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 .
This communication is in response to amendment received on 05/13/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15 and 16 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 claims 15 and 16, claims 15 and 16 depends from claim 12. In claim 12 the claimed limitation is “detecting a gap distance”. Therefore, it is unclear from the claim language in claims 15 and 16 what are distance values and magnetic field strength values and how are they being calculated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 14 and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2015/0236569) in view of Rohner et al. (2015/0022030).
As to claim 1, Brown discloses a sensor system (100) comprising a distance sensor for detecting a gap distance between a rotor (120, 220) and a stator (150, 250) or a slider and the stator that can be moved relative to one another (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B), [0015]-[0017], a magnetic field sensor for detecting a magnetic field between the rotor (120, 220) and the stator (150, 250) or the slider and the stator [0016], and, wherein, a measurement signal from the distance sensor or a measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor can be supplied for further processing [0011], [0046]-[0047].
PNG
media_image1.png
633
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
609
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brown fails to explicitly disclose supplying the signals via the selection device and that the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor are processed one after another without synchronizing the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor. Rohner et al. (hereinafter Rohner) discloses a linear motor wherein the selection device has a multiplexer (18) and that signals from the magnetic field sensor are processed one after another without synchronizing the measurement signal from the sensors , (Fig. 5), [0052, The signals of the external hall sensors H.sub.1-H.sub.8 are supplied to the evaluation electronics 17 via a multiplexer 18, as this is shown in FIG. 5. By means of the multiplexer 18, the signals of the individual hall sensors H.sub.1-H.sub.8 can be sequentially supplied to an analog/digital-converter (A/D-Converter) included in the evaluation electronics so that the electronical expense is limited despite multiple hall sensors. ].
PNG
media_image3.png
180
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Brown in view of the teachings of Rohner wherein the selection device has a multiplexer and that signals from the magnetic field sensor are processed one after another without synchronizing the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor so that the electronical expense is limited despite multiple sensors resulting in increasing the speed of processing.
As to claim 12, Brown discloses a sensor system (100) comprising: having a distance sensor for detecting a gap distance between two a rotor (120, 220) and a stator (150, 250) or a slider and a stator that can be moved relative to one another using a distance sensor (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B), [0015]-[0017], detecting a magnetic field between the objects using a magnetic field sensor [0016], and wherein, a measurement signal from the distance sensor or a measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor is supplied for further processing [0011], [0046]-[0047].
Brown fails to explicitly disclose supplying the signals via the selection device and that the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor are processed one after another without synchronizing the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor. Rohner discloses a linear motor wherein the selection device has a multiplexer (18) and that signals from the magnetic field sensor are processed one after another without synchronizing the measurement signal from the sensors , (Fig. 5), [0052, The signals of the external hall sensors H.sub.1-H.sub.8 are supplied to the evaluation electronics 17 via a multiplexer 18, as this is shown in FIG. 5. By means of the multiplexer 18, the signals of the individual hall sensors H.sub.1-H.sub.8 can be sequentially supplied to an analog/digital-converter (A/D-Converter) included in the evaluation electronics so that the electronical expense is limited despite multiple hall sensors. ].
PNG
media_image3.png
180
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Brown in view of the teachings of Rohner wherein the selection device has a multiplexer and that signals from the magnetic field sensor are processed one after another without synchronizing the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor so that the electronical expense is limited despite multiple sensors resulting in increasing the speed of processing.
As to claim 2, Brown discloses that the distance sensor is a capacitive distance sensor or an inductive distance sensor or an optical distance sensor or an eddy-current sensor [0046].
As to claim 3, Brown discloses that the magnetic field sensor is a flux sensor or a Hall-effect sensor [0016] or a magnetoresistive sensor.
As to claim 4, Brown discloses that the magnetic field sensor has one or more conductor loops [0046].
As to claim 5, Brown fails to explicitly disclose that the selection device has a multiplexer. Rohner et al. (hereinafter Rohner) discloses a linear motor wherein the selection device has a multiplexer (18), (Fig. 5). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Brown in view of the teachings of Rohner to include the multiplexer such that the signals of the individual sensors can be sequentially supplied for further processing increasing the speed of processing despite multiple sensors.
As to claim 7, Brown discloses that discloses at least one of: an analog/digital converter, preferably only a single analog/digital converter, and a computer [0011] is arranged.
As to claim 8, Brown discloses that at least one temperature sensor for detecting the temperature in the region between the rotor (120, 220) and the stator (150, 250) or the slider and the stator [0014].
As to claims 9 and 10, Brown discloses that the distance sensor and the magnetic field sensor (100, 200) are arranged on a common substrate with at least one of: and possibly the temperature sensor, and/or the selection device, and/or an analog/digital converter, and and/or a computer are arranged on a common substrate [Fig. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B].
As to claim 11, Brown discloses that a position sensor is arranged to determine the position of the rotor (120, 220) relative to the stator (150, 250) or the slider to the stator [0019].
As to claims 13 and 14, Brown discloses that the position of the rotor (120, 220) relative to the stator (150, 250) or the slider relative to the stator is determined via a position sensor [0019].
As to claim 17, Brown discloses that the magnetic field sensor detects a gap width and a magnetic field between the rotor (120, 220) and the stator (150, 250) or the slider and the stator [0017].
As to claim 18, Brown and Rohner fails to explicitly disclose that that the magnetic field sensor is a one of: an anisotropic magnetoresistive sensor (AMR sensor); and a giant magnetoresistive (GMR) sensor. However, it is well known in the art to use Hall sensor and anisotropic magnetoresistive sensor and a giant magnetoresistive (GMR) sensor as position sensors. Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Brownin view of the teachings of Rohner to include anisotropic magnetoresistive sensor and a giant magnetoresistive (GMR) sensor as position sensors to increase the sensitivity of the device.
As to claim 19, Brown discloses that the position sensor (16) is arranged to determine one of: an angle of rotation between the stator (150, 250) and the rotor (120, 220) or the slider and the stator; and a relative position between the rotor (120, 220) and the stator (150, 250) or the slider and the stator [0017].
As to claim 20, Brown discloses that detecting a magnetic field between the objects comprises measuring a gap width and a magnetic field between the rotor (120, 220) and the stator (150, 250) or the slider and the stator [0017].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (2015/0236569) in view of Rohner et al. (2015/0022030) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GOTO (2018/0358869).
As to claim 6, Brown and Rohner fails to explicitly a preamplifier arranged between the selection device and the distance sensor, and a preamplifier is arranged between the selection device and the magnetic field sensor. GOTO discloses an actuator wherein an amplifier (214) is arranged between the sensor and the processor (Fig. 14).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Brown in view of the teachings of Rohner and further in view of the teachings of GOTO to include a preamplifier arranged between the selection device and the distance sensor, and a preamplifier is arranged between the selection device and the magnetic field sensor to increase the magnitude of a signal for further processing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument on pages 1 and 2 of Remarks, last para of Remarks “a person skilled in the art starting from document Brown would not have had any reason to detect/process the signals of the distance sensor and the magnetic field sensor unsynchronized, since this is considered absolutely necessary according to the state of the art in order to obtain a meaningful result (see above). Since Rohner does not concern the determination of a gap distance and a magnetic field, a person skilled in the art cannot be guided in the direction of the missing features. It is irrelevant that Rohner describes in very general terms that a multiplexer can be used to save on A/D converters, since a person skilled in the art — as previously noted — considers the synchronicity of the measurement results to be necessary. Brown is entirely silent at the use of any separate sensors (e.g. distance sensor and magnetic field sensor) or any synchronization or lack of synchronization of such separate sensors. Rather, Rohner utilizes a plurality of identical hall sensors H1-H8 that are exactly spaced one pole pitch of one half of a length of a periodic permanent magnetic field of the armature.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Brown and Rohner detect/process the signals of the distance sensor and the magnetic field sensor (Note (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B), [0011], [0017] in Brown and ((Fig. 5), [0052]) in Rohner).
Applicant’s argument on page 2 of Remarks that “As such, neither Brown nor Rohner disclose or suggest the processing the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement signal from the magnetic field sensor one after another without synchronizing the measurement signal from the distance sensor and the measurement from the magnetic field sensor. Such subject matter is simply absent from both references”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees, the phrase “without synchronizing” in claims 1 and 12 is considered to be a negative limitation because the word “without” is exclusionary in nature. Therefore, if the prior art reference does not explicitly show the recited negative limitation it sufficient to reject the limitation.
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 REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 on 5712705628. 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.
/REENA AURORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858