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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/6/2025 has been entered.
The instant amendment is almost identical to the previously submitted and examined claims, with almost all amendments to the claims coming from other claims that were previously examined and rejected. Because the prior art relied upon in the instant rejection is the same, the embodiments relied upon from those prior art references are the same, and no new issues are raised, the first action final of the instant amendment is proper.
Applicant has submitted two sets of claim amendments with substantially similar amendments on 10/4/2025 and 10/6/2026. While a supplemental response is permitted, it must be made in view of any prior amendments also submitted. As such, re-amending the same claims in a similar manner as was previously done is improper as those amendments were already part of a prior claim set. It is presumed that applicant did not wish to have the amendments filed 10/4/2025 entered, and instead, desired the amended set of 10/6/2025 to be examined. All future amendments must comply with the rules set forth in the MPEP.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on page 13 directed towards the IDS,
The Examiner respectfully notes that the previous documents at issue were not considered because no written opinion or document with the listed title for the first NPL document on the IDS has been provided, and the Chinese language document was not reasonably identified in the manner required by 37 C.F.R. 1.98. The issue here is therefore not that applicant perform a translation of any document, but that no document with the listed title was provided consistent with the above rule. As such, the references at issue have not been considered.
With regard to the arguments on pages 14-18 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
As to Claim 16,
Applicant notes that the previous Office Action asserted that the previous 112(a) rejection of Claim 16 was withdrawn but then Claim 16 was rejected. The Examiner respectfully notes that the reason for this is that the issue raised in the Office Action of 6/4/2025 was different than that raised in the Office Action of 11/27/2024. The issue raised in the earlier action was withdrawn, but a new issue was then raised. That stated, the previous 112(a) rejection of this claim is withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.
As to Claim 17,
Applicant points to page 25 for support for the claim feature, but the Examiner respectfully notes that disclosing that different magnets can be associated to a single sensor element is not reasonably stating that plural magnets with overlapping fields are associated with one sensor, nor does it reasonably explain the manner in which such a feature would be implemented. What applicant is showing in Figure 3a is the presence of plural magnets in the presence of plural sensors. As such, all sensors would reasonable experience the superposition of the magnetic fields from the magnets, with any movement of the collective magnets being different for each relative sensor. However, this does not reasonably explain how any superposition or overlapping of any set of or subset of the magnets are “associated” with any particular magnetic element. Meaning, merely because the collective magnetic field will be detectable at any particular sensor does not mean that the magnetic elements are associated with any particular sensor. The magnets are no more associated with any particular sensor as they were to any or all sensors. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Claims 18 and 19,
Applicant argues that support is found in Figures 10a, 10b, and page 21, lines 12-21. On a first note, the above noted page a line numbers do not appear to line up with those of the filed specification. That stated, none of these sections, or any ability to determine a different between two sensor signals does not reasonably explain the manner in which any correction is implemented. Applicant argues the reducing of disturbances, but the Examiner respectfully notes that this is not disclosed with reference to the difference, and that merely taking a difference does not reasonably perform a correction nor explain the manner in which any correction is implemented.
Applicant then argues that the information missing is conventional technical knowledge. First, the Examiner respectfully notes that attorney argument cannot reasonably establish what was and was not conventional, as attorney argument is not evidence (see MPEP 2145(I)). Second, the Examiner respectfully notes that whether a feature was or was not conventional does not make it part of the disclosure. As explained in Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997), “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. See Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 504, 3 USPQ2d 1333, 1337 (Fed.Cir.1987) (stating that it is "not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure.... Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device.") (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 50 C.C.P.A. 1051, 314 F.2d 533, 536, 136 USPQ 647, 649-50 (1963)).” The written description requirement is such that it is the original disclosure that must reasonably demonstrate the manner in which applicant implements a claim feature in order to establish possession. To that point, without any reasonable explanation as to the manner in which applicant performed any type of correction, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize whether applicant intended to rely upon a conventional correction approach, or if applicant had invented a new approach and was relying upon the invented approach. Second, even to the extent that applicant intended to rely upon a conventional approach, the original disclosure cannot be completely silent as to the manner in which such an approach is implemented. While applicant may rely upon that which is well-known in the art and thus limit the amount of features that are disclosed, applicant must still provide some reasonable guidance as to what that well-known approach is in order to establish proper written description. For example, if applicant intended to use convergence to minimize the difference between values in order to perform some type of data correction, then applicant need only state as such. A person of ordinary skill in the art would then understand how to implement such a feature. However, when the original disclosure is completely silent, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what type of correction applicant intended, or any manner in which applicant intended to use for such a correction. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Claims 13 and 14,
While this section is directed towards 112(a), applicant argues the 112(b) rejections for the above claims. To that point, the Examiner respectfully notes that while applicant identifies the mirror-symmetrical setup, applicant does not reasonably explain, within the confines of the four corners of the application, where such an arrangement provides the claimed unambiguous association. Figure 3a shows four magnets, and each sensor will experience the superposition (combined overall magnetic field) from these four magnets. The use of these four magnets are not reasonably disclosed to provide any unambiguous association, and the original disclosure itself does not reasonably make or explain such a feature with regard to these magnets. Furthermore, even to the extent that a sensor experiences a stronger magnetic field due to a proximity to one magnet over another, this does not explain the presence or affect of the other magnets, nor does it reasonably demonstrate that any association is unambiguous. Note that an association of one object to another is not clearly limited to any form of detection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on page 19 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
No specific arguments are presented, and thus those rejections that are overcome by the instant amendments are withdrawn, and those that are not are repeated below.
With regard to the arguments on pages 20-30 directed towards the previous 102 and 103 rejections,
Applicant argues that Nakajima (US 2010/0301847) does not disclose the coating because it discloses a completely different concept because the particles are kneaded in molten thermoplastic resin and then injection molded. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that the prior art is only required to disclose that which is claimed, and there is no requirement that the prior art disclose features from the specification.
Second, Claim 1 is an apparatus claim. As explained in MPEP 2113(II), “II. ONCE A PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS FOUND AND A PRIOR ART REJECTION IS MADE, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AN NONOBVIOUS DIFFERENCE
"The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature" than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983).”
To that point, the final product of Nakajima is reasonably substantially identical to that of applicant. Applicant does not reasonably present any evidence to support that the final product using applicant’s method of manufacture would impart any different in the final product, nor provide any evidence that such a different is a “non-obvious difference.” Meaning, as explained above, it is not sufficient that applicant demonstrate that some difference exists, if such a different would even be present. Instead, applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that such a difference would also be a non-obvious difference.
Applicant then argues that atomic layer deposition and kneading molten resin are fundamentally different manufacturing approaches, along with various citations from Wikipedia. However, this does not reasonably overcome the prior art or establish that any argued difference is non-obvious. First, merely because two approaches to manufacturing are different does not reasonably mean that the final product has any structural difference. While applicant points to the melting points of the materials, the Examiner respectfully notes that this speaks to the actual materials used to form the products, and not the actual manufacturing processes themselves. Meaning, the issue here is not what actual materials were used in the final product, but rather, the issue here is whether the argued process to form the final product would yield structural distinctions. Applicant does not claim any specific type of material, and thus the claims are not limited to any particular material beyond one that can reasonable be said to be magnetic. Applicant has not presented any evidence that manufacturing process used in the prior art would yield a structurally different final product than that of applicant using applicant’s atomic layer deposition process. For example, if the same material in both processes were used, there is no evidence that the final product formed from one process would have a structural distinction from one formed from the other process. Second, none of what applicant has cited is evidence, because merely citing websites without actually providing the articles themselves is not providing evidence to support applicant’s position. Third, Wikipedia, respectfully, is not evidence because it is well recognized that this website is user-editable. Four, what applicant is presenting is attorney argument, and nothing cited reasonably coveys or explains that the two different manufacturing approaches would yield final products having structural distinctions. Lastly, even to the extent that the final products did have structural distinctions, applicant ha snot presented any evidence, as required, that these differences would be non-obvious.
Applicant then argues that Gao et al. (Gao) (US 2019/0068008) does not teach the use of atomic layer deposition to form a magnetic structure out of particles. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, whether Gao does or does not form a magnet using particles is not at issue, and Gao is not relied upon for such a feature. The purpose of Gao is to demonstrate that the process of forming an overall magnet using the approach in Nakajima and the process of using atomic deposition to form a magnet was obvious. The test here is not whether the actual materials used in the process are different, but whether the overall processes themselves are obvious when used to form a magnet. Gao reasonably demonstrates that these processes are obvious, where it explains that “The hybrid permanent magnet 100 may also be assembled via integration such as injection or compression molding. More specifically, M1 magnet powder may be melted together and injected onto the M2 magnets 104a-b or the M2 magnets 104a-b may be brought into atomic contact with the M1 magnet 102 via force and/or heat (atomic layer deposition)” (Paragraph [0034]). Such an explanation demonstrates that it was obvious to use either the type of injection molding disclosed by Nakajima to form a magnet, or to use the type of atomic layer deposition to form it, similar to that of applicant. Based on this evidence, no nonobvious difference would exist between the approach used by Nakajima and the atomic layer deposition as claimed by applicant.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that atomic deposition is not used to form a magnetic structural out of particles. Gao expressly states that the magnets include a powder and use atomic deposition to from the magnets. As such, Gao must include the argued features.
Applicant then argues that an interpretation the magnets M1 and M2 have coated particles is not reasonable, but the Examiner respectfully notes that no coated particles are claimed, and to the extent that the atomic deposition processes provides such a feature, then by using atomic deposition to form magnets formed from powder, which must include particles as powder is nothing more than a bunch of particles, then Gao’s process must include the coating as claimed. While coated particles are not claimed, the atomic deposition process, is reasonably demonstrated by Gao to be an obvious variant of the process of Nakajima when forming a magnet. As such, no non-obviousness reasonably exists between these processes.
Applicant then notes the amended range of values in the claim, but the Examiner respectfully notes that these features were previously rejected and stand rejected as being obvious for the same reasons previously noted.
Lastly, applicant notes Bickford et al. (Bickford) (US 2017/0097394), but this reference as not relied upon for any atomic deposition. Applicant admits that there are many size options disclosed in the prior art, and then Examiner acknowledges this and notes this is evidence that these dimensions are result effective variables. Applicant further notes that the prior art does not disclose manufacturing a micromagnet using atomic layer deposition on magnetic particles, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a feature is not required in the claim. As explained above, using atomic deposition is at most an obvious approach to that one relied upon in the prior art, and there is no evidence that this approach would necessarily provide a difference in the final product as opposed to the process used in the prior art. The prior art combination otherwise discloses a magnet of the claimed size, and where the magnet includes particles as explained in the rejection found below and in the response above. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 26-28 directed towards Claim 39,
Almost the entirety of the arguments are directed towards Nakamura, but this claim (and previous Claim 40), were rejected by Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437) and not Nakamura. Xue discloses the claim feature for the reasons explained below.
The only argument directed towards Xue is that Xue does not suggest an amplitude ratio. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xue discloses an amplitude of a magnetic field of a permanent-magnetic element of the other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements is at most 10 % of an amplitude of the magnetic field of a the one permanent-magnetic element at the position of the sensor element (Figure 13), (Paragraphs [0063],[0086],[0087]).
Xue is stated to disclose the above claim feature because magnets 504,512, and 522 are reasonably spaced apart such that their own respective magnetic sensors can detect their movement, as such, it is reasonable to conclude that any affect these magnetic elements have on the sensors of other corresponding magnetic elements is insignificant and at most 10% as claimed, because magnetic sensor elements spaced apart by 1 micron would not reasonably, as a function of distance, have any appreciable effect on each other as magnetic field amplitudes decrease by the formula 1/r^3.
As such, whether Xue explicitly discloses the amplitude or not does not preclude it from disclosing it implicitly or inherently. Xue reasonably discloses this feature for the reasons stated above. Even to the extent that Xue does not disclose the feature, the Examiner has already previously explained why such a feature is obvious. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 28-30 directed towards Claim 41 directed towards Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437) in view of view of Shoji (US 2007/0119253),
On a first note, the argued mirror symmetric feature is not positively recited in the claim. The mirror-symmetric arrangement is expressly claimed to be “in a rest position of the microsystem.” This phrase is the same as reciting that the mirror-symmetric arrangement occurs when the system is in a rest position. However, there is no requirement for the rest position, and the prior art system will, in use, not be in a rest position when the magnets are moving. As such, the prior art can reasonably be stated to disclose the claim feature when the device is not in the rest position. However, for completeness, the rejection below address the mirror symmetric feature in the situation that the device is in a rest position.
Applicant first argues that Shoji does not disclose any advantage to arrangement magnets and sensors in a mirror symmetric manner. There is no requirement that the prior art provide explicit motivation for an explicit feature as is essentially argued by applicant. Instead, Shoji states that by having the magnets and sensors in the disclosed manner, a benefit exists, such as the ability to downsize the sensor (paragraph [0083]). An additional benefit is also provided by providing a physical and processing configuration that ensures that the movement in a direction is correctly detected by the correct sensors such that sensors for detecting other directions have outputs that cancel each other out, thus minimizing errors in detection (see paragraphs [0163],[0164]).
Applicant then argues that Xue teaches an in-plane sensor arrangement while Shoji teaches an out of plane arrangement. However, both sensor systems function in a similar manner, and whether an in-plane or out of plane system were used, the combination would still reasonably detect the intended magnetic fields. Applicant, respectfully, has not reasonably presented evidence or argument demonstration that the combination would not reasonably function as intended.
Applicant the asks how a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a benefit from a mirror-symmetry, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a question does not reasonably demonstrate non-obviousness, nor does it address the express motivations provided in the previous rejections.
Applicant then asks why a person skilled in the art would considering mirroring the 522,526, and 525 configuration of Xue, but this again, respectfully, does not reasonably demonstrate non-obviousness, nor does it address the express motivations provided in the previous rejections. Applicant states there is no motivation, but applicant, respectfully, is not one skilled in the art, and instead what applicant is presenting attorney argument but where evidence is required (see MPEP 2145(I)).
Applicant argues that Shoji discloses the downsize of the sensor is with regard to the GMR elements having the same magnetization directions and not a mirror-symmetrical setup. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as it is reasonably the entirety of the setup that provides such a benefit, and not merely one specific feature. That stated, this argument does not address the other motivation previously presented.
Applicant then argues that the combination would teach away, because the working principle of the embodiment would require a change to Xue. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably explain why the combination would not work as intended, even if any change were made, and the Examiner further respectfully disagrees. Both references are directed towards a similar type of movement detection, and merely because a different approach were implemented, in the combination, does not mean that the combination would not work as intended. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant, as the prior art combination would reasonably work as intended, regardless of whether the location of the magnets were different in the combination than as disclosed in Xue. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17, 18, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a first permanent-magnetic element for generating a first magnetic field associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and a second permanent-magnetic element for generating a second magnetic field associated to the second permanent-magnetic element, for providing at least respective partial portions of the magnetic field; the sensor unit comprising a sensor element associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and the second permanent-magnetic element and the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to detect overlapping of the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field” on lines 1-7 lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant implements the above claim feature using two magnets and a sensor element that is itself configured to detect overlapping magnetic fields from the two magnets. In each of applicant’s described embodiments, a single sensor is associated with a corresponding magnet, or plural sensors are associated with an associated magnet. The issue here is not whether plural magnets could be associated with one sensor element, but rather the manner in which applicant would implement such an embodiment. Applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which two magnets are positioned or otherwise implemented together to allow a sensor element to detect them. Further, applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the sensor would be implemented and located relative to these magnets in order to implement the claim feature. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements the claim feature in order to establish possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 18,
The phrase “the sensor unit comprises at least one sensor element, wherein each sensor element is configured to provide an associated measuring signal, the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to correct disturbing influences on the at least one sensor element at least partly” on lines 1-4 lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that the disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any component corrects disturbing influences. The original disclosure does not provide any explanation as to the manner in which the device uses the reference sensor output to make a correction. The disclosure does not provide reasonable guidance as to what would be considered a correction and the manner in which such a correction is implemented. Applicant provides no flow charts, formulas, or other reasonable explanation to reasonably establish possession of this claim feature. Merely stating that a correction is done without further guidance as to the manner in which this correction is implemented does not reasonably demonstrate possession.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “the sensor unit comprises a reference sensor element configured to detect a reference magnetic field and provide a reference signal, the sensor unit being configured to adjust the measuring signal or the sensor signal using the reference signal to correct the disturbing influences at least partly” on lines 1-4 lacks proper written description.
1) At issue here is that the disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any component corrects disturbing influences. The original disclosure does not provide any explanation as to the manner in which the device uses the reference sensor output to make a correction. While applicant is claiming that the sensor unit is configured to adjust the measuring signal or sensor signal using the reference signal, applicant provides no guidance as to the manner in which these signals are adjusted to correct disturbing influences. The disclosure does not provide reasonable guidance as to what would be considered a correction and the manner in which such a correction is implemented. Applicant provides no flow charts, formulas, or other reasonable explanation to reasonably establish possession of this claim feature. Merely stating that a correction is done without further guidance as to the manner in which this correction is implemented does not reasonably demonstrate possession.
2) As best understood, the sensor unit is comprised of any one or more of the actual sensors of the disclosure, such as a Hall sensor. However, such a device is not reasonably capable of performing the claimed correction. While applicant does disclose a sensor means that can include an ASIC, the claim language does not reasonably include or require the sensor unit to be the disclosed sensor means. To the extent that the sensor unit is not the sensor means, the Examiner acknowledges that applicant connects two sensors to a calculation unit in Figure 11, but such a calculation unit is not reasonably part of the sensor unit. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the sensor unit itself performs or is capable of performing the above correction, in that there is no disclosure as the manner in which the sensor unit itself is capable of this function. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 19, 20, and 23,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 13, 14, 17, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the distance to one another relates to a pair of the one and another one of the other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements of the plurality of permanent- magnetic elements and is at least 50 μm for each pair of the one and the other one permanent-magnetic elements; or at least double a lateral dimension of the one or the other one permanent-magnetic element along a direction between the one permanent-magnetic element and the other one permanent-magnetic element” on lines 1-7 is indefinite.
Reciting “a distance to one another of a pair of the one and another one of the other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements of the plurality of permanent- magnetic elements” is redefining the distance already defined in Claim 7. Claim 7 also recites that the distance to one another is a distance from one magnet to another. As such, the magnets are all arranged at the claimed distance, one from each other. Claim 9 then states that a distance to one another of a pair formed from the previous recited “one” magnet and “another one” of the permanent magnets. Such a recitation no longer limits the distance to be from one magnet to another, as an adjacent magnet does not have to be one that is immediately adjacent. To the extent that applicant intends the phrase to mean immediately adjacent, Claim 7 already reasonably discloses an captures all possible adjacent magnets by reciting the one permanent magnetic element and other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements in Claim 7. Such a recitation would reasonably include all possible adjacent magnets to the one permanent magnetic element. No “another” permanent magnetic element would therefore exist to be the another element as recited in Claim 9.
As to Claims 13 and 14,
The phrase “wherein exactly one sensor element is associated unambiguously to each permanent-magnetic element of the number of permanent-magnetic elements” on lines 4-6 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what is meant by the sensor element being unambiguously associated to each magnet. It is unclear what specific structure limitation this feature imparts on the claim. It is unclear if merely having a clear relationship between a sensor and magnet is sufficient, or if such a limitation requires more than this relation.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a first permanent-magnetic element for generating a first magnetic field associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and a second permanent-magnetic element for generating a second magnetic field associated to the second permanent-magnetic element; the sensor unit comprising a sensor element associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and the second permanent-magnetic element and the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to detect overlapping of the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field” on lines 1-9 is indefinite.
Applicant is reciting a first and second magnetic field in the above phrase. Claim 1 already recites a magnetic field generated by the magnetic unit. These fields are being distinctly recited, but where they are not distinct as the field generated by the unit would reasonably include the field from any particular element of the unit. As such, this phrase is unclear.
As to Claim 41,
The phrase “wherein exactly one sensor element is associated unambiguously to each permanent-magnetic element of the number of permanent-magnetic elements” on lines 13-15 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what is meant by the sensor element being unambiguously associated to each magnet. It is unclear what specific structure limitation this feature imparts on the claim. It is unclear if merely having a clear relationship between a sensor and magnet is sufficient, or if such a limitation requires more than this relation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437).
As to Claim 39,
PNG
media_image1.png
524
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xue discloses A microsystem comprising: a first support element (508 or 608) and a second support element (500 or 600) (Figures 13 or 14), wherein a relative position of the first support element and the second support element relative to each other is variable (Paragraphs [0087],[0088] or [0090] / note cantilever 520 or 602 deflects and thus changes the relative position of the first and second support element); the first support element is formed as a plate element (Figure 14), a permanent-magnetic unit (504 or 604) integrated in the first support element in a mechanically fixed manner and configured to generate a magnetic field (Paragraphs [0087],[0110] or [0090],[0110] / note the magnetic field emitter can be a permanent magnet, and the magnet is reasonably “integrated in” the above first support as it is inside the plate and integrated with the plate), (Figures 13 or 14); a sensor unit (506 or 606) connected to the second support element in a mechanically fixed manner and configured to detect the magnetic field and to provide a sensor signal which is based on the magnetic field (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060], [0087], [0110] or [0060],[0090],[0110] / note the sensor provide an electrical output associated with the movement of the magnet); wherein the sensor signal indicates the relative position of the support elements relative to each other ((Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060], [0087], [0110] or (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060],[0090],[0110] / note the sensor provide an electrical output associated with the movement of the magnet), the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a plurality of permanent-magnetic elements for providing at least respective partial portions of the magnetic field, which are arranged at a distance to one another such that a detection of a magnetic field of one permanent-magnetic element of the plurality of permanent-magnetic elements at a position of a sensor element of the one or more sensor elements is influenced by fields of adjacent permanent- magnetic elements of the plurality of permanent-magnetic elements at most to an insignificant extent (Figure 13), (Paragraph [0087] / magnets 504,512, and 522 are reasonably spaced apart such that their own respective magnetic sensors can detect their movement, as such, it is reasonable to conclude that any affect these magnetic elements have on the sensors of other corresponding magnetic elements is insignificant), an amplitude of a magnetic field of a permanent-magnetic element of the other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements is at most 10 % of an amplitude of the magnetic field of a the one permanent-magnetic element at the position of the sensor element (Figure 13), (Paragraphs [0063],[0086],[0087]).
Xue is stated to disclose the above claim feature because magnets 504,512, and 522 are reasonably spaced apart such that their own respective magnetic sensors can detect their movement, as such, it is reasonable to conclude that any affect these magnetic elements have on the sensors of other corresponding magnetic elements is insignificant and at most 10% as claimed, because magnetic sensor elements spaced apart by 1 micron would not reasonably, as a function of distance, have any appreciable effect on each other as magnetic field amplitudes decrease by the formula 1/r^3.
Only to the extent that it is held that Xue does not disclose the above claim feature, Xue explains that different distances between the magnetic elements can be implemented (Paragraph [0063]), thus demonstrating that such a feature is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xue to include positioning the magnetic elements at a distance such that an amplitude of a magnetic field of a permanent-magnetic element of the other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements is at most 10 % of an amplitude of the magnetic field of a the one permanent-magnetic element at the position of the sensor element given the above disclosure and teaching of Xue in order to advantageously reduce detection error so as to ensure that each sensor only detects the magnetic element that it is assigned to as explained in paragraph [0086], and because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)” (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437) in view of Nakajima (US 2010/0301847) and Bickford et al. (Bickford) (US 2017/0097394).
As to Claims 1, 2, 25, 31, and 32,
Xue discloses A microsystem comprising: a first support element (508 or 608) and a second support element (500 or 600) (Figures 13 or 14), wherein a relative position of the first support element and the second support element relative to each other is variable (Paragraphs [0087],[0088] or [0090] / note cantilever 520 or 602 deflects and thus changes the relative position of the first and second support element); a permanent-magnetic unit (504 or 604) connected to the first support element in a mechanically fixed manner and configured to generate a magnetic field (Paragraphs [0087],[0110] or [0090],[0110] / note the magnetic field emitter can be a permanent magnet), (Figures 13 or 14); a sensor unit (506 or 606) connected to the second support element in a mechanically fixed manner and configured to detect the magnetic field and to provide a sensor signal which is based on the magnetic field (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060], [0087], [0110] or [0060],[0090],[0110] / note the sensor provide an electrical output associated with the movement of the magnet); wherein the sensor signal indicates the relative position of the support elements relative to each other ((Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060], [0087], [0110] or (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060],[0090],[0110] / note the sensor provide an electrical output associated with the movement of the magnet), the permanent-magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element (604) (Paragraphs [0013],[0090]), the permanent-magnetic element comprising a first translatory dimension perpendicularly to a thickness direction z and a second, perpendicular translatory dimension (Figure 14).
Xue does not disclose the permanent- magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element comprising a plurality of particles connected among one another to form a fixed three-dimensional structure by means of a coating, the permanent- magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element comprising a plurality of particles connected among one another to form a fixed three-dimensional structure by means of atomic layer deposition, the first translatory and/or second translatory dimension a comprise a value of at least 20 μm and at most 2000 μm, wherein the first support element and the second support element, in a rest position of the microsystem, comprise a distance of at least 10 μm and at most 2000 μm, the first support element is connected to the second support element via at least one spring element, the at least one spring element presets an advantageous direction of movement for changing the relative position.
Nakajima discloses the permanent- magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element comprising a plurality of particles connected among one another to form a fixed three-dimensional structure by means of a coating (Paragraph [0054]), the permanent- magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element comprising a plurality of particles connected among one another to form a fixed three-dimensional structure (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xue to include the permanent- magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element comprising a plurality of particles connected among one another to form a fixed three-dimensional structure by means of a coating, the permanent- magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element comprising a plurality of particles connected among one another to form a fixed three-dimensional structure by means of atomic layer deposition given the above disclosure and teaching of Nakajima in order to advantageously be able to precisely control the shape of the magnet when forming it, and to advantageously ensure that the magnet has the exact amount of magnetizability necessary for the desired function.
Bickford discloses wherein the first translatory and/or second translatory dimension a comprise a value of at least 20 μm and at most 2000 μm (Paragraphs [0045],[0058],[0074] / note the proof mass can be the dipole, and the proof mass has dimensions in the claimed range), wherein the first support element and the second support element, in a rest position of the microsystem, comprise a distance of at least 10 μm and at most 2000 μm (Figure 2 / note when the first support element is 132 and the second support element is 210, the distance from each other must be within the above range as the height of the proof mass is 500 μm, and the bottom of the proof mass to the top of 210 must therefore be within the above range), the first support element (132 portion between 120 and 134)) is connected to the second support element (210) via at least one spring element (132 portion between 134 and 210) (Paragraph [0044]) , the at least one spring element presets an advantageous direction of movement for changing the relative position (Paragraph [0044] / note the point of the sprints is to constrain the movement of the proof-mass and thus preset it).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xue in view of Nakajima to include wherein the first translatory and/or second translatory dimension a comprise a value of at least 20 μm and at most 2000 μm, wherein the first support element and the second support element, in a rest position of the microsystem, comprise a distance of at least 10 μm and at most 2000 μm, the first support element is connected to the second support element via at least one spring element, the at least one spring element presets an advantageous direction of movement for changing the relative position as taught by Bickford in order to advantageously utilize a large enough proof mass to ensure has large enough detection sensitivity, and to ensure that the above supports are separated by a sufficient distance to so that they do not become damaged by coming into contact with each other, and to ensure that the magnet is located as intended and remains in the desired position to ensure proper detection).
(Note that the phrase “by means of atomic layer deposition” does not overcome the prior art rejection because this feature is a product by process feature, and where such a process does not reasonably impact a non-obvious difference over the final product in the prior art combination. See MPEP 2113).
As to Claim 4,
Xue discloses the permanent- magnetic unit comprises at least one permanent-magnetic element structurally integrated in the first support element (Figure 14), (Paragraphs [0090],[0110]).
As to Claim 5,
Xue discloses the first support material comprises a semiconductor material, glass material or ceramic material (Paragraph [0125]), and the permanent-magnetic element is arranged in a recess of the first support element (Figure 14),
As to Claim 6,
Xue discloses the sensor unit comprises one or more sensor elements configured to provide one or more measuring signals, in order to provide the sensor signal (Figure 14), (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060],[0090],[0110] / note the measuring signal can be any individual signal from a sensor, and the sensor signal can be any other signal from any other sensor, or one derived from a sensor output, such as one representing a determined position).
As to Claim 7,
Xue discloses the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a plurality of permanent-magnetic elements for providing at least respective partial portions of the magnetic field, which are arranged at a distance to one another such that a detection of a magnetic field of one permanent-magnetic element of the plurality of permanent-magnetic elements at a position of a sensor element of the one or more sensor elements is influenced by fields of adjacent permanent- magnetic elements of the plurality of permanent-magnetic elements at most to an insignificant extent (Figure 13), (Paragraph [0087] / magnets 504,512, and 522 are reasonably spaced apart such that their own respective magnetic sensors can detect their movement, as such, it is reasonable to conclude that any affect these magnetic elements have on the sensors of other corresponding magnetic elements is insignificant).
As to Claim 8,
Xue discloses an amplitude of a magnetic field of a permanent-magnetic element of the other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements is at most 10 % when compared to an amplitude of the magnetic field of a the one permanent-magnetic element at the position of the sensor element of the one or more sensor elements (Figure 13), (Paragraph [0087] / magnets 504,512, and 522 are reasonably spaced apart such that their own respective magnetic sensors can detect their movement, as such, it is reasonable to conclude that any affect these magnetic elements have on the sensors of other corresponding magnetic elements is insignificant and at most 10% as claimed, and further note that the above claim requires that the above at most 10% condition be invoked “when compared to an amplitude of a magnetic field of another magnetic element. No such comparing is required, and thus the prior art also discloses this feature when no comparison is made).
As to Claim 9,
Xue discloses a distance to one another of a pair of the one and another one of the other adjacent permanent-magnetic elements of the plurality of permanent- magnetic elements is at least 50 μm for each pair of the one and the other one permanent-magnetic elements; or at least double a lateral dimension of the one or the other one permanent-magnetic element along a direction between the one permanent-magnetic element and the other one permanent-magnetic element (Figure 13 / note the magnets are spaced by at least a lateral dimension of any magnet).
As to Claim 10,
Xue discloses wherein respective partial portions of the magnetic field provided by the other adjacent permanent- magnetic elements comprise a mutually different magnetic field orientation (Paragraph [0110]), (Figure 13 / note that setting the magnetic field in-plane with respect to the detector element would reasonably reference the direction of each magnetic field to the magnetic field detector. Because the detection arrangements are rotated 90 degrees, any two adjacent fields would have different directions. Also note the different direction field occurs when the cantilevers move, thus changing the magnetic field orientation of one magnet relative to another).
As to Claim 11,
Xue discloses at least a part of the permanent-magnetic elements, relative to sensor elements of the sensor unit, is arranged in a plane of the change of the relative position (Figure 13 / note the plane in parallel to the top surface of 500, and note the arrows indicating the change in in position).
As to Claim 12,
Xue discloses the change of the relative position is in a plane, wherein at least a part of the permanent-magnetic elements, relative to sensor elements of the sensor unit, is arranged perpendicularly to the plane (Figure 13 / note the plane in parallel to the top surface of 500, and note the arrows indicating the change in in position, and note that because the magnetic elements are three dimensional objects, they must have a dimension that is perpendicular to the plane).
As to Claim 26,
Xue discloses the first support element is shiftable relatively in a translatory manner relative to the second support element along at least one axis and/or is tiltable relatively to the second support element (Figure 14), (Paragraph [0090]).
As to Claim 28,
Xue discloses the sensor unit comprises at least one sensor element implemented as a Hall sensor, AMR sensor, GMR sensor or MAGFET (Paragraph [0009]).
As to Claim 29,
Xue discloses wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one sensor element and the sensor element and an evaluating circuit of the sensor unit form an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (Paragraphs [0119],[0120] / note the electronic circuit is an ASIC).
As to Claim 30,
Xue discloses the first support element is a movable support element and the second support element comprises a substrate so that the sensor signal indicates a position of the movable support element relative to the substrate (Figures 13,14).
As to Claim 33,
Xue discloses the first support element or the second support element is formed as a plate element (Figure 14).
As to Claim 34,
Xue in view of Nakajima in the utilized embodiment does not disclose the plate element is a mirror.
Xue discloses in another embodiment that it is known to use the MEMS device as a micro-mirror (Paragraph [0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xue in view of Nakajima to include the plate element is a mirror given the above disclosure and teaching of Xue in order to advantageously be able to providing optical scanning without the need for contact between the moving object and sensor, thereby minimize wear.
As to Claim 35,
Xue discloses a direction of a change of the relative position is based on: at least an orientation of a spring element between the first support element and the second support element; or at least an axis of rotation for allowing rotation of the first support element or the second support element; or at least a limitation surface or limitation edge along which a movement of the first support element and/or the second support element is preset (Figure 14 / note the limitation surface or edge that change is based on can be the portion of 600 that the cantilever 602 is attached to or the cantilever itself).
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437) in view of Nakajima (US 2010/0301847) and Bickford et al. (Bickford) (US 2017/0097394) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Shoji (US 2007/0119253).
As to Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17,
Xue discloses wherein the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a number of at least one permanent-magnetic element for generating a magnetic field associated to the permanent-magnetic element; wherein the sensor unit comprises a corresponding number of sensor elements, wherein exactly one sensor element is associated unambiguously to each permanent-magnetic element of the number of permanent-magnetic elements (Figure 13 / note that regardless of the arrangement, each sensor element is associated with the corresponding permanent magnet), (Paragraph [0087] / note magnets 504,512, and 522), the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a plurality of permanent-magnetic elements for generating magnetic fields each associated to the permanent-magnetic elements; wherein the sensor unit comprises a corresponding plurality of sensor elements, wherein exactly one sensor element is associated unambiguously to each permanent-magnetic element of the plurality of permanent-magnetic elements (Figure 13 / note that regardless of the arrangement, each sensor element is associated with the corresponding permanent magnet), (Paragraph [0087] / note magnets 504,512, and 522).
Xue in view of Nakajima and Bickford does not disclose the permanent- magnetic elements are arranged to be opposite the sensor elements, and wherein the permanent-magnetic elements are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to the sensor elements, in a rest position of the microsystem, the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a number of one or more permanent-magnetic elements for generating one or more magnetic fields associated to the permanent magnetic elements for providing at least respective one or more partial portions of the magnetic field; wherein the sensor unit comprises a number of two or more sensor elements, wherein at least a first and a second sensor element of the number of two or more sensor elements are associated to each permanent-magnetic element of the number of one or more permanent-magnetic elements, the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to provide the sensor signal based on an at least differential evaluation of the magnetic field by a measurement at least with the first sensor element and the second sensor element, the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a first permanent-magnetic element for generating a first magnetic field associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and a second permanent-magnetic element for generating a second magnetic field associated to the second permanent-magnetic element, for providing, at least respective partial portions of the magnetic field; the sensor unit comprising a sensor element associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and the second permanent-magnetic element and the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to detect overlapping of the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field.
Shoji discloses the permanent- magnetic elements are arranged to be opposite the sensor elements, and wherein the permanent-magnetic elements are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to the sensor elements, in a rest position of the microsystem (Figure 19 / note the magnets and sensors are mirror symmetric), the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a number of one or more permanent-magnetic elements (note 192a,192b) for generating one or more magnetic fields associated to the permanent magnetic elements for providing at least respective one or more partial portions of the magnetic field (Figure 19); wherein the sensor unit comprises a number of two or more sensor elements (each of 193a-d,194a-d) (Figure 21), wherein at least a first and a second sensor element of the number of two or more sensor elements are associated to each permanent-magnetic element of the number of one or more permanent-magnetic elements (Figures 19-21 / note two elements can be selected to be associated with a permanent magnet, such as elements 193b,d being associated with 192a), the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to provide the sensor signal based on an at least differential evaluation of the magnetic field by a measurement at least with the first sensor element and the second sensor element (Paragraph [0163] / note a differential measurement is made due to the use of the full bridge, and because the sensor unit can be said to include the amplifier that takes a differential measurement, where the output of the amplifier is the sensor signal), the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a first permanent-magnetic element (top magnet of 192a2)) for generating a first magnetic field associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and a second permanent-magnetic element (bottom magnet of 192a2) for generating a second magnetic field associated to the second permanent-magnetic element, for providing, at least respective partial portions of the magnetic field (Figures 19-21); the sensor unit comprising a sensor element (193b or 193b,d) associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and the second permanent-magnetic element and the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to detect overlapping of the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field (Figures 19-21 / note that this element detects the combination, and thus overlap, of the magnetic fields from the two magnets), (Paragraph [0153]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xue in view of Nakajima and Bickford to include the permanent- magnetic elements are arranged to be opposite the sensor elements, and wherein the permanent-magnetic elements are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to the sensor elements, in a rest position of the microsystem, the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a number of one or more permanent-magnetic elements for generating one or more magnetic fields associated to the permanent magnetic elements for providing at least respective one or more partial portions of the magnetic field; wherein the sensor unit comprises a number of two or more sensor elements, wherein at least a first and a second sensor element of the number of two or more sensor elements are associated to each permanent-magnetic element of the number of one or more permanent-magnetic elements, the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to provide the sensor signal based on an at least differential evaluation of the magnetic field by a measurement at least with the first sensor element and the second sensor element, the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a first permanent-magnetic element for generating a first magnetic field associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and a second permanent-magnetic element for generating a second magnetic field associated to the second permanent-magnetic element, for providing, at least respective partial portions of the magnetic field; the sensor unit comprising a sensor element associated to the first permanent-magnetic element and the second permanent-magnetic element and the sensor unit being sensor means comprising calculation means configured to detect overlapping of the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field as taught by Shoji in order to advantageously utilize a configuration for the magnets and sensors that allows the sensor to be made smaller (downsized) (Paragraphs [0157],[0162]), and in order to be provide a physical and processing configuration that ensures that the movement in a direction is correctly detected by the correct sensors such that sensors for detecting other directions have outputs that cancel each other out, thus minimizing errors in detection (see paragraphs [0163],[0164]).
Claims 18, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437) in view of Nakajima (US 2010/0301847) and Bickford et al. (Bickford) (US 2017/0097394) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Ostrick et al. (Ostrick) (US 2017/0184687).
As to Claims 18, 19, 20, and 23,
Xue discloses wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one sensor element, wherein each sensor element is configured to provide an associated measuring signal (Figures 13 or 14), (Paragraphs [0087] or [0090],[0110]).
Xue in view of Nakajima and Bickford does not disclose the sensor unit being configured to correct disturbing influences on the at least one sensor element at least partly, wherein the sensor unit comprises a reference sensor element configured to detect a reference magnetic field and provide a reference signal, the sensor unit being configured to adjust the measuring signal or the sensor signal using the reference signal to correct the disturbing influences at least partly, wherein the reference magnetic field is an environmental magnetic field of the microsystem, the reference signal is essentially uninfluenced by a change in the relative position.
Ostrick discloses the sensor unit being configured to correct disturbing influences on the at least one sensor element at least partly (Paragraph [0038]), wherein the sensor unit comprises a reference sensor element (third sensor) configured to detect a reference magnetic field and provide a reference signal (Paragraph [0039]), the sensor unit being configured to adjust the measuring signal or the sensor signal using the reference signal to correct the disturbing influences at least partly (Paragraph [0038] / note the output of the third sensor must at least partially be used to correct and adjust the other sensor data to account for the Earth’s magnetic field), wherein the reference magnetic field is an environmental magnetic field of the microsystem (Paragraphs [0007],[0038]), the reference signal is essentially uninfluenced by a change in the relative position (Paragraph [0038],[0039] / note the third sensor detects the Earth’s magnetic field and not another magnetic field).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xue in view of Nakajima and Bickford to include the sensor unit being configured to correct disturbing influences on the at least one sensor element at least partly, wherein the sensor unit comprises a reference sensor element configured to detect a reference magnetic field and provide a reference signal, the sensor unit being configured to adjust the measuring signal or the sensor signal using the reference signal to correct the disturbing influences at least partly, wherein the reference magnetic field is an environmental magnetic field of the microsystem, the reference signal is essentially uninfluenced by a change in the relative position as taught by Ostrick in order to advantageously increase the accuracy of the other measurements (Paragraph [0038]).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (Xue) (US 2007/0209437) in view of view of Shoji (US 2007/0119253).
As to Claim 41,
Xue discloses A microsystem comprising: a first support element (508 or 608) and a second support element (500 or 600) (Figures 13 or 14), wherein a relative position of the first support element and the second support element relative to each other is variable (Paragraphs [0087],[0088] or [0090] / note cantilever 520 or 602 deflects and thus changes the relative position of the first and second support element); a permanent-magnetic unit (504 or 604) connected to the first support element in a mechanically fixed manner and configured to generate a magnetic field (Paragraphs [0087],[0110] or [0090],[0110] / note the magnetic field emitter can be a permanent magnet), (Figures 13 or 14); a sensor unit (506 or 606) connected to the second support element in a mechanically fixed manner and configured to detect the magnetic field and to provide a sensor signal which is based on the magnetic field (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060], [0087], [0110] or [0060],[0090],[0110] / note the sensor provide an electrical output associated with the movement of the magnet); wherein the sensor signal indicates the relative position of the support elements relative to each other ((Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060], [0087], [0110] or (Abstract),(Paragraphs [0060],[0090],[0110] / note the sensor provide an electrical output associated with the movement of the magnet), wherein the permanent- magnetic unit comprises a number of at least one permanent-magnetic element for generating a magnetic field associated to the permanent-magnetic element; wherein the sensor unit comprises a corresponding number of sensor elements, wherein exactly one sensor element is associated unambiguously to each permanent-magnetic element of the number of permanent-magnetic elements (Figure 13 / note that regardless of the arrangement, each sensor element is associated with the corresponding permanent magnet), (Paragraph [0087] / note magnets 504,512, and 522).
Xue does not disclose the permanent- magnetic elements are arranged to be opposite the sensor elements and wherein the permanent-magnetic elements are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to the sensor elements, in a rest position of the microsystem.
Shoji discloses the permanent- magnetic elements are arranged to be opposite the sensor elements, and wherein the permanent-magnetic elements are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to the sensor elements, in a rest position of the microsystem (Figure 19 / note the magnets and sensors are mirror symmetric).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Xue to include the permanent- magnetic elements are arranged to be opposite the sensor elements, and wherein the permanent-magnetic elements are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to the sensor elements, in a rest position of the microsystem, as taught by Shoji in order to advantageously utilize a configuration for the magnets and sensors that allows the sensor to be made smaller (downsized) (Paragraphs [0157],[0162]), and in order to be provide a physical and processing configuration that ensures that the movement in a direction is correctly detected by the correct sensors such that sensors for detecting other directions have outputs that cancel each other out, thus minimizing errors in detection (see paragraphs [0163],[0164]).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights