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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/14/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s filing of claims 4/15/26 is acknowledged. Claim 7 was canceled. Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are pending and are under examination.
Claim Interpretation
The Office asserts that a “wherein” clause may have a limiting effect on a claim if the language limits the claim to a particular structure. MPEP 2111.04. The determination of whether a “wherein” clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. While all words in each claim are considered in judging the patentability of the claim language, including functional claim limitations, not all limitations provide a patentable distinction.
During patent examination, the examined claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless a term has been given a special definition in the specification (“BRI”). See MPEP 2111.
Prior Art Rejections
In light of applicant’s claim amendments, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new rejection follows.
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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kameno (WO 2020/175119 A1, previously cited). Prior art rejection is based on the English translation of Kameno filed 6/25/25.
As to claims 1 and 12-14, Kameno discloses a magnetic sensor comprising: a sensor chip (20, Fig. 1) having an element formation surface (20a, fig. 2)), a back surface (see back surface of 20 which is adjacent to fixing jig 82 in fig. 6) opposite to the element formation surface, and a side surface (see side surface of 20 below reference numeral 20 in fig. 6) perpendicular to the element formation surface and the back surface, the sensor chip further having a first magnetic layer (21, 22 and/or 23 in fig. 2) and a second magnetic layer (21, 22 and/or 23 in fig. 2) formed on the element formation surface, and a magnetosensitive element (R1, R2, R2 and/or R4 in fig. 2) formed on the element formation surface and positioned on a magnetic path (see fig. 2, [0027] et seq.) formed by a magnetic gap (see fig. 2, [0027] et seq.) between the first and second magnetic layers; a first magnetism collecting member (30, 41 and/or 42 in figs. 1 and 2) covering the first magnetic layer; and a second magnetism collecting member (30, 41 and/or 42 in figs. 1 and 2) having a body part covering the back surface of the sensor chip, a first protruding part (part of 41 covering the side of 20 in fig. 2) connected to the body part and covering the side surface of the sensor chip, and a second protruding part (OH1 in fig. 2) connected to the first protruding part and covering the second magnetic layer, wherein the second protruding part has a first surface (the surface of OH1 facing 22 in fig. 2) facing the second magnetic layer.
With regard to claims 1 and 12-14, Kameno does not specifically disclose the first surface has a higher degree of flatness than that of at least one of other surfaces of the second magnetism collecting member. However, Kameno discloses the flatness of surfaces 31 and 32 of the magnetism collector 30 is higher than the flatness of other surfaces 33 to 36 (e.g., [0033] et seq.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the flatness of the surfaces of OH1 and OH2 contacting magnetic layers 22 and 23 to ensure the surfaces adhere to each other with almost no space, which would reduce fluctuations in detection sensitivity (Kameno, [0033] et seq.).
As to claim 2, Kameno discloses the surfaces of OH1 and OH2 are in direct contact with the magnetic layers 22 and 23 forming part of the sensor chip 20, and thus, the distance is essentially zero.
As to claim 3, Kameno discloses the surface roughness is flattened to about 30 nm. Thus, a persons skilled in the art would modify the surface roughness for OH1 and OH2 surfaces, which would result in a waviness in the claimed range.
As to claim 4, Kameno discloses a substrate 2 in fig. 1. Persons skilled in the art would modify the flatness of the surfaces of 41, 42 to improve its adhesion to the substrate.
As to claim 5, Kameno discloses a ferrite material in e.g., [0023] et seq.
As to claim 6, Kameno discloses a magnetic sensor comprising: a sensor chip (20, fig. 2) having an element formation surface (20a, fig. 2) on which a magnetosensitive element (R1, R2, R2 and/or R4 in fig. 2) is formed, a back surface (see back surface of 20 which is adjacent to fixing jig 82 in fig. 6) opposite to the element formation surface, and a side surface (see side surface of 20 below reference numeral 20 in fig. 6) perpendicular to the element formation surface and the back surface; and a magnetism collecting member (30, 41 and/or 42 in figs. 1 and 2) having a body part covering the back surface of the sensor chip, a first protruding part (part of 41 covering the side of 20 in fig. 2) connected to the body part and covering the side surface of the sensor chip, and a second protruding part (OH1 in fig. 2) connected to the first protruding part and covering the element formation surface of the sensor chip, wherein the body part of the magnetism collecting member has a first inner surface (inner surface of 41 or 42 facing sensor chip in fig. 2) facing the back surface of the sensor chip, wherein the first protruding part of the magnetism collecting member has a second inner surface (inner surface of 41 or 42 facing the side surface of sensor chip in fig. 2) facing the side surface of the sensor chip, wherein the second protruding part of the magnetism collecting member has a third inner surface (inner surface of 41 or 42 facing the element formation surface 20a in fig. 2) facing the element formation surface of the sensor chip.
Regarding claim 6, Kameno does not specifically disclose a gap between the third inner surf ace of the second protruding part and the element formation surface of the sensor chip is smaller than a gap between the first inner surface of the body part and the back surf ace of the sensor chip and a gap between the second inner surface of the first protruding part and the side surface of the sensor chip. Kameno discloses in e.g., [0008], the present invention minimizes the gap between the element forming surface of the sensor chip and the magnetism collector while suppressing an increase in manufacturing cost, and at the same time, keeps the gap between the products within a certain range. An object of the present invention is to provide a magnetic sensor whose size can be controlled and a manufacturing method thereof. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a particular gap size between the surfaces because it would reduce fluctuations in detection sensitivity (Kameno, [0033]).
As to claims 8-10, Kameno does not specifically disclose a particular surface has a higher degree of flatness than the other surfaces. However, Kameno discloses the flatness of surfaces 31 and 32 of the magnetism collector 30 is higher than the flatness of other surfaces 33 to 36 (e.g., [0033] et seq.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the flatness of the surfaces of OH1 and OH2 contacting magnetic layers 22 and 23 to ensure the surfaces adhere to each other with almost no space, which would reduce fluctuations in detection sensitivity (Kameno, [0033] et seq.).
As to claims 11 and 15, Kameno discloses a protective film in e.g., [0027] et seq.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-15 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254.
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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights