DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In last three lines of claim 8, “a passive component” should be change to “the passive component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (US 2021/0055083).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches a computing system (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0016], transient electromagnetic field detection apparatus 10 having controller 20) for detection of a passive component (e.g. figs. 1-2, for detection of an unexploded ordnance at detection site 103), the computing system comprising:
a processor operably connected to a memory (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0019], controller 20 has a memory);
a radio transmitter operably connected to the processor and the memory (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0017], transmitting device 30 connected to the controller 20 and the memory);
a radio receiver operably connected to the processor and the memory (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0018], receiving device 50 connected to the controller 20 and the memory);
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media operably connected to the processor and the memory and storing computer-executable instructions that when executed by the processor computing system causes the computing system to (e.g. [0026], memory stores software and/or programs executed by the controller 20 of transient electromagnetic field detection apparatus 10):
apply an electromagnetic field to a target electronic system using the radio transmitter (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0017], transmitting device 30 applies electromagnetic field to an unexploded ordnance system via transmitting coil 40);
detect the passive component in the target electronic system based on measurements of a combined electromagnetic field strength sensed from the target electronic system by the radio receiver (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0018] and [020], detects the unexploded ordnance in the unexploded ordnance system based on a combined electromagnetic field strength sensed from the unexploded ordnance system by receiving device 50 via first receiving coil 80 and second receiving coil 60).
PNG
media_image1.png
542
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2021/0055083), and further in view of Fry (US 9,665, 809).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng is silent with regard to wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to, generate a graphical user interface that indicates that presence of the passive component is suspected.
Fry teaches causing a computing system to, generate a graphical user interface that indicates that presence of a component is suspected (e.g. figs. 1 and 10-12 e.g. figs. 1 and 10-12, column 6: lines 40-45, display 350 which produces image responses when targets are detected).
It would produce a predictive result of generating image responses to notify a user when target passive components are detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zheng by applying the teaching of Fry to have wherein the instructions further cause the computing system to, generate a graphical user interface that indicates that presence of the passive component is suspected, for the purpose of notifying the user by image responses when target passive components are detected.
Regarding claim 8, Zheng teaches a method for detection of a passive component (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0016], transient electromagnetic field detection apparatus 10 having controller 20 for detection of an unexploded ordnance at detection site 103), the method comprising:
measuring a combined electromagnetic field strength emitted by a target electronic system (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0018] and [020], detects the unexploded ordnance in the unexploded ordnance system based on a combined electromagnetic field strength sensed from the unexploded ordnance system by receiving device 50 via first receiving coil 80 and second receiving coil 60) while applying an electromagnetic field to the target electronic system (e.g. figs. 1-2, [0017], transmitting device 30 applies electromagnetic field to an unexploded ordnance system via transmitting coil 40),
wherein the combined electromagnetic field strength includes the electromagnetic field and EMI emitted by the target electronic system (e.g. fig. 2, 1-2, [0017]-[0018], first receiving coil 80 and second receiving coil 60 receive combination magnetic field and reflected magnetic field from the unexploded ordnance system); and
However, Zheng is silent with regard to generating an electronic alert that a passive component is present in the target electronic system based on the combined electromagnetic field strength.
Fry teaches to generating an electronic alert that a component is present based on detected electromagnetic field strength (e.g. figs. 1 and 10-12, column 6: lines 40-45, column 11: lines 40-47, display 350 and audio circuit 352 which produce corresponding image and audio responses when targets are detected).
It would produce a predictive result of generating audio and image responses to notify a user when target passive components are detected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zheng by applying the teaching of Fry to have generating an electronic alert that a passive component is present in the target electronic system based on the combined electromagnetic field strength, for the purpose of notifying the user by audio and image responses when target passive components are detected.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2021/0055083) in view of Fry (US 9,665, 809), and further in view of White et al. (US 2006/0122934).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Zheng and Fry is silent with regard to wherein the passive component is a sypchip.
White teaches a passive component is a sypchip (e.g. [0005], “RFID as spy chips”).
It would produce a predictive result of detecting a presence of the passive component that is a RFID as spy chips using the transmitting and receiving electromagnetic field, for the purpose of enabling the system to detect different types of passive components to enhance detection functionalities and capabilities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zheng and Fry by applying the teaching of White to have wherein the passive component is a sypchip, for the purpose of enabling the system to detect different types of passive components to enhance detection functionalities and capabilities.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2021/0055083) in view of Fry (US 9,665, 809), and further in view of Kruglick et al. (US 2020/0225321).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Zheng and Fry is silent with regard to wherein the measuring the combined electromagnetic field strength includes a frequency-domain to time-domain transformation of measurements.
Kruglick teaches measuring electromagnetic field strength includes a frequency-domain to time-domain transformation of measurements (e.g. fig. 3, [0103], perform Fourier Transform (FFT) to transform frequency samples to time-series data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Zheng and Fry by applying the teaching of Kruglick to have wherein the measuring the combined electromagnetic field strength includes a frequency-domain to time-domain transformation of measurements, for the purpose of obtaining time-series data used in further evaluation (e.g. Kruglick, [0103]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-10 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, it is not obvious to combine the prior art of record or any combination of prior art searched to teach all the limitations of claim 15; therefore, claim “detect whether a passive spychip is present based on dissimilarity between the combined electromagnetic field strength and an estimated electromagnetic field strength for the test pattern for the target electronic system without the passive spychip” is allowed, as are its dependent claims 16-20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zwinger et al. (US 2009/0306920) teaches “Embodiments of a system that determines a condition associated with an integrated circuit disposed on a circuit board are described. During operation, the system receives electromagnetic-interference (EMI) signals from one or more antennas while the integrated circuit is operating, where the one or more antennas are disposed on the circuit board. Then, the system analyzes the received EMI signals to determine the condition” (e.g. fig. 1, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Huy Phan can be reached on (571) 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 1/9/2026