as a an electro-mechanical switch that physical changes position based upon the control signal 54), a channel selector (5, 11, 15, OA, OA’) configured to generate the first and second control signals (OA or OA’) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0051]), wherein said channel selector (15) is arranged between the tappings and the excitation circuits to establish individual connections between the excitation circuits and selected ones of the partial windings (Figure 2 / note the selector, while part of the circuit, is still between the tappings and at least another part of the excitation circuit), and a driver for each one of the first switching devices and the second switching devices (OA or OA’) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0051]).
Lyon does not disclose the channel selector comprises an isolated driver, for each one of the first switching devices and the second switching devices, where control lines are galvanically isolated from control inputs of the first switching devices and the second switching devices, the at least one isolated driver comprises a photovoltaic driver.
Candy discloses the at least one driver is an isolated driver (Paragraph [0105]), with which a control line (109) is are galvanically isolated from a control input of the a switching device (T/R switch FET) (Paragraphs [0098],[0105] / note there must be a control line to control the switching of the FET), (Figure 7), the at least one isolated driver comprises a photovoltaic driver ( Paragraphs [0098],[0105] / note an optocoupler is reasonably photovoltaic).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lyon to include using an isolated driver for each switch to therefore include the channel selector comprises an isolated driver, for each one of the first switching devices and the second switching devices, where control lines are galvanically isolated from control inputs of the first switching devices and the second switching devices, the at least one isolated driver comprises a photovoltaic driver given the above disclosure and teaching of Candy in order to advantageously reduce the transfer function of the transmit coil or to minimize any stray capacitance presented to the rest of the circuit (Paragraph [0105]).
As to Claim 2,
Lyon discloses more of the partial windings are provided than the plurality of excitation circuits (Figure 2 / note the selector, while part of the circuit, is still between the tappings and at least another part of the excitation circuit).
As to Claim 4,
Lyon discloses wherein: for each excitation circuit, when selected, the associated partial winding of the secondary coil of the coupling transformer is connected by the associated first semiconductor switching device in series or in parallel to the transmitter coil (Figure 2 / note 1) that when selecting 154, this winding will be in series with 223, and further 2) that this claim is a conditional phrase that is not required to be invoked and is not positively recited, as the prior art also discloses this feature when a partial winding is not selected).
As to Claim 5,
Lyon discloses wherein: for each excitation circuit, when selected, the associated tuning capacitor is connected by the associated second switching device in series or in parallel to the transmitter coil (Figure 2 / note 1) that when selecting 154, this winding will be in series with 223, and further 2) that this claim is a conditional phrase that is not required to be invoked and is not positively recited, as the prior art also discloses this feature when a partial winding is not selected).
As to Claim 6,
Lyon discloses wherein: for each excitation circuit, when selected, the associated partial winding of the secondary coil of the coupling transformer is connected by the associated first switching device and the associated tuning capacitor is connected by the associated second switching device each in parallel to the transmitter coil (Figure 2 / note 1) that when selecting 151, this winding will be connected in parallel with transmitter coil 21, and when selecting capacitor 221, this capacitor will be in parallel with the transmitter coil, and further 2) that this claim is a conditional phrase that is not required to be invoked and is not positively recited, as the prior art also discloses this feature when a partial winding is not selected).
As to Claim 7,
Lyon discloses, wherein: the plurality of individually selectable excitation circuits are arranged in parallel (Figure 2 / note the circuits are physically side by side and extend in the same direction, and are therefore in parallel, note that this feature requires the circuits be arranged in parallel and does not require that circuits be electrically connected in parallel).
As to Claim 14,
Lyon discloses a computer system having a control program installed thereon for operating the channel selector, wherein the control program is configured to, when executed, cause the channel selector to select operating frequencies and one or ones of the excitation circuits (note that this phrase only requires the channel selector and excitation circuits to be able to be controlled by a control program, when executed. Because such a program can be used to control these components, Lyon discloses the claim feature.)
As to Claim 15,
Lyon discloses the control program is configured to, when executed, cause the operating frequencies and the one or ones of the excitation circuits to be alternatingly changed or keyed during a process of measuring conveyed goods between at least two settings or operating frequencies (note that this phrase only requires the circuits to be able to be controlled by a control program. Because such a program can be used to control the apparatus, Lyon discloses the claim feature.)
As to Claim 17,
Lyon discloses the control program, when executed, is configured to control the frequency generator (11) to thereby select the operating frequencies and the one or ones of the excitation circuits (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0040]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US 2017/0176364) in view of Candy (US 2015/0168584) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Ott et al. (Ott) (US 2002/0005720).
As to Claim 3,
Lyon discloses the electro-mechanical relay switching device is configured as single pole (Figure 2).
Lyon in view of Candy does not disclose the electro-mechanical relay switching device is configured as double pole with contacts connected in parallel.
Ott discloses the electro-mechanical relay switching device is configured as double pole (note SW3a,b) with contacts connected in parallel (Paragraph [0125]), (Figure 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lyon in view of Candy to include the electro-mechanical relay switching device is configured as double pole with contacts connected in parallel as taught by Ott in order to advantageously be able to select more than one capacitor as a time to therefore allow for even more resonant frequency combinations thus allowing for even more fine tuning for a desired frequency.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US 2017/0176364) in view of Candy (US 2015/0168584) as applied to Claim 1 and in view of Merewether et al. (Merewether) (US 8,013,610).
As to Claims 9 and 10,
Lyon in view of Candy does not disclose the first switching devices are bi-directional-MOS-FET units, each bi-directional-MOS-FET unit comprises a first MOS-FET and a second MOS-FET, each having a source terminal, a drain terminal and a gate terminal, the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are connected one another; the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are each connected, respectively, with one of identical first terminals of two diodes, the second terminals of the two diodes are each connected with the drain terminal of the first MOS-FET or the second MOS-FET.
Merewether discloses the first switching devices (526) are bi-directional-MOS-FET units (Column 9, Lines 5-7 / note MOSFET may be used for the switching devices, and Lines 48-56 / note back-to-back FETs are a bi-directional FET), each bi-directional-MOS-FET unit comprises a first MOS-FET and a second MOS-FET, each having a source terminal, a drain terminal and a gate terminal, the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are connected one another; the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are each connected, respectively, with one of identical first terminals of two diodes, the second terminals of the two diodes are each connected with the drain terminal of the first MOS-FET or the second MOS-FET (Column 9, Lines 5-7 / note MOSFET may be used for the switching devices, Lines 48-56 / note back-to-back FETs are a bi-directional FET and where each FET body includes a diode used to isolate each FET from the back-biased junction which reasonably connects the diodes in the claimed manner, as best understood).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lyon in view of Candy to include the first switching devices are bi-directional-MOS-FET units, each bi-directional-MOS-FET unit comprises a first MOS-FET and a second MOS-FET, each having a source terminal, a drain terminal and a gate terminal, the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are connected one another; the source terminals of the first and second MOS-FETs are each connected, respectively, with one of identical first terminals of two diodes, the second terminals of the two diodes are each connected with the drain terminal of the first MOS-FET or the second MOS-FET respectively given the above disclosure and teaching of Merewether in order to advantageously be able to isolate each FET body diode with the other back-biased junction, so that the tank circuit may be operated at higher voltages and/or a lower FET voltage rating may be used (Column 9, Lines 48-56).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyon (US 2017/0176364) in view of Candy (US 2015/0168584) and Merewether et al. (Merewether) (US 8,013,610) as applied to Claim 9 and in further view of Candy (US 2015/0168584).
As to Claim 11,
Lyon in view of Merewether does not disclose light emitting diodes, wherein input lines of the isolated drivers assigned to the first switching devices and the second switching devices of the excitation circuits are each connected each to respective one of the light emitting diodes, wherein the input lines are connected in series, and wherein output lines of the isolated drivers are connected to input terminals of the first switching devices and the second switching devices of the excitation circuits.
Candy discloses the at least one driver is an isolated driver (Paragraph [0105]), with which a control line (109) is are galvanically isolated from a control input of the a switching device (T/R switch FET) and which are connected each to a light emitting diode (Paragraphs [0098],[0105] / note there must be a control line to control the switching of the FET and note the optocoupling), (Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lyon in view of Merewether to include using an isolated driver for each switch to therefore include light emitting diodes, wherein input lines of the isolated drivers assigned to the first switching devices and the second switching devices of the excitation circuits are each connected each to respective one of the light emitting diodes, wherein the input lines are connected in series, and wherein output lines of the isolated drivers are connected to input terminals of the first switching devices and the second switching devices of the excitation circuits given the above disclosure and teaching of Candy in order to advantageously reduce the transfer function of the transmit coil or to minimize any stray capacitance presented to the rest of the circuit (Paragraph [0105]).
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