Patent Restrictions?

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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!!!

[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

[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

[UrbanFox]

Here a little challenge for some folk here skilled in the area,writing the source code to execute the GB method described in the QED patent.Anyone up for the challenge? What are members thoughts on ML's patented GB methods? ie anyone think that most if not all are prior art?
dougAEGPF

Doug, if ML's patents are founded on prior art then do something instead of continually waffling on. I notice your appeal against one Minelab patent application went nowhere, and the patent was issued. Perhaps you are just not smart enough to understand a patent!

However, it would be a real challenge to make anything of the QED GB method from reading the patent, wouldn't it. Post the QED patent 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.

[dougAEGPF]

No .. I don't advise copying ML patents ... Just build your own circuits based on prior expired patent ip and public domain with maybe help from people on forums like this. The ML patents are more about locking up the status quo than innovating .., which is good for me because it will be a lot easier for me to demonstrate true innovation in this area as the fundamental Pi detector topology has not changed substantially in 30 years.

moodz

Here a little challenge for some folk here skilled in the area,writing the source code to execute the GB method described in the QED patent.Anyone up for the challenge? What are members thoughts on ML's patented GB methods? ie anyone think that most if not all are prior art?
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

The inventors invent things to prevent & sue competition only.
Aziz

Companies also patent their inventions to secure their right to use. If they don't patent and someone else does, they can be paying royalties for the right to use, or they can be stopped from using.

[moodz]

I believe in the above two theorems - copy all the patents of minelab - grab the technology - reverse engineer (yourself or with some help) and build the labs in your own version distribute among close friends - and enjoy - also you can come back here for sharing your find under 'Tech' forum and we will analyze each others ethical private build. I hope they cannot re-patent their patent and so the technology prior art will be in "private open" domain. But wait - is it any worth copying the dud designs for your personal use - I hope not - why waste time and money as such.

No .. I don't advise copying ML patents ... Just build your own circuits based on prior expired patent ip and public domain with maybe help from people on forums like this. The ML patents are more about locking up the status quo than innovating .., which is good for me because it will be a lot easier for me to demonstrate true innovation in this area as the fundamental Pi detector topology has not changed substantially in 30 years.

moodz

[moodz]

Moodz, please explain what will happen if CHINELAB start importing into Australia a thing which there is patented, for example something like the QED project. Does Bugwhiskers pay much money to Australian court to stop the importation of CHINQED?

according to Carl's rules you need $100,000 dollars and nerves of steel if you want to play a hand at the patent game so I would estimate that BW has already spent more than $10,000 on legal costs so would he stop Chinelab ... Probably someone else would.