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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,2,4 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin.
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Lin (EP 3 633 399 A1 ) teaches in paragraph [0047] a magnetic sensor 10B (see Fig. 10) which has been read on the claimed "magnetic sensor"; Lin further teaches in paragraph [0048] a magnetic sensor substrate which is a chip component (see Fig. 10, 20). Paragraph [0049] teaches there is a first magnetic layer (see Fig. 10, 61) and a second magnetic layer (see Fig. 10, 62) which has been read on "a sensor chip having a first magnetic layer, a second magnetic layer"; the magnetic sensing elements R1-R4 (see Figs. 10-12) have been read on the "magnetosensitive element Application/Control Number: 17/694,284 Art Unit: 1797 Page 3 which are formed on an element formation surface"; R1-R4 are disclosed in paragraph [0056] as being disposed in the magnetic gaps G1-G4 which has been read on the claimed "the magnetosensitive element being positioned on a magnetic path formed by a magnetic gap between the first and second magnetic layers"; the first external magnetic member disclosed in paragraph [005021] (see: 30 in Figs 10-12), and the first magnetic layer 61 in Figs. 10-12 have been read on the "first magnetism collecting member covering the first magnetic layer"; the third part of the second magnetic member (see Figs. 10- 12, 43) has been read on the claimed "magnetism collecting member having a body part covering a back surface of the sensor chip positioned on a side opposite to the element formation surface thereof"; the first and second parts of the second magnetic member (see Figs. 10-12, 41 and 42 respectively) have been read on the claimed "protruding part connected to the body part and covering a side surface of the sensor chip perpendicular to the element formation surface and back surface thereof"; the overhanging parts OH1 and OH2 (see Figs. 10-12) have been read on the claimed "second protruding part connected to the first protruding part and covering the second magnetic layer, wherein the second protruding part has a first surface facing the second magnetic layer"; in the embodiment disclosed in paragraph ]0099[ and displayed in Fig 14. it can be seen that "the first surface is higher in flatness than at least one of other surfaces of the second magnetism collecting member."
Regarding claims 2, Lin shows in Fig. 12 that OH1 and OH2 directly contact 62 and 63, respectively, which are ) formed on the element forming surface 20a. Since they are touching, the distance between the first surface and the sensor chip is less than 50 µm and the magnetic sensor of Lin anticipates the claimed magnetic sensor.
Regarding claims 4 and 8-15, Lin teaches the magnetic sensor of claim 1. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0048] a magnetic sensor substrate which is a chip component (see Fig. 10, 20) which has been read on the claimed "substrate for mounting the sensor chip, the first magnetism collecting member, and the second magnetism collecting member thereon"; the overhanging parts OH1 and OH2 (see Figs. 10-12) have been read on the claimed "second magnetism collecting member further has a second surface facing the substrate"; in Fig. 12 it can be seen that the second surface of OH1 and OH2 are higher in flatness than the side surfaces of 40 which go along the z-axis, and are diagonal. This has been read on "the second surface is higher in flatness than at least one of other surfaces of the second magnetism collecting member."
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches the magnetic sensor of claim 1. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0022] that the second magnetic member 40 is made of a soft magnetic material having high permeability, such as ferrite. This has been read on the claimed "second magnetism collecting member comprises a ferrite material."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (EP 3 633 399 A1) in view of Kameno (WO 2020/175119 A1).
Lin and Kameno were both cited by the applicant in the IDS filed on 10/10/2022.
A machine translation of Kameno is attached. Lin discloses the magnetic sensor as claimed in claim 1. Lin does not explicitly disclose that the arithmetic mean of waviness WA on the first surface is 50 µm or less. Kameno discloses in paragraph [0006] minimizing the gap between the element forming surface of the sensor chip and the magnetism collector. Kameno discloses that this can be done by increasing the flatness of each surface by grinding or polishing the surface. Kameno discloses that this is done because the gap greatly affects the magnetic field detection sensitivity, so it is desirable that it be as small as possible. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a minimization of the gap between the element forming surface and the magnetism collector by increasing the flatness of Application/Control Number: 17/694,284 Art Unit: 1797 Page 6 each surface by grinding or polishing the surface, as disclosed by Kameno, with the magnetic sensor as disclosed by Lin in order minimize the effect on magnetic field detection sensitivity. Furthermore, the MPEР (§2144.04) states: "In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device." As such, the applicants claim that arithmetic mean of waviness WA on the first surface is 50 µm or less would have been anticipated by Lin in view of Kameno.
(2) Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/25 with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in the last paragraph on page 6 through page 7, Lin paragraph[0066] does not discuss the claimed “flatness” of the overhanging elements 0H1 and 0H2 in figure 14 and fails to meet this limitation of the instant claims.
The BRI the office has given to the claimed “flatness” is any change of the surface in a plane. Lin teaches in figure 14 surfaces 0H1 and 0H2 as having a top surface that slopes to lower surface/planes. The BRI interpretation of Lin has been properly read on the claimed “… the first surface is higher in flatness than at least one other surfaces … .“ Each of the surfaces 0H1 and 0H2 are sloping from the top and each subsequent plane of the surface has a lower plane/flatness.
PNG
media_image1.png
838
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 LYLE A ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-8:30-5; T,thur-6:30am-7pm; off Fri.
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.
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.
/LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797