Patent Restrictions?

[Midas]

Patents mostly involve specific methods of doing things, not broad concepts. Methods can be in hardware or software, it doesn't matter. In either case, a patent usually isn't restricted to a single narrow implementation, but covers equivalent implementations.

Hi Carl,

This one seems quite broad:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6636044

The claims defining the invention are as follows:

1. In a metal detector apparatus including a transmit coil or a transmit/receive coil adapted to transmit magnetic field pulses when operating with electrical current flowing through the coil, transmit and receive timing control circuitry controlling the electrical current flowing through the coil, power supplies, and receive signal circuitry and receive signal processing circuitry coupled to the coil, a method comprising the steps of: transmitting magnetic pulses via the coil; and accumulating a receive signal received by the coil in the processing circuit coupled to the coil; wherein said receive signal is weighted more heavily after a transmit pulse transition and less heavily after a longer period following the transmit pulse transition.

2. A metal detector apparatus of a type including a transmit coil or a transmit/receive coil adapted to transmit magnetic field pulses when operating with electrical current flowing through the coil, transmit and receive timing control circuitry controlling the electrical current flowing through the coil, power supply means, and receive signal circuitry and receive signal processing circuitry coupled to the coil, wherein the coil is arranged to transmit magnetic pulses, and the processing circuitry is adapted to accumulate a receive signal which is weighted more heavily soon after a transmit pulse transition and less after longer following the transmit pulse transition.

The TDI's GB basically works like this doesn't it? Is there some key difference that I don't see or is this patent likely actually be not enforceable ?

Also do you have any idea why they made this two claims and not one? They seem to have just re-worded the last sentence and added the word method. Some legal difference perhaps?

wherein the coil is arranged to transmit magnetic pulses, and the processing circuitry is adapted to accumulate a receive signal which is weighted more heavily soon after a transmit pulse transition and less after longer following the transmit pulse transition.

a method comprising the steps of: transmitting magnetic pulses via the coil; and accumulating a receive signal received by the coil in the processing circuit coupled to the coil; wherein said receive signal is weighted more heavily after a transmit pulse transition and less heavily after a longer period following the transmit pulse transition.

Midas

[dougAEGPF]

Doug, if they are prior then do something instead of continually waffling on.

However, it would be a real challenge to make anything of the QED GB method from reading the patent, wouldn't it. Post it here!! I defy Geotech members to understand and reproduce the QED GB method solely from reading the QED patent. I think you are right Doug. In this instant the patent system was broken and the examiners stuffed it up. Further Doug, re the potential for patent invalidation, it has been suggested that BW may have been discussing SMR as applied to lab or medical equipment, and finally to the QED, over 12 months prior to submitting his patent application. Is that true, Doug?

Tell me Doug, if BW was so sure of his patent securing anything, than why did he try to sell the patent to Minelab? If you blokes understand anything of Minelab's patents, then why was BW asking ML what he had to do to avoid infringing Minelab patents?

Minelab has previously identified to you blokes two patents they believed you blokes were possibly infringing. Instead of asking Minelab to explain to you blokes what you need to do to not infringe, do you think it would be a good idea to seek independent expert patent advice, or do you consider there are enough experts in patent interpretation and enforcement on this forum to make up for your inability to understand patents and patent enforcement?

Note Doug, if you blokes seek independent expert patent advice and avoid infringing, BW could be selling the QED at his leisure.

If the examiners stuffed the QED patent up why then have ML NOT challenged it? What ML patent or patents do you allege that the QED infriges and why?
What is the source of your other "information"?
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

If the examiners stuffed the QED patent up why then have ML NOT challenged it?

Perhaps they don't see anything to challenge!

What ML patent or patents do you allege that the QED infriges

Doug, didn't the letter you received from Minelab's legal representatives bring a couple of ML patents to your attention?

and why?

Doug, Doug, Doug....that is why you have your team of lawyers, barristers, queens council and patent experts.

What is the source of your other "information"?
dougAEGPF

My lips are sealed!!!

[Aziz]

I for one am for the total metal detector thermo nuclear war. Let's collapse, implode, vaporize and make everything kaput. So we can start again with a clean field.

Kabooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom!

Aziz

[dougAEGPF]

Perhaps they don't see anything to challenge!



Doug, didn't the letter you received from Minelab's legal representatives bring a couple of ML patents to your attention?



Doug, Doug, Doug....that is why you have your team of lawyers, barristers, queens council and patent experts.



My lips are sealed!!!

What patents do you allege that ML's legal representatives bought to my attention?
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

What patents do you allege that ML's legal representatives bought to my attention?
dougAEGPF

Sorry Doug. Because you are continually presenting yourself as a spokesperson for the QED, I consider yourself and bugs as a team.

However, back to the QED patent..... it would be a real challenge to have Geotech members try to make anything of the QED GB method from reading the patent, wouldn't it. Post it here!! I defy Geotech members to understand and reproduce the QED GB method solely from reading the QED patent. I think you are right Doug. In this instant the patent system was broken and the examiners stuffed it up.

[moodz]

However, back to the QED patent..... it would be a real challenge to have Geotech members try to make anything of the QED GB method from reading the patent, wouldn't it. Post it here!! I defy Geotech members to understand and reproduce the QED GB method solely from reading the QED patent.

[dougAEGPF]

[QUOTE=UrbanFox;165929]Sorry Doug. Because you are continually presenting yourself as a spokesperson for the QED, I consider yourself and bugs as a team.[QUOTE]

So you cannot validate any of your assertions!
dougAEGPF

[dougAEGPF]

From QED patent
IMPROVED USER INTERFACE AND INTERFERENCE REJECTION IN A PULSE INDUCTION METAL DETECTOR
As the available surface gold is depleted, prospectors are demanding more depth, greater sensitivity and lower noise from their metal detectors.
The signal from targets at the threshold of detection is minute (low nanovolts) requiring circuits with very high signal to noise ratios.
The coil of a typical Pulse Induction metal detector is also a very good broadband antenna and the pre-amplifier must be broadband in order to recover as fast as possible from the high voltage flyback pulse from the transmit coil after the transmit switching transistor is turned off. As a consequence of the broad bandwidth of the pre-amplifier, external EMI, in particular the interference from AC power lines or MAINS becomes a difficult problem. The ground in highly mineralised areas and the signal generated by sweeping a coil through Static Magnetic Fields (SMF) also pose additional interference problems. The user adjustment interface and weight of a metal detector are also important issues.
Ground balance and Static Magnetic Field (SMF) cancellation.
Ground balance (GB) is a condition obtained by circuitry or mathematically cancelling the signal due to the presence of ground minerals. Claim 1 describes a GB / SMF cancellation method employing the basic principle of cancelling an unwanted signal via subtraction of a signal of equal amplitude. A Differential Integrator (DI) is used to perform the subtraction by amplifying the difference between the voltages presented at its two inputs. The easiest way to understand the concept is to look at the DI as a balance beam that is level when the weights on both sides are equal. Any additional weight (signal) added to either side will cause the output of the DI to change.
A single TX and multiple samples are used to GB & cancel SMF. The multiple samples have adjustable widths and phase to balance the DI over mineralised ground. A very late sample is taken to cancel SMF. Radical changes to the sampling regime and TX pulse length while still cancelling the ground signal and SMF can be used to shift the detection "hole" (diminished response) for some targets whose decay characteristics mimic that of the ground. Refer to Drawing #1.
Synchronous Mains Rejection (SMR).
If the cycle time of a PI detector is locked with high accuracy to a precise multiple of the mains power line frequency (typically 50Hz or 60 Hz) and "n" samples (eg. 8 or 16) are taken during the cycle time of the mains then the averaging of the samples will sum to zero thus reducing or eliminating such interference.
User adjustment Interface.
An ideal user adjustment detector interface is 2 rotary encoders with integral push buttons and digitised speech via the detectors audio stream.
Visual interfaces such as liquid crystal displays or LCD's are bulky, taking up much of the available front panel space. Such displays also generate both conducted and electromagnetic interference.
They are heavy and require a considerable micro-controller processing overhead. They are difficult to read in bright sunlight and are unsuitable for people with poor eyesight. The screens accumulate dust, are easily scratched, use a lot of battery power if backlit and are not easily adapted to other languages. Importantly, just two rotary encoders can supplant a plethora of dials and switches.
Typical operation of a 2 rotary encoders with integral push-button interface on a metal detector.
Encoder 1 push button, store current GB setting or perform Auto GB.
Encoder 1 rotation cycles through adjustable variables (menu) with their name announced with
digitised speech stored in a memory device and output via the detectors existing audio stream.
Encoder 2 rotation clockwise increases the variable, counter clockwise decreases the variable with the current value being announced via the audio stream.
Encoder 2 push button stores the current adjustment value.
User adjustable Static Magnetic Field and MAINS rejection in conjunction with a method of removing the detection "hole" and user reprogrammable operator interface audio are innovations not seen in any other hand held metal detector.
dougAEGPF

[Davor]

They seem to have just re-worded the last sentence and added the word method. Some legal difference perhaps?

Yes, it results buying more time if the patent examiner swallows it. That is only one of the reasons why the whole patent system is broken. It best serves the trolls and big money. Not inventors.

[Aziz]

I got it!!!! I have "invented" something today. Yeeeaaaaaaaaah!!!
I have an alternate variant of my latest "invention", which is even more elegant (more KISS-principle). When one variant gets blocked by the patent trolls, I have the other option now.

Oh man, I'm so good at "inventing" something by just playing and trying insane ideas. It took me 9 circuit variant evolutions (with maybe total 40-60 simulation trials) to end up with the final "invention".

Aziz,
running quickly to the patent office......
(Oh fugging $hite!, I don't have money for it!!! )

[UrbanFox]

So you cannot validate any of your assertions!
dougAEGPF

Do you mean my assertion that there were 2 patents, or what? Don't you remember the discussion on AEGPF in February 2011 re 2 patents? Also, BW stated there were 2 patents on 1&1/2's forum...don't you remember...when BW posted that he had received a letter from ML's legal people?? Would you like screen captures? I know the pages have been removed from 1&1/2's forum, and I expect they have been removed from AEGPF also, but I am sure I could come up with something to jog your memory.

[ODM]

Imagine all the effort spent on this ML/QED bickering (which seems to have floated up from the latrine again) - and then imagine the same amount of time and effort spent with papers and workbench.

BTW, cancelling interference by repetition rate timing can only cancel out one source. Of course, it's better than no canceling at all!

[Ferric Toes]

I had a two channel, four sample, weighted ground cancelling PI detector on the market and widely publicised in the treasure hunting press in the 1980's. This will be posted in detail on the PI History and Theory thread in due course. We are still in the mid 1960's with about 20 years to go before we get there. Didn't bother to patent the method with all its potential variations; perhaps I should have. Problem in electronics is that there are many ways to skin a cat.

Picture of Goldscan 1, designed and made by myself in Ireland 1982. My company there was Location Technology Ltd, hence the LT logo.

Eric

[Davor]

IMHO the best way to capitalise your idea is to start production ASAP, and patenting it leads you to the opposite direction, away from production date, money, and time to do something really useful, like inventing something new. Or perfecting your design.
Looking at the patent repository you fail to see aeons of quality engineer time wasted to no ends. Also a huge pile money spent to no means. It is just a waste.

It gives me the creeps when politicians praise patents. Or the IMF. Or the swine flu vaccine. It is just wrong.