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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/16/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 17 and 31 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 37-38 have been added. Thus, claims 17-21 and 23-38 are presently pending in this application, with claims 21, 23, 29-30, and 34-36 being withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 03/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.11 of “Remarks”, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claim 31 of 03/23/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-18, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zarabadi et al. (U.S Patent No. 5872313, “Zarabadi”).
Regarding claim 17, Zarabadi discloses (Claim 17) a rotation sensing arrangement (10 in Fig. 1-3) for an injection device (examiner notes this limitation is intended use such that the arrangement only needs to be capable of being used with an injection device, see Co.4, lines 44-47 – sensor 10 detect angular velocity and rotary movement about an axis of a body and thus is capable of being used in an injection device since the injection device is not further defined), the rotation sensing arrangement (10) comprising:
a first member (14 in Fig. 1) and a second member (12 in Fig. 1), wherein the first member (14) is rotatable relative to the second member (12) with regard to an axis of rotation (vertical axis through post 18 in Fig. 1, see Col.4, lines 20-24 and lines 44-46 – ring 14 is subjected to rotary motion relative to wafer 12 with regard to the vertical axis through the post 18 at its center);
at least one signal generator (30, 32 in Fig. 3) arranged on the first member (14, see Col.5, lines 1-10 and 19-34 – base 30 and the integral electrodes 32 act as signal generators for the electrodes 34 of the sensing electrodes 20b);
at least one sensor (20b in Fig. 3) arranged on the second member (12, see Col.4, lines 10-24), wherein the at least one sensor (20b) comprises an interdigital electrode structure configured to generate an electrical signal in response to a movement of the at least one signal generator (30, 32) relative to the at least one sensor (20b, see Col.4, lines 44-55 and Col.5, lines 19-34 – sensing electrodes 20b have an interdigitated structure as seen in Fig. 3 and described below that generate a capacitance in response to the movement of the ring 14 and its electrodes 34 relative to the sensing electrode 20b);
a processor (28 in Fig. 2) connected to the at least one sensor (20b) and operable to calculate an angle of rotation of the first member (14) relative to the second member (12) based on the electrical signal (see Col. 4, lines 44-55 – circuitry 28 is able to detect angular velocity and therefore rotary movement of the ring 14 about the axis); and relative to the wafer 12, said angular velocity is a direct function of angle of rotation over time)
PNG
media_image1.png
549
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the interdigital electrode structure comprises a first electrode (20b in Fig. 3) and a second electrode (20b in Fig. 3) on a common substrate (see annotated Zarabadi drawing 1 below and Col.2, lines 47-49 – the two electrodes 20b are formed on a surface region of the silicon wafer 12, wherein said surface region is interpreted as the common substrate),
wherein the first electrode (20b) and the second electrode (20b) each comprise a connecting portion and numerous projection portions (34 in Fig. 3) connected with or integrally formed with the connecting portion and projecting from one side of the connecting portion (see annotated Zarabadi drawing 2 below), wherein free ends of the projecting portions (34) of the first electrode (20b) face towards the connecting portion of the second electrode (20b) and wherein free ends of the projecting portions (34) of the second electrode (20b) face towards the connecting portion of the first electrode (20b, see annotated Zarabadi drawing 2 below), and wherein the projecting portions (34) of the first electrode structure (20b) and the projecting portions (34) of the second electrode structure (20b) are arranged in an interleaved and parallel non-contacting relation to each other in a common plane (see annotated Zarabadi drawing 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
930
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Zarabadi discloses (Claim 18) the rotation sensing arrangement (10) of claim 17, wherein the substrate is a planar substrate (Col.2, lines 47-49 – the two electrodes 20b are formed on a surface region of the silicon wafer 12 wherein said surface region is interpreted as the common substrate and is planar), and wherein the at least one sensor (20b) is arranged on the planar substrate (see Col.2, lines 47-49).
Regarding claim 24, Zarabadi discloses (Claim 24) the rotation sensing arrangement (10) of claim 17, wherein the at least one signal generator (30, 32) comprises a signal generating portion made of a material having a relative permittivity larger than 3 (see Col.4, lines 4-6 and Col.5, lines 3-9 – base 30 and teeth 32 are integrally formed with ring 14 and thus are formed from silicon, see instant application spec. p. 8, lines 32-37 – p.9, lines 1-2 for permittivity of silicon).
Regarding claim 26, Zarabadi discloses (Claim 26) the rotation sensing arrangement (10) of claim 17, wherein the at least one sensor (20b) is arranged at a predefined radial sensor distance from the axis of rotation and wherein the at least one signal generator (30, 32) is arranged at a predefined radial signal generator distance from the axis of rotation and wherein a difference between the predefined radial sensor distance and the predefined radial signal generator distance is smaller than or equal to a difference between a radial extent of the at least one sensor (20b) and a radial extent of the at least one signal generator (30, 32, examiner is interpreting the predefined radial distance as the distance from the center point of the sensor/signal generator to the axis of rotation and the radial extent as the distance from the outer end of the sensor/signal generator to the inner end of the sensor/signal generator such that the difference between the predefined radial distances and the difference between the radial extents yields an amount of radial overlap between the sensor and signal generator, thus examiner is interpreting this limitation as the sensor and generator are radially located to cause at least some or full radial overlap between the two structures, see Fig. 1-3 – the sensors 20b and generator formed from the base 30 and teeth 32 at least partially radially overlap when the ring 14 rotates).
Regarding claim 27, Zarabadi discloses (Claim 27) the rotation sensing arrangement (10) of claim 17, wherein a plurality of sensors (20b in Fig. 1) of the at least one sensor (20b) are distributed across one side of the second member (12, see Fig. 1-3 – sensors 20b are distributed across a top surface of wafer 12 seen in Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 28, Zarabadi discloses (Claim 28) the rotation sensing arrangement (10) of claim 17, wherein the at least one sensor (20b) and the at least one signal generator (30, 32) are permanently arranged out of mechanical contact (see Col.4, lines 10-18 and lines 44-47 – ring 14 and thus base 30 and teeth 32 are mounted to a post 18 that rotates said ring 14 relative to wafer 12 such that the sensors 20b and ring 14 and its structure form a capacitor indicating the ring 14 and wafer 12 are arranged permanently out of mechanical contact).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zarabadi in view of Rosswurm (U.S Patent No. 5012237).
Regarding claim 19, Zarabadi discloses the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 18, as discussed above.
While Zarabadi discloses the limitations of (Claim 19) wherein the interdigital electrode structure is formed on the planar substrate (Col.2, lines 47-49 – the two electrodes 20b are formed on a surface region of the silicon wafer 12 wherein said surface region is interpreted as the common substrate and is planar), Zarabadi fails to disclose (Claim 19) wherein the interdigital electrode structure is printed or coated on the planar substrate
Rosswurm discloses a rotation sensing arrangement in the form of an angle resolver (10 in Fig. 4-6) for determining the angular position of a rotor (60 in Fig. 4) relative to a stator (64 in Fig. 4), wherein the angle resolver uses capacitance to determine angular position (see Col.3, lines 20-66). Rosswurm teaches (Claim 19) wherein the interdigital electrode structure is printed or coated on the planar substrate (examiner notes the limitation printed is being interpreted under BRI as impressing something in or on as defined by Merriam-Webster, see Col.6, lines 11-34 – the interdigitations 68 and 72 are etched onto the planar substrate 67 such that they are impressed into the planar substrate 67 and thus printed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interdigital electrode structure of Zarabadi to be printed or coated on the planar substrate as taught by Rosswurm according to known methods to yield predictable results. Zarabadi discloses that silicon processing materials and techniques and any other suitable technique may be used to form the structural features of the electrode structures (20) on the wafer (12, see Col.7, lines 20-29). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that printing or coating said electrodes on the planar substrate as taught by Rosswurm would have yielded results that were predictable.
Regarding claim 20, Zarabadi discloses the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17, as discussed above.
While Zarabadi discloses the limitations of (Claim 20) wherein the interdigital electrode structure of the at least one sensor (20b) and the processor (28) is arranged on the planar substrate (Col.2, lines 47-49 and Col.4, lines 48-50 – the two electrodes 20b and processing circuitry 28 are formed on a surface region of the silicon wafer 12 wherein said surface region is interpreted as the common substrate and is planar), however Zarabadi fails to disclose (Claim 20) a printed circuit board.
Rosswurm discloses (Claim 20) further comprising a printed circuit board (65) and wherein the interdigital electrode structure of the at least one sensor (68, 72) is arranged on the printed circuit board (65, see Col.6, lines 11-34 – interdigitations 68 and 72 are printed on circuit board 65 thus making it a printed circuit board).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interdigital electrode structure and processor of Zarabadi to be printed onto the wafer (12) as taught by Rosswurm to thus form a printed circuit board according to know methods to yield predictable results.
Zarabadi discloses that silicon processing materials and techniques and any other suitable technique may be used to form the structural features of the electrode structures (20) on the wafer (12, see Col.7, lines 20-29). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that printing said electrodes and processing circuitry on the planar substrate as taught by Rosswurm to form a printed circuit board would have yielded results that were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Zarabadi et al. (U.S Patent No. 5872313, “Zarabadi”), (Rosswurm (U.S Patent No. 5012237), and Okumura et al. (W.O Patent Pub. No. 2016190040 A1, “Okumura”).
Zarabadi discloses a motion sensor (10 in Fig. 1-3) for sensing the angular movement of a ring (14 in Fig. 1) relative to a wafer (12 in Fig. 1), wherein the ring (14) comprises signal generators (30, 32 in Fig. 3) for generating a signal in sensors (20b in Fig. 2, see Col4, lines 10-24). The sensors (20b in Fig. 3) have an interdigital electrode structure (see Fig. 3). However, the ring (14) and wafer (12) are configured to form a capacitor with the processing circuitry (28) configured to operate with the electrostatic forces generated by the capacitor (see Col.4, lines 10-55). Thus, Zarabadi fails to disclose the sensors configured to generate a magnetic field with the signal generators configured to modify the magnetic field. Zarabadi cannot be modified to operate with a magnetic field as claimed as it would render the capacitive motion sensor inoperable for its intended operation.
Rosswurm discloses an angle resolver for a rotor and stator device (see Abstract). The angle resolver (10 in Fig. 4-6) comprises a rotor (60 in Fig. 4) and stator (64 in Fig. 5), wherein both the rotor (60) and stator (64) are formed as circuit boards with electrodes having etched conductive interdigitations (interdigitations 62 on rotor 60 in Fig. 4 and positive interdigitations 68 and negative interdigitations 72 on stator 64 in Fig. 5). The interdigitations (68, 72) on the stator (64) are interpreted as the sensor and the vanes (62) on the rotor (60) are interpreted as the signal generators (see Col.3, lines 20-66). The interdigitations (68, 72) of the sensor form an interdigital electrode structure wherein the interdigitations (68) form a first comb-like electrode which is a structure that has more than one projection that resembles a comb, and the interdigitations (72) form a second comb-like electrode as interpreted above. Wherein, the free ends of the interdigitations 68 forming the first electrode are oriented to extend in the direction of the opposite free ends of the interdigitations 72 forming the second electrode and are arranged with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 68 overlapping with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 72 in a non-contacting manner. However, Rosswurm fails to disclose the interdigitations being arranged in parallel with one another nor do they generate a magnetic field that is modified. Rather, Rosswurm relies on electrostatic fields and capacitance and modifying Rosswurm to use magnetic principles would render it inoperable for its intended use.
Okumura discloses a rotation detector that can calculate a rotation angle of a rotating body based on a magnetic signal (see Abstract). Okumura comprises the rotation detector (1 in Fig. 2) comprising a first member (20 in Fig. 2) comprising the magnetic elements (31a in Fig. 3-4) which is rotatable relative to a second member (10) in the form of a magnet. While the magnetic elements (31a) would be equivalent to the at least one sensor having a meandering electrode structure as seen in Fig. 4a and 4b, Okumura fails to disclose that these magnetic elements (31a) are disposed on the stationary second member and rather has it opposite. Further, the magnetic elements (31a) are meandering, single electrodes rather than the interdigital electrode structure of claim 17. Thus, Okumura fails to disclose the interdigital electrode structure of claim 17.
Thus, there is no reference that discloses or teaches the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 25 having the claimed interdigital electrode structure which is configured to generate a magnetic field for the signal generator to modify.
Claims 31-33 and 37-38 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is Zarabadi et al. (U.S Patent No. 5872313, “Zarabadi”), Utermoehlen et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20190091411 A1, “Utermoehlen”), (Rosswurm (U.S Patent No. 5012237), and Okumura et al. (W.O Patent Pub. No. 2016190040 A1, “Okumura”) as discussed above.
Regarding claims 31-33, Zarabadi fails to disclose an injection device having a housing, trigger, dial member, and the motion sensor (10) implemented on members of an injection device. Zarabadi is disclosed as being a motion sensor (10) for an automobile structure. There is no motivation to combine the sensor of Zarabadi with the components of an injection device.
Regarding claims 37-38, the prior art above fails to disclose a rotation sensing arrangement configured to generate and modify a magnetic field as discussed with reference to claim 25 above.
Utermoehlen discloses a rotation sensing arrangement (100 in Fig. 1-8) for an injection device (102) comprising a first member (204 in Fig. 2) and a second member (104 in Fig. 1-2), wherein the first member (204) is rotatable relative to the second member (104, see para. 0057-0058). The arrangement (100) comprises at least one signal generator in the form of an interference surface unit (118 in Fig. 2) arranged on the first member (204, see para. 0058 and 0044), and at least one sensor in the form of a coil unit (116 in Fig. 2) arranged on the second member (104, see para. 0057 and 0044-0046). A processor in the form of a microcontroller (see para. 0060) is connected to the at least one sensor (116) and operable to calculate an angle of rotation of the first member (204) relative to the second member (104) based on an electrical signal produced by the at least one sensor (116) due to the interaction with the at least one signal generator (118, see para. 0053 and 0060). However, Utermoehlen fails to disclose the at least one sensor having the interdigital electrode structure as claimed. Instead, Utermoehlen discloses the coil unit (116) having six coils (500, 502, 504, 700, 702, 704 in Fig. 7) that each function as their own electrode and operate using eddy-currents (see Abstract and para. 0073 and 0075).
Utermoehlen was previously modified with Rosswurm, discussed above, to have the interdigitations substitute the coil and interference surfaces. However, this modification still lacks the interdigital electrode structure with the interdigitations of Rosswurm being arranged in parallel with one another and generating a magnetic field that is modified.
Therefore, there is no reference that teaches or discloses an injection device comprising the rotation sensing arrangement as claimed in claims 31-33 and a rotation sensing arrangement having the claimed interdigital electrode structure which is configured to generate a magnetic field for the signal generator to modify as claimed in claims 37-38.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA MARIE TURKOWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-4680. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Thurs, 7:00 AM – 4:00 PM EST.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/KAYLA M. TURKOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights