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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 43-62 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,10,6,7,7,9 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 43 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the patent. Non-transitory computer readable media is implicit to a computing device of claim 1 of the patent. That is, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent. Similarly claims 44-62 are obvious over claims 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,10,6,7,7,9 respectively of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 43-45, 47 and 53-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) as being anticipated by Kotter et al. (US 2005/0182590 A1) hereafter Kotter.
Regarding claim 43, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022 discloses a system comprising: one or more sensors 16 configured to detect an electromagnetic field of one or more objects [ferromagnetic object] and to output electrical signals representative of the electromagnetic field; and a computing device [14, 24] operably connected to the one or more sensors; non-transitory computer readable media operably connected to the computing device, the non-transitory computer readable media having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, upon execution by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: process the electrical signals [using 14]; generate signatures for one or more moving conductive objects based on the electrical signals [at 24,26], the electromagnetic field and/or magnetic flux [¶0022]; determine whether one or more moving conductive objects detected by the one or more sensors meets a predetermined electromagnetic field profile based on the electrical signals [comparing data 22 with a database]; and/or generate a notification in response to determining that one of the objects meet the predetermined electromagnetic field profile [¶0022, particularly last line of ¶0022].
Regarding claim 44, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0039 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the one or more sensors comprise three sets of paired sensors [¶0037, see 50 and 52 for set of pairs of 58].
Regarding claim 45, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021,¶0036, ¶0038, ¶0070 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the one or more sensors are arranged to collect components of the magnetic field flux [magnetic field B].
Regarding claim 47, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0039 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the one or more sensors comprise paired sets of sensors [58 with 60 in horizontal direction].
Regarding claim 53, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the sensor(s) is/are configured to detect signals at frequencies that are not attenuated by walls or metallic sheets, such that placement of the sensors inside metallic or non-metallic enclosures or hidden behind walls yield signatures from electromagnetic fields of firearms, IEDs and knives from the one or more objects [implicit to weapons detection, see ¶0034].
Regarding claim 54, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the signatures for one or more moving conductive objects are generated using a Pythagorean sum of the x-axis, y-axis and z-axis [implicit to 3-D analyzer 26].
Regarding claim 55, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses the system of claim 54, wherein the signatures being representative of a potential weapon type [¶0006, ¶0008 and ¶0034].
Regarding claim 56, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the determining whether the one or more objects meets a predetermined electromagnetic field profile is based on one or both of (i) the signatures [¶0031], and/or (ii) a sensor floor noise to the signals coming from the sensors and/or paired sensors.
Regarding claim 57, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022, ¶0060-0061 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the computing device is configured to determine whether each of the one or more objects meets a predetermined profile based on one or both of: a predetermined electromagnetic field profile; and/or a location in space .
Regarding claim 58, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the computing device is configured to determine whether each of the one or more objects meets a predetermined profile based on motion of the object [¶0031, ¶0061].
Regarding claim 59, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the computing device comprises a frequency filter 68 configured to substantially remove electrical signals from the electrical signals output by the one or more sensors that are outside a predetermined range of frequencies.
Regarding claim 60, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022 discloses the system of claim 43, further comprising an image capture device [“image device”, see ¶0079].
Regarding claim 61, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022 discloses the system of claim 60, wherein the computing device is configured to control the image capture device to capture an image of one of the objects and provide the image to a user in response to a determination that a representation of the electromagnetic field of the one of the objects meets the predetermined electromagnetic field profile [see ¶0080-81]..
Regarding claim 62, Kotter at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1, Abstract and ¶0021-0022 discloses the system of claim 43, wherein the computing device is further configured to determine whether each of the one or more objects meets a predetermined profile based on visual classification of the object [using image device, see ¶0079-81].
Claim(s) 49-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotter as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Scott (US 2001/0029433 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Kotter discloses all the elements particularly at fig. 1, claim 1 and ¶0021-0022 discloses the system of claim 1 with the one or more sensors [coil (not shown) of magnetic gradiometer, magnetic sensors or magnetometers 16 (structure of it), ¶0038]. Kotter is silent about the one or more sensors comprise a first induction coil and a second induction coil. Use of inductance coil is old and well-known in the art to measure the magnetic field in a current sensor or a hall sensor or a magnetic sensor. Scott at ¶0047, ¶0062 and ¶0064 discloses the current sensor with induction coils (portions of 62 as shown) at fig. 3-6 to measure the magnetic field for detecting the current difference between the two conductors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the sensor of Kotter with the coil of Scott to measure the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 50, Scott discloses the system of claim 49, wherein each of the induction coils are wound around a high permeability and/or air core [60, ¶0060].
Regarding claim 51, Scott discloses the system of claim 49, wherein the first induction coil and the second induction coil of each sensor pair are wound and/or connected to: produce outputs that are representative of a detected magnetic flux therein [fig. 3].
Regarding claim 52, Scott discloses the system of claim 49, wherein the first induction coil and the second induction coil of each sensor pair are wound and/or connected to: collect magnetic flux with opposite currents within each of the pair of coils [fig. 6].
Claim(s) 46 and 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotter as applied to claims 43 and 47 respectively above, and further in view of Tomita et al. (US 5601081), hereafter Tomita.
Regarding claims 46 and 49, Kotter discloses wherein the one or more sensors comprise a gradiometer [58, ¶0038-0039]. Kotter is silent about wherein the one or more sensors comprise a three-axis gradiometer (collects the flux in one of each of an x-axis, a y-axis and/or a z-axis for claim 48) and the sensor pairs comprise a first induction coil and a second induction coil. A three-axis gradiometer or the sensor pairs comprise a first induction coil and a second induction coil are old and well known magnetic field sensors to measure the magnetic field. Tomita at lines 13-24 of column 8 discloses each magnetic field sensors S consist of a pair of coils for detecting a magnetic field component of the object. Tomita at lines 36-59 of column 13 discloses use of a three-axis gradiometer to detect magnetic field having gradients that passively suppresses far field signals (see “noise components may be suppressed.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use coils or gradiometer as taught by Tomita as sensor(s) of Kotter to measure magnetic fields of the object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights