northwest ML at it again!!!
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 21, 2012, 09:10:52 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Robby_H :Why can't you provide any evidence for your assertions? Why was the whole "Dr Candy's GB method" thread deleted from finders forum after this post was cross posted there? Who is running scared? Who really controls finders?
http://australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com/qed-micro-controlled-pi-detector-by-bugwhiskers/robby_h-why-can%27t-you-provide-any-evidence-for-your-assertions
NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding. http://australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com/climate-change/nasa-climate-%27skeptics%27-respond-with-science!-just-kidding/msg20769/#msg20769
The consequences of a 100ppm rise in C02 levels.  http://australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com/climate-change/the-consequences-of-a-100ppm-rise-in-c02-levels/
12 years is not a reasonable time:updated http://australianelectronicgoldprospectingforum.com/climate-change/12-years-is-not-a-reasonable-time!/msg20848/?topicseen#msg20848

australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Patents  |  Detector Patents  |  Topic: ML at it again!!! 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: ML at it again!!!  (Read 272 times)
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« on: August 22, 2011, 11:53:58 AM »
ML at it again re patent :2011200515 : Metal detector with improved magnetic soil response cancellation
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2011200515
Read the examiners scathing second report and then  see how ML wants to add amendments to overcome the examiners objections or clarify the the claims.
Below is how they want to amend claim .But of course  it is still as the examiners said just another variation of their old patent and is still an old result! I would also argue that it is not an amendment but in fact a new claim and thus should be rejected unless ML  want to lose their priory date! I would also argue that claim 8 is a law of electromagnetics just like Maxwells equations etc and hence is not patentable.
I would also argue that  US patent 6,586,938 by Paltoglou  discloses the same basic method/methods and that  Paltoglou's patent has a priory (July 1st 2003) date before the ML  patent.
doug smile
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 01:03:00 PM by Doug » Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
baseballer
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2011, 02:42:54 PM »
Boy, you sure do a lot of arguing Doug. Why both? You accomplish nothing except getting yourself red in the face.
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2011, 03:14:31 PM »
Quote from: baseballer on August 22, 2011, 02:42:54 PM
Boy, you sure do a lot of arguing Doug. Why both? You accomplish nothing except getting yourself red in the face.

Tell where I am wrong to point this out! Can you show me where my conclusions are wrong?
The point is that this is just another example in my opinion of how ML are prepared to use any means Thumbs down possible to maintain market dominance!
But fortunately for consumer choice and sadly for ML  they are not going be allowed to maintain market dominance!!!! Clap Hands
doug smile
Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2011, 03:21:04 PM »
 Folks should do a google search using the term "Log linear frequency dependent susceptibility" ( their are some links to some key papers on this forum) and then decide if the last 2 paragraphs of ML's response to the examiners report has any validity!! They should also should look up Bosnar US patents
doug smile
Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2011, 03:36:59 PM »
Quote from: Doug on August 22, 2011, 11:53:58 AM
ML at it again re patent :2011200515 : Metal detector with improved magnetic soil response cancellation
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2011200515
Read the examiners scathing second report and then  see how ML wants to add amendments to overcome the examiners objections or clarify the the claims.
Below is how they want to amend claim .But of course  it is still as the examiners said just another variation of their old patent and is still an old result! I would also argue that it is not an amendment but in fact a new claim and thus should be rejected unless ML  want to lose their priory date! I would also argue that claim 8 is a law of electromagnetics just like Maxwells equations etc and hence is not patentable.
I would also argue that  US patent 6,586,938 by Paltoglou  discloses the same basic method/methods and that  Paltoglou's patent has a priory (July 1st 2003) date before the ML  patent.
doug smile


Could some folk here who are members of the Geotech forum please raise this issue on Geotech because it has possible adverse implications for every other detector manufacturer (a monopoly on most forms of GB in the TD?).
doug smile
Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
mikebg
regular members
Newbie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2011, 05:24:30 PM »
The patent of Paltoglou has more old priority.
Foreign Application Priority Data is   
Dec 17, 1997 [AU]
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2011, 05:30:39 PM »
Quote from: mikebg on August 22, 2011, 05:24:30 PM
The patent of Paltoglou has more old priority.
Foreign Application Priority Data is   
Dec 17, 1997 [AU]

Spot on!!!!!! happy face
doug smile
Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
Aziz
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2011, 06:19:42 PM »
The GB they try to patent isn't best. It's only a very cheap implementation way (cheap production -> huge selling price -> huge profit  (huge greed) ).
Still an approximation of a GB method. (Will still be a hot rock detector!  No doubt! innocent)

Note, you can describe any non-linear function with linear combination functions to some degree of approximation. If you transform a non-linear function into a linear space model, it's getting even easier to implement. You just make a linear combination function on the transformation.

Examples:
- Differential equations are typically made linear to solve the problem easier.
- Wavelet/Fourier Transform: Non-linear -> linear -> linear combination
- ...

A patent on a linear combination of something is plain dumb (math). You can't get a patent on this. I am sure, the patent examiner isn't able to see the difference.

Aziz
Logged
"Without prejudice"
My forum contribution is my own personal view & opinion.
Feel free to sue me. Not the forum owner and admin.
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2011, 08:16:51 PM »
Quote from: Aziz on August 22, 2011, 06:19:42 PM
The GB they try to patent isn't best. It's only a very cheap implementation way (cheap production -> huge selling price -> huge profit  (huge greed) ).
Still an approximation of a GB method. (Will still be a hot rock detector!  No doubt! innocent)

Note, you can describe any non-linear function with linear combination functions to some degree of approximation. If you transform a non-linear function into a linear space model, it's getting even easier to implement. You just make a linear combination function on the transformation.

Examples:
- Differential equations are typically made linear to solve the problem easier.
- Wavelet/Fourier Transform: Non-linear -> linear -> linear combination
- ...

A patent on a linear combination of something is plain dumb (math). You can't get a patent on this. I am sure, the patent examiner isn't able to see the difference.

Aziz

What do you say to this Baseballer/George? Look forward to your  thoughts! happy face
doug smile
Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
Aziz
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2011, 08:34:28 PM »
Quote from: Doug on August 22, 2011, 08:16:51 PM
What do you say to this Baseballer/George? Look forward to your  thoughts! happy face
doug smile

I'm sorry for him. He has absolutely no idea in this matter (this shouldn't be seen as an offensive).
Neither math nor EM physics nor what is described in the patent. If he would know that, he wouldn't argue against you.

But I'm sorry for ML customers as well. They have been ripped off a long time.
And I'm also sorry for the competitors. ML did patent a lot of trivial things without any moral or sense of decency. They have been driven by a pure greed.

This is my humble opinion.
But if ML goes too far, I'm going to give incredible gifts to the competitors.

Cheers,
Aziz
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 08:47:54 PM by Aziz » Logged
"Without prejudice"
My forum contribution is my own personal view & opinion.
Feel free to sue me. Not the forum owner and admin.
Aziz
invited members
Senior Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2011, 09:19:22 PM »

Here are best examples of ML trying to patent trivial ideas and prior art.
This is interesting, as I had a discussion on a forum just few days/weeks before the application date of these patents very angry FURIOUS  very angry
(the patent trolls and their spies know, what I mean).

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2011100475

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2011100476

You all know, I am saving and archiving all my relevant forum posts and interesting ideas from others (due public domain) as well into my hard disks! I can easily knock out theft on ideas!
 tongue poke

Aziz
Logged
"Without prejudice"
My forum contribution is my own personal view & opinion.
Feel free to sue me. Not the forum owner and admin.
WM6
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 957
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2011, 10:51:27 PM »
As mikebg says many times, what we do is mostly only pure reinventing old (and not only once) patented ideas. Systematically reading existing patents merely confirms mikebg slogan.

Slight mod and some make-up camouflage and "voila" new patent.

Perhaps we can read it all, right?
Logged
Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2011, 11:39:52 PM »
Quote from: Aziz on August 22, 2011, 09:19:22 PM

Here are best examples of ML trying to patent trivial ideas and prior art.
This is interesting, as I had a discussion on a forum just few days/weeks before the application date of these patents very angry FURIOUS  very angry
(the patent trolls and their spies know, what I mean).

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2011100475

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2011100476

You all know, I am saving and archiving all my relevant forum posts and interesting ideas from others (due public domain) as well into my hard disks! I can easily knock out theft on ideas!
 tongue poke

Aziz


Unfortunately ideas that are in the public domain can be still be patented!  shocked In Oz (I will have to check the regulations again on this) and I think in the USA (?)their is a  period of grace where you have up to 12 months to lodge a patent application after something that has been previously published or discussed (from the first date it was published)in the public domain, like a forum for example. This is why Woody's ground loop patent would fail if examined because his patent application was more than 12 months after it was first discussed or published on my old forum!
doug smile
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 11:44:04 PM by Doug » Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2011, 11:48:11 AM »
The real  point about this "patent" in my opinion is that it is merely taking  the synchronously demodulated  outputs as described in Candy;s earlier patents (and by the examiners) and using different mathematical methods or relationships to manipulate or scale or weight the outputs such that the linear combinations of the said outputs sum the ground responses (frequency independent + frequency dependent magnetic susceptibility+frequency independent resistive reponse) to zero.
So in my opinion it is just different data manipulation/processing of an old Candy method and  hence fails the test of being inventive which is required for a standard patent.
I also personally believe that those skilled in the art could learn about/ infer and utilize such methods from the literature on soil frequency dependent magnetic susceptibility prior to the date of this patent!
eg in 2004
A Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Soil Electromagnetic Properties on Metal Detectors
http://www.itep.ws/pdf/spie04_soil_paper.pdf
The references at the end of this paper  will also show you some of the keystone papers in the area of frequency dependent magnetically susceptible soils going back to before the 1980's!
doug smile
Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
WM6
invited members
Hero Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 957
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2011, 12:01:41 PM »
Quote from: Doug on August 23, 2011, 11:48:11 AM

A Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of Soil Electromagnetic Properties on Metal Detectors
http://www.itep.ws/pdf/spie04_soil_paper.pdf
The references at the end of this paper  will also show you some of the keystone papers in the area of frequency dependent magnetically susceptible soils going back to before the 1980's!
doug smile


Yes: "nil novi sub sole". Nothing but our hopes and desires.
Logged
Global capital is ruining your life?
You have right to self-defence!
baseballer
Guest
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2011, 12:50:06 PM »
What are my thoughts on this?
I couldn't give a flying fig! I have more inportant things to think about.

I use a Minelab detector that has paid for itself handsomely. I don't
care what you lot think of Minelab or try to upset them because you are just
very, very tiny drops in a huge pool.
Instead of venting your spleens on here why don't you put your concerns in
writing to Minelab and see what happens.
To me, it appears that there's only a small handful of you anti-Minelab whingers
compared to thousands of satisfied Minelab customers worldwide.
Logged
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2011, 01:13:27 PM »
Quote from: baseballer on August 23, 2011, 12:50:06 PM
What are my thoughts on this?
I couldn't give a flying fig! I have more inportant things to think about.

I use a Minelab detector that has paid for itself handsomely. I don't
care what you lot think of Minelab or try to upset them because you are just
very, very tiny drops in a huge pool.
Instead of venting your spleens on here why don't you put your concerns in
writing to Minelab and see what happens.
To me, it appears that there's only a small handful of you anti-Minelab whingers
compared to thousands of satisfied Minelab customers worldwide.


You dill! Concerns or objections to any Oz ML patents are done through IP Australia not by writing to ML!!
You need to inform yourself better before posting in future then you won't appear to be such a turkey!
doug smile
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 01:14:04 PM by Doug » Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
Doug
Administrator
Revered Supreme Hero Member
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7812
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2011, 04:05:17 PM »
Quote from: WM6 on August 22, 2011, 10:51:27 PM
As mikebg says many times, what we do is mostly only pure reinventing old (and not only once) patented ideas. Systematically reading existing patents merely confirms mikebg slogan.

Slight mod and some make-up camouflage and "voila" new patent.

Perhaps we can read it all, right?

ML's "patent" in my  opinion is the same old deck of cards but just shuffled in a different way!
doug smile
Logged
"Let me be a free man....free to think and talk and act for myself."
Chief Joseph
"Don't ask 'Why'; ask instead, 'Why not."
John F. Kennedy
All posts on this forum express the personal views of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily being in accord with those of the forum owner
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
australian electronic gold prospecting forum.com  |  Patents  |  Detector Patents  |  Topic: ML at it again!!! « previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.15 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
BisdakworldClassic design by JV PACO-IN 		Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!