Minelab 'GPS' Patent Validity Instructional Case Study

[chudster]

The following post brought to our attention that the patent
http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2012097416
may be invalid due to 'prior art' including this post on the finders forum.

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...697#post158697

Here is the post from finders forum it refers to:
http://www.finders.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7180

We don't want anybody to infringe patents of companies but must understand how to determine which claims are valid in patents and how to analyse claims so that hobbiests do not innocently infringe or get taken to court for infringement as seems to be possible.

I have started this thread to help educate folks. Pitch in and learn. We'll try to get to some kind of determination at the end.

Of course any analysis here is educational and not a legal opinion and does not replace the work of an esteemed patent attorney.

The first part of the lesson is that the claims are the most important:

Have a look at the patent in the link.

Here then are the claims from the claims tab:

Have a read of the finders forum post.

Do statements in the post correspond to the claimed invention below?

THE CLAIMS DEFINING THE INVENTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. A method for assisting with an operation of a metal detector by a user, including:
defining a detection zone;
S presenting visually to the user the detection zone;
producing a record indicative of a position of the metal detector;
checking the record against one or more predefined rules with respect to the detection zone; and
indicating to the user when the record fails one or more of the one or more predefined rules. 0
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is an area.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is a path.
5 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is defined by at least three coordinate points, the at least three coordinate points defining an area.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is defined by at least two coordinate points, the at least two coordinate points defining a path.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein one of the one or more predefined rules requires that the metal detector be within a predetermined distance from the detection zone.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the predetermined distance is substantially zero.
5
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of defining the detection zone includes obtaining information from a source external to the metal detector to define the detection zone.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the source is a web application.
10. The method of claim 1, further including the step of:
presenting visually to the user a current position of the metal detector with respect to the detection zone.
5 11. A method for storing information in relation to a use of a metal detector such that the use of the metal detector can be presented visually, including:
producing positional data indicative of the position of the metal detector relative to a location; and
associating, with each of the positional data, information regarding one or more of:
a) settings of the metal detector;
b) a time;
c) characteristics of the ground;
d) measurement data indicative of a target, signals from the target fulfilling one or more preselected criteria; and
e) one or more functions performed by the metal detector.
12. A method according to claim 11, further including:
storing the positional data with associated information; and
displaying a detection history of the metal detector based on a range of selected positional data with associated information.
13. A metal detector configurable to perform the method of claim 1.
14. A metal detector configurable to perform the method of claim 11.

[Midas]

The following post brought to our attention that the patent
http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/WO2012097416
may be invalid due to 'prior art' including this post on the finders forum.

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...697#post158697

Here is the post from finders forum it refers to:
http://www.finders.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7180

We don't want anybody to infringe patents of companies but must understand how to determine which claims are valid in patents and how to analyse claims so that hobbiests do not innocently infringe or get taken to court for infringement as seems to be possible.

I have started this thread to help educate folks. Pitch in and learn. We'll try to get to some kind of determination at the end.

Of course any analysis here is educational and not a legal opinion and does not replace the work of an esteemed patent attorney.

The first part of the lesson is that the claims are the most important:

Have a look at the patent in the link.

Here then are the claims from the claims tab:

Have a read of the finders forum post.

Do statements in the post correspond to the claimed invention below?

THE CLAIMS DEFINING THE INVENTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. A method for assisting with an operation of a metal detector by a user, including:
defining a detection zone;
S presenting visually to the user the detection zone;
producing a record indicative of a position of the metal detector;
checking the record against one or more predefined rules with respect to the detection zone; and
indicating to the user when the record fails one or more of the one or more predefined rules. 0
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is an area.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is a path.
5 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is defined by at least three coordinate points, the at least three coordinate points defining an area.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the detection zone is defined by at least two coordinate points, the at least two coordinate points defining a path.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein one of the one or more predefined rules requires that the metal detector be within a predetermined distance from the detection zone.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the predetermined distance is substantially zero.
5
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of defining the detection zone includes obtaining information from a source external to the metal detector to define the detection zone.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the source is a web application.
10. The method of claim 1, further including the step of:
presenting visually to the user a current position of the metal detector with respect to the detection zone.
5 11. A method for storing information in relation to a use of a metal detector such that the use of the metal detector can be presented visually, including:
producing positional data indicative of the position of the metal detector relative to a location; and
associating, with each of the positional data, information regarding one or more of:
a) settings of the metal detector;
b) a time;
c) characteristics of the ground;
d) measurement data indicative of a target, signals from the target fulfilling one or more preselected criteria; and
e) one or more functions performed by the metal detector.
12. A method according to claim 11, further including:
storing the positional data with associated information; and
displaying a detection history of the metal detector based on a range of selected positional data with associated information.
13. A metal detector configurable to perform the method of claim 1.
14. A metal detector configurable to perform the method of claim 11.

To me the claims in this patent seem unbelievable. It sounds like they are trying to patent the idea of sticking a GPS on a metal detector, and then using that information to do absolutely anything. Yes I think the post invalidates it. But more importantly it fails the 'non-obvious' criteria and should never have been granted.To my mind as soon as GPS was invented it was clear it would eventually appear on just about everything. Imagine if an automobile manufacturer had managed to get a patent like this passed. They would have exclusive rights to sat-nav!

Midas

[chudster]

To me the claims in this patent seem unbelievable. It sounds like they are trying to patent the idea of sticking a GPS on a metal detector, and then using that information to do absolutely anything. Yes I think the post invalidates it. But more importantly it fails the 'non-obvious' criteria and should never have been granted.To my mind as soon as GPS was invented it was clear it would eventually appear on just about everything. Imagine if an automobile manufacturer had managed to get a patent like this passed. They would have exclusive rights to sat-nav!

Midas

Midas,

I agree with your sentiment but we need to be a little more clinical.

For the sake of this academic exercise, lets say we needed to send a letter to the examiner or minelab themselves. It would need to be crystal clear and inarguable which of the claims were obvious and previously invented. The answers might be in this post or in other posts or maybe in high end geological survey equipment or discussed on a forum somewhere else.

If I was those folks and received your reply my response would be: "Well this patent is believable and we believe it stands so we will just have to differ in our opinions.".

Well I was planning to hook up a GPS to my detector (and more) now I worry about being sued if I do. What am I allowed to do without infringing if I venture beyond pure experimentation and hope to find a nugget for real?

I'll start off with the following observations:

"combined with mapping could be very handy...ofcourse we are not talking a bout a super detector that will only pick up gold, but but recording all the fluctuations in mineralisation one would be able to better see the dispursal of such mineralised ground."
".ie combined mapping and mineralisation overlays as you sweep in addition to target mapping"

To me this discloses 11c and 11d. 11b seems obvious. Time is the fourth dimension and logging of position by time is nothing new so that is 11b. I don't see anything in the post though that talks about settings although:

"Computer tech will bog all over any solid state wiring as far as adjustable settings, and a real computer program monitoring various factors and making adjustments accordingly"

indicates settings would be known and adjusted according to location. Is that 11a also knocked out? If so only 11e remains. Maybe that is mentioned somewhere in the post or somewhere else?

Claim 11 looks to be on shaky ground and if that is the case then claims 12 and 14 also fall away because they depend on 11.

Now what about the others?

Chudster

[UrbanFox]

To me the claims in this patent seem unbelievable.

Why? A GPS reports a position...and a time...pretty basic stuff really, isn't it?

It sounds like they are trying to patent the idea of sticking a GPS on a metal detector, and then using that information to do absolutely anything.

Have you looked at other patents unrelated to metal detecting technology that include GPS functionality?

Yes I think the post invalidates it. But more importantly it fails the 'non-obvious' criteria and should never have been granted.To my mind as soon as GPS was invented it was clear it would eventually appear on just about everything. Imagine if an automobile manufacturer had managed to get a patent like this passed. They would have exclusive rights to sat-nav! Midas

Midas, have a look at this list and tell me why these patents should also not have been granted...http://www.hemispheregps.com/AboutUs/Patents/tabid/685/Default.aspx

But, you are saying this patent should not have been granted to Microsoft?..it is obvious that GPS would be used to avoid areas...isn't it???

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...to-gps-patent/

Or..this one is a real doozy...http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/12332419607/uk-ministry-defence-close-to-gaining-patent-key-gps-technology-us-not-amused.shtml

Look further afield and see what you find.

[chudster]

But Urbanfox,

I don't care about those patents. They don't relate to metal detectors unless people are going to detect in ghettos

I want to focus like a laser on the patents that could stop us using our own ideas. Otherwise we can get into trouble.

Please keep on topic. If it seems Goldnugget and others are being unfair to Minelab then I want to know that.

Which of the claims are valid or invalidated by the post or other material that you know about?

Chudster

Why? A GPS reports a position...and a time...pretty basic stuff really, isn't it?



Have you looked at other patents unrelated to metal detecting technology that include GPS functionality?



Midas, have a look at this list and tell me why these patents should also not have been granted...http://www.hemispheregps.com/AboutUs/Patents/tabid/685/Default.aspx

But, you are saying this patent should not have been granted to Microsoft?..it is obvious that GPS would be used to avoid areas...isn't it???

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57...to-gps-patent/

Or..this one is a real doozy...http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120706/12332419607/uk-ministry-defence-close-to-gaining-patent-key-gps-technology-us-not-amused.shtml

Look further afield and see what you find.

[Davor]

I think the attached document is useful for this analysis because of the prior art section at the end. Enjoy

As the flies clearly say the difference between chocolate truffles and dog poo, so does the incumbent trolls

[UrbanFox]

But Urbanfox,

I don't care about those patents.

Chudster

What those patents are identifying, though, is that it is not the basic GPS functionality that is the focus of these patents.

There seems to be the belief that one patent for the use of GPS in a moving vehicle should cover all uses of GPS in a moving vehicle when obviously that is not the case. The same will apply to metal detectors.

[moodz]

But Urbanfox,

I don't care about those patents. They don't relate to metal detectors unless people are going to detect in ghettos

I want to focus like a laser on the patents that could stop us using our own ideas. Otherwise we can get into trouble.

Please keep on topic. If it seems Goldnugget and others are being unfair to Minelab then I want to know that.

Which of the claims are valid or invalidated by the post or other material that you know about?

Chudster

Well Nelson was clearly ahead of some with this patent .... read and weep for some ...

[Midas]

Midas,

I agree with your sentiment but we need to be a little more clinical.

For the sake of this academic exercise, lets say we needed to send a letter to the examiner or minelab themselves. It would need to be crystal clear and inarguable which of the claims were obvious and previously invented. The answers might be in this post or in other posts or maybe in high end geological survey equipment or discussed on a forum somewhere else.

If I was those folks and received your reply my response would be: "Well this patent is believable and we believe it stands so we will just have to differ in our opinions.".

Well I was planning to hook up a GPS to my detector (and more) now I worry about being sued if I do. What am I allowed to do without infringing if I venture beyond pure experimentation and hope to find a nugget for real?

I'll start off with the following observations:

"combined with mapping could be very handy...ofcourse we are not talking a bout a super detector that will only pick up gold, but but recording all the fluctuations in mineralisation one would be able to better see the dispursal of such mineralised ground."
".ie combined mapping and mineralisation overlays as you sweep in addition to target mapping"

To me this discloses 11c and 11d. 11b seems obvious. Time is the fourth dimension and logging of position by time is nothing new so that is 11b. I don't see anything in the post though that talks about settings although:

"Computer tech will bog all over any solid state wiring as far as adjustable settings, and a real computer program monitoring various factors and making adjustments accordingly"

indicates settings would be known and adjusted according to location. Is that 11a also knocked out? If so only 11e remains. Maybe that is mentioned somewhere in the post or somewhere else?

Claim 11 looks to be on shaky ground and if that is the case then claims 12 and 14 also fall away because they depend on 11.

Now what about the others?

Chudster

Yeah sorry, being incredulous doesn't help any I know. It just seems all so broad. Most of the claims seem to be trying to legally define the function of any co-ordinate based mapping system. As I read it any prospector that's written down the lat and long cords of a find along with perhaps a note like 'good strong signal, noisy ground, 10cm' as I'm sure they have since the inception of MD's (probably used their sextant), is in violation of this patent. If I'm wrong about that though and its actually OK to do it manually then surely a system that does the same thing for you automatically is an obvious step?

With regards to actually using the post as evidence a potential problem may be that it only refers to the process as 'mapping' which seemingly very clear is probably incredibly legally vague which is why you don't see it anywhere in the patent. Also verifying its integrity might be a challenge since any post can be changed at anytime by administrators.

Midas

[chudster]

Well Nelson was clearly ahead of some with this patent .... read and weep for some ...

Actually folks I just noticed the priority application for this patent was Application

Priority Data:

2011900183 20.01.2011 AU

I am pretty sure this has lapsed. IANAPL (I am not a patent lawyer) but I believe as the national phase will not be entered and so the PCT will die.

Seems like there as too much prior art to get this through (maybe even including Goldnugget's FF post) and the wonderful thing we can conclude is that now published and lapsed we are free to use everything and every idea in this patent without them taking legal action. Of course if there is someone else out there with a valid patent that Minelab discovered then they could still take action but the fact that Minelab has put some of these features into a marketed detector means it does not think it will be sued.

So Minelab are not guilty as charged from this patent. My jury says INNOCENT. They abandoned probably in the face of too much prior art but interestingly not before they filed the PCT!

So Minelab are useful and can give us some ideas that we can maybe take further by their patent activities. Its not all a one way street. Sure you can say its obvious, impractical or whatever but there are some interesting ideas for some people on this forum to explore.

The wonderful thing this also shows is that if we bash our heads together we can pretty well navigate this patent stuff for the PUD. (That last one is for you Moodz ).

At least Goldnugget can now sleep knowing that his idea was not stolen. Maybe there is another Minelab patent we would like to examine. I am not sure enough people learned how to analyse patents from this short post. Maybe its a myth that Minelab steal ideas from forums and patent them. Any suggestions?

Chudster

[WM6]

Actually folks I just noticed the priority application for this patent was Application

Priority Data:

2011900183 20.01.2011 AU

I am pretty sure this has lapsed. IANAPL (I am not a patent lawyer) but I believe as the national phase will not be entered and so the PCT will die.

Seems like there as too much prior art to get this through (maybe even including Goldnugget's FF post) and the wonderful thing we can conclude is that now published and lapsed we are free to use everything and every idea in this patent without them taking legal action. Of course if there is someone else out there with a valid patent that Minelab discovered then they could still take action but the fact that Minelab has put some of these features into a marketed detector means it does not think it will be sued.

So Minelab are not guilty as charged from this patent. My jury says INNOCENT. They abandoned probably in the face of too much prior art but interestingly not before they filed the PCT!

So Minelab are useful and can give us some ideas that we can maybe take further by their patent activities. Its not all a one way street. Sure you can say its obvious, impractical or whatever but there are some interesting ideas for some people on this forum to explore.

The wonderful thing this also shows is that if we bash our heads together we can pretty well navigate this patent stuff for the PUD. (That last one is for you Moodz ).

At least Goldnugget can now sleep knowing that his idea was not stolen. Maybe there is another Minelab patent we would like to examine. I am not sure enough people learned how to analyse patents from this short post. Maybe its a myth that Minelab steal ideas from forums and patent them. Any suggestions?

Chudster

Excellent! Myth that working in the background. We need to see behind of façade.

Probably a bit of true is that (inexperienced) patent examiner fear of Big patent player who have experienced patent layers and do not check their ideas thoroughly. And there is the state budget that probably does not allow the refusal of $100000 for each patent from solid Big payers.

Let try you poor hobbyist to patent PC mouse with GPS navigation with the same claims as in here present ML patent and see what happen.

[goldnugget]

Actually folks I just noticed the priority application for this patent was Application

Priority Data:

2011900183 20.01.2011 AU

Keeping in mind that even this prior application was made some 7 or 8 months after my post.

BTW thanks for bringing this matter to light for further discussion. Hopefully it will bring some matters out in the open for others to contemplate.

Goldnugget

[chudster]

Yes Goldnugget. Point noted. We will probably never know for sure if someone at Minelab read your post or whether there was another inspiration for this patent application.

At least we seem to have got to the bottom of this one in terms of validity.

Chudster

Keeping in mind that even this prior application was made some 7 or 8 months after my post.

BTW thanks for bringing this matter to light for further discussion. Hopefully it will bring some matters out in the open for others to contemplate.

Goldnugget

[Altra]

Here is some other prior art. At least five years old.
http://www.magsurvey.com/MetLSurveyHome.htm

This is like patenting the "LED" flashlight.
Shipwreck surveys, government and private have been using gps combined
with metal detectors/magnetometers since day one.

[Sergey_P]

method of swing on a swing ->http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf
...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6360693.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.pdf
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6293874.pdf
...