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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 3/4/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-3, 6-15, 20-21, 23-26 are pending.
- Claims 4-5, 16-18 and 22 have been canceled.
- New claims 24-26 are presented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-15, 19-20, and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent No. 10,190,846 by Wagner et al., (Wagner hereafter), in view of the US Patent No. 9,007,071 by Gong et al., (Gong hereafter) and further in view of the US Patent US 10,516,394 by Kantor et al., (Kantor hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 1 and 25, Wagner teaches in Figure(s) 1 and 8-9, a sensor device, which is configured to be disposed on a surface of a side of an object, comprising:
a casing (810+816+210) having a first side (810) that is distant from the object (holster 650) and a second side (816) that is closer than the first side to the object (holster);
a first induction coil set (830) disposed on the casing; and
a control circuit (128) having a connection line that is electrically connected with the first induction coil set, and a processing circuit (112),
wherein the processing circuit determines a position change of a metal item (firearm 142) disposed on another side of the object according to a physical quantity difference in the first induction coil over as the firearm is removed or placed into the holder (as explained in column 9, lines 47-56).
Wagner substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning a second induction coil disposed on the second side, wherein the determination of position change is in accordance with a physical quantity difference between the first and second induction coil.
Gong teaches a method for sensing the proximity of metallic objects using a first induction coil (Fig. 1, receiver 16) and second induction coils (Fig. 1, receiver 18), wherein the proximity is determined by evaluating a difference in a physical quantity difference (difference in voltage across the inductive coils), in the manner described in col. 3, lines 45-59.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of using a plurality of coils to sense the presence/proximity of metallic objects as taught by Gong, and add a second induction coil set positioned parallel to the first induction coil set within the casing (810+816+210) in the device/system/method of Wagner, in order to gain the advantage of allowing the position sensor to accurately detect firearms having different shapes or metal compositions, as suggested by Gong in col. 4, lines 11-15.
Furthermore, although Gong discloses the use of a second induction coil set, Gong is silent about the specific location of the second induction coil. That is, Gong is silent about the second induction coil being disposed between the object and an exterior wall of the casing facing the object such that the second induction coil is disposed on an exterior of the casing. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to position/relocate Gong's second inductive coil to the outer surface of Wagner's casing (for example, placing the second induction coil on the side of 834 facing the object). Positioning the second induction coil to a preferred position with respect to the casing (on an outer surface vs. an inner surface vs. inside the casing) would not have affected the functionality of the claimed apparatus, and appears directed to an obvious rearrangement of working parts. The preferred location for the second induction coil set (as long as its position with respect to the first induction coil remains the same) would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950):
In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Nevertheless, Kantor teaches in Figure 1 and 4b, a sensor arrangement comprising a plurality of coils disposed on a multi-layer board 28 shown in Figure 1 (col. 8, lines 4-8), including a first induction coil (R-) and a second induction coil (R+). Kantor also teaches a casing (54 + 56 + board 28 facing opening 40), wherein the second induction coil is disposed between an object (14) and an exterior wall of the casing (the exterior wall interpreted as the front face surface of the board 28 supporting induction coil R+, and facing object 14 through opening 40 in the direction 18. See col. 8, lines 16-18).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of placing induction coils on the exterior walls of casings as taught by Kantor, in the device of Wagner in view of Kong, in order to minimize obstructions betwe.
Additionally, although Wagner teaches the use of a processing circuit, Wagner doesn’t explicitly mention the processing circuit is a microcontroller.
However, the use of microcontrollers as processing circuits is common in the art because of their programmable capabilities, wide availability and small size. For example, Gong teaches in Figure 7, the use of a microcontroller (31) connected to the proximity detection circuit mentioned above, the microcontroller performing calculations related to the determination of metal proximity. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of microcontrollers as taught by Gong, in the device/system/method of Wagner, in order to gain the advantage of ensure the processing circuit is contained within a device that has as small a footprint as possible, thus maximizing space for other component of the system.
Finally, although Wagner teaches a control circuit (128), Wagner doesn’t explicitly mention the control circuit is a control circuit board. However, it’s well known in the art to place electronic circuitry, including those related to sensors, on a printed circuit board or a generic circuit board. Official Notice is taken of this fact, and specifically, that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to contain all circuitry related to the control circuit 128 and/or 118 within a single board, in order to gain the advantage of keeping the circuitry organized and compact.
As to claim(s) 2, Wagner shows in Figure 10, the object is a holster (650) for accommodating a gun (642), the gun has the metal item (for example, the firearm barrel), the sensor device is disposed on the holster (see Figure 10), and the sensor device corresponds in position to the metal item when the gun is put inside the holster.
As to claim(s) 3, Gong teaches in Figure(s) 2, the first induction coil set (16) is a reference coil set that forms a reference level (as long as the coil forms an inductance, which it inherently does due to its geometry and shape, that inductance can be used as a reference level), and the second induction coil set (18) is an induction coil set that forms an inductive inductance (coils exhibit an inductance, which by definition, is “inductive”).
As to claim(s) 6, as illustrated in Figure 1 of Kantor, a containing slot is formed on the second side of the casing (slot formed by portion 24 as it’s inserted on 28 through portions 55), and the second induction coil set (R+) is disposed in the containing slot.
As to claim 7, Kantor shows in Figure 4b, wherein an opening (40) is formed on a wall structure (wall 22) of the casing that has the second induction coil set (R+) disposed thereon, such that the second induction coil set and the first induction coil set (R-) are unobstructed by the wall structure
As to claim(s) 11, Wagner teaches in Figure(s) 1, the control circuit (128) further comprises a communication unit electrically connected with the microcontroller, and the communication unit is used to transmit an activation signal that is generated by the microcontroller according to the physical quantity difference (see col. 9, lines 63-66, “report the presence of the firearm in the holster”).
As to claim(s) 12, Wagner teaches in Figure(s) 8, the control circuit sensor device further comprises a power unit (battery 822) that is electrically connected with the microcontroller and is controlled by the microcontroller, and the power unit provides current signals to the first induction coil set and the second induction coil set for generating an induced magnetic field (see col. 15, lines 18-24).
Although Wagner in view of Gong teaches a power unit (822), neither Wagner nor Gong explicitly mentions the power unit is comprised in the control circuit board (Wagner teaches the power unit is disposed adjacent to it and within the casing). However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to locate/relocate the battery so that it's positioned on the control circuit board. Shifting the position of the battery would not have modified the functionality of the system and the claimed apparatus. The particular placement of the battery (adjacent to or mounted on the circuit board) would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As to claim(s) 13, Gong teaches in Figure(s) 2, the first induction coil set (16) is a reference coil set that forms a reference level (as long as the coil forms an inductance, which it inherently does due to its geometry and shape, that inductance can be used as a reference level), and the second induction coil set (18) is an induction coil set that forms an inductive inductance (coils exhibit an inductance, which by definition, is “inductive”).
As to claim(s) 14, Wagner teaches in Figure(s) 2, the first induction coil set comprises two coils (coil 220, coil 320) mounted on two sides of a first substrate (310+330).
As mentioned above with regards to the rejection of claim 1, Gong teaches the use of a first and second induction coil sets. The combination of Wagner and Gong yields a sensor that uses a first and second inductive coils. However, it doesn’t explicitly mention that the second inductive coil is supported on opposite sides of a substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teachings of first and second induction coil sets as taught by Gong, and include a second induction coil set supported on a second substrate in the same manner Wagner’s fist induction coil is supported by a substrate, in order to support the coils and keep them aligned to one another.
As to claim(s) 15, Gong teaches in Figure(s) 2, the first induction coil set (16) is a reference coil set that forms a reference level (as long as the coil forms an inductance, which it inherently does due to its geometry and shape, that inductance can be used as a reference level), and the second induction coil set (18) is an induction coil set that forms an inductive inductance (coils exhibit an inductance, which by definition, is “inductive”).
As to claim(s) 19, Wagner in view of Gong teaches the sensor device implements a proximity sensor or a differential inductive switch, the first induction coil set and the second induction coil set (as presented in the rejection of claim 1 above) respectively form two different effective sensing ranges, so as to form a reference inductance and an inductive inductance (see Gong, Figure 2 wherein receiver 1 and receiver 2 differ on their positions with respect to the detected metal and because of their distances from the detected metal, also differ in their sensing ranges), and when a position of the metal item changes, an inductance difference between the reference inductance and the inductive inductance also changes (as explained in col. 3, lines 45-59).
As to claim(s) 20, Gong teaches in Figure(s) 2, the first induction coil set (16) is a reference coil set that forms a reference level (as long as the coil forms an inductance, which it inherently does due to its geometry and shape, that inductance can be used as a reference level), and the second induction coil set (18) is an induction coil set that forms an inductive inductance (coils exhibit an inductance, which by definition, is “inductive”).
As to claim 23, as explained in regards to the rejection of claim 22, Wagner in view of Gong teaches a first inductive coil set and a second inductive coil set within the casing (810+816+210). The casing defines a containing slot (space enclosed by the casing and occupied by elements such as 820, 210 and 814) disposed between a first sidewall of the casing (interpreted as the top sidewall when looking at the device in the orientation depicted in Figure 8 – see annotated Figure I, “A” below), a second sidewall of the casing (interpreted as the bottom sidewall when looking at the device in the orientation depicted in Figure 8 – see “B” below ), and the exterior wall (portion of 816 facing away from 810 – see “C” below) extending between the first sidewall and the second sidewall.
PNG
media_image1.png
1068
1328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure I
As to claim 24, Wagner in view of Gong teaches that a total inductive area of the first induction coil set is smaller than a total inductive area of the second inductive coil set.
** It’s noted that, regarding the recited “total inductive area”, the Specification explains in paragraphs 0016, 0036 and 0068:
[0016] Structurally, the first induction coil set includes two coils mounted on two sides of a first substrate, and the second induction coil set includes two coils mounted on two sides of a second substrate. An inductive area of the first induction coil set is configured to be smaller than an inductive area of the second induction coil set.
[0036] In one method of operating the sensor device 100, the sensor device 100 can be fixed on a surface of a side of the object via various fixing methods. While the induction coil set 111 of the sensing module 101 is configured to be in close proximity to the object, the reference coil set 113 is relatively distant from the object for providing a reference level. An item to be sensed by the sensor device 100 is preferably a metal sheet. When the position of the item changes, a physical quantity difference is formed between an inductance generated by the induction coil set 111 and the reference level provided by the reference coil set 113. Therefore, the control unit 103 can rely on this physical quantity difference to determine a position change of the item that is at the other side of the object.
[0068] In one of the embodiments of the present disclosure, the induction coil set is configured to be closer to the holster, and the reference coil set is configured to be relatively distant from the holster. Accordingly, if an inductive area of the reference coil set (the reference coils 623, 625) is configured to be smaller than an inductive area of the induction coil set (the induction coils 627, 629), the influence of the reference coil set (the reference coils 623, 625) on the induction coil set (the induction coils 627, 629) and the sensing result can be reduced, thereby effectively reducing an inductance change occurred when the metal item approaches the reference coil set.
The recited “total inductive area” appears to refer to the area or space between the coil set and the object under inspection. That is, one of the coil sets has a smaller inductive area than the other coil set by virtue of being farther away from the object under inspection. Placing a second induction coil set parallel to the first induction coil set within the apparatus of Wagner in the manner taught by Gong, yields a device that includes a first and second induction coil sets that are separated from the metal item (firearm 142) at different distances (one set closer to the metal item compared to the other set). Thus, the total inductive area of the first induction coil set (the induction coil set farther away from the metal item) is smaller than a total inductive area of the second induction coil set (the induction coil set closer to the metal item).
Regarding claim 26, Gong teaches the first and second induction coils (16 and 18) are parallel to the transmitter coil (14) and thus, parallel to each other (col. 4, lines 51-52). Thus, the obvious modification proposed by the combination of Wagner and Gong yields a second induction coil on a surface that is co-planar with a surface of the exterior wall closest to the object.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Gong and further in view of the US Patent No. 11,462,201 by Tisch et al., (Tisch hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 8-9, Wagner in view of Gong substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for a positioning hole that is configured as an airtight evacuation hole sealed by a waterproof breathable membrane.
Tisch teaches an electronics equipment casing (housing 110), the housing including sensitive electronics within the casing. Furthermore, Tisch teaches the housing includes an opening (114) which is made airtight by sealing the opening with a waterproof breathable membrane (112), thus protecting the sensitive electronics inside the housing from external elements, including accidental water exposure and/or to prevent water from reaching and damaging the electronics (such as the PCB and microphone). See Tisch col. 2, lines 42-65.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply a waterproof breathable membrane to the inside of the casing, as taught by Tisch, in the device/system/method of Wagner in view of Gong, thereby protecting electronic components within a casing from unintended water exposure that could damage the sensor’s components.
** The examiner notes that the recitation “that is configured as an airtight evacuation hole for a cavity formed by the casing” appears to describe the intended use or intended function of the recited positioning hole. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention or a description of the purported function of one of the elements in the apparatus, must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Tisch teaches a positioning hole (opening 114), and because the hole may be readily used in a process of evacuating air from within the cavity (for example, by vacuuming air from within the enclosure), Tisch’s teachings meet the claimed language.
As to claim 10, Wagner shows in Figure 8, the induction coil set has an opening (center of the winding) that corresponds to the positioning hole (the center of the winding is functionally related to all other elements in the sensor, including the positioning hole).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the adjustable supporting device wherein a cavity is defined between one of the two coils of the first induction coil set facing the second induction coil set and one of the two coils of the second induction coil set facing the first induction coil set, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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 at 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 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 March 17, 2026