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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202310932432.5, filed on 07/27/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (CN114089424A) in view of Miles et al. (US 9645274 B2) and Albright (US 20230046057 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches A separated multi-core transmitting device based on a ground transient electromagnetic method (Abstract), comprising:
a rectangular transmitting coil (Figs. 1 and 2, reproduced below with annotations; variable electromagnetic coil 2), wherein the rectangular transmitting coil includes a cable I, a cable II, a cable III, and a cable IV (see annotated Figs. 1 and 2), each of the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV is provided with N wires (“a number of wires 212 are arranged inside the casing 211. The wires 212 are distributed in three layers from top to bottom in the horizontally arranged casing 211, which are the first transmitting line, the receiving line and the second transmitting line respectively. Wires, and their outer sides are wrapped with insulating layers, and the wires 212 are further fixed by fillers 213”), two ends of each of the N wires is provided with a sub connector (“The wires 212 in the housing 211 are connected together through a three-way connector 22 and several two-way connectors 23 between the tubular components 21, thereby forming a frame-shaped structure, and finally connected to the transient electromagnetic field through the three-way connector 22. instrument 1.”) and a
the sub connectors are connected with sub connector interfaces, the (Fig. 2; “The arrangement of the three-way connector 22 and the two-way connector 23 enables the entire variable electromagnetic coil 2 to be detachably installed, thereby facilitating portability or transfer.”); and
the sub connectors of the cable I are connected with the connectors of the cable II, the sub connectors of the cable II are connected with the connectors of the cable III, the sub connectors of the cable III are connected with the connectors of the cable IV, and the sub connectors of the cable IV are connected with the connectors of the cable I (see Fig. 2, annotations); and
PNG
media_image1.png
312
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first wire of the connectors of the cable I is led out to serve as a positive electrode of a transient electromagnetic instrument transmitter, and a last wire of the sub connectors of the cable IV is led out to serve as a negative electrode of the transient electromagnetic instrument transmitter (“The working process of the detection device of the present invention is as follows: the transient electromagnetic instrument 1 sends a signal to the first transmission line and the second transmission line through the three-way connector 22, and the first transmission line and the second transmission line have the same size and Currents in opposite directions form magnetic fields with the same magnitude and opposite directions; the first transmitting line and the second transmitting line are turned off, and a signal is received through the receiving line.”).
Zeng does not teach the device, comprising:
female connectors are connected with female connector interfaces;
the sub connectors of the wires within each cable are labeled sequentially with uppercase letters, and the female connectors of the wires within the each cable are labeled sequentially with lower case letters;
the sub connectors of the cable I are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable II, the sub connectors of the cable II are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable III, the sub connectors of the cable III are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable IV, and the sub connectors of the cable IV are connected with the female connectors of next letters of same letters of the cable I
Miles teaches an analogous transmitting device based on a ground transient electromagnetic method (Abstract; col 1 lines 21-27 “Generally speaking, geophysical EM methods involve the generation of a magnetic field by applying a periodic current to a transmitter coil system placed near the surface of the earth. This primary magnetic field induces electrical currents in the ground, and the secondary magnetic field produced by these currents is measured to provide information regarding ground conductivity distributions.”; lines 43-48 “In time-domain (TD) EM systems, a pulse of current may be applied to the transmitter coil during an on-period, generating the primary or transmitted EM field, and then switched off during an off period. The secondary signal may be measured at the receiver coil as a function of time.”), comprising:
female connectors are connected with female connector interfaces (Fig. 3, receiving ends 32);
the sub connectors (Fig. 3, extruding connecting section 30) of the wires (transmitter loop wires 22);
the sub connectors of the cable I are connected with the female connectors of the cable II, the sub connectors of the cable II are connected with the female connectors of the cable III, the sub connectors of the cable III are connected with the female connectors of the cable IV, and the sub connectors of the cable IV are connected with the female connectors of the cable I (Figs. 5 and 6; col 4 lines 29-31 “The transmitter frame 24 is modular and comprises a plurality of fixedly connected frame sections 26, forming a substantially circular or polygonal loop.”; lines 38-40 “the plurality of frame sections 26 are serially and fixedly connected one to another forming a transmitter loop frame 24 as illustrated in FIG. 1”; col 5 lines 56-61 “A plurality of the frame sections as described herein can be serially and fixedly connected to form longer, combined frame sections 26 and/or a larger transmitter frame 24. Serial connection can be achieved by inserting a connecting section 30 of a first frame section 26 into a corresponding receiving end 32 of a second frame section 26.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng to include the female connectors and sequential connection of cables of Miles because the use of female connectors in connecting cables in a sequential manner is well known in the art and yields predictable results.
Zeng in view of Miles does not teach the device, comprising:
each cable are labeled sequentially with uppercase letters, and the female connectors of the wires within the each cable are labeled sequentially with lower case letters;
the sub connectors of the cable I are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable II, the sub connectors of the cable II are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable III, the sub connectors of the cable III are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable IV, and the sub connectors of the cable IV are connected with the female connectors of next letters of same letters of the cable I.
Albright teaches an analogous device including an of assembling cables of an electronic device (Abstract, Fig. 2A), comprising:
each cable are labeled sequentially with uppercase letters, and the female connectors of the wires within the each cable are labeled sequentially with lower case letters ([0059] lines 1-4, “cable 208 may be specifically routed to a particular receptacle 204 in accordance with one or more mappings. In at least one embodiment, cable 208 includes an identifier 212.”; lines 6-10, “identifier 212 corresponds to one or more markers that may be utilized to identify a type of cable, a cable label, a cable name, or one or more other pieces of identifying information. In at least one embodiment, identifier 212 includes a symbol”; [0062] lines 14-22, “one or more properties of cable 208 are determined based, at least in part, on features 216. In at least one embodiment, one or more properties corresponding to a cable name, a cable label, a cable installation location, a cable type, an end connector type, or various others. In at least one embodiment, information determined from cable 208 may be used to guide operators toward installation location 218 to properly install cable 208.”; [0079] lines 7-11, “manual input data may include one or more properties of cables, such as a plug type, a cable name, a cable label or tag, an installation sequence number, or other types of information that may facilitate identification of cables”);
the sub connectors of the cable I are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable II, the sub connectors of the cable II are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable III, the sub connectors of the cable III are connected with the female connectors of same letters of the cable IV, and the sub connectors of the cable IV are connected with the female connectors of next letters of same letters of the cable I ([0056] lines 1-15, “a rack configuration 200, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, may include a variety of different data center components 202, which may correspond to components such as routers, servers, power supplies, sensors, fans, switches, networking equipment, and various others. In at least one embodiment, data center components 202 include various receptacles 204 that may enable cables or various other connections to couple various components 202 together. In at least one embodiment, receptacles 204 are associated with different end connectors for various cables. In at least one embodiment, multiple receptacles 204 may be present for different end connectors. In at least one embodiment, proper installation of cables may correspond to installation in line with one or more cable mappings”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zeng in view of Miles to include the labels of Albright because the use of labels for the specific connection of cables is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Even if Albright does not explicitly teach the labels comprising upper case and lower case letters, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use upper case and lower case letters as the matching labels because it would be “obvious to try”. The use of upper and lower case letters as the symbols used as the cable or connector identifier label is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. The use of matching labels (e.g. symbols, sequence number, etc.) for sequential matching of components would yield predictable results, and the use of matched upper and lower case labels is a solution one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Miles and Albright as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luan et al. (US 20240125966 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zeng in view of Miles and Albright teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 1, wherein a size of the rectangular transmitting coil is adjusted by lengths of the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV (Zeng: “several tubular components are connected through special three-way connecting heads and two-way connecting heads, so that the size of the detection device can be adjusted according to needs, so that it has stronger adaptability.”; Miles: col 5 lines 56-61, “the modularity of the transmitter frame 24 allows for easy adjustment of the size of the transmitter frame to accommodate or support transmitter coils 22 of various sizes.”) to adapt to different detection depths.
Zeng in view of Miles and Albright does not teach the device, wherein a size of the rectangular transmitting coil is adjusted by lengths of the cable to adapt to different detection depths.
Luan teaches an analogous transmitting device (Abstract), wherein a size of the rectangular transmitting coil (Fig. 1, transmitting coil 1) is adjusted by lengths of the cable to adapt to different detection depths ([0053] lines 1-2, “Different lengths of the transmitting coil 1 are selected according to different exploration depths.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles and Albright to include the different detection depths of Luan because it would yield predictable and advantageous results, such as the same device being adaptable to detect different depths, thereby increasing the situations the device can be used.
Regarding claim 3, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, and Luan teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 2, wherein a protective sleeve is provided on each sub connector interface and each female connector interface, respectively (Zeng: “the variable electromagnetic coil 1 is provided with several sections of tubular components 21, and a number of wires 212 are arranged in the tubular components 21, and the tubular components 21 are connected together by connecting heads, so that the wires 212 divided into three layers are connected to each other”; Miles: interlock 37).
Regarding claim 4, Zeng in view of Miles and Albright teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 1, a count of cable cores is selected as 5 (Zeng: wires 212, as shown in Fig. 3; “the wires 212 in the housing 211 are divided into a first transmitting wire, a receiving wire and a second transmitting wire, all of which are composed of a plurality of wires 212. Under the condition that the magnitude of the current remains unchanged, the number of wires 212 included in the first transmitting line, the receiving line and the second transmitting line can be controlled to ensure the demand for transmitting signals, so that the size of the variable electromagnetic coil 2 can be controlled”).
Even if Zeng does not explicitly teach the count of cable cores is selected as 5, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the count as 5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Zeng in view of Miles and Albright does not teach the device, comprising:
wherein when a detection depth is 25 m, and the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 5 m.
Luan teaches an analogous transmitting device (Abstract), wherein when a detection depth is 25 m, ([0080] lines 1-7, “The size of the transmitting coil 1 and the number of turns are determined according to the exploration depth for exploration, and area images after exploration are analyzed so as to determine whether the size of the transmitting coil 1 selected and the number of turns selected are appropriate, and perform data recording.”) the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 5 m (Fig. 1; [0053] lines 4-7, “Referring to a length of the transmitting coil 1 in a common shadow transient instrument, the lengths of the main wooden supports 4 and the external wooden supports 5 are set to be 1 m.”; [0058] lines 8-11, “The main wooden support 4 and the external wooden support 5 can be adjusted into a square structure with variable sizes according to requirements, such as 1*1, 2*2 and the like.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles and Albright to include the detection depth and cable length of Luan because the selection of detection depth and cable length would yield predictable results.
Even if Luan does not explicitly teach the detection depth is 25 m, and the cables with length 5 m, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the depth to be 25 m and the cable length to be 5 m, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Zeng in view of Miles and Albright teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 1, wherein a count of cable cores is selected as 5 (Zeng: wires 212, as shown in Fig. 3; “the wires 212 in the housing 211 are divided into a first transmitting wire, a receiving wire and a second transmitting wire, all of which are composed of a plurality of wires 212. Under the condition that the magnitude of the current remains unchanged, the number of wires 212 included in the first transmitting line, the receiving line and the second transmitting line can be controlled to ensure the demand for transmitting signals, so that the size of the variable electromagnetic coil 2 can be controlled”).
Even if Zeng does not explicitly teach the count of cable cores is selected as 5, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the count as 5, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Zeng in view of Miles and Albright does not teach the device, comprising:
wherein when a detection depth is 50 m, the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 5 m, and a count of cable cores is selected as 10;
or the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 10 m.
Luan teaches an analogous transmitting device (Abstract), wherein when a detection depth is 50 m, the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 5 m, and a count of cable cores is selected as 10;
or the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 10 m , ([0080] lines 1-7, “The size of the transmitting coil 1 and the number of turns are determined according to the exploration depth for exploration, and area images after exploration are analyzed so as to determine whether the size of the transmitting coil 1 selected and the number of turns selected are appropriate, and perform data recording.”; Fig. 1; [0053] lines 4-7, “Referring to a length of the transmitting coil 1 in a common shadow transient instrument, the lengths of the main wooden supports 4 and the external wooden supports 5 are set to be 1 m.”; [0058] lines 8-11, “The main wooden support 4 and the external wooden support 5 can be adjusted into a square structure with variable sizes according to requirements, such as 1*1, 2*2 and the like.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles and Albright to include the cable length of Luan because the selection of detection depth and cable length would yield predictable results.
Even if Luan does not explicitly teach the cables with length 10 m, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the cable length to be 10 m, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Zeng in view of Miles and Albright teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 1, wherein a count of cable cores is selected as 10 (Zeng: wires 212, as shown in Fig. 3; “the wires 212 in the housing 211 are divided into a first transmitting wire, a receiving wire and a second transmitting wire, all of which are composed of a plurality of wires 212. Under the condition that the magnitude of the current remains unchanged, the number of wires 212 included in the first transmitting line, the receiving line and the second transmitting line can be controlled to ensure the demand for transmitting signals, so that the size of the variable electromagnetic coil 2 can be controlled”).
Even if Zeng does not explicitly teach the count of cable cores is selected as 10, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the count as 10, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Zeng in view of Miles and Albright does not teach the device, comprising:
wherein when a detection depth is 100 m, the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 5 m, and a count of cable cores is selected as 20;
or the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 10 m.
Luan teaches an analogous transmitting device (Abstract), wherein when a detection depth is 100 m, the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 5 m, and a count of cable cores is selected as 20;
or the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 10 m ([0080] lines 1-7, “The size of the transmitting coil 1 and the number of turns are determined according to the exploration depth for exploration, and area images after exploration are analyzed so as to determine whether the size of the transmitting coil 1 selected and the number of turns selected are appropriate, and perform data recording.”; Fig. 1; [0053] lines 4-7, “Referring to a length of the transmitting coil 1 in a common shadow transient instrument, the lengths of the main wooden supports 4 and the external wooden supports 5 are set to be 1 m.”; [0058] lines 8-11, “The main wooden support 4 and the external wooden support 5 can be adjusted into a square structure with variable sizes according to requirements, such as 1*1, 2*2 and the like.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles and Albright to include the cable length of Luan because the selection of detection depth and cable length would yield predictable results.
Even if Luan does not explicitly teach the cables with length 10 m, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the cable length to be 10 m, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng in view of Miles and Albright teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 1, wherein a count of cable cores is selected as 10 (Zeng: wires 212, as shown in Fig. 3; “the wires 212 in the housing 211 are divided into a first transmitting wire, a receiving wire and a second transmitting wire, all of which are composed of a plurality of wires 212. Under the condition that the magnitude of the current remains unchanged, the number of wires 212 included in the first transmitting line, the receiving line and the second transmitting line can be controlled to ensure the demand for transmitting signals, so that the size of the variable electromagnetic coil 2 can be controlled”).
Even if Zeng does not explicitly teach the count of cable cores is selected as 10, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the count as 10, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Zeng in view of Miles and Albright does not teach the device, comprising:
wherein when a detection depth is 200 m, the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 10 m, and a count of cable cores is selected as 20;
or the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 20 m.
Luan teaches an analogous transmitting device (Abstract), wherein when a detection depth is 100 m, the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 5 m, and a count of cable cores is selected as 20;
or the cable I, the cable II, the cable III, and the cable IV are cables with a length of 10 m ([0080] lines 1-7, “The size of the transmitting coil 1 and the number of turns are determined according to the exploration depth for exploration, and area images after exploration are analyzed so as to determine whether the size of the transmitting coil 1 selected and the number of turns selected are appropriate, and perform data recording.”; Fig. 1; [0053] lines 4-7, “Referring to a length of the transmitting coil 1 in a common shadow transient instrument, the lengths of the main wooden supports 4 and the external wooden supports 5 are set to be 1 m.”; [0058] lines 8-11, “The main wooden support 4 and the external wooden support 5 can be adjusted into a square structure with variable sizes according to requirements, such as 1*1, 2*2 and the like.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles and Albright to include the cable length of Luan because the selection of detection depth and cable length would yield predictable results.
Even if Luan does not explicitly teach the cables with length 10 m, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the cable length to be 10 m, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Miles and Albright as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merewether et al. (US 7443154 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Zeng in view of Miles and Albright teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 1, further comprising
a bracket (Zeng: Figs. 1 and 2; “The tubular assembly 21 includes a casing 211 , a wire 212 and a filler 213 ” and connectors 22, 23), wherein the bracket includes a cable fixing member (Zeng: filler 213), a horizontal fixing member (Zeng: “The frame structure formed by connecting the tubular components 21 together is arranged parallel to the horizontal plane”), and a frame (Zeng: “frame structure”);
the cable fixing member is sleeved within the frame and fixedly connected with the frame through the horizontal fixing member (Zeng: Fig. 2);
Zeng in view of Miles and Albright does not teach the device comprising:
support leg pivots, support legs ; and
the support legs are rotationally connected with a lower end of the frame through the support leg pivots.
Merewether teaches an analogous transmitting device (Fig. 1), comprising:
support leg pivots(col 5 lines 30-31 “The upper ends of the supports 510, 512 and 514 are pivotally connected to a common pivot base 530”), support legs (legs 510, 512 and 514); and
the support legs are rotationally connected with a lower end of the frame through the support leg pivots (Fig. 1, common pivot base 530, housing 32).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles and Albright to include the support legs and support leg pivots of Merewether because the use of pivoting support legs to support a frame is well known in the art and would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, and Merewether teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 14, wherein one end of the cable fixing member is provided with an elastic member (Miles: col 2 lines 33-41 “Another existing EM system described in Canadian Patent Application No. 2,702,346 proposed a large transmitter loop, where the polygonal receiver coil sits at the centre of the transmitter coil frame. However, the proposed transmitter loop has multiple “articulating joints” and is very flexible as it allows rotation of the frames relative to each other at the “articling joints” and as a result the structure can bend at a plurality of locations about a circumference of the transmitter loop.”; col 4 lines 14-21 “The loop structure or transmitter frame is “generally rigid” in the sense that the loop structure is rigid, other than the mechanical flex caused by the weight of the components, as opposed to flex caused by the rotation between the frame members.”), and another end of the cable fixing member is provided with a sleeve structure (Miles: col 4 lines 22-25 “the transmitter frame 24 comprises a tubular portion or an enclosure that internally houses the transmitter coil 22. In FIG. 1, the transmitter coil 22 is enclosed within the transmitter frame 24 and therefore is not directly visible.”). The articulating joints and the “generally rigid” structures having mechanical flex caused by the weight of the components, teaches the one end having an elastic member. The tubular portion enclosing the transmitter coil is the sleeve structure.
Regarding claim 16, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, and Merewether teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 15, wherein the cable fixing member includes a first fixing member (Miles: Fig. tab 38) and a second fixing member (Miles: Fig. 9, slot 39), a second sleeve structure of the second fixing member is sleeved within a first sleeve structure of the first fixing member (Miles: Fig. 9; col 7 lines 44-46 “the one or more tabs 38 extend into one or more slots 39 thereby interlocking the connected first and second frame sections 26.”), and the first sleeve structure is sleeved within the frame (Miles: Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, and Merewether teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 16, further comprising a height support member, wherein the height support member is connected with the second fixing member for adjusting a height of the second fixing member (Miles: col 37-44 “the suspension rope 4 approaches the suspension position along the transmitter frame 24, wherein each of the two ends of the Y-shaped ropes (not shown) is connected to a connector means 42 disposed along the transmitter frame 24. The two legs of a Y-rope may have the same length or may have different lengths. This type of Y-shaped suspension arrangement allows the Y-ropes to adjust to the flight angle set by the suspension ropes 4.”; Merewether: col 18 lines 24-27 “Two fixed supporting points and one adjustable supporting point provide a simple means to allow the user to level the transmitting array to a known position relative to the earth's surface.”).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Miles and Albright as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merewether and Sorensen (US 20060015255 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zeng in view of Miles and Albright teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 1, further comprising
the rectangular transmitting coil is laid (Zeng: “The frame structure formed by connecting the tubular components 21 together is arranged parallel to the horizontal plane, and its vertical line is perpendicular to the ground.”)
Zeng in view of Miles and Albright does not teach the device, further comprising
a control terminal and a vision sensor, wherein the control terminal is in communicating connection with the vision sensor;
the vision sensor is configured to acquire a current surface environment image and a coil position image after the transmitting coil is laid;
the control terminal includes a processor, and the processor is configured to:
determine, based on the current surface environment image, a current surface environment;
determine, based on the current surface environment and a detection requirement, a laying parameter;
determine, based on the laying parameter, a transmitting magnetic moment, the transmitting magnetic moment being related to a return wire area and a transmitting current; determine, based on the coil position image after the rectangular transmitting coil is laid, a coil position after the rectangular transmitting coil is laid; and
correct, based on the coil position after the rectangular transmitting coil is laid, the transmitting magnetic moment.
Merewether teaches an analogous transmitting device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a control terminal (Fig. 9, main circuit board 916) and a vision sensor (col 10 lines 43-48 “Indirect navigation modules 930 such as GPS, optical, radio triangulation, etc., are also supported on the main circuit board 916. Physical navigation modules 932, such as a compass, inclination/tilt sensor, inertial/gyro Doppler radar, altimeter, etc., are also supported on the main circuit board 916.”), wherein the control terminal is in communicating connection with the vision sensor (Fig. 9);
the vision sensor is configured to acquire a current surface environment image and a coil position image (col 5 line 63 – col 6 line 2 “The performance of our locating system can be further improved and enhanced by adding over the ground navigational capability. Various navigation techniques can be employed. Examples include, GPS, DGPS, inertial navigation, optical flow (using a camera linear array, optical motion processor or other optical technology), Doppler techniques, and the use of navigational reference beacons”; col 23 lines 40-49 “Preferred embodiments utilize acoustic Doppler, radar Doppler, optical (flow) navigation (both imaging and non-imaging), inertial navigation, E-Compass, tilt sensors, GPS, DGPS, sonde navigation, short baseline, and Kalman filtering techniques. Our new locator has the ability to store and spatially determine positions relative to the coordinate system of the locator as well as to the geographic coordinate system. Rolling or mechanical tilt (drag) sensors can also be used for determining motion relative to the ground.”; col 25 lines 47-52 “Passive sonde techniques include GMR, GMI sensors and e-Compass technology. Direct calculation methods or direct positional solution methods can be used. The prior art has relied on special characteristics of the dipole field, i.e., the so-called locator point, to determine the boring had position and orientation.”) after the transmitting coil is laid (col 5 lines 33-35 “The tripod configuration has the additional advantage of allowing the operator to place the locator 500 in an upright fixed position on the ground.”) The locating system, including optical flow, Doppler techniques, e-compass, sonde navigation , etc., is the vision sensor configured to acquire images of surface environments and coil positions.;
the control terminal includes a processor (Fig. 9; col 10 lines 34-37 “Both the node communications processing circuit 912 and the sensor processing circuit 914 are located on a main printed circuit board 916 located within the housing 32”), and the processor is configured to:
determine, based on the current surface environment image, a current surface environment (col 18 lines 21-30, “The navigation sonde beacon housing would optionally include a level indicating device such as a bubble level 340 and an optional means for the user to level the case to true earth horizontal. Two fixed supporting points and one adjustable supporting point provide a simple means to allow the user to level the transmitting array to a known position relative to the earth's surface. Additionally, a magnetic compass 342 (electronic or mechanical) can be used to aid the user in optionally rotating the transmitting array into a known orientation to the local magnetic field.”; col 9 line 66 col 10 line 11, “Our multi-sensor mapping locator can be used to track a sonde optionally associated with a pipe inspection camera. The locator is placed in a fixed position in signal range of the sonde and the sonde is moved and the track of the pipe is mapped in three dimension. Importantly, the pitch or slope of the pipe may be accurately measured without the need to place a pitch sensor in the sonde or camera. In order to allow accurate slope measurements to be made, the user can manually level the locator using a bubble level or other leveling device. Alternatively, a two or three axis tilt sensor can be incorporated into the locator to allow true slope measurements to be made without the need for leveling the mapping locator.”);
determine, based on the current surface environment and a detection requirement (col 31 lines 15-19 “In the complete solution, all measures of range, position, amplitude, phase, velocity, acceleration, tilt and frequency should be regarded as noisy data and subject to revision to produce a solution with minimum error over all parameters.”), a laying parameter (col 18 lines 24-30 “Two fixed supporting points and one adjustable supporting point provide a simple means to allow the user to level the transmitting array to a known position relative to the earth's surface. Additionally, a magnetic compass 342 (electronic or mechanical) can be used to aid the user in optionally rotating the transmitting array into a known orientation to the local magnetic field.”). The adjustment and rotation of the transmitting array to a preferable level and orientation at a location is the laying parameter;
determine, based on the laying parameter, a transmitting current (col 17 line 61 – col 18 line 5 “If all of the coils are electrically matched, current sensing and current control is not required. However, greater control of the output can be achieved if a current sensing element 334 is used. A Hall effect current sensor can be employed to measure current. A control circuit 336 can optionally be employed to improve the coil-to-coil transmitted power matching based upon feedback from current and voltage sensing elements, or optionally, from a B field sensing element 338 (coil, GMR or similar), or both. A sensing element can be placed on each inductor/coil, or a single sensor can be employed if its response to each coil can be characterized and known.”);
determine, based on the coil position image after the rectangular transmitting coil is laid, a coil position after the transmitting coil is laid (col 8 lines 52-62 “Stored image data may be transferred to another processor on an excavator or other earth working machinery for direct viewing by the operator as verification of correct location and orientation for digging, drilling, and/or grading. Overlaying one or a plurality of images as partially transparent layers over an opaque comparison image is a display mode usable by machine operators for position and orientation registration. Cross correlation of transferred images with stored and current image data allows registration of apparently featureless surfaces such as asphalt or concrete and apparently random surfaces such as sandstone or fine grain rocks.”); and
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of to include the vision sensor and laying parameter of Merewether because it would yield advantageous results of determining the position and orientation of the transmitting device when placed in the environment, thereby enabling the transmitting device to be laid in a correct or preferable position and orientation.
Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, and Merewether does not teach the device, comprising:
determine, based on the laying parameter, a transmitting magnetic moment, the transmitting magnetic moment being related to a return wire area and a transmitting current
correct, based on the coil position after the transmitting coil is laid, the transmitting magnetic moment.
Sorensen teaches an analogous transmitting device (Fig. 1), comprising:
determine, based on the laying parameter ([0008] lines 17-20, “Similarly, the size of the decay signal highly depends on the distance between the transmitter and receiving coils and their distances to the ground surface.”; [0094] “As shown especially in FIGS. 10a,b and 11a,b, it is thus possible to place the receiving coil in a large number of positions relative to the transmitter coil depending on the embodiment of the frame which carries the transmitter coil. In both cases, the receiving coil is placed horizontally in the zero area at a distance from the horizontal plane of the transmitter coil.”). The orientation of the transmitter and receiving coils and their distances to the ground surface are the laying parameters,
a transmitting magnetic moment, the transmitting magnetic moment being related to a return wire area and a transmitting current ([0065] “The magnetic moment 16 is defined as I.sub.T*A.sub.transmitter*n, where I.sub.t is the transmitting current, A.sub.transmitter is the area of the transmitter coil, and n is the number of turns in the transmitter coil.”; [0099] “To obtain the desired magnetic moment 16 which, as mentioned earlier, is defined by I.sub.T*A.sub.tansmitter*n, it is typically the transmitter current I.sub.t which is the value that can be varied the most. The area A.sub.transmitter is limited to the fact that the construction needs to be easy to handle with respect to its size, and just a relatively small-number of turns in the coil quickly results in an unacceptable high self-induction L.sub.coil, which further leads to the fact that, even at slow decay times, the current of the transmitter coil cannot be cut off fast enough to reliably be able to measure the wanted decay signal.”)
correct, based on the coil position after the transmitting coil is laid, the transmitting magnetic moment ([0099] “To obtain the desired magnetic moment 16 which, as mentioned earlier, is defined by I.sub.T*A.sub.tansmitter*n, it is typically the transmitter current I.sub.t which is the value that can be varied the most. The area A.sub.transmitter is limited to the fact that the construction needs to be easy to handle with respect to its size, and just a relatively small-number of turns in the coil quickly results in an unacceptable high self-induction L.sub.coil, which further leads to the fact that, even at slow decay times, the current of the transmitter coil cannot be cut off fast enough to reliably be able to measure the wanted decay signal.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, and Merewether to include the determination and correction of the transmitting magnetic moment of Sorensen because it would advantageously adjust the operation of the transmitting device based on preferred operational, environmental, and positional parameters, thereby potentially increasing the effectiveness of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, Merewether, and Sorensen teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 8, wherein the laying parameter includes at least one of a side length of the rectangular transmitting coil, an angular point position of the rectangular transmitting coil (Merewether: col 18 lines 24-30 “Two fixed supporting points and one adjustable supporting point provide a simple means to allow the user to level the transmitting array to a known position relative to the earth's surface. Additionally, a magnetic compass 342 (electronic or mechanical) can be used to aid the user in optionally rotating the transmitting array into a known orientation to the local magnetic field.”), and a count of cable cores.
Regarding claim 10, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, Merewether, and Sorensen teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 9, wherein the laying parameter further includes a bracket height, a bracket use, and a bracket position (Merewether: col 5 lines 30-35 “The upper ends of the supports 510, 512 and 514 are pivotally connected to a common pivot base 530. Snap retainers 528 on support 516 releasably hold supports 510, 512 and 514. The tripod configuration has the additional advantage of allowing the operator to place the locator 500 in an upright fixed position on the ground.”; col 27 lines 50-54 “If accurate mapping is needed then a true velocity is needed and the height of the optical sensor above the reference surface, or ground, is needed. Optical mouse IC's can be used. Ultrasonic height reference, laser spot(s), pattern and acoustic Doppler navigation can be used.”). The upright fixed position on the ground is the bracket position and use, and the height above the ground is the bracket height.
Regarding claim 11, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, Merewether, and Sorensen teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on the current surface environment, a laying position (Merewether: Fig. 11); and
determine, based on the laying position and the detection requirement, the laying parameter (col 18 lines 24-30 “Two fixed supporting points and one adjustable supporting point provide a simple means to allow the user to level the transmitting array to a known position relative to the earth's surface. Additionally, a magnetic compass 342 (electronic or mechanical) can be used to aid the user in optionally rotating the transmitting array into a known orientation to the local magnetic field.”). The adjustment and rotation of the transmitting array to a preferable level and orientation at a location is the laying parameter.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles, Albright, Merewether, and Sorensen as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Leussler et al. (US 20210373103 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, Merewether, and Sorensen teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the laying parameter, the detection requirement, and an instrument resolution, the transmitting current through a current recommendation model (Sorensen: [0065] “The magnetic moment 16 is defined as I.sub.T*A.sub.transmitter*n, where I.sub.t is the transmitting current, A.sub.transmitter is the area of the transmitter coil, and n is the number of turns in the transmitter coil.”; [0099] “To obtain the desired magnetic moment 16 which, as mentioned earlier, is defined by I.sub.T*A.sub.tansmitter*n, it is typically the transmitter current I.sub.t which is the value that can be varied the most. The area A.sub.transmitter is limited to the fact that the construction needs to be easy to handle with respect to its size, and just a relatively small-number of turns in the coil quickly results in an unacceptable high self-induction L.sub.coil, which further leads to the fact that, even at slow decay times, the current of the transmitter coil cannot be cut off fast enough to reliably be able to measure the wanted decay signal.”).
Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, Merewether, and Sorensen does not teach the device, comprising:
the current recommendation model being a machine learning model.
Leussler teaches an analogous transmitting device (Fig. 2; [0049] lines 15-16, “the RF transmission element 213 may be a TEM coil element”), comprising:
the current recommendation model being a machine learning model ([0051] lines 1-7, “The controller 220 is further configured to monitor several operating parameters of the RF transmit assembly 200 such as DC voltages, currents, pulse width, duty factor, RF output power, temperature of the RF amplifier 215, peak power, average power, pulse shape (linearity demands), total duration, frequency spread (within the MR bandwidth) of RF pulses.”: [0058] lines 2-16, “a predefined machine learning model may be used e.g. by the AI component 150 for determining at least part of the set of configuration parameters and associated values. Following the above example, the demand values of the peak power and the cooling water temperature may be provided as input to a deep learning model that has been generated by the AI component 150. Using the input values, the deep learning model may identify a subset of the set of configuration parameters of the RF transmit assembly 200 that needs to be set or changed in order to match the current input operating conditions. For example, if the peak power is smaller than the peak power demand in a previous iteration or as initially set, the power supply of the RF amplifier may be configured so as to provide a convenient DC supply value for enabling the current level for the current value of the peak power.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, Merewether, and Sorensen to include the machine learning model of Leussler because it would yield advantageous results, such as automating the process of providing a recommended current for the transmitting coil.
Regarding claim 13, Zeng in view of Miles, Albright, Merewether, Sorensen, and Leussler teaches The separated multi-core transmitting device of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on the coil position after the rectangular transmitting coil is laid, an actual return wire area after the rectangular transmitting coil is laid (Sorensen: [0090] “By placing the receiving coil in the zero area with the plane oriented in the horizontal plane defined by said horizontal component, i.e. parallel to the transmitter coil, it is obtained that the magnetic induction from currents in the transmitter coil becomes minimal and that the harmonic distortion in the preamplifier of the receiving coil thus also becomes minimal.”; [0071] lines 1-2, “The receiving area A.sub.receiver of the receiving coil is typically about 50.times.50 cm with 2.times.10 turns.”; [0108] lines 1-3, “If the magnetic moment must remain unchanged, the current amperage can only be decreased if the area is increased and/or the number of turns is increased.”);
determine, based on the actual return wire area (Sorensen: [0071] “The receiving area A.sub.receiver of the receiving coil is typically about 50.times.50 cm with 2.times.10 turns. The preamplifier 17 of the receiving coil can for example differentially amplify about 60 times, have a low output impedance and be close to the receiving coil, since the receiving unit 18 is placed in considerable distance from the preamplifier, for example 10 meters, which is why a strongly driven signal is required through the cable in order to avoid the signal being distorted by surrounding noise.”), a correction coefficient (Sorensen: [0108] lines 1-3, “If the magnetic moment must remain unchanged, the current amperage can only be decreased if the area is increased and/or the number of turns is increased.”). The change to the transmitter coil for the desired magnetic moment is the correction coefficient; and
correct, based on the correction coefficient, the transmitting magnetic moment ([Sorensen: 0099] “To obtain the desired magnetic moment 16 which, as mentioned earlier, is defined by I.sub.T*A.sub.tansmitter*n, it is typically the transmitter current I.sub.t which is the value that can be varied the most. The area A.sub.transmitter is limited to the fact that the construction needs to be easy to handle with respect to its size, and just a relatively small-number of turns in the coil quickly results in an unacceptable high self-induction L.sub.coil, which further leads to the fact that, even at slow decay times, the current of the transmitter coil cannot be cut off fast enough to reliably be able to measure the wanted decay signal.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN GEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/B.B.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights