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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Note: Applicant has filed new claims with the instant amendment, but applicant has also asked to have the “previously submitted” amendment also considered. However, the instant amendment, as best understood, is not based on the previous amendment filed 3/6/2026 and is instead based on the amendment filed 9/3/2026. To that point, the Examiner is presuming that the amendment and any associated arguments filed with the amendment 3/6/2026 are completely replaced with the instant amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 5-9 directed towards the previous 112(a) written description rejections,
The Examiner acknowledges the various amendments and notes that with exception of the issues noted in page 9, the amendments overcome the argued claim features. That stated, the Examiner notes other previous and instantly raised issues remain, and those are presented below.
Applicant argues that, as best understood, a bucking coil is a bucking magnet. While in the broadest possible sense, a coil with a current in it is a magnet as it generates a magnetic field, applicant distinctly uses the term “magnet” and coil in the disclosure, thereby reasonably drawing a distinction between these two concepts. A magnet, as it well known in the art, is traditionally considered an object that has become magnetized, such as a piece of iron, and thus now generates its own magnet field. As such, the bucking coil section does not reasonably provide support for the argued feature, because a bucking coil and a bucking magnet, in light of the disclosure, would not reasonably be considered to be the same thing.
The Examiner further notes that applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which one or plural bucking magnets are implemented to neutralize a z coil response for the reasons explained below, and the cited section does not reasonably address these issues. As such, this issue is presented below.
With regard to the arguments on pages 10-11 directed towards the previous 112(a) enablement rejections,
In section 1, applicant argues that the previously raised features are removed, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims still recite the processor being configured to receive and process data, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably demonstrate how applicant implements such features, such as how applicant processes any data or what applicant means by processing the data. As such, this issue is repeated. Similarly, the claims still recite the neutralization of the z coil response, and as explained previously, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose how such a feature is implemented.
In section 2, applicant argues that the specification provides the physical arrangement of the gateway system with bucking magnets, specific distances, and the underlying physical principle, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to place a bucking magnet to neutralize a z coil response as it is based on well-understood techniques. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, while that which is well-understood need not be explained, there is a difference between the underlying math of physics used and the actual implementation of the device. Meaning, while the device may be based on well-known physics, the actual device and its implementation itself is not well-known. Unless it is applicant’s position that the use of magnets at the claimed distances to cancel a z coil response is well known, then such a feature must reasonably be disclosed that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand what applicant is doing.
Second, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose how applicant implements the claim features, because mere placement of a magnet at a distance from a coil would not reasonably perform the claim features. In addition to such a feature, the orientation of the magnet, the alignment of the magnet relative to the coil, and strength of the magnetic field from the magnet would also need to be accounted for in order to perform the claim feature, but where the original disclosure is completely silent on these features. In a parallel example, if a laser beam was emitted form a laser that a person wished to be completely reflect back to the laser, merely positioning a mirror at a distance from the laser would not reasonably allow for such reflection. A person would need to position the mirror along the central axis of the laser, and angle the mirror in a manner that cause it to fully reflect the light back. In the case of the instant claims, even more is required, because in addition to the above, applicant would also need to generate a specific magnetic field at a specific angle, not just one that was opposing, and at a sufficient strength, in order to perform the claim feature. However, the disclosure is silent on these features.
As to issue 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees here for the same reasons noted above. Applicant argues that positioning a bucking magnet for field cancellation is routine optimization for a person skilled in the art. To that point, and as best understood, applicant is admitting that person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement the claim feature using a bucking magnet for field cancelation, because such a feature cited by applicant is found in the section addressing supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. To that point, the Examiner acknowledges applicant’s admission, but the Examiner nevertheless notes that, while applicant states such a feature would be routine obvious optimization, no evidence exists on the record outside applicant’s admission of such, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees. Meaning, as explained in MPEP 2145(I), “An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.”
With regard to the arguments on pages 11-14 pertaining to the previous 112(b) rejections,
The Examiner acknowledges the various amendments and notes that with exception of the issues noted in pages 12-13 the amendments overcome the argued claim features. That stated, the Examiner notes other previous and instantly raised issues remain, and those are presented below.
Applicant states that the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array ties the concept of the array to a configuration of plural magnets when more than one is used, but such a qualifier raises an issue, because applicant’s claim is not limited to the use of plural magnets. As applicant seemingly acknowledges, the scope of the claim encompasses the situation of one bucking magnet being in the claim and where plural magnets are not required. A single magnet is not reasonably an array, and a single magnet cannot reasonably act as an array. As such, the scope of the claim is still indefinite because it is unclear how, in light of the disclosure, a magnet can act as an array, and it is unclear how such feature should be interpreted.
With regard to the arguments on pages 14-16 pertaining to the previous 103 rejections,
Applicant does specifically argue that Dodds (US 2018/0267193) is directed towards the art of EM geophysical surveying that is a different implementation of a bucking magnet than security and surveillance, and talks about Earth’s electromagnetic response which is different than the instant implementation. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that Dodds is not required to disclose anything more than the feature it is stated to disclose, which is the manner in which bucking coils can be implemented with regard to coils to achieve a similar benefit as applicant. It is the combination of references that discloses the claim features, and not Dodds alone. Second, there is no requirement that Dodds be in the same field of endeavor as applicant. Instead, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the problem being solved in Dodds is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the claims as, like applicant, it was also concerned with using bucking magnets to cancel magnetic fields that can create unwanted interference (see paragraph [0024] for example). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably looked to any art using magnetic sensing that tried to solve a related problem to the claims, and thus would have reasonably looked to Dodds. Dodds is therefore reasonably analogous art.
Furthermore, whether the bucking coils of Dodds cancel a transmitters primary magnet field, and that the instant application is directed towards placing bucking magnets at specific distances from individual sensors in a pillar arrangement which serves a different function that the Dodds configuration. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, a secondary reference is not required to include the exact configuration disclosed by applicant as it is the combination of references that discloses the claim feature. The base reference already discloses the pillars and generation of magnetic fields, and all Dodds is being relied upon is the suggestion that bucking magnets can be used to neutralize a z coil response.
Second, a bucking coil is, as explained above, a bucking magnet as it generates a magnetic field. While applicant argues that the magnets are permanent magnets, the claims do not recite nor require permanent magnets. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Third, the bucking coil (102) is used adjacent the sensor (103) in a similar manner as applicant to buck or neutralize the primary field at the sensor, which must include the z-coil response. Dodds is positioning the bucking coil in a similar manner as applicant for a similar purpose, and in the combination, would reasonably disclose the claim feature.
Applicant then argues that there is no motivation to combine, because the motivation pertains to geophysical surveying, and not security gateway systems. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In both geophysical exploration and security gateway systems, the point is to detect objects of interest that are hidden, and thus both areas are reasonably analogous, and where in both instances an object of interest exists that is otherwise obscured. The motivation provided is not limited to geophysical exploration, and is instead pertinent to any area where obscured or otherwise hidden objects are of interest to be detected by magnetic fields. Both geophysical exploration and the use of the type of metal detector or security system argued by applicant would therefore find a benefit from the motivation presented. While applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to EM geophysical surveying because the problems are different, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, because both address similar concepts of detected hidden or otherwise obscure objects of interest.
Applicant then argues that the specific distance limitation is not disclosed by the prior art, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has already admitted above that an optimization for such a distance is obvious by citing this very optimization section and arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found positioning of a bucking magnet for field cancelation to be routine optimization (Page 11 of the amendment), thus demonstration that such a feature is indeed obvious. This analysis, respectfully, is not moot as the combination of references is analogous.
Lastly, applicant argues that the combination requires significant hindsight, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that applicant provides no further explanation as to why such a combination relies upon hindsight. In fact, the combination merely teaches in the idea that bucking magnets / coils can be used to neutralize magnetic fields, which is a well-known concept. No hindsight rationale is relied upon, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “and to and to” on line 13 contains a typographical issue due to the duplicate “and to,” and the claim stands objected for this duplication.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 6, 8, and 10 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 6,
The phrase “an onboard processor configured to receive sensor data from the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors and to and to process the sensor data” on lines 12-14 of Claim 1 and lines 13-15 of Claim 6 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the above data is processed. Merely disclosing a device, such as a computer, that can process data does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the data itself is actually processed or reasonably identify what data is being processed. While applicant need not provide all details of the manner in which the data is processed, applicant must provide a sufficient explanation to reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill of the manner in which the data is processed in order to establish possession. However, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any data processed by any processor or computer. Note that while the disclosure mentions machine learning and neural networks and broadly mentions that data can be collected and a model can be trained, such features do not reasonably demonstrate proper written description because they are not reasonably specific enough examples demonstrating a well-known algorithm that was well-known to be used in the claimed manner for the claimed purpose. For example, if a quadradic equation was well-known to be used to process data in the disclosed and claimed manner, then merely stating that a quadradic equation was used would reasonably establish possession because a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner in which such an equation could be used in light of the disclosure. This is because a quadradic equation is a specific formula that, in this instance, was well-known to be used for the intended purpose. However, machine learning and neural networks do not reasonably identify any specific equation, model, network, or other similar feature that was well-known for the purpose of the disclosure. Instead, machine learning and neural networks are merely concepts, which does not reasonably identify any specific formula, equation, model, or other similar feature that was well-known for the processing of data. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
The phrase “one or more bucking magnets placed on at least one of the first and the second pillar, the one or more bucking magnets placed at a distance of at least 55 mm from a respective one of the first sensors or the second sensors, wherein the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor” on the last two paragraphs lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
1) The reason for the instant rejection is that applicant’s invention is directed towards the specific manner in which bucking magnets are placed with respect to magnetic sensor coils, in relation to a primary or large magnet array. However, the original disclosure does not provide a complete example of the invention, in that nowhere does applicant disclose an example showing the bucking magnet placed with respect to a magnetic sensor, in the presence of a large magnet array. Merely claiming a distance between the one or more bucking magnets and a sensor does not reasonably establish where these components are relatively positioned relative to each other in order to achieve the above claimed improvement.
2) At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably provide a sufficient or complete example to demonstrate the manner in which the bucking magnet is placed at a distance that improves sensor response by neutralizing the z coil response produced from the magnetic array. While applicant shows various markings to show magnet placement and the placement of a single bucking magnet, nowhere does applicant disclose a complete example of the bucking magnet, magnetic sensor, and any other related component necessary to reasonably demonstrate the manner in which the magnet would reasonably improve the sensor response and neutralize the z coil response as claimed. Merely showing one example of a placement of a bucking magnet, completely devoid of any other component, does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description because it does not reasonably show or explain the manner in which this magnet would allow for the claim features.
3) Furthermore, applicant is claiming “the bucking magnets” to achieve the above neutralization of the z coil response. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which one or more than one bucking magnet or plural bucking magnets can be used in this manner, or provide any completely explanation to demonstrate the manner in which a single or plural magnets would perform these functions. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
4) Applicant is now claiming that it is the one or more bucking magnets that act as the magnetic array. However, when applicant claims “one or more bucking magnets” acting as a magnetic array, applicant is reasonably including one bucking magnet as an object that can act as a magnetic array. Applicant does not originally disclose one bucking magnet acting as an array, nor does applicant reasonably explain the manner in which one magnet can act as such an array. This phrase therefore introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
5) The full scope of this claim reasonably includes one or plural magnets being placed 55mm from one sensor in any direction. However, applicant does not reasonably disclose that one bucking magnet can be placed in any direction from any one sensor and still improve the sensor response as claimed. Instead, applicant discloses that the magnet must be placed at a specific distance and along at a specific relative position along a specific axis to achieve the claim feature. However, the claim reasonably includes more than what is disclosed, and of which, as best understood, would not reasonably achieve the claim features. Furthermore, applicant does not reasonably disclose the placement of more than one magnet to achieve the claim feature as claimed. Applicant at most discloses the placement of one magnet relative to one sensor for this purpose, and not plural magnets. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the full scope of this claim would reasonably achieve the claim feature of an improved sensor response for one sensor.
As to Claims 3 and 8,
The phrase “the one or more bucking magnets are further configured to dampen an x coil response or a y coil response of the respective sensor” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description.
For the same reasons that one bucking magnet or plural bucking magnets are not reasonably disclosed to neutralize the z coil response of the magnetic array, the above also lacks proper written description as the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose or explain the manner in which bucking magnets dampen the x and y coil response. For brevity, the entirety of the above rejection under 112(a) in Claim 1 is incorporated herein, which for similar reasons explains why the above phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 5 and 10,
The phrase “the system is configured for collecting sensor data for training a machine learning training model” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose what type of machine learning the above claim phrase is directed towards to reasonably establish possession. Machine learning is an extensively broad category that does not reasonably identify any particular type of model or process. Without any further guidance and specific process to demonstrate the manner in which machine learning can be improved, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant achieves the claim feature to demonstrate possession.
As to Claims 3, 5, 8, and 10,
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, 5, 6, 8, and 10 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) an onboard processor configured to receive sensor data from the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors and to and to process the sensor data; 2) one or more bucking magnets placed on at least one of the first and the second pillar, the one or more bucking magnets placed at a distance of at least 55 mm from a respective one of the first sensors or the second sensors, wherein the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor of Claims 1 and 6, and 3) “the bucking magnets are further configured to dampen an x coil response or a y coil response of the respective sensor” on lines 2-3 of Claims 3 and 8. Specifically, the Examiner does not find any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above receiving and processing of data, and the manner in which the bucking magnet is implemented to neutralize the z coil response, and the manner in which applicant is dampening the x and y coil response. 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, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are unbounded. Applicant has not provided any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above receiving and processing of sensor data, has not provided a reasonably complete explanation as to the manner in which the bucking magnet or magnets neutralize the z coil response, and has not reasonably provided a complete explanation as to how the one or more bucking magnets dampens the x coil response or the y coil response, and as such claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 would cover any and every way possible to accomplish these claim features.
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 how applicant is processing sensor data. The specification is silent as to how any data is processed or what any processor does with the data during any processing. Applicant further does not reasonably explain what applicant means by processing the sensor data, or provide any reasonably explanation demonstrating how applicant processes the data. While the disclosure mentions machine learning and neural networks and broadly mentions that data can be collected and a model can be trained, such features do not reasonably demonstrate proper written description because they are not reasonably specific enough examples demonstrating a well-known algorithm that was well-known to be used in the claimed manner for the claimed purpose. For example, if a quadradic equation was well-known to be used to process data in the disclosed and claimed manner, then merely stating that a quadradic equation was used would reasonably establish possession because a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner in which such an equation could be used in light of the disclosure. This is because a quadradic equation is a specific formula that, in this instance, was well-known to be used for the intended purpose. However, machine learning and neural networks do not reasonably identify any specific equation, model, network, or other similar feature that was well-known for the purpose of the disclosure. Instead, machine learning and neural networks are merely concepts, which does not reasonably identify any specific formula, equation, model, or other similar feature that was well-known for the processing of data. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose any suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the above claimed receiving and processing of the data.
Similarly, applicant does not reasonably provide a complete example of how one more bucking magnets are placed at a distance that improves sensor response by neutralizing the z coil response, or how the one or more bucking magnets dampens the x coil response or the y coil response. While applicant shows various markings to show magnet placement and the placement of a single bucking magnet, nowhere does applicant disclose a complete example of the bucking magnet, magnetic sensor, and any other related component necessary to reasonably demonstrate the manner in which the magnet would reasonably improve the sensor response and neutralize the z coil response as claimed. Merely showing one example of a placement of a bucking magnet, completely devoid of any other component, does not reasonably demonstrate how the complete invention is implemented to achieve the claim features. No complete example or final product is reasonably shown or disclosed to demonstrate how applicant implements one or more bucking magnets to achieve the claim features. Merely stating that a magnet is placed at 55 mm from a sensor does not reasonably explain where it is located in order to achieve the claimed effect. Meaning, the relative position of a magnet with respect to the sensor, and not just its distance from the sensor, reasonably plays a role in any neutralization of the z coil response. However, the original disclosure is completely silent as to where the magnet is actually placed relative to the sensor in order to achieve the claimed effect.
Similarly, applicant is claiming “one or more bucking magnets” to achieve the above neutralization of the z coil response and dampening of the x coil response or the y coil response. However, as currently claimed, the claims reasonably means that a single bucking magnet or plurality of bucking magnets are used to neutralize the z coil response, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose how a single or plural magnets are used for this purpose. However, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which more than one bucking magnet or plural bucking magnets can be used in this manner, or provide any completely explanation to demonstrate the manner in which a single or plural magnets would perform these functions.
Therefore, the specification fails to disclose any suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the above claimed use of one or more bucking magnets to achieve the claim 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 a processor configured to receive and process sensor data, how one or more bucking magnets to neutralize the z coil response as claimed. Applicant further does not provide any details of the manner in which a single magnet can be used to neutralize a z coil response or dampen the x coil response or the y coil response for an entire array, or how plural magnets can be used to neutralize or dampen the response of a single coil. Applicant additionally does not provide details as to what data is being processed, or how this data is processed. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently identify how the magnets can be placed to achieve the entirety of the claim features, including all reasonably interpretations of the claim scope, in combination with the other structural features of the claim. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill and independently develop the software and/or hardware for the device needed to perform or accomplish the claimed functions of receiving and processing sensor data, how it could be processed to function as a magnetic gateway system, using the various devices that will generate data such as the camera and magnetic sensors. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to independently figure out how to implement the scope of this claim.
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 invention 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, 5, 6, 8, and 10 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, 5, 8, and 10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims 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, 5, 6, 8, and 10 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 6,
The phrase “one or more bucking magnets placed on at least one of the first and the second pillar, the one or more bucking magnets placed at a distance of at least 55 mm from a respective one of the first sensors or the second sensors, wherein the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor” on the last two paragraphs are indefinite.
1) Applicant claims “the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor,” but where it is unclear what the “respective sensor” is from the above phrase. While it is understand that each pillar will have its own plurality of sensors, applicant never relates any particular sensor to any particular pillar, and applicant does not reference any of the previously recited sensors when recites “the respective sensor,” making it unclear which sensor applicant is referencing from the plurality of sensors on different pillars already recited.
2) Applicant is claiming “the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor,” but such a phrase reasonably only requires one bucking magnet. A single bucking magnet is not reasonably be or act as an magnet “array,” rendering this phrase indefinite. It is unclear, in light of the disclosure, how a single magnet can be considered to act as a magnet array.
5) Applicant claims “the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor,” but where it is unclear what is “produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array.” The wording of this phrase is such that the sensor or one or more bucking magnets produce the z coil response, making it unclear where the z coil response comes from and how it relates to the one or more bucking magnets.
As to Claims 3 and 8,
The phrase “the one or more bucking magnets are further configured to dampen an x coil response or a y coil response of the respective sensor” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
More than one sensor was previously recited that could be the respective sensor, and it is therefore unclear what respective sensor this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 5 and 10,
The phrase “the system is configured for collecting sensor data for training a machine learning training model” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims that the system is configured for collecting sensor data, but where the system is the preamble device, and where no structural feature in the body of the claim is reasonably identified as part of the configuration for collecting sensor data. To that point, it is unclear what part of parts of the system, either claims or unclaimed, are necessary for the above configuration. It is unclear how this configuration relates to any of the already recited claim features, and it is unclear if such a configuration requires more than what is claimed to allow the system to be configured in the claimed manner. In short, it is unclear what about the system makes it configured as claimed.
2) It is unclear what applicant means by improving machine learning performance. Applicant does not reasonably explain or provide any guidance as to the manner in which nay machine learning performance is improved, or how the bucking magnet itself is configured for such a feature. As such, this phrase is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that merely having the ability to improve a sensor response by way of a bucking magnet would achieve the claim feature.
3) Applicant recites “sensor data” distinctly from any of the previously recited sensors or responses thereof, for example the z-coil response. As best understood, any sensor data would not be distinct from either the responses or sensors themselves, but where applicant is distinctly reciting the responses from the data. As such, the difference and relationship between the previously recited responses and the above noted sensor data are unclear.
As to Claim 8 and 10,
These claims stand rejected because they depend on Claim 6 which is not an apparatus claim, but where these claims refer to “the method of claim 6.” No method exists, and it is therefore unclear how these claims should be treated. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting these claims to be apparatus claims.
As to Claims 3, 5, 8, and 10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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, 5, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellenbogen et al. (Ellenbogen) (US 2020/0135004) in view of Dodds (US 2018/0267193).
As to Claims 1 and 6,
Ellenbogen discloses A multi-sensor magnetic gateway system with improved sensor response, the system comprising: a first pillar (805A) having a plurality of first sensors (810) (Figure 8), (Paragraph [0102]), each of the first sensors comprising a three-axis magnetic sensor including an x coil, a y coil, and a z coil (Paragraph [0102] / note 810 is a three-axis fluxgate and thus must include these coils), ; a second pillar (805B) having a plurality of second sensors (815) (Figure 8), (Paragraph [0102]), each of the second sensors comprising a three-axis magnetic sensor including an x coil, a y coil, and a z coil (Paragraph [0102] / note 810 is a three-axis fluxgate and thus must include these coils); a stereo camera (820) contained within the first or second pillar (Figure 8), (Paragraph [0107]); a first wireless module on the first pillar and a second wireless module on the second pillar, the first and second wireless modules configured for the pillars to wirelessly communicate with each other (Paragraph [0096] / note the signals generated by the inclinometers and accelerometers can be transmitted wirelessly, and this is being interpreted to mean that the pillar can wirelessly communicate with other external objects, including another pillar), (Paragraph [0127] / note the embodiments can be combined); an onboard processor (120) configured to receive sensor data from the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors and to and to process the sensor data (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0040],[0050]); a display screen connected to the onboard processor and configured to display output date via a user interface (Paragraph [0078]).
Ellenbogen does not disclose one or more bucking magnets placed on at least one of the first and the second pillar, the one or more bucking magnets placed at a distance of at least 55 mm from a respective one of the first sensors or the second sensors, wherein the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor.
Dodds discloses one or more bucking magnets (102) placed on at least one of the first and the second pillar, wherein the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0016],[0024],[0029] / note the coil of Dodds would reasonably neutralize the z coil response by generating a magnetic field that is equal but opposite to the main field of the transmitter coil).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ellenbogen to include one or more bucking magnets placed on at least one of the first and the second pillar, wherein the one or more bucking magnets are configured to improve sensor response by generating a magnetic field that neutralizes a z coil response of the respective sensor produced from the one or more bucking magnets acting as a magnetic array with respect to the respective sensor given the above disclosure and teaching of Dodds in order to advantageously provide accurate and stable cancellation of the effect of primary field, so that the receiver sees a signal which depends substantially on the object of interest (Paragraph [0011]) and thus reduces noise at the receiver from the primary field, and allows the processing to be easier to implement, less costly, and simpler.
Ellenbogen in view of Dodds do not disclose the one or more bucking magnets placed at a distance of at least 55 mm from a respective one of the first sensors or the second sensors,
Dodds however discloses optimizing the location of the bucking magnet (coil) to achieve accurate bucking (Paragraphs [0024],[0037], thereby demonstrating the position of the bucking magnet is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ellenbogen in view of Dodds to optimizing the position of the one or more bucking magnets to therefore include the one or more bucking magnets placed at a distance of at least 55 mm from a respective one of the first sensors or the second sensors given the above disclosure and teaching of Dodds in order to advantageously be able to achieve a desired and accurate level of bucking (Paragraph [0037]), and because it has been held that “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)’ (MPEP 2144.05)(II)(A)).
(Note: The use of a bucking magnet/coil for a transmitter would reasonably achieve the same effect applicant claims above, especially in light of how applicant explains that the effect of using a bucking coil for a transmitter is analogous to instant application as seen in paragraph [0024] of page 3.
As to Claims 3 and 8,
Ellenbogen in view of Dodds discloses the one or more bucking magnets are further configured to dampen an x coil response or a y coil response of the respective sensor (Figure 8 / note that the prior art combination would provide a similar type of bucking as claimed by applicant, and thus such a feature is reasonably a property of the system of the prior art, and note the magnets are being interpreted as coils as explained in the above 112 rejections).
As to Claims 5 and 10,
Ellenbogen in view of Dodds disclose the system is configured for collecting sensor data for training a machine learning model (Figure 8 / note that because the above prior art combination reasonably improves a sensor response, it would reasonably improve machine learning performance as a property of the system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights