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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 3, 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 9-15, it is clearly seen that these claims are process claims which present a process of using the system as claimed in claims 1-8. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-8 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 9-15.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Vosburgh (U.S. Patent No. US 12,287,411 B2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Vosburgh claims all that is claimed.
With regard to claim 1,
Application under Examination
Vosburgh (US 12,287,411 B2)
Claim 1:
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
at least one sensing unit comprising a sensing element and at least one spatial Lorentz filter, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter includes an input and an output, wherein an analog to digital converter (ADC) is connected between the input and the output for providing a digital output signal; and
at least one sensing unit comprising a sensing element and at least one spatial Lorentz filter, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter includes an input and an output, wherein an analog to digital converter (ADC) is connected between the input and the output for providing a digital output signal;
wherein the at least one sensing unit is connected to a processor configured for determining a velocity or a position with respect to a magnetic field and/or a geographic position by processing the digital output signal.
wherein the at least one sensing unit is connected to a processor configured for determining a velocity or a position with respect to a magnetic field and/or a geographic position by processing the digital output signal; and
wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter includes at least two spatial filters, wherein each of the at least two spatial filters is electrically grounded.
Claim 9:
Claim 9:
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
detecting a sensing element signal induced by a spatial force with at least one sensing unit, wherein the at least one sensing unit comprises a sensing element and at least one spatial Lorentz filter connected to the sensing element, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter comprises an input and an output;
detecting a sensing element signal induced by a spatial force with at least one sensing unit, wherein the at least one sensing unit comprises a sensing element and at least one spatial Lorentz filter connected to the sensing element, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter comprises an input and an output, wherein an analog to digital converter (ADC) is connected between the input and the output;
providing the sensing element signal to the at least one spatial Lorentz filter; and
providing the sensing element signal to the at least one spatial Lorentz filter; modifying the sensing element signal by digital conversion to a digital output signal using the ADC; and
providing the output to a processor configured to process the output to determine a velocity or a position with respect to a magnetic field and/or a geographic position, wherein processing the output comprises normalizing the output; wherein the normalized output is a normalized velocity signal.
providing the digital output signal to a processor configured to process the digital output signal to determine a velocity or a position with respect to a magnetic field and/or a geographic position, wherein processing the digital output signal comprises normalizing the digital output signal; wherein the normalized digital output signal is a normalized velocity signal.
Claim 16:
Claim 16:
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
at least one sensing unit comprising a sensing element and at least one spatial Lorentz filter, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter includes an input and an output;
at least one sensing unit comprising a sensing element and at least one spatial Lorentz filter, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter includes an input and an output;
wherein the at least one sensing unit is connected to a processor configured for determining a velocity or a position with respect to a magnetic field and/or a geographic position by processing an output signal of the at least one sensing unit; and
wherein the at least one sensing unit is connected to a processor configured for determining a velocity or a position with respect to a magnetic field and/or a geographic position by processing an output signal of the at least one sensing unit; and
wherein the sensing element is connected at a first end to a current source and at a second end to a current sink, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter is connected between a first side and a second side of the sensing element for detecting a cross-element potential proportional to a velocity dependent force due to coupling of the magnetic field with the sensing element.
wherein the at least one sensing unit is a current-deflection sensing unit, wherein the sensing element is connected at a first end to a current source and at a second end to a current sink, wherein the at least one spatial Lorentz filter is connected between a first side and a second side of the sensing element for detecting a cross-element potential proportional to a velocity dependent force due to coupling of the magnetic field with the sensing element.
With regard to dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17=20, using a similar manner as those of claims 1, 9 and 16 above, it is clearly seen that Vosburgh claims all that is claimed.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vock et al. (US 2007/0067128 A1) in view of Stephan (JP 2001021415 A).
Vock et al. teaches a location measurement system comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
609
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
583
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
529
871
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 9, a system (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, system 620) comprising at least one sensing unit (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, power sensing unit 620) comprising a sensing element (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, accelerometer 624) and at least one filter (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, conditioning electronics 626) coupled to the sensing element (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, accelerometer 624), the at least one filter (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, conditioning electronics 626) comprising an input (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, arrow coming into the conditioning electronics 626) and an output (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, arrow coming out of the conditioning electronics 626), wherein an analog to digital converter (ADC) (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, analog-to-digital converter inside the conditioning electronics 626) is connected between the input (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, arrow coming into the conditioning electronics 626) and the output (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, arrow coming out of the conditioning electronics 626) for providing a digital output signal (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, signal coming out of the conditioning electronics 626); and wherein the at least one sensing unit (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, power sensing unit 620) is connected to a processor (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, microprocessor 628) configured for determining a velocity or a position (acceleration) with respect to a magnetic field and/or a geographic position by processing the digital output signal (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, signal coming out of the conditioning electronics 626) (Paragraphs: [0248]-[0262]).
Vock et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed above including the at least one filter (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, conditioning electronics 626), but it does not specifically teach the following feature:
A spatial Lorentz filter (SLF).
Stephan teaches an optical wavelength detecting device comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
444
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
376
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 9, a spatial Lorentz filter (FIG. 9, spectral filters 21 and 31) for higher resolution measurement wavelength (Paragraphs: [0055]-[0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location measurement system of Vock et al. to utilize a spatial Lorentz filter as taught by Stephan since Stephan teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial for higher accuracy and higher resolution measurement as disclosed in the paragraphs [0055]-[0056].
With regard to claim 5, Vock et al. in view of Stephan teaches that a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver (FIG. 47 in view of FIG. 1A, GPS receiver 1400 as transmit section 22 of FIG. 1A) connected to the processor for detecting GPS spoofing by comparing the position determined by the processor and a GPS position determined by the GPS receiver (Paragraphs: [0263]-[0266]; and FIGS. 1a, 1B, 25 and 47).
With regard to claims 6 and 12, Vock et al. in view of Stephan teaches that the at least one SLF comprises a signal conditioner (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, conditioning electronics 626) connected between the input (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, arrow coming into the conditioning electronics 626) and the ADC (FIG. 21), wherein the signal conditioner (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, conditioning electronics 626) comprises a frequency-selector and/or an amplifier (Paragraph: [0231]).
With regard to claims 7 and 11, it is noted that the feature as recited in claim 7 upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an orientation and/or a spatial extent is selected to reduce coupling of the at least one SLF with the magnetic field”) is just a mere rearrangement of parts and not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over Vock et al. In fact, “The mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device.” Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.1984). Therefore, the court held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance since it would both not have modified the operation of the device and an obvious matter of design choice (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975): please see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts for more details).
With regard to claim 14, Vock et al. in view of Stephan teaches that a position tracking system (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, system 620) configured for integrating a measurement of the velocity (FIG. 21 in view of FIG. 1A, speed sensor 14a) over time to determine a change in position and updating a previously recorded position with the change in position to determine a current position (Paragraphs: [0172]-[0176] and [0248]-[0262]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Cella et al. (US 11,996,900 B2) teaches methods and systems for data collection in industrial environments.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 AM - 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, LEE E. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
