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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 2/19/2026 do not fully overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See rejections below for detailed analysis.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/19/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicant submits (Remarks pg. 10) that Wilson “only test[s] for one material” rather than for “plurality of materials” as claimed.
Response 1: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Target substance of interest may correspond to, e.g., arsenic, formaldehyde, or nitroglycerin. Specified plurality of materials indicating authenticity of the target substance of interest may correspond to, e.g., specified numbers of protons, neutrons, and/or mass in a substance, or constituent parts of compounds, e.g., C, H2, N, O3, etc. are constituent parts of nitroglycerin CH2NO3CHNO3CH2NO3. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for detailed citations and analysis.
Argument 2: Applicant submits (Remarks pg. 10) that Wilson is silent regarding “any priority tier ‘corresponding to a likelihood of detecting the plurality of materials based on a type of the target currency’ as claimed.”
Response 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wilson teaches, e.g., Fig. 9C corresponding to a priority tier corresponding to a high likelihood of detecting 16 protons, 14 neutrons, mass 30, and/or the constituent parts of the compound when target substance of interest is a formaldehyde type. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a likelihood in light of the specification includes a binary likelihood, and a plurality of materials may have the same likelihood (i.e., all materials listed for each subject of interest are those of high likelihood of being detected based on a type of subject of interest. Other materials listed for other subjects of interest are those of low likelihood.). See, e.g., instant application Fig. 6 and [0076] – “The frequencies may be selected in any order, but optimally, the frequencies most likely to resonate with materials of interest may be selected first… The base module 150 may skip over selecting frequencies for which there is no known material that resonates with that frequency or where there is no priority level for the current application.”)
Argument 3: Applicant submits (Remarks pg. 10) that “the selection of the frequency in Wilson is done by a human,” and this, Wilson cannot disclose “transmitting into the sample within the compartment an RF signal at a first resonance frequency for each of the materials specified for the target currency, wherein the first resonance frequency is selected based on the priority tier corresponding to the likelihood of detecting the plurality of materials indicating authenticity of the target currency;” as recited by claim 1
Response 3: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selection of the frequency is not done by a human) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless of how the selected frequency is input/tuned prior to transmission, Wilson teaches that the selected frequency is based on a priority tier corresponding to, e.g., Figs. 9, as required by the claim. (Figs. 9; [col. 7 line 65 – col. 8 line 43] – “a frequency for transmission is selected for a particular element based on the number of protons, number of neutrons, and/or atomic mass (sum of protons and neutrons) for the element… the frequencies for a compound can be selected based on the sum total of the constituent parts. For example, a Formaldehyde molecule has a combined total of 16 protons (corresponding to a frequency of 16 Hz), 14 neutrons (corresponding to a frequency of 14 Hz), and mass of 30 (corresponding to a frequency of 30 Hz)”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phase “one or more corresponding resonance frequencies” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the one or more corresponding resonance frequencies correspond to the target currency or to the plurality of materials. Therefore, it is further unclear whether at least one corresponding resonance frequency is required per target currency, or whether at least one corresponding resonance frequency is required for each material. Because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim, the claim is rendered indefinite. Claim 11 recites similar limitations and is rejected for similar reasons. Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 14-20 rejected as dependent.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “a second RF signal at a second resonance frequency corresponding to the given material” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear, e.g., how this can be required when only one frequency for a particular material (or target currency) seems to be required in claim 1. See also rejection of claim 1 above. Claim 14 recites similar limitations and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a plurality of frequencies for a particular material” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear, e.g., how signal strengths at a plurality of frequencies for a particular material can be required when only one frequency for a particular material (or target currency) seems to be required in claim 1. See also rejection of claim 1 above. Claim 16 recites similar limitations and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, 14-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11493494 B2 to Wilson in view of US 20040155650 A1 to Plaas-Link.
Regarding claim 1,
US 11493494 B2 to Wilson teaches:
A method for currency verification, the method comprising:
receiving, a trigger at a (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) apparatus to determine whether a sample substance of interest; (Fig. 13; [col. 11] – “ The control panel 217 includes a transmitter frequency control 240, receiver tuning controls 242, 244… The control panel 217 can also include a switch 241 for turning the detection system 210 on/off” Receiving a trigger at a detection apparatus may correspond to detection system being turned on or tuned.)
accessing a material database (Figs. 9) that stores information regarding the target substance of interest, the stored information specifying a plurality of materials indicating authenticity of the target substance of interest, (Figs. 9; [cols. 7, 8] – “the frequencies for a compound can be selected based on the sum total of the constituent parts… chemical composition (discrete atomic structure) CH2NO3CHNO3CH2NO3 for nitroglycerin. Fig. 9C – Formald[e]hyde HCHO has 16 protons, 14 neutrons, mass 30. Examiner notes that target substance of interest may correspond to, e.g., arsenic, formaldehyde, or nitroglycerin. Specified plurality of materials indicating authenticity of the target substance of interest may correspond to, e.g., specified numbers of protons, neutrons, and/or mass in a substance, or constituent parts of compounds, e.g., C, H2, N, O3, etc. are constituent parts of nitroglycerin CH2NO3CHNO3CH2NO3) one or more corresponding resonance frequencies, (Figs. 9; [col. 7 line 65 – col. 8 line 43] – “a frequency for transmission is selected for a particular element based on the number of protons, number of neutrons, and/or atomic mass (sum of protons and neutrons) for the element… the frequencies for a compound can be selected based on the sum total of the constituent parts. For example, a Formaldehyde molecule has a combined total of 16 protons (corresponding to a frequency of 16 Hz), 14 neutrons (corresponding to a frequency of 14 Hz), and mass of 30 (corresponding to a frequency of 30 Hz)”), and a priority tier corresponding to a likelihood of detecting the plurality of materials based on a type of the target substance of interest; (Fig. 9C; Examiner notes that Fig. 9C is a priority tier corresponding to a high likelihood of detecting the plurality of materials comprising 16 protons, 14 neutrons, mass 30, and/or the constituent parts of the compound when target substance of interest is a formaldehyde type. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a likelihood in light of the specification includes a binary likelihood, and a plurality of materials may have the same likelihood (i.e., all materials listed for each subject of interest are those of high likelihood of being detected based on a type of subject of interest. Other materials listed for other subjects of interest are those of low likelihood.). See, e.g., instant application [0076] – “The frequencies may be selected in any order, but optimally, the frequencies most likely to resonate with materials of interest may be selected first… The base module 150 may skip over selecting frequencies for which there is no known material that resonates with that frequency or where there is no priority level for the current application.”)
transmitting into the sample within the compartment an RF signal at a first resonance frequency for each of the materials for the target substance of interest, wherein the first resonance frequency is selected based on the priority tier corresponding to the likelihood of detecting the plurality of materials indicating authenticity of the target substance of interest; ([col. 8, para. 1] – “For example, a Formaldehyde molecule has a combined total of 16 protons (corresponding to a frequency of 16 Hz), 14 neutrons (corresponding to a frequency of 14 Hz), and mass of 30 (corresponding to a frequency of 30 Hz). Individual scans using two or more of these frequencies can be used to uniquely identify the element or compound.”) ([col. 7] – “transmitter 11 transmitting at the frequency specific and unique to the target material.”)
analyzing a response signal ([col. 7] – “The receiver antenna 13 and receiver circuit 14 appears to detect the resonance induced in the material and in so doing indicates the approximate line-of-bearing to the material.”) for resonance characteristics that indicate a presence of each material specified for the target substance of interest; ([col. 7] – “The receiver antenna 13 and receiver circuit 14 appears to detect the resonance induced in the material and in so doing indicates the approximate line-of-bearing to the material. The primary method used by this detection system to detect specific materials is based on tuning the circuit of the transmitter to a specific value that is computed for the material of interest. The frequency can be based on any of the three defining characteristics of the substance, the number of protons, number of neutrons, or the atomic mass (sum of protons and neutrons), and combinations thereof.”) ([col. 8] – “Individual scans using two or more of these frequencies can be used to uniquely identify the element or compound… Some elements and compounds may have overlapping frequencies using only one of the methods described above, and it can be beneficial to use multiple of the above described methods when searching for or identifying a target material”) and
generating output indicating that the sample within the compartment includes the target substance of interest when the response signal indicates the presence of at least a subset of the plurality of materials specified for the target currency. ([col. 7, lines 1-49] – “the generated frequency is closely approximate or exact to that of the target material, and that relationship creates a responsive RF wave and/or a magnetic line between the transmitter antenna 11 and the target. When the detection system 10 is aligned with a target material (e.g., when the opening of the directional shield 15 is pointing toward the target material), the voltage produced by the receiver antenna 13 changes and thereby produces a detection output signal” Examiner further notes that “generating output indicating…” is contingent upon “when the response signal indicates the presence…” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04 II.)
Plaas-Link teaches:
A method for currency verification, ([abstract] – “method and a device for verifying valuable documents, in particular banknotes (5)”) the method comprising:
a currency apparatus to determine whether a sample within a compartment includes a target currency; ([0013] – “The method may also be implemented with the aid of a manual device (FIG. 5) which houses the arrangement. The method and, resp., the arrangement may also be incorporated into cash dispensers/cashpoints and goods vending machines. To indicate detected banknotes light emitting diodes, electrical outputs or displays may provide information about or output the value of the identified money”)
information regarding the target substance of interest, the stored information specifying a plurality of materials indicating authenticity of the target currency, ([0016] – “In the event the frequency spectrum of the individual banknotes, labels, bonds, stamps and identification cards is highly specific due to special geometry or materials involved, for examples in banknotes of the same denomination, this may be used as a fingerprint for identification.” [0023] – “These different electromagnetically active structures may consist of metal threads 9” [claim 3] – “electromagnetically active structure (1) is a metallic security strip or metal thread (9) integrated into a banknote (5).” [0030] – “compare it to setpoints which are typical of electromagnetically active structures incorporated into banknotes,” [0009] – “reference setpoints predetermined for the electromagnetic structures incorporated into banknotes” [claim 35] – “detected by comparing the measurement to reference data, and the valuable document or the type of valuable document is identified in this fashion.”) one or more corresponding resonance frequencies, ([0018] – “A simplified arrangement successively generates only those frequencies for which resonance is expected with the individual banknotes”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Plaas-Link’s known technique to Wilson’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wilson teaches a base method of determining a resonance frequency based on the atomic makeup of a material of interest and using it to detect that material; (2) Plaas-Link teaches a specific technique using pre-set frequency transmission to determine authentic currency; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the material database further stores information specifying a priority of detecting each material of the plurality of materials within the priority tier, and wherein the RF signal is transmitted in order of the priority. (Figs. 9; [col. 7] – “transmitter 11 transmitting at the frequency specific and unique to the target ( [col. 8, para. 1] – “Individual scans using two or more of these frequencies can be used to uniquely identify the element or compound.” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an indicated priority in light of the specification includes a binary priority indication (i.e., “priority high enough to transmit frequency” and “priority not high enough to transmit frequency”), and a plurality of materials may have the same priority indication. See, e.g., instant application [0076] – “The frequencies may be selected in any order, but optimally, the frequencies most likely to resonate with materials of interest may be selected first… The base module 150 may skip over selecting frequencies for which there is no known material that resonates with that frequency or where there is no priority level for the current application.”)
Regarding claim 4,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying initially that no resonance characteristics or ambiguous resonance characteristics are detected in a response signal corresponding to the RF signal at the first resonance frequency for a given material of the plurality of materials; ([col. 27, last para] – “data values (i.e., candidate target bearing angles) that are measured in one frequency but not detected in the other two frequencies”) and
transmitting a second RF signal at a second resonance frequency corresponding to the given material in accordance with the stored information in the material database, wherein the response signal is received in response to the second RF signal. ([col. 27, last para] – “data values (i.e., candidate target bearing angles) that are measured in one frequency but not detected in the other two frequencies”) ([col. 8] – “Individual scans using two or more of these frequencies can be used to uniquely identify the element or compound… Some elements and compounds may have overlapping frequencies using only one of the methods described above, and it can be beneficial to use multiple of the above described methods when searching for or identifying a target material”) (([col. 8] – “These frequencies can also be increased by one or more orders of magnitude (10×, 100×, etc.).” See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112b.)
Regarding claim 5,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising;
determining that a response signal corresponding to the RF signal at the first resonance frequency indicates ambiguous resonance characteristics; ([col. 8] – “Individual scans using two or more of these frequencies can be used to uniquely identify the element or compound… Some elements and compounds may have overlapping frequencies using only one of the methods described above, and it can be beneficial to use multiple of the above described methods when searching for or identifying a target material” Determining to conduct scans using a second resonance frequency corresponds to a determination that an RF signal at a first frequency indicates ambiguous resonance characteristics) and
Plaas-Link further teaches:
analyzing an amplitude of the corresponding response signal. ([claim 10] – “ an electromagnetic oscillatory circuit is produced in conjunction with the electromagnetic structure (1) of the valuable document, said circuit being excited at, at least, one defined frequency, and with the resulting oscillation amplitude being used as evaluation criterion to obtain the result of the verification of the valuable document based on a comparison with reference data.” Amplitude is always analyzed, regardless of whether resonance characteristics are detected)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Plaas-Link’s known technique to Wilson’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wilson teaches a base method of determining a resonance frequency based on the atomic makeup of a material of interest and using it to detect that material; (2) Plaas-Link teaches a specific technique using pre-set frequency transmission to determine authentic currency; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson does not teach the additional elements of the claim.
Plaas-Link further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the currency apparatus is at least one of a currency counter, currency sorter, and currency verifier. ([abstract] – “method and a device for verifying valuable documents, in particular banknotes (5)”) ([0013] – “The method may also be implemented with the aid of a manual device (FIG. 5) which houses the arrangement. The method and, resp., the arrangement may also be incorporated into cash dispensers/cashpoints and goods vending machines. To indicate detected banknotes light emitting diodes, electrical outputs or displays may provide information about or output the value of the identified money”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Plaas-Link’s known technique to Wilson’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wilson teaches a base method of determining a resonance frequency based on the atomic makeup of a material of interest and using it to detect that material; (2) Plaas-Link teaches a specific technique using pre-set frequency transmission to determine authentic currency; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 11-12, 14-15, 20
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-15, 20 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10 respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 11-12, 14-15, 20 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10.
Claim(s) 6-9, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11493494 B2 to Wilson in view of US 20040155650 A1 to Plaas-Link and further in view of US 11422252 B2 to Bowring.
Regarding claim 6,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing comprises([col. 8] – “Individual scans using two or more of these frequencies can be used to uniquely identify the element or compound… Some elements and compounds may have overlapping frequencies using only one of the methods described above, and it can be beneficial to use multiple of the above described methods when searching for or identifying a target material” See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).) (([col. 8] – “These frequencies can also be increased by one or more orders of magnitude (10×, 100×, etc.).” See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112b.)
Plaas-Link further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the response signal includes analyzing signal strengths at a plurality of frequencies for one of the materials. ([claim 10] – “an electromagnetic oscillatory circuit is produced in conjunction with the electromagnetic structure (1) of the valuable document, said circuit being excited at, at least, one defined frequency, and with the resulting oscillation amplitude being used as evaluation criterion to obtain the result of the verification of the valuable document based on a comparison with reference data.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Plaas-Link’s known technique to Wilson’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wilson teaches a base method of determining a resonance frequency based on the atomic makeup of a material of interest and using it to detect that material; (2) Plaas-Link teaches a specific technique using pre-set frequency transmission to determine authentic currency; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Bowring teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein analyzing comprises comparing signal strengths at a plurality of frequencies for a particular material. (Figs. 11, Figs. 22) ([col. 2, lines 39-67] – “(ii) perform a transform operation on the detection signal(s) to generate one or more transformed signals in the time domain or optical depth domain.”) ([cols. 28-29, appendix B.4] – “with filter characteristics taken from a data base to look for a particular resonance. Store the magnitude of the resonance… compare peak locations with natural resonances for object… sum the differences between peak locations and natural responses from data base… output 7… to neural network”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bowring’s known technique to Wilson’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wilson teaches a base method of determining a resonance frequency based on the atomic makeup of a material of interest and using it to detect that material; (2) Bowring teaches a specific technique using pre-set frequency transmissions and expected resonances for detection of certain objects of interest; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link do not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Bowring teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising using machine learning to recognize patterns of the resonance characteristics that indicate the presence of a given material of the plurality of materials. ([cols. 28-29, appendix B.4] – “with filter characteristics taken from a data base to look for a particular resonance. Store the magnitude of the resonance… compare peak locations with natural resonances for object… sum the differences between peak locations and natural responses from data base… output 7… to neural network”) [col. 3, line 59 – col. 4, line 5] – “step (ii) includes the procedure of Appendix B.4... producing sixth and seventh outputs dependent upon the detection signals… neural network having as inputs… sixth and seventh outputs… output of the neural network is an indication of a confidence level of a metallic or dielectric object of a predetermined type being detected, for example, 1=gun detected, 0=no metallic or dielectric object detected.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bowring’s known technique to Wilson’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wilson teaches a base method of determining a resonance frequency based on the atomic makeup of a material of interest and using it to detect that material; (2) Bowring teaches a specific technique using pre-set frequency transmissions and expected resonances for detection of certain objects of interest; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link do not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Bowring teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one frequency is transmitted multiple times for a material of the plurality of materials to improve a confidence level of detection. (Fig. 6; [col, 8, lines 21-23] – “FIG. 6 shows a comparative plot of the Fourier Transformed data taken from a repeated rapid scan between 14 to 40 GHz”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bowring’s known technique to Wilson’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Wilson teaches a base method of determining a resonance frequency based on the atomic makeup of a material of interest and using it to detect that material; (2) Bowring teaches a specific technique using pre-set frequency transmissions and expected resonances for detection of certain objects of interest; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9,
Wilson in view of Plaas-Link teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Wilson further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the output further indicates that the target currency in the sample is authentic. ([col. 7, lines 1-49] – “the generated frequency is closely approximate or exact to that of the target material, and that relationship creates a responsive RF wave and/or a magnetic line between the transmitter antenna 11 and the target. When the detection system 10 is aligned with a target material (e.g., when the opening of the directional shield 15 is pointing toward the target material), the voltage produced by the receiver antenna 13 changes and thereby produces a detection output signal” Examiner further notes that “generating output indicating…” is contingent upon “when the response signal indicates the presence…” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP 2111.04 II.)
Regarding claim(s) 16-19,
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 6-9 respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 16-19 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 6-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140154788 A1 to Omenetto teaches resonant responses at predefined frequencies for use in currency verification.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648