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 .
Note: All of the claim features currently presented were previously presented in the parent application 18/353,711 and were rejected in that case. While applicant has reworded some features, such as the features in feature f) of Claim 1, which is found in feature e) of the parent application, and has moved part of previous feature e) into Claim 2 of the instant application, all claim features currently presented were previously presented in some form, and all other dependent claims are identical to those previously presented.
The same prior art and the same embodiments of that prior art are being relied upon in the instant rejection. As such, a first action final rejection is proper.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “soil,” on the last line is objected to because this phrase ends the claim with a comma and not a period. It is presumed that the comma was intended to be a period.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the magnitude of a voltage” on line 2 lacks antecedent basis as a magnitude was not previously recited. It is suggested to recite “a magnitude of a voltage.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Candy (WO 2008/006178).
As to Claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
598
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Candy discloses a) generating a repeating transmit signal cycle, the repeating transmit signal cycle including a first receive period (for example the period of time that zero transmitter reactive voltage (40) or part of (40) exists in the above figure) and a first non-zero transmit coil reactive voltage period (for example (43) or part of (43)), the first non-zero transmit coil reactive period being different from the first receive period and does not overlap with the first receive period ((Figures 1-3) and (Page 9, Last Paragraph) and (Page 10, First Paragraph) and (Page 14, First Paragraph), (see above figure / note the first receive period can be considered the part of (40) that begins at the end of the first non-zero transmit coil reactive voltage period (43)), wherein an absolute average voltage value across a transmit coil (2) during the first non-zero reactive voltage period is higher than an absolute average voltage value across the transmit coil during the first receive period (Figure 2), (see above figure / note the voltage during period 43 is higher than the voltage during period 40 as seen above); b) receiving the repeating transmit signal cycle using a transmit coil having an inductance, the transmit coil connected to transmit electronics to generate a transmitted magnetic field (Figures 1,2), (Page 9, Lines 3-7 / note the transmit coil (1) receives the repeating voltage seen in Figure 2 at period 43 using the electronics seen in Figure 1), c) receiving a received magnetic field in a receive coil (12) during the first receive period and providing a received signal induced by the received magnetic field (Figure 1), (Page 8, Lines 12-13), d) sensing a current in the transmit coil during first receive period (Page 7, Lines 24-27 / note resistor 8 is used for sensing the current in the transmit coil, and the current in the transmit coil is seen as current 51-54 in the above figure),(Page 10, Last three lines), (Page 11, Lines 1-9), (see above figure), e) determining a modulation of the transmit coil (Page 10, Last three lines), (Page 11, Lines 1-9 / note the difference in current value between currents 51 and 52 that is monitored is a determined modulation (i.e. a change in the current), and when a modulation between these currents is not zero, the difference is controlled to be zero by the fourth servo control negative feedback loop); f), maintaining the current during the first receive period to be constant, with zero reactive voltage, and of a fixed value from cycle to cycle ((see above figure), (Figures 1-3) and (Page 6, Lines 21-25) and (Abstract) and (Page 7, Lines 27-31) and (Page 9, Last Paragraph) and (Page 10, First Paragraph) and (Page 14 / especially note lines 1-6) / note while several sections are cited as these features are spread throughout the reference, the short explanation is that the current (51) in the transmit coil during the first receive period is controlled to be constant and a fixed value as seen in the above figure from cycle to cycle, and the reactive transmitter voltage during this receive is indicated as (40) in the above figure, which is zero as seen above), a voltage applied across the transmit coil during the first receive period to be constant (see above figure / note the voltage (45) applied during the receive period is the actual voltage applied to the transmit coil, and it is constant as seen in the figure), (Page 9, Lines 22-25), wherein the fixed value of the current during the first receive period is not affected by the modulation of the inductance of the transmit coil (as seen in the above figure, the actual voltage (45), the reactive voltage (40), and the current (51) applied to or across the transmit coil is constant and is not affected by any modulation, and in fact the servo control loops are designed to eliminate any modulation by detecting the modulation (change) in the currents of the transmitter coil, which must include being due to any inductance change in the coil, such that the currents remain constant and any modulation /change is zero), g) processing the received signal during the first receive period to produce an indicator output signal, the indicator output signal including a signal indicative of the presence of a metallic target in the soil (see for example lines 29-31 of Page 10).
As to Claim 2,
Candy h) discloses changing one or both of the magnitude of a voltage and a duration of the first transmit coil reactive voltage period based on the determined modulation of the inductance of the transmit coil (Page 10, Last three lines), (Page 11, Lines 1-9 / note the duration of the fourth period may be controlled so that the difference and currents 51 and 52 is zero).
As to Claim 3,
Candy discloses i) compensating for changes of resistances of the transmit electronics with the transmit coil, due to a change of temperature, to minimize an effect of the temperature upon the current during the first receive period ((Figures 1-3) and (Page 6, Lines 21-25) and (Abstract) and (Page 7, Lines 26-31) and (Page 9, Last Paragraph) and (Page 10, First Paragraph) and (Pages 14 and 15) / and the phrase "to compensate for" is an intended use and thus the prior art need only be capable of meeting the claim feature without having to disclose it. Because Candy is capable of this feature, Candy discloses the claim limitation).
As to Claim 4,
Candy discloses the repeating transmit signal cycle includes a high-voltage period, the high-voltage period is a non-zero transmit coil reactive voltage period, and is followed by a low-voltage period and at least another period of non-zero transmit coil reactive voltage period (Figure 2), the first receive period includes the low-voltage period, and the average value of the transmit coil current during the low-voltage period of every repeating signal cycle is non-zero ((Figure 2) and (Page 9, Last Paragraph) and (Page 10, First Paragraph) and (Page 14, First Paragraph)).
As to Claim 6,
Candy discloses the repeating transmit signal cycle further includes a second receive period, the average value of the current during the first receive period is substantially different from the average value of the current during the second receive period (Figure 2).
As to Claim 7,
Candy discloses the repeating transmit signal cycle includes at least two different sequences, a first sequence and a second sequence, the first sequence including a first high-voltage period (at 43) and a first low-voltage period (at 45), and the second sequence including a second high-voltage period (at 44) and a second low-voltage period, wherein the first and second low-voltage periods are the first and second receive periods respectively, and the second sequence is opposite in polarity to the first sequence (Figure 2).
As to Claim 8,
Candy discloses the current waveform of the repeating transmit signal cycle is substantially a square wave (Figure 2).
As to Claim 12,
Candy discloses the processing of the received signal by the receive electronics includes one or both of sampling and a synchronous demodulation followed by one or both of averaging and a low pass filtering to substantially remove signals with frequency of the repeating transmit signal cycle, to produce a receive reactive signal and a receive resistive signal, the receive reactive signal being responsive to non-dissipative components coupling between the transmit magnetic field and the receive magnetic field, and the receive resistive signal being responsive to dissipative components coupling between the transmit magnetic field and the receive magnetic field ((Page 8, Second Full Paragraph) and (Page 15, Lines 8-end) and (Page 16, Lines 1-2)), wherein the receive reactive signal is differentiated with respect to time to give a differentiated receive reactive signal; a first portion of the differentiated receive reactive signal is subtracted (note linear combination) from the receive resistive signal to give a modified receive resistive signal, the said first portion is selected to approximately cancel any component of the receive resistive signal proportional to the differentiated receive reactive signal; and the modified receive resistive signal is further processed by the receive electronics to produce an indicator signal ((Page 8, Second Full Paragraph) and (Page 15, Lines 8-end) and (Page 16, Lines 1-2)).
As to Claims 13, 14, and 15,
Candy discloses the absolute average voltage value across the transmit coil of the high-voltage period is at least about three times an absolute average voltage value across the transmit coil of the low-voltage period, the average absolute value of a voltage during a high-voltage period is within the range of about 10 volts to about 400 volts, and the average absolute value of a voltage during a low-voltage period is within the range of about 0.1 volts to about 15 volts (Page 14, Second Paragraph).
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 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.
Claims 5, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Candy (WO 2008/006178).
As to Claims 5 and 9,
Candy discloses the repeating transmit signal cycle includes at least two different sequences, a first sequence and a second sequence, the first sequence including a first low-voltage period, a first high-voltage period, and the second sequence including a second low-voltage period, a second high-voltage period, wherein the first and second low voltage periods are the first and second receive periods respectively, and voltage and/or duration of at least one of the first low-voltage period and the first high-voltage period the first high-voltage period differs from a voltage and/or duration of the second low-voltage period and second high-voltage period, respectively, and each high voltage period is a non-zero transmit coil reactive voltage period, and is followed by a low-voltage period and at least another period of non-zero transmit coil reactive voltage period (Figure 2), the low-voltage period is the receive period, and the average value of the transmit coil current during the low-voltage period of every repeating signal cycle is non-zero ((Figure 2) and (Page 9, Last Paragraph) and (Page 10, First Paragraph) and (Page 14, First Paragraph)).
Candy does not disclose each of the high-voltage periods are followed by a zero-voltage period, and each of the zero-voltage periods are the receive periods respectively, and the average value of the transmit coil during the zero-voltage period of every repeating transmit signal cycle is zero.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that any number of voltage levels could have been used and that the receive period could have been during any low or no voltage period so long as a signal had already been transmitted by a high-voltage period and as such there was something to detect with the receive coil, and that there was a recognized problem in the art (reactive component contamination (Page 3, Lines 1-18), there are only a finite number of waveforms available in which the voltage period following a high-voltage period allows for a received signal to be detected with minimal or no reactive component contamination, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that any waveform could have been used following a high-voltage period so long as the receive coil produced a usable and detectable signal, and thus it would have been obvious to try any waveform combination, including the repeating transmit signal cycle includes a low-voltage period, the low-voltage period followed by a high-voltage period, and the high-voltage period followed by a zero-voltage period; the zero-voltage period is the said receive period, and the average value of the transmit coil current during the zero-voltage period of every repeating transmit signal cycle is zero, and each of the high-voltage periods are followed by a zero-voltage period, and each of the zero-voltage periods are the receive periods respectively, and the average value of the transmit coil during the zero-voltage period of every repeating transmit signal cycle is zero, given the above disclosure and teaching of Candy, in order to advantageously create a usable time period for detecting a usable signal from a receive coil (MPEP 2143(I) (E)).
As to Claim 10,
Candy discloses an average voltage of the first low-voltage period is of opposite polarity to an average voltage of the second low-voltage period, and an average voltage of the first high-voltage period is of opposite polarity to an average voltage the second high voltage period (Figure 2).
As to Claim 11,
Candy discloses an output impedance of the transmit electronics connected to the transmit coil is less than three times an equivalent series resistance of the transmit coil at least immediately after the beginning of the first receive period (Figure 2 / note the configuration of and components used for the transmit electronics are substantially the same as that of applicant’s Figure 3, and therefore the two must function in a similar manner, and as such the above claim feature as best understood is a property of the system).
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 18/353,711. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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