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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On first note, the Examiner respectfully notes that various 112(a) rejections have been made with regard to several claims, but the instant arguments do not reasonably address all rejections as no arguments are presented. These rejections are therefore repeated, and applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to the rejections found below.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-9 directed towards the previous 112(a) written description rejections,
Applicant argues that coil-based metal detector technology is well known, and that applicant may rely upon which is well-known in the art to satisfy the written description requirement without providing exhaustive formulas. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant can rely upon what is well-known in the art to satisfy the written description requirement without providing exhaustive formulas, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant cannot be completely silent on the manner in which applicant implements such a feature.
As has been held and 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” (emphasis added). Meaning, applicant can rely upon and need not disclose “in detail” what is well-known in the art, but applicant must still reasonably demonstrate the manner in which applicant implements a claim feature without enough explanation to reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of such a manner. As has also been held, “An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997)” (emphasis added).
As such, the written description requirement still requires applicant to provide enough explanation such that a person of ordinary skill would reasonably recognize the manner applicant is implementing a claim feature, such as by use any of the above noted ways explained in Lockwood, in order to establish possession. For example, had applicant disclose a formula implemented on a microprocessor, then no further explanation would be necessary as the mere disclosure of the microprocessor implemented formula would reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of what applicant is doing, and a person of ordinary skill would reasonably know how to implement such formula, thereby eliminating any need to describe this feature “in detail.”
However, when the disclosure is completely silent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature. While such a person may be able to figure out “a way” presuming there were well-known ways to implement the feature, they would not recognize “applicant’s way” of implementing the feature, such as even recognizing whether applicant even intended to rely upon a well-known feature or was in fact relying upon an applicant invented way that was not sufficiently disclosed.
To that point, applicant merely points to the use of coils, their integration into mat, and that distance between the coils corresponds to scanning depth. The Examiner respectfully notes that while this may provide some glimpse into the overall structure of the device, nothing about this structure reasonably explains the manner in which the control unit itself is configured to infer a respective location of an object as claimed. Merely because coils are positioned at various locations or that their spacing can change a scanning depth does not reasonably explain what the control unit is doing with any received data to infer a location as claimed. Even to the extent that it was well-known to use magnetic fields to determine a location of an object, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate that applicant intended to rely upon any well-known manner of determining a location, nor demonstrate that any well-known manner would work with applicant’s specific coil system and why such a system was intended to be relied upon, or the manner in which any such well-known manner would be able to be implement in the instant application. Because the original disclosure is completely silent on this issue, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Claims 3 and 12,
Applicant argues that the disclosure describes that orientation of certain elements and that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that directions describes as perpendicular provide spatial diversity requires for 3D reconstruction along with Figure 2C and the superimposed arrangement of the coils. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that this provides sufficient written description. First, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant is arguing what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know but without evidence, but where evidence is necessary (see MPEP 2145(I)). There is no evidence on the record that a person of ordinary skill in the art would make any of the recognition that applicant argues. There is no evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what applicant is doing to determine a three-dimensional shape as claimed or that such a person would recognize what applicant is doing to determine such a shape using the claimed coil configuration. Second, coil arrangements do not reasonably cause a control unit to be configured to determine a three-dimensional shape. While certain configurations of the coils may be necessary to be able to have a three-dimensional shape, this does not reasonably demonstrate what the control unit is doing to be configured to determine the shape. As explained above, the original disclosure cannot be completely silent on the issue and must provide some reasonably explanation to demonstrate the manner in which a claim feature is being implemented. While applicant is not required to go “in detail” with the explanation, applicant must demonstrate the what applicant is doing, such as by identifying a well-known equation or applicant’s own invented equation, to reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature. The original disclosure however is completely silent on this feature, and therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then argues that the original disclosure describes several logic filters, such as discarding non-threatening objects, but such an explanation does not reasonably provide a complete explanation as to the manner in which the control unit is configured to perform any of the claim features. For example, applicant does not disclose any thresholds or other mechanism that would cause the control unit to keep certain measurements but discard others, nor provide any other reasonable explanation as to the manner in which the control unit is implemented. What applicant discloses the end result of what applicant wants the control unit or overall device to do, which is, in short, to identify certain objects as a threat and to discard others. However, the written description requirement requires that applicant reasonably describe the manner in which the device is configured to achieve this end result. Merely describing what applicant’s device does without any reasonably explanation as to the manner in which is achieves this feature or end result does not reasonably establish possession. As explained in MPEP 2163.03(V) “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.” Applicant then argues that the control unit is explicitly configured to regard an asymmetry in the scan as a factor, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which this “factor” is taken into consideration.
Applicant then argues that the original disclosure provides operational logic regarding the various time slots and patterns, but the Examiner respectfully notes that what is cited does not reasonably explain when the control unit decides to change patterns, why it selects any specific pattern or frequency, or any actual logic or process followed by the control unit when making any determination as to what frequencies and patterns should be generated at any given time. The original disclosure is, respectfully, silent as to the manner in which the control unit implements this feature. Applicant’s control unit is not randomly generating frequencies and patterns in some haphazard manner, but instead must reasonably have some specific manner in which applicant intends to achieve this feature and why applicant’s controller is generating specific frequencies at specific times. However, the original disclosure is silent on this issue, this raising an issue of written description.
Applicant then cites various cases, and argues that coil-based metal detector technology is not to be explained by formulas or other statements because it is well-known in the art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, in order to demonstrate proper written description, the original disclosure must provide sufficient guidance, in some manner, as to the manner in which applicant implements each claim feature. While applicant need not go “in detail” for well-known features that applicant is relying upon, applicant must still provide some guidance, such as by indicating which well-known features applicant intends to rely upon.
Applicant’s statement is essentially arguing that no explanation is required for well-known technology, but the written description requirement does require explanation. While it may not require it “in detail,” the original disclosure cannot be completely silent on the manner in which claim features are implemented. That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no evidence on the record that any feature applicant intends to rely upon is well-known, or that applicant ever intended to rely upon that which is well-known. Applicant, respectfully, draws conclusions based upon the disclosure by arguing that merely having specific features such as a coil configuration is enough for a person of ordinary skill in the art to figure out the manner which a control unit can infer a location, for example, but where there is no evidence on the record to support this position.
The Examiner further notes that at no time does applicant, either in the disclosure or arguments, even present any explanation demonstrating the manner in which any of the rejected features are implemented within the four corners of the disclosure. For example, applicant never explains how having a specific coil arrangement would inherently or otherwise cause the control unit to be configured to infer a location of an object. Instead, the arguments essentially state that a person ordinary skill in the art could figure out how to implement such features, but without evidence. To that point, the Examiner respectfully notes that whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could figure out “a way” to implement the claim features, even if there were well-known ways of implementing the rejected claim features, is an enablement issue. This is because while such a person may be able to figure out a way, they would not reasonably recognize “applicant’s way” of implement the features because the original disclosure is completely silent on the manner in which applicant implements these features. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-12 directed towards the previous 112(a) enablement rejections,
As to the inference arguments,
The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant argues what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know but without evidence. Applicant’s arguments are primarily directed towards arguing that the features are well-known, but applicant does not, respectfully, present evidence to support such a position. Furthermore, the claim features are not being read in a vacuum but rather in light of the disclosure. Here, applicant’s control unit is claimed to be configured to infer a location using applicant’s specific coil configuration. However, when such a coil configuration was not well-known, then an explanation for how applicant is implementing any measured magnetic fields to infer a location is necessary. By not providing any formulas or other reasonable explanation as to the manner in which the control unit is configured to infer a location using applicant’s specific coil configuration, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonable have to independently figure out how such a feature could be implemented. There is no evidence on the record that any well-known equation or method would even work or be applicable to the specific coil configuration used by applicant. As such, whether coil-based metal detector technology was or was not well-known does not reasonably overcome this issue. What applicant is essentially arguing is that because coil-based metal detector technology is well-known, a person of ordinary skill in the art could figure out how to implement the claim features. However, merely because such technology may be well-known does not mean that a person skilled in the art would readily figure out what applicant is doing for some new version of the technology, or even that any of the well-known technology or approaches would even be applicable. This is why providing some identification of a well-known approach is necessary when applicant intends to rely upon that which is well-known, because it allows a person skilled in the art to reasonably recognize how applicant implements a claim feature.
That stated, merely knowing that applicant intends to detect certain objects, exclude others, and merely mentions that models (machine learning) are used does not reasonably demonstrate how applicant implements the claim feature. Applicant does not identify any well-known machine learning or other model, or provide any other reasonable explanation as to how the metal detector can detect certain objects, exclude others, or any other aspect of the invention.
Applicant then cites various case law, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the Examiner has explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonable know how applicant implements the claim features based on the required WANDS factors. Applicant, respectfully, does not point to a single complete example demonstrates how applicant implements any of the claim features, nor provide any evidence to support the various assertions made by applicant. By addressing the applicable WANDS factors, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the burden to demonstrate a lack of enablement has been met.
Applicant then notes the applied prior art, and that Manneschi (US 2022/0107438 A1) states that coil-based metal detector technology is well known to those skill in the art. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that Manneschi then states, as noted by applicant, then such technology well not be described “in detail” hereinafter. Manneschi does not state that no explanation will be provided, but rather that for those features well-known in the art, an “in detail” explanation is unnecessary. Such a statement is consistent with the Examiner’s position and those cases cited above.
Furthermore, as explained above, merely because coil-based metal detector technology may or not may not be well-known does not reasonably establish what applicant is doing to implement any particular claim feature, nor whether applicant even intended to rely upon that which was well-known.
The Office Action, respectfully, does not fall back on any ipsis verbis support requirement, and instead has only noted that the original disclosure cannot be completely silent on the manner in which applicant demonstrates written description or enablement. To that point, the Examiner notes that applicant has not provided a single explanation arguing how applicant implements any of the rejected claim features. Applicant respectfully instead repeats the argument that such features are well-known, but without providing any evidence to support such a position. Applicant does not provide any explanation as to what the control unit is doing to infer a location, for example, and instead applicant essentially argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art could figure it out. Such a position does not reasonably demonstrate written description or enablement.
Applicant argues that the Office Action does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to practice the claimed subject matter, but the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no requirement that the Office Action make such a demonstration. While similar, there is a difference between a demonstration of why a disclosure fails to provide a sufficient explanation for a claim feature in contrast with a demonstration that a person would not be able to implement a claim feature. Here, the Examiner has provided a detailed explanation, consistent with the MPEP and the above noted case law, for why the original disclosure fails to provide proper written description and enablement. For written description, the Examiner has identified that the original disclosure is completely silent as to how various claim features are implemented, such as how the control unit is itself configured, as claimed, to infer a location of an object as claimed. As explained in the above Lockwood case, applicant must provide some guidance, but where no reasonable guidance is provided. For enablement, the Examiner has demonstrated by way of the WANDS factors why the claim features raise an issue of enablement. While applicant may disagree with this position, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not demonstrate that applicant intended to rely upon any particular well-known feature, what that feature is, or why the original disclosure does provide a single complete example demonstrating how applicant implements the claim features. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant.
With regard to the arguments on pages 12-14 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
As to Claims 1 and 10,
Applicant argues that the Office Action does not provide a basis for the rejection and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that corresponding magnetic fields are formed by inductively transmitting and receiving with the aid of the transceiver elements. However, respectfully, this is not the issue that the Examiner was raising. The Examiner is not raising an issue that when coils are used to transmit they are forming corresponding magnetic fields. Instead, the Examiner is raising an issue solely because mere “receiving” such a fields would not reasonably “form” a field. Receiving a field means that the coils are receiving and being exposed to already formed magnetic fields. No receiving act would reasonably “form” a field, as the field must have already been formed in order to be received. However, applicant is expressly claiming the elements “for … receiving to form corresponding magnetic fields.” A person of ordinary skill in the art, respectfully, would not reasonably recognize what applicant means by this phrase because no act of receiving would cause a field to be formed or be able to cause a field to be formed. The Examiner therefore, respectfully disagrees, as the Office Action does reasonably explain why such a feature is indefinite.
No specific arguments are directed towards Claim 20, and thus those rejections that have been overcome are withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below.
With regard to the arguments on pages 14-16 directed towards the prior art rejection,
Applicant initially notes various amendments and argued advantages of these amendments, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the amendments and any advantages thereof do not reasonably overcome the written description issues previously raised.
As to the rejections in view of Manneschi (US 2022/0107438 A1),
The Examiner acknowledges the advantages noted by applicant; however, applicant does not reasonably identify where in the original disclosure such advantageous were originally contemplated, and these arguments are therefore respectfully attorney argument. Furthermore, while applicant may have an benefit for implementing a claim feature, such benefit does not reasonably overcome a prime facie case of obviousness.
Applicant argues that Manneschi (US 2022/0107438 A1) discloses that the previous explanation of the Office is speculative, and that the prior art uses a fixed monitored frequency that is selected in the range of 100 Hz to 50KkHz, and therefore the prior art does not disclose using a control unit configured to change the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that in the apparatus claim (Claim 1), applicant is not positively claiming that actual generation of any magnetic field. Indeed, apparatus claims are not directed towards the actual use, but instead are directed towards what the apparatus itself is and what it is capable or can be used to do. To that point, Manneschi expressly discloses that a the transmitter coil can be driven by more than one frequency, an in fact is preferably driven by a range of frequencies as expressly stated in paragraph [0058]. The mere fact that that a device, which is considered the control unit, is expressly disclosed to preferably drive the transmit coil for a range of frequencies must reasonably mean that this control unit has the ability to generate different frequencies in the transmit coil at various times, and thus have the ability to change the frequencies to generate the different patterns as claimed. The claim does not require that the “various times” cannot be the same or overlap, and thus two different time periods or even the same time period, but one per each frequency, can be selected as the various time periods, thus meeting the claim feature. Nowhere does Manneschi limit the number of frequencies to one as argued by applicant, and in fact Manneschi expressly states “The transmitting coil is powered by an alternating electric current of monitored frequency, preferably a range of determined and monitored frequencies, to emit a magnetic field, typically between 100 Hz and 50 kHz” (emphasis added). This phrase is not stating that the “monitored frequency” is in the range of 100 Hz and 50 kHz, but is expressly stating that the monitor frequency “is preferably a range” of frequencies, and thus is preferably more than one frequency.
That stated, Manneschi is expressly disclosing the preferable generating of more than one frequency in the transmit coil within the range of 100 Hz to 50 kHz (paragraph [0058]). It is reasonable to conclude that through the normal and ordinary use of the device, different frequencies will be generated at different times by the control unit as it drives the transmit coil, and thus meet the claim feature. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant.
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 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 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 1 and 10,
The phrase “at least three inductive transceiver elements for inductively transmitting or receiving to form corresponding magnetic fields” on lines 2-3 of Claim 1 and “forming corresponding magnetic fields by inductively transmitting or receiving with the aid of at least three inductive transceiver elements” on lines 3-4 of Claim 10 introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
Applicant is now claiming the intended forming of magnetic fields or an express method step of forming magnetic fields by way of the act of “receiving” with the at least three transceiver elements. However, applicant does not originally disclose that the ability to form magnetic fields from “receiving” at or with the transceiver elements, nor does applicant reasonably explain the manner in which the act of receiving would cause magnetic fields to be formed. While a coil can be used to form a magnetic field when a current is placed into it, such a coil is not forming the magnetic fields of the disclosure when it is receiving. In order to be able to receive the type of magnetic fields disclosed, these fields must already exist and have been formed in order for them to be received at the transceiver elements. Applicant does not original disclosure or reasonably disclose the manner in which the transceiver elements can form the type of magnetic fields disclosed by operating in a receiving mode. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner that the transceiver elements can form such fields when “receiving,” and this phrase therefore introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
The phrase “the control unit is configured to infer a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions” on lines 8-10 of Claim 1 and “inferring a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements” and lines 9-11 of Claim 10 lack proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant’s control unit is configured to infer a respective location of an object or materials as claimed. Similarly, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant implements inferring a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions especially with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements as claimed. Applicant does not disclose any formulas or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the control unit is configured to perform the claim feature to reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant does mention machine learning, artificial intelligence, and a neural network in the disclosure. However, such a disclosure does not reasonably establish possession of the claim feature, because such recitations do not reasonably refer to or disclose any reasonably specific enough example to apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature. The disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any of these models can be used to implement the claim feature, and applicant does not reasonably identify any specific version of these models that are well-known and are well-known to implement the claim feature. The Examiner respectfully notes that each of the above disclosed models are fundamentally different from one model to the next depending on the particular application, and thus the mere mention of these models does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description. This is because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which any particular model is implemented to demonstrate possession of the claim feature.
For example, if applicant implemented the above claim feature with a Fourier Series, and such a series would readily be understood to be usable for such a feature, then the mere disclosure of a Fourier Series would be sufficient to demonstrate proper written description. A Fourier Series is a specific type of mathematical implementation that is essentially identical from application to application, differing only by the specific inputs and number of terms of the series. A neural network, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, are not reasonably specific enough are not reasonably similar to the above noted Fourier Series, because they do not reasonably identify any specific method or mechanism to implement the above claim feature. For example, all three are essentially models, and the mere explanation that a model is used, without further explanation, does not reasonable demonstrate the manner in which this model is constructed and then implemented. No two neural networks are the same, as they are different not just in their inputs, but also structural different from application to application. The number of nodes, weights, and the manner in which they are trained all vary from application to application. AI, neural networks, and machine learning, all are more general categories and not the type of specific implementation, such as the use of a Fourier Series, necessary to demonstrate proper written description, unless applicant provides the specific implementation in the disclosure. Applicant, however, does not reasonably provide any specific example of any of the above implementations. The mention or use of the above three types of models is not reasonably specific enough to be relied upon as a well-known mechanism to implement the claim feature, because AI, neural network, and machine learning recitations do not reasonably identify any specific version of these features that could be used to implement the claim features. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description. Note that whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could figure out how to implement such a claim feature with any of the above three mechanism does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description, as such a feature is addressing enablement. “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. … One shows that one is "in possession" of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Id. ("[T]he applicant must also convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed.") (emphasis in original). One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba” (Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
The phrase “the control unit is configured to apply various excitation patterns to at least a part or each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on lines 16-17 of Claim 1 and the similar phrase “wherein various excitation patterns are applied to at least a part or each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on lines 16-17 of Claim 10 lack proper written description. At issue here is applicant does not provide any examples or explanation as to what the patterns are or the manner in which they are implemented. Applicant does not reasonably explain if the patterns are different by frequency, shape such as sinusoidal or square wave, or provide any details to reasonably demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art the types of patterns applicant intends the claim to include. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
The phrase “the control unit is configured to change the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots to provide imaging or tomography results based on the different field distributions” on lines on the last two lines of Claim 1 and the similar phrase “wherein the various excitation patterns are changed in each of various time slots to provide imaging or tomography results based on the different field distributions” on the last two lines of Claim 10 lack proper written description.
1) At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the control unit is configured to perform the above feature. There is no disclosure of the manner in which the control unit decides to make such a change, or what specific pattern is changed from one point in time to the next. The original disclosure is completely silent as to any disclosure demonstration possession of this claim feature.
2) Applicant further does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which the imaging or tomography results are provided from the various excitation patterns. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any imaging or specific tomography results are provided from any of the excitation patterns. Applicant does not reasonably explain how measurements from any one or combination of patterns are used or otherwise contributed to an image or combination of images, or similarly how these measurements from one or more patterns provide tomography results. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 3 and 12,
The phrase “the control unit is configured to determine a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns” on lines 2-3 and the similar phrase “determining a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 12 lack proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose or explain the manner in which the control unit is configured to or the manner in which applicant determines a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns. Applicant does not disclose any formulas or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the control unit is configured to perform the claim feature to reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant does mention machine learning, artificial intelligence, and a neural network in the disclosure. However, such a disclosure does not reasonably establish possession of the claim feature, because such recitations do not reasonably refer to or disclose any reasonably specific enough example to apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature. The disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any of these models can be used to implement the claim feature, and applicant does not reasonably identify any specific version of these models that are well-known and are well-known to implement the claim feature. The Examiner respectfully notes that each of the above disclosed models are fundamentally different from one model to the next depending on the particular application, and thus the mere mention of these models does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description. This is because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which any particular model is implemented to demonstrate possession of the claim feature. For the same reasons noted in the above rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein, this claim feature lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 4 and 13,
The phrase “the control unit is configured to change the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots” on lines 2-3 and the similar phrase “changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 13 lack proper written description and introduces new matter.
1) At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the control unit is configured to perform the above feature. There is no disclosure of the manner in which the control unit decides to make such a change, or what specific pattern is changed from one point in time to the next. The original disclosure is completely silent as to any disclosure demonstration possession of this claim feature.
2) To the extent that the above claim features are already recited in Claims 1 and 10, applicant is re-reciting these features in Claims 4 and 13, and is therefore claiming a distinct configuration for the control unit and a second “changing the various excitation patterns” step, but where applicant does not originally disclose repeating these features. As such, in the combination, these features introduce new matter.
As to Claims 8 and 17,
The phrase “the control unit is configured to determine if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three-dimensional shape” on lines 2-3 of Claim 8 and the similar phrase “determining if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three- dimensional shape with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 17 lack proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose or explain the manner in which the control unit is configured to or the manner in which applicant determines if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three-dimensional shape. Applicant does not disclose any formulas or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the control unit is configured to perform the claim feature to reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant does mention machine learning, artificial intelligence, and a neural network in the disclosure. However, such a disclosure does not reasonably establish possession of the claim feature, because such recitations do not reasonably refer to or disclose any reasonably specific enough example to apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature. The disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any of these models can be used to implement the claim feature, and applicant does not reasonably identify any specific version of these models that are well-known and are well-known to implement the claim feature. The Examiner respectfully notes that each of the above disclosed models are fundamentally different from one model to the next depending on the particular application, and thus the mere mention of these models does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description. This is because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which any particular model is implemented to demonstrate possession of the claim feature. For the same reasons noted in the above rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein, this claim feature lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 9 and 18,
The phrase “the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 2-3 and the similar phrase “machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 3-4 of Claim 18 lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose or explain the manner in which the control unit is configured to use or the manner in which applicant uses machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials. Applicant does not disclose any formulas or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which the control unit is configured to perform the claim feature to reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant does mention machine learning, artificial intelligence, and a neural network in the disclosure. However, such a disclosure does not reasonably establish possession of the claim feature, because such recitations do not reasonably refer to or disclose any reasonably specific enough example to apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art of the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature. The disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any of these models can be used to implement the claim feature, and applicant does not reasonably identify any specific version of these models that are well-known and are well-known to implement the claim feature. The Examiner respectfully notes that each of the above disclosed models are fundamentally different from one model to the next depending on the particular application, and thus the mere mention of these models does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description. This is because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which any particular model is implemented to demonstrate possession of the claim feature. For the same reasons noted in the above rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein, this claim feature lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 12, 13, and 15-20,
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for 1) “the control unit is configured to infer a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions” on lines 8-10 lines of Claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner does not find any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above 1) control unit being configured to infer a location of an object or materials; 2) “the control unit is configured to determine a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns” on lines 2-3 as recited in Claim 3; 3) “the control unit is configured to determine if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three-dimensional shape” on lines 2-3 of Claim 8; 4) “the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 2-3 of Claim 9; 5) “inferring a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on lines 9-11 lines of Claim 10; 6) “determining a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 12; 7) “changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 13; 8) “determining if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three- dimensional shape with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 17; and 9) “machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 3-4 of Claim 18 as claimed. This is a scope of enablement rejection because the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to use the invention commensurate with the scope of the claims without undue experimentation.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability or unpredictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction or guidance presented by invent tor;
(G) The existence or absence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation necessary.
See In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
MPEP §2164.01(a)
As to factor (A), the Examiner notes that the claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are unbounded. Applicant has not provided any explanation as to how applicant is implementing 1) “the control unit is configured to infer a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions” on the last two lines of Claim 1 , and 2) “the control unit is configured to determine a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns” on lines 2-3 of Claim 3, 3) “the control unit is configured to determine if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three-dimensional shape” on lines 2-3 of Claim 8; 4) “the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 2-3 of Claim 9, 5) “inferring a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions especially with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on the last three lines of Claim 10; 6) “determining a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 12; 7) “changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 13; 8) “determining if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three- dimensional shape with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 17; and 9) “machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 3-4 of Claim 18 as and as such claims 3, 4, 6-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 would cover any and every way possible to accomplish the above claim feature.
As to factor (G), the Examiner notes that applicant has not provided sufficient working examples via the specification commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant does not provide any example of 1) how a control unit can be configured to infer a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions of Claim 1; 2) how a control unit can be configured to determine a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns of Claim 3; 3) “the control unit is configured to determine if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three-dimensional shape” of Claim 8; 4) “the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 2-3 of Claim 9; 5) “inferring a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions especially with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on the last three lines of Claim 10; 6) “determining a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 12; 7) “changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 13; 8) “determining if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three- dimensional shape with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 17; and 9) “machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 3-4 of Claim 18. The specification is silent as to how the control unit implements the above claim features, and the original disclosure is silent as to how applicant infers a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions especially with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements. While the original disclosure does mention a neural network, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, such high level disclosures are merely models unbounded by a specific configuration. Applicant does not reasonably disclose how these models can be used to implement the claim feature, what these models themselves include, or any other reasonably details to demonstrate how applicant can implement the claim feature using any one of these models. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose any suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the above claimed features.
As to factor (H), the Examiner notes that the quantity of experimentation need is high. Applicant provides no examples or explanation as to how applicant is implementing of 1) “a control unit configured to infer a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions” of Claim 1; 2) “a control unit configured to determine a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns” of Claim 3; 3) “the control unit is configured to determine if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three-dimensional shape” of Claim 8; 4) “the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 2-3 of Claim 9; 5) “inferring a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions especially with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on the last three lines of Claim 10; 6) “determining a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 12; 7) “changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 13; 8) “determining if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three- dimensional shape especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 17; and 9) “machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials” on lines 3-4 of Claim 18. Applicant further does not provide any details of any of the models disclosed to reasonably demonstrate how they can be used to implement the above claim features. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently develop the software for the control unit or to implement the claimed inferring needed to perform or accomplish the claimed functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to independently figure out how any of these models such as AI, machine learning, or a neural network, can be implemented to allow the control unit to be configured in the claimed manner. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to identify what variables and formulas for each model would necessary and sufficient to perform the claim features, including identifying how many nodes, what weights, and the manner in which a neural network could be trained to perform the claim feature, for example.
In view of the forgoing, the Examiner finds that the unbounded modes of operation are directed to an invention for which no working examples have been provided commensurate with the scope of the claims. Based on the Wands factors (A), (G), and (H), the Examiner concludes that applicant's specification does not enable those skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The Examiner notes that the claimed features encompass any and all structures and/or acts for achieving their results and operation, including those which were not what the applicant had invented and those which could be invented in the future. As such, claims 1 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) for lacking an enabling disclosure commensurate with the scope of the claims.
As to Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 12, 13, and 15-20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating 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, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 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 Claims 1 and 10,
The phrases “at least three inductive transceiver elements for inductively transmitting and/or receiving to form corresponding magnetic fields” on lines 2-3 of Claim 1 and “forming corresponding magnetic fields by inductively transmitting and/or receiving with the aid of at least three inductive transceiver elements on lines 3-4 of Claim 10 are indefinite.
While transmitting a magnetic field will form the magnetic field, receiving a magnetic field will not reasonably form a magnetic field. Applicant is claiming “and/or” in the above phrase, thus meaning that the three elements may be for receiving. However, merely receiving a magnetic field will not reasonably cause the elements to form any magnetic field. This phrase is therefore indefinite because it is unclear whether what applicant means by stating that receiving will form magnetic fields as claimed.
The phrase “the control unit is configured to apply various excitation patterns to at least a part or each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on lines 16-17 of Claim 1 and “wherein various excitation patterns are applied to at least a part or each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements” on lines 16-17 of Claim 10 is indefinite. At issue here is applicant does not provide any examples or explanation as to what the patterns are or the manner in which they are implemented. Applicant does not reasonably explain if the patterns are different by frequency, shape such as sinusoidal or square wave, or provide any details to reasonably demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art the types of patterns applicant intends the claim to include. As such, it is unclear, in light of the disclosure, how the above phrase should be interpreted as it is unclear what types of patterns are and are not included in the above phrase. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean any specific different between one signal to another used to generate a magnetic field reasonably discloses the claim feature.
As to Claims 4 and 13,
The phrase “the control unit is configured to change the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots” on lines 2-3 and the similar phrase “changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 13 are indefinite. The entirety of both phrases are now found in respective Claims 1 and 10 on the last two lines of those claims. As best understood, applicant is re-reciting the same features already claimed with no new limitations in addition to those already claimed. As such, the difference and relationship between the above phrases, including the configuration of the controller, the step of changing the excitation patterns, and the various time slots, and those same features already recited in respective Claims 1 and 10 are unclear.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “wherein various excitation patterns are applied to at least a part or each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements, and wherein the various excitation patterns are changed in each of various time slots to provide imaging or tomography results based on the different field distributions” on the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
1) Claim 10 is a method claim, and is therefore directed towards the actual use of a device or position actions being taken. The above phrase, however, does not recite positive action or a positive use of a device, and instead recites features performed in the past tense, rendering the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether such features are required to actively be implemented in the claim. For example, applicant claims “wherein various excitation patterns are applied” and wherein the various excitation patterns are changed,” which are not positively recitations of either applying or changing. As such, it is unclear whether such features are being positively recited in the claim and whether such features must be performed in the method, or if they could have been previously performed and are therefore not positively recited.
2) As noted above, method claims are intended to be directed towards the actual use of a device or positive action, but applicant claims “to provide imaging results based on the different field distributions.” Such a phrase is indefinite because it is an intended use of the claim feature, but where intended use of a method step is indefinite in a method claim, because it is unclear if such a use is or is not required. It is unclear if any imaging or tomography results are required to be provided, or if the fact that they could be provided is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.
As to Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 12, 13, and 15-20
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to Claims 4 and 13,
The phrase “the control unit is configured to change the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots” on lines 2-3 and the similar phrase “changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit” on lines 3-4 of Claim 13 stand rejected for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. The entirety of both phrases are now found in respective Claims 1 and 10 on the last two lines of those claims. As best understood, applicant is re-reciting the same features already claimed with no new limitations in addition to those already claimed.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manneschi (US 2022/0107438 A1) in view of Monnier et al. (Monnier) (US 2020/0103546).
As to Claims 1 and 19,
Manneschi discloses An inductive scanner comprising: at least three inductive transceiver elements for inductively transmitting or receiving to form corresponding magnetic fields (Paragraphs [0056]-[0060] / note each panel has a transmit/receive coil, and each of these coils have a plurality of elementary coils, and thus each panel is reasonably formed of at least two coils, thereby disclosing at least four total coils/transceiver elements), and a control unit (50) connected to said at least three inductive transceiver elements (Paragraphs [0045]-[0047]) , wherein the at least three inductive transceiver elements are arranged at different distance from one another such that the corresponding magnetic fields between at least one or each respective pair of the at least three inductive transceiver elements have different field distributions in three- dimensional space (Figures 1-2f), (Paragraph [0059],[0060] / note that the coils within one panel must be at a different distance than the distance between the coils of one panel to another panel, which must create the different field distributions as claimed), and wherein the control unit is configured to infer a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions (Paragraphs [0082],[0085]), wherein each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements comprises or is at least one metal detection coil (Paragraphs [0058]-[0060]), the control unit is configured to apply various excitation patterns to at least a part or each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements (Paragraph [0058] / note the different frequencies used which will create different patterns), wherein the control unit is configured to change the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots to provide imaging or tomography results based on the different field distributions (Paragraph [0058] / note that this is a property of the system as each the different frequencies used which will create different patterns, and the control unit must be able to change the various frequencies in various time slots as claimed ).
Manneschi does not disclose wherein a first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into a plate or a mat, the plate or the mat is for being stepped on, and/or wherein a second multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into the plate or the mat, wherein at least a part or each of the first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is oriented according to a first direction, wherein at least a part or each of said second multitude of said metal detection coils is oriented according to a second direction, wherein the first direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the first multitude and the second direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the second multitude are arranged in a perpendicular or substantially perpendicular manner with respect to each other.
Monnier discloses a first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils (123) is integrated into a plate or a mat (11), wherein the plate or mat is for being stepped on (Figures 3,5-9), (Paragraphs [0066],[0145]-[0148]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Manneschi to include a first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into a plate or a mat, wherein the plate or mat is for being stepped on as taught by Monnier in order to advantageously be able to accurately detect objects that are very difficult to view or identify in the body scan image, e.g. due to their orientation (Paragraph [0021]), and to implement the metal detector such that the vertical encumbrance of the detector can be limited to few centimetres, rendering this solution compatible with existing access paths and security portals of facilities and buildings, without requiring complex and bulky installations (Paragraph [0022]).
(Note with regard to claim 19, that applicant recites A) the plate or the mat is for being stepped on, and/or B) wherein a second multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into the plate or the mat, wherein at least a part or each of the first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is oriented according to a first direction, wherein at least a part or each of said second multitude of said metal detection coils is oriented according to a second direction, wherein the first direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the first multitude and the second direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the second multitude are arranged in a perpendicular or substantially perpendicular manner with respect to each other.” As such, the scope of the claim includes only one of features A) or B) being selected, and the prior art reasonably meets at least feature A).
As to Claim 3,
Manneschi discloses the control unit is configured to determine a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns (Paragraphs [0035],[0046].[0131], [0172] / note displaying the result characterizing the composition of the target in three-dimensional space reasonably includes a determination of the shape of the object or material).
As to Claim 4,
Manneschi the control unit is configured to change the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots (Paragraph [0058] / note that since a range of frequencies are used, the control unit is reasonably capable of and thus configured to use different frequencies at different times).
As to Claim 6,
Manneschi discloses the control unit comprises or is a controller or an application-specific integrated circuit (Paragraph [0047]).
As to Claim 7,
Manneschi discloses the inductive scanner comprises or is an inductive shoe and/or foot scanner (Paragraphs [0002],[0026] / note full body scanning for items concealed in clothing reasonably includes items concealed in shoes).
As to Claim 8,
Manneschi discloses the control unit is configured to determine if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three-dimensional shape (Paragraphs [0001],[0002] / note the system is designed to detect prohibited items, based on detection of the item, including its location, and any prohibited item can be considered a threat).
As to Claim 9,
Manneschi discloses the control unit is configured to use machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials (Paragraph [0027]).
As to Claims 10 and 20,
Manneschi discloses A method for inductive scanning, said method comprising the steps of: forming corresponding magnetic fields by inductively transmitting or receiving with the aid of at least three inductive transceiver elements (Paragraphs [0056]-[0060] / note each panel has a transmit/receive coil, and each of these coils have a plurality of elementary coils, and thus each panel is reasonably formed of at least two coils, thereby disclosing at least four total coils/transceiver elements), arranging the at least three inductive transceiver elements at different distance from one another such that the corresponding magnetic fields between at least one or each respective pair of the at least three inductive transceiver elements have different field distributions in three- dimensional space (Figures 1-2f), (Paragraph [0059],[0060] / note that the coils within one panel must be at a different distance than the distance between the coils of one panel to another panel, which must create the different field distributions as claimed), and inferring a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions with the aid of a control unit connected to the at least three inductive transceiver elements (Paragraphs [0082],[0085]), wherein each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements comprises or is at least one metal detection coil (Paragraphs [0058]-[0060]), wherein the control unit is configured to infer a respective location of an object and/or materials affecting the corresponding magnetic fields on the basis of the different field distributions (Paragraphs [0082],[0085]), wherein each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements comprises or is at least one metal detection coil (Paragraphs [0058]-[0060]), wherein the various excitation patterns are applied to at least a part or each of the at least three inductive transceiver elements (Paragraph [0058] / note the different frequencies used which will create different patterns), wherein the various excitation patterns are changed in each of various time slots to provide imaging or tomography results based on the different field distributions (Paragraph [0058] / note that this is a property of the system as each the different frequencies used which will create different patterns, and the control unit must be able to change the various frequencies in various time slots as claimed ).
Manneschi does not disclose wherein a first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into a plate or a mat, the plate or the mat is for being stepped on, and/or wherein a second multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into the plate or the mat, wherein at least a part or each of the first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is oriented according to a first direction, wherein at least a part or each of said second multitude of said metal detection coils is oriented according to a second direction, wherein the first direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the first multitude and the second direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the second multitude are arranged in a perpendicular or substantially perpendicular manner with respect to each other.
Monnier discloses a first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils (123) is integrated into a plate or a mat (11), wherein the plate or mat is for being stepped on (Figures 3,5-9), (Paragraphs [0066],[0145]-[0148]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Manneschi to include a first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into a plate or a mat, wherein the plate or mat is for being stepped on as taught by Monnier in order to advantageously be able to accurately detect objects that are very difficult to view or identify in the body scan image, e.g. due to their orientation (Paragraph [0021]), and to implement the metal detector such that the vertical encumbrance of the detector can be limited to few centimetres, rendering this solution compatible with existing access paths and security portals of facilities and buildings, without requiring complex and bulky installations (Paragraph [0022]).
(Note with regard to claim 20, that applicant recites A) detecting a step on the plate or the mat, and/or B) wherein a second multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is integrated into the plate or the mat, wherein at least a part or each of the first multitude of the corresponding metal detection coils is oriented according to a first direction, wherein at least a part or each of said second multitude of said metal detection coils is oriented according to a second direction, wherein the first direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the first multitude and the second direction regarding the part or each of the metal detection coils of the second multitude are arranged in a perpendicular or substantially perpendicular manner with respect to each other.” As such, the scope of the claim includes only one of features A) or B) being selected, and the prior art reasonably meets at least feature A).
As to Claim 12,
Manneschi discloses the method further comprises the step of: determining a three-dimensional shape with respect to the object and/or materials based on applying the various excitation patterns with the aid of the control unit (Paragraphs [0035],[0046].[0131], [0172] / note displaying the result characterizing the composition of the target in three-dimensional space reasonably includes a determination of the shape of the object or material).
As to Claim 13,
Manneschi discloses changing the various excitation patterns in each of various time slots especially with the aid of the control unit (Paragraph [0058] / note that since a range of frequencies are used, the control unit is reasonably capable of and thus configured to use different frequencies at different times).
As to Claim 15,
Manneschi discloses the control unit comprises or is a controller or an application-specific integrated circuit (Paragraph [0047]).
As to Claim 16,
Manneschi discloses the method comprises or is a method for inductive shoe and/or foot scanning (Paragraphs [0002],[0026] / note full body scanning for items concealed in clothing reasonably includes items concealed in shoes).
As to Claim 17,
Manneschi determining if the object and/or materials is a threat based on the respective location and/or three- dimensional shape with the aid of the control unit (Paragraphs [0001],[0002] / note the system is designed to detect prohibited items, based on detection of the item, including its location, and any prohibited item can be considered a threat).
As to Claim 18,
Manneschi discloses machine learning and/or artificial intelligence and/or at least one artificial neural network to classify the object and/or materials (Paragraph [0027]).
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