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 communications filed 4/20/2026 and 1/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to page 6,
No specific arguments have ben made against the 112 rejections, and thus those that have been overcome are withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards Lee (US 2012/0200432) in view of Kovac (LTC2862–The Next Step Towards to the Perfect RS485 Transceiver),
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards the secondary reference of Kovac and that it does not disclose or suggest its use in conjunction with a pulsed LC ringing system like that of Claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that there is no requirement that Kovac recognize any specific use of its disclosed device, such as being used in the pulsed LC ringing system, or that it itself disclose the entirety of the claim features. Lee discloses the type of pulsed LC ringing system noted by applicant, including the use of a transceiver type device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would look to any art that includes similar devices connected to a coil for the purpose of transmitting and receiving signals, and a person would be motivated to make the combination for the reasons noted below. Because Kovac discloses the exact same transceiver as applicant, all argued claim features must be part of the combination of Lee in view of Kovac. A reference cannot reasonably anticipate any and all uses of a disclosed device, and there is no requirement that such a reference ever make such a disclosure. Instead, the test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a device like that described in Kovac, in the combination, to arrive a the claimed invention without the benefit of hindsight. Here, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art combination does indeed make such a showing for the reasons stated below, because both Lee and Kovac disclose transceiver type systems connected to a coil, regardless of the intended or actual use of these devices. An analogous reference is one that is either in applicant’s field of endeavor, or one that is reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved and claimed. Here, both Lee and Kovac are in applicant’s field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees as the combination would be obvious. Note that a datasheet for the same LTC2862 device is being applied as noted below, but that this document discloses the same exact device as Kovac and is being used instead due to its clearer and more detailed figures. Because this document is describing the same device previously demonstrated to be available prior art, this document must also reasonably be available prior 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, 3-5, 11, 13-15, 17, and 18 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 “wherein, in a transmit mode, the transmitter section is configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposite polarities to apply an electric pulse signal across the tank circuit” on lines 7-9 is indefinite.
There is a difference between reciting “the transmitter section is configured, in a transmit mode, to drive …” in contrast with reciting “wherein, in a transmit mode, the transmitter section is configured to drive” as is currently claimed. In the first phrase, the transmitter section is always configured to drive as claimed when in a transmit mode. In the second phrase, the transmitter is not always configured to drive, and instead, as claimed, whether or not the configuration of the transmitter section depends on when the transmitter section is “in a transmit mode.” This is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the transmitter section must always be configured to drive as claimed, or is only required to be configured to drive should a transmit mode be implemented. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim feature as claimed, which only requires the transmitter section to be configured when in a transmit mode.
The phrase “wherein, in a receiver mode, the transmitter section is in a high-impedance state and the receiver section is configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the electric response signal to detect therefrom the electric response signal oscillating at the increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of the vehicle is detected” in the last paragraph is indefinite.
1) There is a difference between reciting “the receiver section is configured, in a receive mode, to sense …” in contrast with reciting “wherein, in a receive mode … the receiver section is configured to sense” as is currently claimed. In the first phrase, the receiver section is always configured to sense as claimed when in a receive mode. In the second phrase, the receiver is not always configured to sense, and instead, as claimed, whether or not the configuration of the receiver section depends on when the receiver section is “in a receive mode.” This is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the receiver section must always be configured to sense as claimed, or is only required to be configured to sense should a receive mode be implemented. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim feature as claimed, which only requires the receiver section to be configured when in a receive mode.
2) The phrase “the electric response signal oscillating” is indefinite, because applicant no longer recites any signal that is oscillating. Applicant has amended the prior phrase to now state that the signal “rings,” and thus it is unclear what electric response signal oscillating that applicant is referencing, and it is unclear what the relationship is between this signal and the prior claimed signal that rings.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “in the receiver mode, the receiver section is further configured to receive the electric response signal to detect therefrom the electric response signal oscillating at the base frequency whereby it is detected that no vehicle is passing or present” on line 3-5 is indefinite.
1) There is a difference between reciting “the receiver section is configured, in a receive mode, to receive …” in contrast with reciting “wherein, in a receive mode … the receiver section is configured to receive” as is currently claimed. In the first phrase, the receiver section is always configured to receive as claimed when in a receive mode. In the second phrase, the receiver is not always configured to receive, and instead, as claimed, whether or not the configuration of the receiver section depends on when the receiver section is “in a receive mode.” This is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the receiver section must always be configured to receive as claimed, or is only required to be configured to receive should a receive mode be implemented. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim feature as claimed, which only requires the receiver section to be configured when in a receive mode.
2) The phrase “the electric response signal oscillating” is indefinite, because applicant no longer recites any signal that is oscillating. Applicant has amended the prior phrase to now state that the signal “rings,” and thus it is unclear what electric response signal oscillating that applicant is referencing, and it is unclear what the relationship is between this signal and the prior claimed signal that rings.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “wherein, in the transmit mode, the transmitter section is further configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposing polarities to apply a second electric pulse signal across the second tank circuit” on lines 4-6 is indefinite.
1) There is a difference between reciting “the transmitter section is configured, in a transmit mode, to drive …” in contrast with reciting “wherein, in a transmitter mode … the transmit section is configured to drive” as is currently claimed. In the first phrase, the transmitter section is always configured to drive as claimed when in a transmit mode. In the second phrase, the transmitter is not always configured to drive, and instead, as claimed, whether or not the configuration of the transmitter section depends on when the transmitter section is “in a transmit mode.” This is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the transmitter section must always be configured to drive as claimed, or is only required to be configured to drive should a transmitter mode be implemented. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim feature as claimed, which only requires the transmitter section to be configured when in a transmit mode.
2) The second tank circuit is not claimed to be connected to the first and second terminals. As such, it is unclear how the transmitter section can apply any signal to the second tank circuit, when this circuit is not positively recited to be connected to the terminals needed for such a claim feature. It is therefore unclear whether the second tank circuit is required to be connected to the first and second terminals.
The phrase “the second tank circuit is configured in response to receiving the second electric pulse signal generate a second electric response signal which (i) rings at a second base frequency while no vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop and (ii) rings at a second increased frequency while a vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop” on lines 7-10 is indefinite.
1) While applicant has changed the term “generates” to generate,” as worded, it is unclear how this new term relates to the rest of the claim. For example, it is unclear if applicant intends this phrase to mean that the circuit is configured “to generate.” The relationship between the generate term and the tank circuit is therefore unclear.
2) This phrase recites a vehicle, but where Claim 1 already recites a vehicle. The difference and relationship between the vehicle of Claim 1 and the above vehicle in the above phrase is unclear, because as best understood, these vehicles are the same feature but are being distinctly recite.
The phrase “wherein, in the receiver mode, the receiver section is further configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the second electric response signal to detect therefrom the second electric response signal oscillating at the increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of the vehicle is detected with respect to the second inductive wire loop” in the last paragraph is indefinite.
1) There is a difference between reciting “the receiver section is configured, in a receive mode, to sense …” in contrast with reciting “wherein, in a receive mode … the receiver section is configured to sense” as is currently claimed. In the first phrase, the receiver section is always configured to sense as claimed when in a receive mode. In the second phrase, the receiver is not always configured to sense, and instead, as claimed, whether or not the configuration of the receiver section depends on when the receiver section is “in a receive mode.” This is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the receiver section must always be configured to sense as claimed, or is only required to be configured to sense should a receive mode be implemented. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim feature as claimed, which only requires the receiver section to be configured when in a receive mode.
2) The second tank circuit is not claimed to be connected to the first and second terminals. As such, it is unclear how the receiver section can receive any signal from the second tank circuit, when this circuit is not positively recited to be connected to the terminals needed for such a claim feature. It is therefore unclear whether the second tank circuit is required to be connected to the first and second terminals.
3) The phrase “the second electric response signal oscillating” is indefinite, because applicant no longer recites any signal that is oscillating. Applicant has amended the prior phrase to now state that the signal “rings,” and thus it is unclear what electric response signal oscillating that applicant is referencing, and it is unclear what the relationship is between this signal and the prior claimed signal that rings.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the electric pulse signal has a pulse width duration which results in the electric response signal having a decaying sinusoidal waveform including a given number of cycles” on lines 2-3 is indefinite because the electric response signal was not positively recited as explained above, and it is therefore unclear whether the above phrase is or is not required in the claim as the phrase depends on whether the tank circuit receives the electric pulse signal. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the receiving of the electric pulse signal, and thus the entirety of the above phrase, is not positively recited, and is conditional similar to the manner in which the tank circuit receiving the electric pulse signal is also conditional.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “the transceiver being configured (i) to transmit an electric pulse signal to energize the tank circuit with electrical energy whereby the tank circuit generates an electric response signal which oscillates at the resonant frequency of the tank circuit and (ii) to receive the electric response signal from the tank circuit; and a controller configured to detect that no vehicle is in the presence of the inductive wire loop when the electric response signal oscillates at the base frequency value and to detect that a vehicle is in the presence of the inductive wire loop when the electric response signal oscillates at the increased frequency value” on lines 6 to the end is indefinite.
1) The phrase “whereby the tank circuit generates an electric response signal which oscillates at the resonant frequency of the tank circuit” is indefinite, because it is unclear whether this feature is required in the claim. This feature is linked to the configuration of the transceiver, but the transceiver does not perform and is not reasonably configured to perform the above function. Additionally, to the extent that the above feature is given patentable weight, this phrase is a method step of using the generating and oscillating. Such a feature is indefinite because reciting a positive use (method step) of an apparatus claim feature in an apparatus claim is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
The phrase “ a vehicle” on lines 11 and 13 is indefinite. Each of these recitations are distinctly recited from each other, but where as best understood, they are not distinct. As best understood, each recitation refers to the same vehicle, making it unclear what the difference and relationship are between the various vehicle recitations. Furthermore, Claim 1 already recites a vehicle, and as best understood, that vehicle is the same as the above claimed vehicle. The difference and relationship between each of the different vehicle recitations are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “the controller is further configured to implement a gated high frequency counting process to count a number of pulses of the digitized electric response signal in order to measure the frequency of the digitized electric response signal to thereby detect whether a vehicle is in a presence of the inductive wire loop” on lines 3-6 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what a “gated high frequency counting process” does not and does not include. While applicant does disclose the use of a gate, it also discloses a gate signal in the form of a pulse. As such, it is unclear if an actual gate is required in the claim, or if the mere use of a gated signal, such as the output of a counter would meet the above claim limitation. The metes and bounds of this phrase are unclear.
The phrase “ a vehicle” on line 4 is indefinite. Claims 1 and 11 already recite a vehicle, and as best understood, each recitation refers to the same vehicle, making it unclear what the difference and relationship are between the various vehicle recitations.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the controller is further configured to implement a time to digital converter counting process to count a number of pulses of the digitized electric response signal in order to measure the frequency of the digitized electric response signal to thereby detect whether a vehicle is in a presence of the inductive wire loop” on lines 3-6 is indefinite. At issue here is that the metes and bounds of what a time to digital converter counting process includes is unclear. It is unclear what applicant means by a “time to digital converter,” such that it is unclear if applicant means that a time is calculated, or if a number of digitally converted signals are counted over a specific time, or if this phrase has another intended meaning. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that any counting over a period of time and using a digital converter as part of the process reasonably meets the claim requirements.
The phrase “ a vehicle” on line 4 is indefinite. Claim 11 already recites a vehicle, and as best understood, each recitation refers to the same vehicle, making it unclear what the difference and relationship are between the various vehicle recitations.
As to Claims 3-5, 11, 13-15, 17, and 18,
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, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2012/0200432) in view of Kovac (LTC2862–The Next Step Towards to the Perfect RS485 Transceiver) / Kovac/Linear Technology LTC2862/LTC2863 LTC2864/LTC2865 (Kovac/Linear).
As to Claim 1,
Lee discloses An inductive-loop detection system for detecting a passage or presence of a metallic object (vehicle), comprising: a tank circuit (11) having an inductive wire loop (11a) and a capacitor ((Paragraph [0038]),(Figure 1 / note LC circuit); a transceiver (12,20) configured to transmit an electric pulse signal to the tank circuit (Paragraphs [0038]-[0043] / note the oscillator is periodically applied with an operating voltage, which is reasonably a pulse); wherein the tank circuit is configured to in response to receiving the electric pulse signal generate an electric response signal which (i) rings at a base frequency while no vehicle is near the inductive wire loop and (ii) ring at an increased frequency while a vehicle is near the inductive wire loop (Paragraphs [0038]-[0043]); and the transceiver is further configured to receive the electric response signal to detect therefrom the electric response signal oscillating at the increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of the vehicle is detected (Figures 1,2), (Paragraphs [0038]-[0043]).
Lee does not disclose a balanced-line transceiver having first and second terminals forming a differential pair, the balanced-line transceiver including a transmitter section and a receiver section that share the differential pair in a half-duplex manner, wherein, in a transmit mode, the transmitter section is configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposing polarities to apply an electric pulse signal across the tank circuit, wherein, in a receive mode, the transmitter section is in a high-impedance state and the receiver section is configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the electric response signal to detect therefrom the electric response signal oscillating at the increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of the vehicle is detected.
Kovac/Linear discloses the transceiver is a balanced-line transceiver having first and second terminals (A,B) forming a differential pair (Page 17, Figure or Kovac/Linear or Page 2 of Kovac), the balanced-line transceiver including a transmitter section and a receiver section that share the differential pair in a half-duplex manner (Page 1, Table / note LTC2862-1 is half-duplex of Kovac/Linear or ), (Page 8, Note the DE/DI pins and associated circuitry are a receiver section, and the R0,/RE pins and associated circuitry are the receiver section, and note that Kovac/Linear discloses the exact same LTC2862-1 device and thus must disclose these claim features), wherein, in a transmit mode, the transmitter section is configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposing polarities to apply an electric pulse signal across the attached circuit (Page 1), (Page 17, Figure / note again the Kovac/Linear discloses the exact same transceiver as applicant and thus must include this feature), wherein, in a receive mode, the transmitter section is in a high-impedance state and the receiver section is configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the electric response signal to detect a received electrical signal (Page 1), (Page 17, Figure / note again the Kovac/Linear discloses the exact same transceiver as applicant and thus must include this feature),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee to use the LTC2862-1 transceiver as the device used to communicate with the LC circuit to therefore include a balanced-line transceiver having first and second terminals forming a differential pair, the balanced-line transceiver including a transmitter section and a receiver section that share the differential pair in a half-duplex manner, wherein, in a transmit mode, the transmitter section is configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposing polarities to apply an electric pulse signal across the tank circuit, wherein, in a receive mode, the transmitter section is in a high-impedance state and the receiver section is configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the electric response signal to detect therefrom the electric response signal oscillating at the increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of the vehicle is detected given the above disclosure and teaching of Kovac/Linear in order to advantageously utilize a device that has reduced failures caused by electrical overstress (Page 1, First Full Paragraph of Kovac).
(Note: While the prior art discloses the claim features, the Examiner respectfully notes that the third to last and last paragraphs of the claim are entirety conditional and not positively recited. There is no requirement that the device be in a transmit or receive mode. In fact, the instant claim is an apparatus claim and therefore would reasonably encompass the apparatus when off and not in operation. When not in operation, the apparatus would neither be in a transmit or receive mode, and thus not have to disclose either of these noted paragraphs. As such, the prior art additionally discloses the claim features when the device is not in operation.)
As to Claim 3,
Lee in view of Kovac/Linear discloses in the receive mode, the receiver section is further configured to receive the electric response signal to detect therefrom the electric response signal oscillating at the base frequency whereby it is detected that no vehicle is passing or present (Figures 1,2), (Paragraphs [0038]-[0043] / note that the frequency will not increase when no vehicle is present, and note further that while the transceiver is configured to receive the electric response signal, because such a signal is not required in the claim, the last paragraph of the claim is also reasonably conditional).
As to Claim 5,
Lee discloses the electric pulse signal has a pulse width duration which results in the electric response signal having a decaying sinusoidal waveform including a given number of cycles, wherein the pulse width duration is such that if the pulse width duration was increased the electric response signal would instead have a triangular waveform (Figure 2 / note the decaying waveform towards the end of the analog oscillation signal, and note that the claim does not require the pulse width duration to be increased, but if it was, Lee’s disclosure is substantially similar to that of applicant and would therefore reasonably include the triangular waveform feature as a property of the system).
As to Claim 6,
Lee discloses the tank circuit further includes a capacitor (Figure 1 / note LC resonator).
As to Claim 7,
Lee discloses the metallic object is a vehicle (Paragraph [0036]).
As to Claim 8,
Lee discloses the metallic object is a bicycle, tricycle, a scooter, a motorcycle, a motorized bicycle, or a wheeled vehicle (Paragraph [0036] / note Lee is reasonably directed towards the detection of a wheeled vehicle).
As to Claim 9,
Lee discloses An inductive-loop detection system for detecting a passage or presence of a vehicle, comprising: a transceiver (12,20) (Figure 1); a capacitor (Figure 1 / note LC resonator); an inductive wire loop (11a) (Figure 1 / note LC resonator), (Paragraph [0036]), an inductance of the inductive wire loop being decreased while a vehicle is near the inductive wire loop (Paragraph [0038]); the capacitor and the inductive wire loop in combination form a tank circuit (Paragraph [0036]), (Figure 1 / note LC resonator), the tank circuit having a resonant frequency inversely proportional to the inductance of the inductive wire loop whereby the resonant frequency of the tank circuit is increased while a vehicle is near the inductive wire loop (Paragraph [0038] / note this is a property of the system); the transceiver is configured to transmit an electric pulse signal to the tank circuit to energize the tank circuit with electrical energy (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0041],[0042],0045] / note the LC resonator is provided with a pulsed signal and generates pulses in response); the tank circuit energized with the electrical energy generating an electric response signal which oscillates at the resonant frequency of the tank circuit whereby an electric response signal oscillates at an increased frequency while a vehicle is near the inductive wire loop; (Paragraphs [0038],[0040]-[0045] / note this feature is a property of the system), and the transceiver being further configured to receive the electric response signal from the tank circuit and to detect from the received electric response signal the resonant frequency of the tank circuit whereby the transceiver detects the passage or presence of a vehicle when the resonant frequency of the tank circuit is increased (Paragraph [0043] / note that determining vehicle behavior requires that the vehicle is detected as present or passing).
As to Claim 11,
Lee discloses a controller (22-25 or just 25) configured to detect that no vehicle is in the presence of the inductive wire loop when the electric response signal rings at the base frequency value and to detect that a vehicle is in the presence of the inductive wire loop when the electric response signal rings at the increased frequency value (Paragraphs [0038],[0043]-[0049] / note that determining vehicle behavior requires that the vehicle is detected as present or passing, and that no vehicle will be detected when the frequency is not increased and the frequency is at the steady-state).
As to Claim 13,
Lee in view of Kovac/Linear discloses the controller is further configured to transform the electric response signal received from the balanced-line transceiver into a digitized electric response signal having a plurality of pulses oscillating at a frequency corresponding to the frequency of the digitized electric response signal (Figures 1 and 2 / note the output of the analog to digital converter (21) and the digital oscillation signal in Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0043],[0046]).
As to Claim 14,
Lee discloses: the controller is further configured to implement a gated high frequency counting process to count a number of pulses of the digitized electric response signal in order to measure the frequency of the digitized electric response signal to thereby detect whether a vehicle is in a presence of the inductive wire loop (Paragraphs [0049]-[0054] / note counting pulses is the same as determining a frequency as the number of pulses over a specific time period is a frequency, and note that in light of applicant’s disclosure, a gated counting process only requires a the use of counting by way of a counter signal, and a gate itself is not positively claimed. Also note the phrase “in order to measure,” which met the by prior art, is also not positively recited as it is an intended use of the counting and the claim does not require the controller to be configured to perform this use).
As to Claim 15,
Lee discloses: the controller is further configured to implement a time to digital converter counting process to count a number of pulses of the digitized electric response signal in order to measure the frequency of the digitized electric response signal to thereby detect whether a vehicle is in a presence of the inductive wire loop (Paragraphs [0049]-[0054] / note counting pulses over a specific time period and using an digital converter in the process is reasonably a time to digital converter counting process, and note that in light of applicant’s disclosure, a gated counting process only requires a the use of counting by way of a counter signal, and a gate itself is not positively claimed. Also note the phrase “in order to measure,” which met the by prior art, is also not positively recited as it is an intended use of the counting and the claim does not require the controller to be configured to perform this use).
As to Claim 17,
Lee discloses the controller is further configured to set a configurable duration of the electric pulse signal (Paragraph [0042] / note the frequency can be selected from a set of frequencies, thus reasonably making it configurable).
As to Claim 18,
Lee discloses the controller is further configured to set the configurable duration of the electric pulse signal depending on the resonant frequency of the tank circuit (Paragraphs [0039],[0042] / note the frequency can be selected from a set of frequencies, thus reasonably making it configurable, and that any setting of this frequency must reasonably depend on the selected resonant frequency of the LC oscillator, which is also selectable).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2012/0200432) in view of Lee (US 2012/0200432) in view of Kovac (LTC2862–The Next Step Towards to the Perfect RS485 Transceiver) / Linear Technology LTC2862/LTC2863 as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Clark (US 4,568,937).
As to Claim 4,
Lee in view of Kovac/Linear discloses wherein, in the transmit mode, the transmitter section is further configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposing polarities to apply a second electric pulse signal across the second tank circuit; wherein in the receive mode, the receiver section is further configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the second electric response signal to detect therefrom the second electric response signal oscillating at the second increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of a vehicle is detected with respect to the second inductive wire loop (Note that these features are not positively recited, as explained above, and thus Lee in view of Kovac/Linear disclose this features when the device is not in operation, and thus no transmit or receive mode would be present).
Lee does not disclose: a second tank circuit having a second inductive wire loop and a capacitor; wherein in the transceiver is further configured to transmit a second electric pulse signal to the second tank circuit; the second tank circuit in response to receiving the second electric pulse signal generates a second electric response signal which (i) oscillates at a second base frequency while no vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop and (ii) oscillates at a second increased frequency while a vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop, and only to the extent that it is held that the prior art does not disclose the transmit and receive mode features, does not disclose wherein, in the transmit mode, the transmitter section is further configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposing polarities to apply a second electric pulse signal across the second tank circuit; wherein in the receive mode, the receiver section is further configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the second electric response signal to detect therefrom the second electric response signal oscillating at the second increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of a vehicle is detected with respect to the second inductive wire loop.
However, the only difference between Lee in view of Kovac/Linear and the above claim feature is the duplication of the LC oscillator such that a second one exists which, in the combination, would disclose the above claim feature.
To that point, Clark discloses a similar vehicle detector Lee that includes a second tank circuit having a second inductive wire loop (Figure 1),(Column 4, Lines 55-61 / note plural loops and thus plural tank circuits); wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit a second electric signal to the second tank circuit (Figures 3-5), (Column 3, Lines 36-54 / note the oscillator must be provide with an electric signal); the second tank circuit in response to receiving the second electric pulse signal generates a second electric response signal which (i) oscillates at a second base frequency while no vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop and (ii) oscillates at a second increased frequency while a vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop (Column 3, Lines 54-63 / note this is a property of the system); and the transceiver is further configured to receive the second electric response signal to detect therefrom the second electric response signal oscillating at the second increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of a metallic object is detected (Column 3, Lines 54-63 / note this is a property of the system / note the microprocessor determines the presence of a vehicle based on the period/frequency change), the second tank circuit having a resonant frequency which increases from a second base frequency value to a second increased frequency value while a vehicle is in a presence of the second inductive wire loop (Column 3, Lines 54-63 / note this is a property of the system); wherein the transceiver is further configured (i) to transmit a second electric signal to energize the second tank circuit with electrical energy whereby the second tank circuit generates a second electric response signal which oscillates at the resonant frequency of the second tank circuit and (ii) to receive the second electric response signal from the second tank circuit (Column 3, Lines 54-63 / note this is a property of the system / note the microprocessor determines the presence of a vehicle based on the period/frequency change, and the oscillator must have an electric signal transmitted to it); and the controller is further configured to detect that no vehicle is in the presence of the second inductive wire loop when the second electric response signal oscillates at the second base frequency value and to detect that a vehicle is in the presence of the second inductive wire loop when the second electric response signal oscillates at the second increased frequency value (Column 3, Lines 54-63 / note this is a property of the system).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lee in view of Kovac/Linear to duplicate the LC circuit attached to the transceiver and thus the number of tank circuits to therefore disclose a second tank circuit having a second inductive wire loop and a capacitor; wherein in the transceiver is further configured to transmit a second electric pulse signal to the second tank circuit; the second tank circuit in response to receiving the second electric pulse signal generates a second electric response signal which (i) oscillates at a second base frequency while no vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop and (ii) oscillates at a second increased frequency while a vehicle is near the second inductive wire loop, wherein, in the transmit mode, the transmitter section is further configured to drive the first and second terminals at opposing polarities to apply a second electric pulse signal across the second tank circuit; wherein in the receive mode, the receiver section is further configured to sense a differential voltage between the first and second terminals to receive the second electric response signal to detect therefrom the second electric response signal oscillating at the second increased frequency whereby the passage or presence of a vehicle is detected with respect to the second inductive wire loop given the above disclosure and teaching of Clark in order to advantageously be able to detect additional vehicles in the vicinity of each other using the same system and thus provide increased functionality such as to monitor the presence of vehicles for a large number of parking spaces or be able to identify when vehicles are present to help avoid accidents and control traffic patterns (also note MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
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