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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
No prior art is being applied to Claim 9, because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the phrase “wherein generating the primary magnetic field further comprises: a first step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes and injecting in an opposite direction an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes, and a second step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes and injecting in a same direction an electric current injected into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes, wherein the first step and the second step are carried out alternatively,” as is currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5/26/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, applicant states that various paragraphs of the specification have been amended, but no specification amendments have been submitted.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “wherein generating the primary magnetic field further comprises: a first step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes and injecting in an opposite direction an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes, and a second step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes and injecting in a same direction an electric current injected into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes, wherein the first step and the second step are carried out alternatively” on the last thirteen lines introduces new matter.
1) The phrase “wherein generating the primary magnetic field further comprises: a first step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” introduces new matter. Applicant previously recites both transmitting loops and at least one set of transmitting loops, which would reasonably include all loops and sets of loops. The above phrase is being distinctly recited from the earlier recitation, but where there are no other looks or sets of loops that this phrase could refer to in the disclosure. As such, applicant must be reciting new loops and sets of loops, but that these loops and at least one set of loops adds additional loops to the disclosure and more than was originally disclosed. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
2) The issue here is that in each step, applicant twice energizes two coils of a set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose this feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
644
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in the above figures, what applicant discloses is that, in a first step of energizing transmit coils (50) of set (40), applicant energizes both coils (50) with current in the same direction (Paragraph [0121]), (Figure 3a). Applicant also discloses energizing these coils with opposite currents (Paragraph [0121]), (Figure 3b).
However, the above claim phrase goes beyond this feature. Initially, applicant now claims “a first step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes.” As such, applicant is now claiming energizing both loops 50 with “an electric current.” As such, whatever polarity that current has, the loops of the same set have that same current. This recitation therefore equates to the above Figure 3a, for example.
Applicant then claims “injecting in an opposite direction an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes.” Such a feature therefore requires that the above loops (50) have current injected in them of an opposite direction. Such a feature is seen in Figure 3b.
Applicant then claims “a second step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes.” Such a feature must equate to Figure 3a again, as this step is using the same electric current for the loops, and thus whatever polarity it has must be the same for both loops.
However, applicant lastly claims “injecting in a same direction an electric current injected into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes, wherein the first step and the second step are carried out alternatively” Here, applicant is now again injecting current of the same polarity into the loops, and where these steps are performed alternatively as claimed. Such a feature must equate to Figure 3a again. However, applicant does not originally disclose injecting current in the same direction in back to back steps as now claimed, and applicant does not originally disclose performing this feature, and thus both the first and second step, alternatively as claimed. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The phrase “ wherein generating the primary magnetic field further comprises: a first step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes and injecting in an opposite direction an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes, and a second step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in one plane of said different planes and injecting in a same direction an electric current injected into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes, wherein the first step and the second step are carried out alternatively” on the last thirteen lines is indefinite.
1) The phrase “wherein generating the primary magnetic field further comprises: a first step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” is indefinite. Applicant previously recites both transmitting loops and at least one set of transmitting loops, which would reasonably include all loops and sets of loops. The above phrase is being distinctly recited from the earlier recitation, but where there are no other looks or sets of loops that this phrase could refer to in the disclosure. As such, it is unclear what additional loops and sets of loops this phrase is referencing in the disclosure.
2) The phrase “injecting in an opposite direction an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” is indefinite. First, similar to that noted above, applicant is again distinctly reciting “transmitting electromagnetic loops” from any previously recited, and the difference and relationship between these loops and any of those previously recited is unclear. While these loops are “of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops,” all loops are of this set, and thus such a recitation does not make clear what the relationship is between these loops and any of those previously recited. The initially recitation of transmitting electromagnetic loops on lines 8-9 reasonably includes all loops, making it unclear what the relationship is between the distinct loop recitations. Second, the phrase “said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” is indefinite, because more than one “at least one set” of these loops was previously recited. It is therefore unclear what at least one set this phrase is referencing.
3) The phrase “a second step of injecting an electric current into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” is indefinite. First, similar to that noted above, applicant is again distinctly reciting “transmitting electromagnetic loops” from any previously recited, and the difference and relationship between these loops and any of those previously recited is unclear. While these loops are “of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops,” all loops are of this set, and thus such a recitation does not make clear what the relationship is between these loops and any of those previously recited. The initially recitation of transmitting electromagnetic loops on lines 8-9 reasonably includes all loops, making it unclear what the relationship is between the distinct loop recitations. Second, the phrase “said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” is indefinite, because more than one “at least one set” of these loops was previously recited. It is therefore unclear what at least one set this phrase is referencing. Third, the “one plane” recited above, as best understood, is the same “one plane” recited in the first step. This is because that applicant is referring to the same set of loops from the first step, and applicant is therefore distinctly recited the same one plane twice, but where these planes are not distinct in light of the disclosure. The difference and relationship between the planes are therefore unclear.
4) The phrase “injecting in a same direction an electric current injected into transmitting electromagnetic loops, of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops, which are positioned in another plane of said different planes” is indefinite. First, while the “first step” did not expressly use the phrase “same direction,” putting the same current into the loops as is recited in this step must be current that is in the same direction. As such, the difference and relationship between these directions for these currents is unclear, as they are for the same loops and, as best understood, are in the same direction. Second, the “another plane” recited above, as best understood, is the same “another plane” recited in the first step. This is because that applicant is referring to the same set of loops from the first step, and applicant is therefore distinctly recited the same one plane twice, but where these planes are not distinct in light of the disclosure. The difference and relationship between the planes are therefore unclear. Third, similar to that noted above, applicant is again distinctly reciting “transmitting electromagnetic loops” from any previously recited, and the difference and relationship between these loops and any of those previously recited is unclear. While these loops are “of said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops,” all loops are of this set, and thus such a recitation does not make clear what the relationship is between these loops and any of those previously recited. The initially recitation of transmitting electromagnetic loops on lines 8-9 reasonably includes all loops, making it unclear what the relationship is between the distinct loop recitations. Fourth, the phrase “said at least one set of transmitting electromagnetic loops” is indefinite, because more than one “at least one set” of these loops was previously recited. It is therefore unclear what at least one set this phrase is referencing.
Conclusion
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