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 11/14/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
Applicant initially argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an electronic transmission card is a circuit board that transmits electrical signals. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the issue here is not a generic descriptor of the function of the card, but rather the manner in which it is implemented. An electronic transmission card is not a well-known device with a sufficient level of specificity that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the specific type of device that applicant is implementing, either by way of disclosing the details of the device or relying upon a well-known device. For example, disclosing a microprocessor, while broad, would reasonably be recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a well-known device for processing data, but merely disclosing a “processing device” would not reasonably be recognized as a well-known device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what a “processing device” is beyond the fact that it must be a device that processes something. In order to meet the written description requirement, applicant must either reasonably disclose the device that is being used or reasonably identify a well-known device that was well-known for the intended purpose. As explained in MPEP 2163, “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94.” As such, to the extent that applicant intends to rely upon a well-known device, applicant is not required to disclose such a device “in detail,” but applicant must nevertheless disclose enough about the device such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the device being relied upon. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably provide such an explanation, and disclosing a transmission card or transmitting board is similar to disclosing a processing device, where neither reasonably identify any well-known device that was well-known to be used for the claimed purpose.
Applicant then argues that a French phrase is customarily translated in English as “transmitting electronic board,” and cites one document to demonstrate support. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no evidence that applicant ever intended to translate this phrase in transmitting electronic board as argued. This phrase was originally translated into something different than what is argued by applicant, and there is no evidence that the individual currently translating this phrase is familiar with both English and French such that this person can reasonably recognize what was originally intended for the French version of this phrase. The fact that, based upon applicant’s current arguments, that this phrase can be interpreted in more than one manner requires further evidence to demonstrate applicant’s intent for this phrase, especially given that this phrase was originally translated into something different than currently argued. Merely because another document unrelated to the instant application may have translated this French phrase into something else is, respectfully, not evidence that applicant intended to use this alternative translation. As such, this translation and corresponding change to the application introduces new matter, as what is being argued is at most attorney argument which is unsupported by necessary evidence to demonstrate the intent of applicant for the instant application.
That stated, even to the extent that applicant now claims a transmitting electronic board, such a phrase raises a similar issue as was previously raised. A transmitting electronic board does not reasonably identify any particular type of well-known device, in the same way the phrase “processing device” does not reasonably identify any type of well-known device. While this reference may use the argued phrase transmitting electronic board, such a reference neither establishes that this feature was well-known, nor does it establish that it was the type of device intended to be used by applicant. Furthermore, such a phrase is so broad that it does not reasonably identify any particular type of well-known device that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the type of device intended to be covered by the claims. As applicant is arguing that a transmitting electronic board is the same as an electronic transmission card, the Examiner notes that, per applicant’s admission, such a device is a circuit board that transmits electrical signals to a system. However, such a descriptor would reasonably define almost every circuit board in existence, as most circuit boards generate electrical signals that are transmitted elsewhere. As such, this phrase does not reasonably identify any specific type of device that was recognized as well-known for the intended claim purpose.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that as was held in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a single reference does not reasonably establish what was well-known in the art.
For these reasons, and for the reasons previously raised in the 112(a) rejections, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-11 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
As to Claims 5 and 7,
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and understand that a transmitting electronic board is an electronic circuit board that is configured to transmit or inject an electric current. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similar to that explained above, most circuits would meet this definition, and thus such an definition does not reasonably define or explain what such a board is such that the metes and bounds of this phrase are clear. While applicant provides one reference to demonstrate that such a device was known, a single reference does not reasonably establish that such a feature was well-known. Furthermore, such a reference at most shows the manner in which another inventor chose to implement a feature and label it as such. However, in the same way that providing a single reference showing an implementation of a “processing device” would not reasonably demonstrate that such a device was well-known or that the disclosed implementation of that device was well-known to be used in the claimed manner, the provided reference also does not reasonably establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the metes and bounds of what would and would not constitute a transmission card or board.
Applicant then argues that the term “stable” is supported by paragraph 62, but the Examiner respectfully notes that nothing in this paragraph establishes the metes and bounds of what would and would not be considered stable. While this paragraph may state that having a “stable” intensity makes is possible to improve the signal to noise ratio, it doesn’t establish what types of intensity would be considered stable to allow for such an improvement. Applicant argues that stable refers to the intensity not significantly changing, but such an argument is attorney argument unsupported by evidence, but where evidence is necessary (see MPEP 2145(I)). Even still, applicant does not reasonably establish what would and would not be considered “not significantly changing” as argued. By applicant’s own admission, stable does allow a changing of the intensity, but without any reasonably boundaries as to how much change is too much as thus considered significant, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonable recognize the metes and bounds of this term.
No specific arguments are provided for the term “weak,” but a similar issue exists with this phrase. Applicant is now referencing one claim feature as weak relative to another, but applicant provides no reasonable guidance as to what would and would not qualify as weak. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the metes and bounds of this phrase to therefore recognize whether one claim element was “weak” relative to another.
With regard to claim 9,
Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to address the previous constrained geometry issue, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the amendment does not reasonably overcome the previous issue. The previous issue pertained to an issue where a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant means by a constrained geometry. It is unclear if any signal placed into a coil, for example, has a constrained geometry merely due to the constant nature of the signal, or if applicant means something more by this phrase. Such a feature is unclear because it is unclear what constrains the field or what is meant by the field being constrained.
Applicant then argues that resistivity contrasts is a common term, but the Examiner respectfully notes that a single reference, as noted above, does not establish that a feature was well-known. Furthermore, this phrase was also rejected because the interpretation of how it was claimed was unclear, but no arguments or amendments are presented with regard to this issue.
As to Claim 13,
This claim raises issues similar to those explained above, and applicant’s attention is directed to the above response.
With regard to the arguments on pages 11-12 directed towards Reime (US 2012/0049850),
Applicant argues that Reime is not analogous art of the claimed invention that claims an electromagnetic system for geophysical prospecting of subsoils. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that “there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)” (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I). That stated, a metal detector is analogous art, because both a metal detector an electromagnetic system for geophysical prospecting of subsoils are magnetic sensing systems used to detect underground of buried objects. Any technology that reasonably is directed to metal detecting is applicable to that of geophysical prospecting. In fact, as expressly stated on lines 41-43 of column 1 in Nel (US 8,870,219), “Metal detectors are used for many applications including detecting land mines, geophysical prospecting, treasure hunting and construction.” Similarly, Olsson et al. (Olsson) (US 8,264,226) expressly discloses the use of a metal detecting device for the same purpose as applicant, which is detecting resistivity/conductivity of the soil on lines 36-49 of column 11. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as a metal detector is analogous art to any form of electromagnetic geophysical prospecting both by being in the same field of endeavor, and by being reasonably pertinent.
Applicant argues that Reime is completely silent as to any subsoils, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Reime is concerned with the influence of ground effects (Paragraph [0033]). Ground effects refer to the effect that mineralized soil, i.e. soil with magnetic / metallic components, has on any reflected magnetic field. See for example “This invention relates to metal detectors of the induction balance type and especially to such metal detectors which have the ability to discriminate between ferrous and non-ferrous metal objects and also which have the ability to compensate for ground effects caused by the presence of mineralized soil” (emphasis added) on lines 8-13 of Column 1 of Tuner (US 4,300,097); and “In actual practice, however, the ground effects caused by ferromagnetic minerals in the soil, in the form of ferric oxide and other ferrous materials, create substantial difficulties in setting a proper slicing level because of the varying magnitude of such background of "earth effects" (emphasis added) on the operation of the detectors” on lines 33-39 of Column 1 of Payne (US 4,128,803).
As such, by referencing ground effects, Reime is disclosing that the device is used to detect objects buried in metallic soil, and that any signal received by the receiver coil will contain a component due to this soil.
Applicant then argues that Reime does not disclose a transmitting coil creates a primary magnetic field that excites a subsoil nor a receiving coil that measures a secondary magnetic field returned from the excited subsoil. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, to the extent that applicant is arguing the actual use of the apparatus, the Examiner respectfully notes that the such a recitation is indefinite. As explained in MPEP 2114(II), “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” As such, while claiming a coil configured to generate a magnetic field into a subsoil, and a receiving coil configured to measure a secondary magnetic field returned from the subsoil is proper, actually requiring the generation and receiving of such a field is not given patentable weight, because apparatus claims are not directed towards the actual use of the device.
Such a feature is also indefinite because, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” From an examination perspective, this type of claim feature raises an issue of indefiniteness because method claims and apparatus claims are not examined the same, and because apparatus claims are intended to be directed towards what the device actually is, and not its actual use as explained above. This issue was further noted in IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), referenced in this MPEP section, because an issue of when infringement occurs rendered the claim indefinite. As such, positively reciting that the transmitting antenna “creates a primary magnetic field that excites a subsoil” raises an issue of indefiniteness.
That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features argued by applicant are exactly how the device of Reime operates. Reime discloses a transmitting coil that generates an electromagnetic field (magnetic field) due to current being placed in into the transmitting coils as explained in paragraph [0035]. Soil must be present due to the ground effects mentions in paragraph [0033], and such effects must be that the soil is mineralized (has metallic particles) that will in turn become excited. Meaning, per Faraday’s law of induction, the changing magnetic field from the transmitting coil in the presence of the metal in the soil will induce currents (eddy currents) in the soil, which will in turn generate a magnetic field that will be detected by the receiver coil in addition to any influence the actual object of detection also causes on the detected magnetic field. This is explained in lines 45-49 of column 1 of the above Payne reference explaining “This result occurs since ground effects produce primarily reactive signal components and produce very little resistive or eddy current signal components in the signal picked up by the receive coil.”
Any magnetic field generated into the Earth by the transmitting coil will induce (excite) a signal in both the object of detection and the metallic soil, and where the receiver coil will detect an influence from both. While any detected soil influence may not be desirable, such a detection will nevertheless be present as explained above. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the receiver coil provide a measurement pertaining to the soil.
That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes applicant is claiming that the receiving antenna is configured to measure the secondary magnetic field from the soil. Any coil used to detect a magnetic field transmitted into the Earth is capable of such a detection, including that disclosed by Reime. Applicant is not claiming any feature that is configured to use the output from the receiver coil (receiving antenna) to identify any feature of the soil, and is instead only claiming that the antenna (coil) itself is configured to make a measurement. However, any coil used as a receiver coil would reasonably meet this requirement, as all that is required is a coil that can have a magnetic field proximate the coil induce a received signal in the coil. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 13-15 pertaining to the 103 rejections,
As to Claims 5 and 6,
Applicant’s attention is directed to the above response.
As to Claims 9, 10, and 13,
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to analogous art and the measuring of a secondary magnetic field returned from excited soil have been addressed above, and applicant’s attention is directed to the above response. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant.
As to Claims 11 and 12,
Applicant’s attention is directed to the above response.
Specification
The amendment filed 11/14/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant has added “a transmitting electronic board” and “transmitting electronic boards” in place of an electronic transmission card or “transmission cards.” Such an amendment introduces new matter, because no electronic boards were previously disclosed, and because there is no evidence on the record that applicant ever intended to use the phrase transmission board or boards instead of the originally disclosed transmission cards. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 5, 7, and 13,
The phrase “at least one transmitting electronic board” on line 2 of Claim 5, line 2 of Claim 7, and on lines 2-3 of Claim 13 lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
1) With regard to new matter, the original disclosure does not originally disclose a transmitting electronic board as claimed. Applicant does not present evidence that such a translation difference was originally intended or that this phrase must have been translated in this matter so as to be included in the original disclosure. While applicant has presented a reference that applicant argues demonstrates how a similar French phrase was translated in an unrelated application, this, respectfully, does not reasonably mean that such a phrase would necessarily have been translated in the same manner in the instant application. Because the above noted phrase is not found in the original disclosure, and because there is no evidence it was intended to be translated in that manner, this phrase introduces new matter.
2) With regard to written description, the Examiner acknowledges that transmission circuits used to generate a current in a coil or winding are known, and this rejection is not directed towards such a circuit. At issue here is that applicant is expressly claiming a transmission “board,” but where such a device is not reasonably well-known. Applicant does not provide any disclosure as to the board or boards, and the only figure showing any related feature for the originally claimed card is an empty box. Because the original disclosure is completely silent as to what the board or boards are, and because such a boards or boards are not well-known devices that are reasonably identified by the above phrase with a sufficient level of specificity that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize what these devices are and what they include, as best understood, the above phrase lacks proper written description. This is because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner that applicant is implementing this particular claim feature.
As to Claims 6 and 8,
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 1-13 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 the transmitting antenna creates a primary magnetic field that excites a subsoil” on lines 7-8 is indefinite. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” From an examination perspective, this type of claim feature raises an issue of indefiniteness because method claims and apparatus claims are not examined the same, and because apparatus claims are intended to be directed towards what the device actually is, and not its actual use as explained above. It is therefore unclear how this phrase should be treated, in that it is unclear whether the transmitting antenna must actually create a primary magnetic field that excites a subsoil, or if it is sufficient that the transmitting antenna be able to perform this function. This issue was further noted in IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), referenced in this MPEP section, because an issue of when infringement occurs rendered the claim indefinite. As such, positively reciting that the transmitting antenna “creates a primary magnetic field that excites a subsoil” raises an issue of indefiniteness.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the transmitting electromagnetic loops of the each set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops are centered on a geometric axis orthogonal to the different planes that are parallel to one another and position the transmitting electromagnetic loops of the each set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by reciting “and position the transmitting electromagnetic loops of the each set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops.” It is unclear what positions the loops as claimed, or how such a position relates to any other claim feature. The claim reads where the transmitting electromagnetic loops are centered on a geometric axis orthogonal to the different planes, but then references the position of the loops without referencing another claim feature. As such, it is unclear how this position relates to the loops being centered on the geometric axis, or if this position was being referenced to the manner in which the loops are positioned, and if so, it is unclear with respect to what this position is referenced.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “at least one transmitting electronic board on line 2 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what a transmitting “board” is in light of the disclosure. While such a phrase may refer to a signal source such as a clock generator or current source, these devices are not called transmitting boards. While the original disclosure describes the transmission cards (transmitting boards as currently amended) as providing a current, they do not reasonably disclose what they are or the manner in which they are implemented. What applicant identifies as a “card” or “board” in the figures is merely an empty box, and as best understood is not reasonably what a card would normally considered to be. As such, it is unclear what circuit can and cannot be considered transmitting boards in light of the disclosure, and it is unclear what applicant means by reciting a transmitting board.
The phrase “at least one transmitting electronic board configured to inject an electric current in a same direction into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops in order to generate a primary magnetic field and to create zones of space where an intensity of the primary magnetic field is stable” on lines 1-7 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant intends the above phrase to mean, in that it is unclear what applicant considers a “stable” intensity. Such a phrase can reasonably mean several different things, such as the intensity is at a desired amount and thus stable, or the intensity does not change. Applicant does not reasonably explain what is meant by this phrase, and thus it is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that the magnetic field is at a desired amount.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “at least one transmitting board configured to inject an electric current in a certain direction into at least one transmitting electromagnetic loop of a same set, and to inject an electric current in an opposite direction into at least one other transmitting electromagnetic loop of the same set in order to generate a primary magnetic field and to create zones where an intensity of the primary magnetic field is weak relative to the secondary magnetic field returned from the subsoil, wherein the same set has the at least one transmitting electromagnetic loop that is different from the at least one other transmitting electromagnetic loop” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that it is unclear what a transmitting “board” is in light of the disclosure. While such a phrase may refer to a signal source such as a clock generator or current source, these devices are not called transmitting boards. While the original disclosure describes the transmission cards (transmitting boards as currently amended) as providing a current, they do not reasonably disclose what they are or the manner in which they are implemented. What applicant identifies as a “card” or “board” in the figures is merely an empty box, and as best understood is not reasonably what a card would normally considered to be. As such, it is unclear what circuit can and cannot be considered transmitting boards in light of the disclosure, and it is unclear what applicant means by reciting a transmitting board.
2) At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant intends the above phrase to mean, in that it is unclear what applicant considers a “weak” magnetic field. This phrase is reasonably subjective, and applicant does not reasonably establish the metes and bounds of what would and would not be considered a weak magnetic field. This is especially true where applicant discloses that weak can mean that the primary and secondary fields are of the same strength. As such, this phrase is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that the magnetic field is lower or the same than at any other location, in light of the amendment to this claim.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “generating a primary magnetic field, variable within time and with constrained geometry” on lines 9-10 is indefinite. It is understood that any magnetic field generated will be limited and controlled by the particular geometry of the of the device generating it, and within the time period used to generate such a field. As such, the above phrase is indefinite because it is unclear what “constraints” applicant is referencing beyond the natural limitations of physical design and time of use that must occur for any particular device. The metes and bounds of what limitations this phrase imposes on the claim limitations are therefore unclear.
The phrase “determining electrical resistivity or conductivity contrasts of the zone of interest of the subsoil.” on lines 1-2 of the last paragraph is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what is meant by a resistivity or conductivity contrast. The Examiner is not raising an issue regarding whether determining resistivity or conductivity of subsoil is unclear. However, such determinations are not generally labeled “contrasts.” As such, it is unclear if the above phrase is intended to mean that one resistivity or conductivity of a particular subsoil section is determined, or if the above phrase requires plural determinations to therefore allow two sections of different resistivity or conductivity to be contrasted with each other. Lastly, to the extent that the above phrase is intended to mean the determination of more than one resistivity or contrast for a subsoil section, it is unclear if the mere obtaining of these two resistivity or conductivity values is sufficient, or if the claim is requires that these values be “contrasted” with each other to thereby identify a difference. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that a determination of a resistivity or conductivity value for subsoil meets the claim requirements, as such values are reasonably contrast values as they can be used to contrast differing types of soil by their particular resistivity or conductivity value.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “the primary magnetic field is generated by injecting an electric current into at least one transmitting electromagnetic loop of a set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, that is in an opposite direction to an electric current injected into at least one other electromagnetic loop of said set” on lines 1-5 is indefinite.
Applicant recites “said set” in the above phrase, but where more than one set was previously recited. As such, it is unclear what set applicant is referencing with this phrase. Note that the phrase “at least one set” also reasonably can include more than one set, and thus reciting “said set” is also unclear in light of this recitation.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “the set” on line 5 is indefinite because more than one set was previously recited, and it is unclear which set this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the other electromagnetic loop of the set” on line 5 is indefinite, because no other electromagnetic loop was previously recited.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “at least one transmitting electronic board” on lines 2-3 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what a transmitting “board” is in light of the disclosure. While such a phrase may refer to a signal source such as a clock generator or current source, these devices are not called transmitting boards. While the original disclosure describes the transmission cards (transmitting boards as currently amended) as providing a current, they do not reasonably disclose what they are or the manner in which they are implemented. What applicant identifies as a “card” or “board” in the figures is merely an empty box, and as best understood is not reasonably what a card would normally considered to be. As such, it is unclear what circuit can and cannot be considered transmitting boards in light of the disclosure, and it is unclear what applicant means by reciting a transmitting board.
As to Claims 2-8 and 10-13,
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reime (US 2012/0049850).
As to Claim 1,
Reime discloses An electromagnetic system for geophysical prospecting comprising a transmitting antenna (2.1,8.3) and a receiving antenna (8.1,8.2) (Figures 8-10), (Paragraph [0060]), said transmitting antenna comprising at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops (Figures 8-10), characterized in that the transmitting electromagnetic loops of each set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops are positioned in different planes that are parallel to one another (Figure 10 / note coil 2.1 is in a different plane than coil 8.3), wherein the transmitting antenna creates a primary magnetic field that excites a subsoil, and wherein the receiving antenna is configured to measure a secondary magnetic field returned from the excited subsoil that provides information about a resistivity contrast of the excited soil (Paragraphs [0014],[0049],[0058] / note that the system disclosed both actually generates a magnetic field into the ground containing soil (note ground effects) and receives a signal in the receiver coils due to the effect from the soil (ground effects), but is also reasonably capable of and configured to be able to perform this function should the device be used to detect objects in soil. Any signal received at the receiver coil must contain information related to the resistivity/conductivity of the soil, and thus and related contrasts.)
As to Claim 2,
Reime discloses the transmitting electromagnetic loops of the each set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops are centered on a geometric axis orthogonal to the different planes that are parallel to one another and position the transmitting electromagnetic loops of the each set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops (Figures 8-10 / note the set of coils 2.1,8.3 are collectively centered about a central axis M2 as seen in Figure 10).
As to Claim 3,
Reime discloses the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops are positioned in at least one of: substantially vertical planes and substantially horizontal planes (Figure 10 / note the loops are in both types of planes as either type runs through the loops).
As to Claim 4,
Reime discloses the each set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops comprises at least a pair of the transmitting electromagnetic loops (Figures 8-10), (Paragraph [0060] / note the pair 2.1,8.3).
As to Claim 7,
Reime discloses at least one transmitting board (4.8) configured to inject an electric current in a certain direction into at least one transmitting electromagnetic loop of a same set, and to inject an electric current in an opposite direction into at least one other transmitting electromagnetic loop of the same set in order to generate a primary magnetic field and to create zones where an intensity of the primary magnetic field is weak relative to the secondary magnetic field returned from the subsoil, wherein the same set has the at least one transmitting electromagnetic loop that is different from the at least one other transmitting electromagnetic loop (Paragraphs [0058],[0063] / note the field cancellation and optimization reasonably provide a weaker primary magnetic field at the receiver coil than at other locations), (Figures 8-11).
As to Claim 8,
Reime discloses wherein the receiving antenna is arranged at least partly in the zones where the primary magnetic field is weak (Paragraphs [0058],[0063] / note the field cancellation and optimization reasonably provide a weaker magnetic field at the receiver coil than at other locations), (Figures 8-11).
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reime (US 2012/0049850) in view of Johnson (US 4,293,816).
As to Claim 5,
Reime discloses at least one transmitting electronic board (4.8) configured to inject an electric current in opposite directions into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops in order to generate a primary magnetic field and to create zones of space where an intensity of the primary magnetic field is stable (Paragraphs [0058],[0063] / note the intensity is reasonably stable as it is at the desired amount).
Reime does not disclose at least one transmitting electronic board configured to inject an electric current in a same direction into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops in order to generate a primary magnetic field and to create zones of space where an intensity of the primary magnetic field is stable.
However, there are only two reasonable ways to cause two transmitting coils to generate opposite magnetic fields. One, as disclosed in Reime, is to generate current in opposite directions for those two coils. The second is to place the same current into those two coils but wind the coils oppositely. To that point, Johnson discloses the use of a same current placed into two opposite wound transmitting coils and discloses at least one transmitting electronic board (46) configured to inject an electric current in a same direction into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops (20,24) in order to generate a primary magnetic field and to create zones of space where an intensity of the primary magnetic field is stable (Figure 5), (Column 3, Lines 39-63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reime to include at least one transmitting electronic board configured to inject an electric current in a same direction into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops in order to generate a primary magnetic field and to create zones of space where an intensity of the primary magnetic field is stable as taught by Johnson in order to advantageously reduce the complexity and cost of the device by allowing for a simpler current generator that only needs to provide current in one direction.
As to Claim 6,
Reime discloses the receiving antenna is arranged at least partly in the zones of the space where the intensity of the primary magnetic field is stable (Figures 8-11 / note the receiver coil is reasonably located in a place where the magnetic field is stable and at a desired level).
Claims 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reime (US 2012/0049850) in view of Olsson et al. (Olsson) (US 8,264,226).
As to Claim 9,
Reime discloses A method for determining electrical resistivity or conductivity contrasts of a zone of interest of a subsoil, comprising: a) arranging a transmitting antenna (2.1,8.3) above the zone of interest of the subsoil (Paragraph [0033] / note the device is a metal detector and used to identify objects buried in the ground), wherein the transmitting antenna comprises at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops (Figures 8-10), (Paragraph [0058]), characterized in that the transmitting electromagnetic loops of each set are positioned in different planes parallel to one another (Figures 8-10), (Paragraph [0060]); b) producing a series of measurements wherein producing each measurement further comprises: generating a primary magnetic field, variable within time and with constrained geometry, by activating the transmitting electromagnetic loops of the at least one set of electromagnetic loops so as to excite the subsoil (Figures 8-10), (Paragraphs [0014],[0049],[0058],[0060] / note that the system disclosed a magnetic field into the ground containing soil (note ground effects) and receives a signal in the receiver coils due to the effect from the soil (ground effects). Any signal received at the receiver coil must contain information related to the resistivity/conductivity of the soil, and thus and related contrasts, and note any measured signal must include an influence from the soil as it passes through the soil), measuring a secondary magnetic field returned by the excited subsoil by a receiving antenna (8.1,8.2) (Figures 8-10), (Paragraph [0058]); and wherein an electromagnetic system includes the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna (Figures 8-10), (Paragraph [0058] / note the system that includes the antennas).
Reime does not disclose determining electrical resistivity or conductivity contrasts of the zone of interest of the subsoil.
Olsson discloses that it is known use a metal detecting device for determining electrical resistivity or conductivity contrasts of the zone of interest of the subsoil (Column 11, Lines 36-49).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reime to include determining electrical resistivity or conductivity contrasts of the zone of interest of the subsoil as taught by Olsson in order to advantageously be able to provide additional information about the underground environment to better be able to differentiate between desired objects underground and those that are less desirable, and to also advantageously be able to better differentiate between desired objects underground and the effects of the soil.
As to Claim 10,
Reime discloses the primary magnetic field is generated by injecting an electric current into at least one transmitting electromagnetic loop of a set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, that is in an opposite direction to an electric current injected into at least one other electromagnetic loop of said set (Paragraphs [0058],[0063]), (Figures 8-11).
As to Claim 13,
Reime discloses the primary magnetic field is generated by injecting an electric current by any one of: an electronic transmission card (4.8) and a set of electronic transmission cards Paragraphs [0058],[0063] / note the intensity is reasonably stable as it is at the desired amount).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reime (US 2012/0049850) in view of Olsson et al. (Olsson) (US 8,264,226) as applied to Claim 9 and in further view of Johnson (US 4,293,816).
As to Claim 11,
Reime in view of Olsson does not disclose the primary magnetic field is generated by injecting an electric current that is a same direction into transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops.
However, there are only two reasonable ways to cause two transmitting coils to generate opposite magnetic fields. One, as disclosed in Reime, is to generate current in opposite directions for those two coils. The second is to place the same current into those two coils but wind the coils oppositely. To that point, Johnson discloses the use of a same current placed into two opposite wound transmitting coils (20,24) and discloses the primary magnetic field is generated by injecting an electric current that is a same direction into transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops (Figure 5), (Column 3, Lines 39-63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reime in view of Olsson to include the primary magnetic field is generated by injecting an electric current that is a same direction into transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set of the at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops as taught by Johnson in order to advantageously reduce the complexity and cost of the device by allowing for a simpler current generator that only needs to provide current in one direction.
As to Claim 12,
Reime discloses generating the primary magnetic field further comprises: injecting an electric current into at least one of the transmitting electromagnetic loops of the set in an opposite direction to the electric current injected into the other electromagnetic loop of the set (Paragraphs [0058],[0063]), (Figures 8-11)
Reime does not disclose injecting the electric current into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set Is in a same direction.
Johnson discloses injecting the electric current into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set Is in a same direction (Figure 5), (Column 3, Lines 39-63).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reime in view of Olsson to include injecting the electric current into the transmitting electromagnetic loops of a same set Is in a same direction as taught by Johnson in order to advantageously be able to both create a nulling magnetic field and a field of twice the strength to thereby increase the sensitivity of the device when desired.
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