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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbuzov et al., WO 2015147701
Regarding claim 1, Arbuzov teaches a coil for multi-frequency metal detector, comprising a housing with a transmitting coil and a main receiving coil (Figs. 2-3; 300 with drive coil 2010, signal coil 2030), made in the shape of the Latin letter D and arranged with partial overlap (Figs. 2; as shown, both coils are in “D” shape and overlap partially), characterized with an additional receiving coil placed in the housing (Figs. 2-3; additional signal coil 2040), as the two receiving coils lie in one plane (Figs. 2-3; as shown), where the additional receiving coil is smaller than the main receiving coil and is made with a shape identical to the shape of the main receiving coil (Figs. 2-3; signal coil 2040 is smaller than signal coil 2030 and is in the “D” shape), each receiving coil is in inductive balance with the transmitting coil (Page 11; “induction balance in the sensor…ensured”).
Regarding claim 2, Arbuzov teaches that the receiving coils can lie in different planes, in contact or at a distance of up to 100 mm (Fig. 2; multiple planes are inherently in the sensor arrangement and the coils are not in the same plane at some locations, therefore they can lie in different planes).
Regarding claim 3, Arbuzov teaches that the receiving coils can be from 2 to 6 pcs (Fig. 2; two receiving coils shown).
Regarding claim 4, Arbuzov teaches that the transmitting coils can be from 1 to 3 pcs (Fig. 2; at least two drive coils shown).
Regarding claim 9, Arbuzov teaches that the shape of the coils can be in the shape of the Latin letter D, ellipse, circle, rhombus or polygon (Fig. 2).
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) 5-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuzov et al., WO 2015147701 in view of Neykov, WO 2017015730
Regarding claim 5, Arbuzov is silent in the transmitting coils are wound in a spiral. Neykov teaches transmitting coils are wound in a spiral (¶[0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Neykov into Arbuzov since the substitution would achieve the predictable result of transmitting signals to the object under test.
Regarding claim 6, Arbuzov is silent in that the shape of the search coil housing can be a circle, ellipse, rhombus, square or other polygon. Neykov teaches that the shape of the search coil housing can be a circle, ellipse, rhombus, square or other polygon (¶[0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Neykov into Arbuzov to obtain the predictable result of fitting the coil shape in a similar housing thereby having a compact design.
Regarding claim 7, Arbuzov is silent in that the dimensions of the housing can be from 100 to 2000 mm. Neykov teaches that dimensions of a housing can be from 100 to 2000 mm (¶[0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Neykov into Arbuzov to obtain the predictable result of detecting objects at the desired depth.
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuzov et al., WO 2015147701 in view of Candy, US 2013/0154649
Regarding claim 8, Arbuzov is silent in that the search coil can work with a metal detector operating at frequencies from 2 to 200 pcs. of frequencies. Candy teaches a search coil can work with a metal detector operating at frequencies from 2 to 200 pcs. of frequencies (¶[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Candy into Arbuzov for the benefit of detecting objects at various depths.
Regarding claim 10, Arbuzov is silent in that the operating frequency of the search coil is from 500 Hz to 100 kHz. Candy teaches an operating frequency of the search coil is from 500 Hz to 100 kHz (¶[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Candy into Arbuzov for the benefit of detecting objects at various depths.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuzov et al., WO 2015147701 in view of Reime, WO 2010133501
Regarding claim 11, Arbuzov teaches that the transmitting coils can be 2 or 3 pieces of the same shape, arranged one on top of the other, touching or at a distance of up to 100 mm from each other (Fig. 3; coils 2010, 2020 arranged one on top of the other in the same shape). Arbuzov is silent in the transmitting coils being the same size. Reime teaches transmitting coils being the same size (Fig. 1; transmit coils 12, 16 are the same size). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to provide coils of the same size as taught by Reime since such a modification would provide equal coupling with the receiving coil.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbuzov et al., WO 2015147701
Regarding claim 12, Arbuzov teaches that the transmitting coils can be from 2 to 6 pieces, arranged one inside the other, lying in one plane or in parallel planes (Fig. 3; coils 2010, 2020 arranged one on top of the other lying in parallel planes). Arbuzov is silent in the transmitting coils are arranged at a distance of up to 100 mm from each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide desired arrangement, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would be within the level of ordinary skill to provide coils within a certain distance so that the signals transmitted can be confined to an area of inspection while having a compact design of the detector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEBA POTHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9219. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on 571.272.2258. 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.
/FEBA POTHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights