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 .
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 1-10 are 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the cam locking mechanisms are disposed on an outer side of the telescopic assembly and are configured to block a length of the telescopic assembly” on lines 8-10 is indefinite. It is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the locking mechanisms are configured to “block a length” of the assembly. The mechanisms do not reasonably block a length, and instead allow the length to be adjusted. As best understood, and for the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim feature is intended to mean and is interpreted to mean that the cam locking mechanisms “lock” a length of the telescopic assembly.
As to Claims 2-10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 (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 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, 2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng (US 2024/0288606).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Deng discloses A metal detector, comprising: a detection coil (200) (Paragraph [0039]); a telescopic assembly (100) (Paragraph [0039]); cam locking mechanisms (all of the locking mechanisms), (Paragraph [0043]), (Figure 1 as an example of one of the tightening ring / locking mechanisms part of the cam locking mechanisms) ; a handle (see above figure); and an arm brace (see above figure); wherein the detection coil is rotatably connected to and lockable to a bottom portion the telescopic assembly (see above figure), (Paragraph [0048]), the cam locking mechanisms are disposed on an outer side of the telescopic assembly and are configured to block a length of the telescopic assembly (Figures 1, 6, 7, and 9), (Paragraph [0043]), the arm brace is slidably disposed at an upper portion of the handle (Paragraphs [0039]),(Figure 9 / note the handle extends into part of the elbow rest (arm brace) and where the elbow rest can be adjusted by losing the screw clearly shown in Figure 9), the handle partially extends through an interior of the arm brace (Figure 9), (see above figure), and the arm brace is locked to an outer wall of the handle through a corresponding one of the cam locking mechanisms (see above figure), (Figure 9).
As to Claim 2,
PNG
media_image2.png
450
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Deng discloses the telescopic assembly comprises a lower shaft, a middle shaft, and an upper shaft (Figures 6-9), (Paragraphs [0045]-[0046] / note there must be three shafts (sleeve tubes) because there are three locking mechanisms for them, such as the bottom three shafts in Figure 6); the lower shaft, the middle shaft, and the upper shaft are slidably connected in sequence (Figures 6-9); and an end cap is disposed at a top end of the handle (Figure 6), (see above figure).
As to Claim 5,
Deng discloses three anti-disengagement components (3,8) are respectively disposed at a top end of the lower shaft (Figure 6), a top end of the middle shaft (Figure 6), and a top end of the upper shaft (Figure 6), the top end of the lower shaft, the top end of the middle shaft, and the top end of the upper shaft respectively define three fourth holes (11) (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0042]), three second protrusions (32) are respectively disposed on inner walls of the three anti-disengagement components, and the three second protrusions are respectively matched with the three fourth holes (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0042[)
As to Claim 9,
Deng discloses the handle comprises a grip at one side thereof, a fixing platform is inserted into one side of the grip (Figure 9 / note the grip above locking mechanism and inside which must be a fixing platform with the digital components located thereon).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606) in view of Gall (US 2022/0206179) and Luppino (US 2022/0221610).
As to Clam 3,
Deng does not disclose the lower shaft, the middle shaft, and the upper shaft are made of aluminum tubing or carbon fiber tubing; and a cross section of the lower shaft, a cross section of the middle shaft, and a cross section of the lower shaft are non-circular.
Gall discloses a cross section of the lower shaft, a cross section of the middle shaft, and a cross section of the lower shaft are non-circular (Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include a cross section of the lower shaft, a cross section of the middle shaft, and a cross section of the lower shaft are non-circular as taught by Gall in order to advantageously prevent or at least reduce the shaft element from twisting relative to another element (Paragraph [0027]).
Luppino discloses forming the shaft of the metal detector from aluminum tubing or carbon fiber (Paragraphs [0015],[0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng in view of Gall to include the lower shaft, the middle shaft, and the upper shaft are made of aluminum tubing or carbon fiber tubing given the above disclosure and teaching of Luppino in order to advantageously form the shafts out of a strong, durable, and rust resistant material that will not negatively impact magnetic fields generated by the metal detector and create too much interference with detection of underground objects, and in order to advantageously utilize a material that is lightweight and has a high strength (Paragraph [0039]).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606) in view of Gall (US 2022/0206179).
As to Claim 4,
PNG
media_image3.png
584
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Deng discloses the cam locking mechanisms comprise connecting sleeves (3, 8, 4)), pressing pieces (5,32,24), cam locking sleeves (6) (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0043]); two of the connecting sleeves are respectively fixed to an outer wall of the middle shaft and an outer wall of the upper shaft (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0043]); two first holes (11) are respectively defined on the middle shaft and the upper shaft (Figures 1,4,6) (Paragraph [0042] / note each tube has two holes), two second holes are respectively defined on inner walls of the two of the connecting sleeves (Figures 4-6 / note the holes on 3 and 8), the two first holes and the two second holes cooperate to respectively accommodate the two of the pressing pieces (Figures 3,4), (Paragraphs [0041],[0042] / note each shaft has two holes, and the holes are used with the pressing pieces to snap into the holes or position the sleeves 3,8); a first end of each of corresponding two of the cam locking sleeves is connected to an outer wall of a corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves (Figure 6), a second end of each of the corresponding two of the cam locking sleeves is in contact with and limited at an outer side end surface of the corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves (Figure 6); inner side end surfaces of the two of the connecting sleeves are respectively in contact and matched and the outer wall of the middle shaft and the outer wall of the upper shaft (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0043]); two third holes are respectively defined on an inner wall of the middle shaft and an inner wall of the upper shaft (Figure 6 / note each shaft has four holes, and thus the remaining two holes are the two third holes), the two of the connecting sleeves respectively comprise two first protrusions (32) on two bottom portions thereof, the two first protrusions are respectively matched with the two third holes (Figures 3, 5, and 6), (Paragraph [0042]).
Deng does not disclose using cam locking levers instead of cam locking sleeves, and therefore do not disclose the cam locking mechanisms comprise cam locking levers; a first end of each of corresponding two of the cam locking levers is connected to an outer wall of a corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves through a positioning pin, a second end of each of the corresponding two of the cam locking levers is in contact with and limited at an outer side end surface of the corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves.
Gall discloses using cam locking levers (23,34) instead of cam locking sleeves, the cam locking mechanisms comprise cam locking levers (Figure 2); a first end of each of corresponding two of the cam locking levers is connected to an outer wall of a corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves through a positioning pin (Figure 6), (see above figure), a second end of each of the corresponding two of the cam locking levers is in contact with and limited at an outer side end surface of the corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves (Figure 6), (Paragraphs [0031],[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include using cam locking levers instead of cam locking sleeves, to therefore include the cam locking mechanisms comprise cam locking levers; a first end of each of corresponding two of the cam locking levers is connected to an outer wall of a corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves through a positioning pin, a second end of each of the corresponding two of the cam locking levers is in contact with and limited at an outer side end surface of the corresponding one of the two of the connecting sleeves given the above disclosure and teaching of Gall in order to advantageously utilize an easier to adjust locking mechanism that merely requires pressing or lifting a lever as opposed to rotation motion that can require more force to lock, be more difficult to operate, and can eventually fail due to the threads wearing down over time.
As to Claim 10,
Deng does not disclose a strap and a probe rod positioning piece are disposed on an outer wall of the arm brace.
Gall discloses a strap (52) and a probe rod positioning piece (34) are disposed on an outer wall of the arm brace (50,40) (Figures 3-6), (Paragraphs [0027],[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include a strap and a probe rod positioning piece are disposed on an outer wall of the arm brace as taught by Gall in order to advantageously provide an adjustable cuff and strap configured to wrap around an operator's arm when in use (Paragraph [0027]), and to advantageously make it easier for a user to retain the metal detector in a desired position and be able to adjust that position to fit the comfort needs and size of the operator.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606) in view of Luppino (US 2022/0221610).
As to Claim 6,
Deng discloses the lower shaft comprises a shaft connector (3,32), the shaft connector is movably inserted into an inner wall of the lower shaft (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0042]), and the shaft connector is fixed to the lower shaft through at least one positioning clamping column (3) (Figure 6), (Paragraph [0042]).
Deng does not disclose that the lower shaft is a carbon fiber shaft.
Luppino discloses the lower shaft is a carbon fiber shaft (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include the lower shaft is a carbon fiber shaft as taught by Luppino in order to advantageously utilize a material that is lightweight and has a high strength (Paragraph [0039]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606) in view of Luppino (US 2022/0221610) as applied to Claim 6 and in further view of Deng (Deng2) (US 2025/0067895).
As to Claim 7,
Deng discloses a first through hole is defined at an end portion of the shaft connector (Figure 5 / note opening at top), second through holes are respectively defined at one side of the detection coil (note the holes at the bottom of shaft 1 that the detection coil attaches to).
Deng in view of Luppino does not disclose a locking screw passes through the first through hole and the second through holes, a locking nut is threadedly connected to an end portion of the locking screw, and silicone gaskets are respectively disposed between the one side of the detection coil where the second through holes are defined and the end portion of the shaft connector where the first through hole is defined.
Deng2 discloses a locking screw (61) passes through the first through hole and the second through holes (Figure 3 / note the screw passes through the hole in 21 and the detection head protrusion) , a locking nut (7) is threadedly connected to an end portion of the locking screw (Paragraph [0055]), (Figure 3), and silicone gaskets (36,52) are disposed between holes and mounting parts/screws (Paragraphs [0049],[0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng in view of Luppino to include a locking screw passes through the first through hole and the second through holes, a locking nut is threadedly connected to an end portion of the locking screw, and silicone gaskets are respectively disposed between the one side of the detection coil where the second through holes are defined and the end portion of the shaft connector where the first through hole is defined given the above disclosure and teaching of Deng2 in order to advantageously allow for the easy replacement of a detection head should it become damaged, and to prevent the incursion of water from damaging the detection head or other electronics.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 2024/0288606) in view of Deng (Deng3) (US 2018/0252835).
As to Claim 8,
Deng discloses a positioning hole is defined on an inner wall of the handle (Figure 6 / note opening hole on either side of the tube 7), and a controller (control box) is disposed on an inner wall of the positioning hole (Paragraph [0003]), (Figure 9 / note the control box is positioned “on” the handle and thus on the hole).
Deng does not disclose the controller comprises a user operation interface, a loudspeaker, a headphone jack, a battery, a processor, an operation panel, and a port for connecting to the detection coil; and a bottom portion of the handle defines a positioning sliding groove, the positioning sliding groove is configured to accommodate an auxiliary power supply box.
Deng3 discloses the controller comprises a user operation interface (156), a loudspeaker (Paragraph [0024]), a headphone jack (Paragraph [0024]), a battery (484) (Paragraph [0087]), a processor (Paragraph [0098]), an operation panel (154) (Paragraph [0054]), and a port for connecting to the detection coil (Figure 3 / note the port cable 166 attaches to); and a bottom portion of the handle defines a positioning sliding groove, the positioning sliding groove is configured to accommodate an auxiliary power supply box (Figures 3,4 / note the handle (200) has an opening that a batter can fit into in addition to the battery 484, and that the handle allows for sliding).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Deng to include the controller comprises a user operation interface, a loudspeaker, a headphone jack, a battery, a processor, an operation panel, and a port for connecting to the detection coil; and a bottom portion of the handle defines a positioning sliding groove, the positioning sliding groove is configured to accommodate an auxiliary power supply box as taught by Deng3 in order to advantageously allow the metal detector device to function as intended, and allow a user to hear an indication of any detected metal, thus making it easier and faster to know if any metal is present, and be able to change the settings of the device to allow for different types of metal or sensitivity levels to be detected or implemented.
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 1, 2, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 10 of copending Application No. 19/001,592 (‘592) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to Claim 1,
‘592 discloses A metal detector, comprising: a detection coil (Claim 1), a telescopic assembly (Claim 1), cam locking mechanisms (rotation locking mechanisms or cam locking mechanisms), (Claim 1) ; a handle (Claim 1); and an arm brace (Claim 1); wherein the detection coil is rotatably connected to and lockable to a bottom portion the telescopic assembly (Claim 1), the cam locking mechanisms are disposed on an outer side of the telescopic assembly and are configured to block a length of the telescopic assembly (Claim 1), the arm brace is slidably disposed at an upper portion of the handle (Claim 1), the handle partially extends through an interior of the arm brace (Claim 1), and the arm brace is locked to an outer wall of the handle through a corresponding one of the cam locking mechanisms (Claim 1).
(Note: The rotation locking mechanisms include the two cam locking mechanisms expressly claimed, in light of the disclosure. Also, because the arm brace is slidably disposed at an upper portion of the telescopic assembly, and is locked to the same outer wall of the handle of the instant claim, it must be slidably disposed near (at) the handle, including any upper portion of the handle).
As to Claim 2,
‘592 discloses the telescopic assembly comprises a lower shaft, a middle shaft, and an upper shaft; the lower shaft, the middle shaft, and the upper shaft are slidably connected in sequence; and an end cap is disposed at a top end of the handle (Claim 2).
As to Claim 10,
‘592 discloses a strap and a probe rod positioning piece are disposed on an outer wall of the arm brace (Claim 10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2022/0283332 to Joy which discloses a metal detector including details of the manner in which the detection head attaches to a telescoping shaft, and 2) US 2017/0299756 to Weaver et al. which disclose a metal detector including details of the manner in which the detection head attaches to the telescoping shaft).
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
Prosecution Insights