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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the amendment filed 10/08/2025: Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-16, 18, 20-28, and 30-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Affidavit
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 10/08/2025 has not been considered based on the fact that the statement was not made under oath before a notary public, magistrate, or officer authorized to administer oaths. See 37 C.F.R. 1.66.
Rejection Under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-16, 18, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Torres-Jara et al (US 2010/0155579 A1, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Torres) in view of Wang et al ("A Low-cost Soft Tactile Sensing Array using 3D Hall Sensors", Procedia Engineering 168, 2016, pp. 650-653, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Wang) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 24, and 28, Applicant argues: “Wang discloses the use of four 3D Hall sensors in a single plane (X-Y plane) as a tactile sensing array. Wang does not facilitate determining a change in magnetic field along six degrees of freedom of the magnetic device. (See Li Declaration, 1 4-7). Although Wang claims that it measures "triaxis force and contact area," this functionality is not disclosed in the reference. (See Li Declaration, 1 5-7). Rather, the design disclosed in Wang necessarily requires four (4) 3D Hall sensors and four (4) magnets, with each Hall sensor vertically aligned with a corresponding magnet according to a one-to-one arrangement. (See Li Declaration, 15-7). The claimed invention, by contrast, provides measurement across six (6) degrees of freedom with only at least three (3) 3D Hall sensors. (See Li Declaration, 17). This is not possible with the device described by Wang. “ Applicant is correct in asserting that Wang needs four Hall Effect sensors to operate. However, four sensors reads on the claim language “comprising at least three tri-axis Hall-effect sensors”.
Applicant further argues: “The sensors in Wang are constrained in the X-Y plane with fixed distances of 6mm. While Wang mentions "triaxis force and contact area," the arrangement and experimental results shown by this reference only reveal 2D X-Z force recovery (Wang at Figure 2) or 2D X-Y magnet movement (Wang at Figure 4). (See Li Declaration, 6). Wang does not disclose any experimental results that evidence a measurement of triaxis force or contact area estimation. (See Li Declaration,6). Further, even if Wang could somehow measure triaxis force, despite this not being shown, such measurements would still not provide measurements along six degrees of freedom. (See Li Declaration, 7).
In view of the above-described deficiencies of Wang, it is submitted that the claims are patentable over the cited prior art and in condition for allowance. “ Applicant appears to be arguing that the reference of Wang cannot measure triaxis force. However Wang teaches acquiring the Bx, By, and Bz magnetic fields to obtain a correlation between magnetic field strength and force via a 2D scanning process and then correlating said measurements. Wang, on pages 651-652, teaches “To obtain the correlation between the magnetic field and the applied force, a 2D (y/z axis) scanning process with a range of 1.5mm in z axis and 2 mm in y axis, was performed to collect the data set (Fx, Fy, and Fz, and the corresponding Bix, Biy, Biz). A sum of the magnetic field (B=B1-B2+B3-B4) from four sensors was used to calibrate MagTrix as a triaxis force sensor. Using moving-least-square method [6], a multi-variate homogenous polynomial (with an order of 5) was used to express the relationship between the magnetic field and the force. The calibrated normal and shear force test results compared with a commercial load cell (ATI Nano17) are shown in Fig.2 (d, e), which illustrates decoupling of the strong crosstalk effect between magnetic field signals (Fig.2 (b, c)). This version of MagTrix has a relatively large normal force (z axis) measurement range (circa 20 N) with a resolution of 14 mN and a high resolution (1.5 mN) in shear force (x/y axis) measurement” which the Examiner is interpreting as measuring a triaxis force.
Applicant finally argues: “In the interest of advancing this application to allowance, claim amendments have been made to further clarify the advantages of the claimed invention over the disclosures of Torres and Wang. Claim 1, as amended, specifies that the elastomer is formed over and in contact with the magnetometer. Claims 24 and 28 specify that the magnetic device is fully encompassed by the deformable material. The sensor shown in Figures 4a and 4b of Torres has a large space between the magnet and the sensor within the cavity of the dome.
The arrangement disclosed by Torres only produces two-dimensional (2D) tactile information related to normal and lateral force and therefore do not cure the deficiencies of Wang. For example, at paragraph [0041] Torres explains that there are "two types of forces acting on the dome" disclosed therein: "a normal force acting on the top of the dome 10 and a force acting at 45 degrees away from the normal at the top of the dome." Torres does not disclose tri-axis Hall-effect sensors and does not disclose an arrangement that permits detecting changes in six degrees of freedom of the magnetic force. Rather, as explained in paragraph [0015], Torres discloses single- axis Hall-effect sensors arranged in a rectangular pattern on the same plane.
For at least the foregoing reasons, amended claims 1, 24, and 28 are patentable over the cited prior art and in condition for allowance.”. “ The Examiner believes Torres teaches the newly claimed limitations of “wherein the elastomer is formed over and in contact with the magnetometer (Torres; Fig 4b and Par 0052; Torres teaches the elastomer dome containing the magnetic element has the base of the dome attached to the circuit board containing the Hall Effect sensors, which the Examiner reads as fully encompassing and in contact with the magnetometer, as the sensors are the magnetometer and the dome is fully over the sensors and in contact with their circuit board)” in claim 1 and “fully encompassed by a deformable material (Torres; Fig 4b and Par 0052; Torres teaches the elastomer dome containing the magnetic element has the base of the dome attached to the circuit board containing the Hall Effect sensors, which the Examiner reads as fully encompassing and in contact with the magnetometer, as the sensors are the magnetometer and the dome is fully over the sensors and in contact with their circuit board)” in claims 24 and 28. Therefore the rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Wang in view of Holgado et al (Holgado, Alexis Carlos, et al. "A multimodal, adjustable sensitivity, digital 3-axis skin sensor module." Sensors 20.11 (2020): 3128., cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Holgado) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. See above arguments, therefore the rejection stands.
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 30-31 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 30 and 31 recites “wherein the at least three tri-axis Hall- effect sensors comprise at least one first sensor arranged in an X-Y plane with respect to the magnetic device and at least one second sensor arranged non-planar with respect to the at least one first sensor” The specification specifically states “In non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the sensing device further comprises an integrated circuit, the magnetometer comprises at least three Hall-effect sensors, and each of at least three Hall-effect sensors is coupled to the integrated circuit. In non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the magnetic device is positioned within the elastomer asymmetrically along a Z-axis that is normal to a plane parallel to a first side of the integrated circuit. In non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the magnetic device positioned within the elastomer comprises a neodymium magnet. In non-limiting embodiments or aspects, the magnetometer comprises an integrated circuit, and the magnetic device positioned within the elastomer comprises a magnet having a shape that does not have one-fold rotational symmetry along a Z-axis that is normal to a plane parallel to a first side of the integrated circuit.”, in paragraph [0007]. These disclosures appear to teach the magnetic device is asymmetrically positioned with regarding to the Hall Effect sensors, with no mention of the arrangement of said Hall Effect sensors and their being placed non-planar with respect to each other.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 11-16, 18, 21-28, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Torres-Jara et al (US 2010/0155579 A1, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Torres) in view of Wang et al ("A Low-cost Soft Tactile Sensing Array using 3D Hall Sensors", Procedia Engineering 168, 2016, pp. 650-653, cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Wang).
As per claim 1, Torres discloses a sensing device (Torres; Fig 4 and Par 0046) comprising: an elastomer (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 10 and Par 0039-0040; Torres teaches using an elastomer dome);
a magnetic device positioned within the elastomer and associated with a magnetic field (Torres; Figs 1a-4a, Element 12, Par 0039-0040 and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches magnet 12 is positioned within dome 10 and includes a magnetic field); and
a magnetometer configured to sense a change in the magnetic field of the magnetic device (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 16 and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches a sensor array (magnetometer) mounted on PCB 14 comprising a plurality of Hall-effect sensors 16 for detecting changes in the magnetic field from the magnet 12), wherein the elastomer is formed over and in contact with the magnetometer (Torres; Fig 4b and Par 0052; Torres teaches the elastomer dome containing the magnetic element has the base of the dome attached to the circuit board containing the Hall Effect sensors, which the Examiner reads as fully encompassing and in contact with the magnetometer, as the sensors are the magnetometer and the dome is fully over the sensors and in contact with their circuit board).
Torres is silent on the magnetometer comprising at least three tri-axis Hall-effect sensors configured to determine a change in the magnetic field of the magnetic device positioned within the elastomer along six degrees of freedom of the magnetic device.
Wang teaches the magnetometer comprising at least three tri-axis Hall-effect sensors (Wang; Fig 1(a) and page 651; Wang teaches the sensor array comprises at four 3D Hall effect sensors) configured to determine a change in the magnetic field of the magnetic device positioned within the elastomer along six degrees of freedom of the magnetic device (Wang; Figs 2-3 and Page 652; Wang teaches the sensor array captures the magnets six degrees of freedom to determine the change in the magnetic field of the magnet embedded in the elastomer dome and is calibrated against a reference force and torque sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic device of Torres to have the six degrees of freedom of Wang in order to provide more accurate physical measurements of the system (Wang; Page 653, Conclusion).
As per claim 2, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses at least one computing device in communication with the magnetometer (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 14 and Par 0046; Torres teaches PCB 14 includes a microcontroller (computing device) for reading signals from the sensors 16), the at least one computing device configured to determine a deformation of the elastomer based on the change in the magnetic field sensed by the magnetometer (Torres; Par 0046 and Par 0052-0055; Torres teaches the microcontroller determines the displacement of the dome 10 based on the signals from the sensors 16).
As per claim 3, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of ·claim 2. Torres further discloses wherein the magnetometer comprises the at least one computing device (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 14 and Par 0046; Torres teaches the plurality of Hall-effect sensors 16 and the microcontroller are mounted on PCB 14 (magnetometer comprises the at least one computing device)).
As per claim 4, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the magnetometer further comprises a magnetic field sensor (Wang; Fig 1(a) and page 651; Wang teaches the sensor array comprises at four 3D Hall effect sensors which are magnetic field sensors).
As per claim 6, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses wherein the magnetic device comprises at least one of the following: a cubic magnet, an electromagnetic coil, a neodymium magnet, a composite magnet, or any combination thereof (Torres; Fig 1a, Element 12, Fig 4, Element magnet holder, Par 0016, and Par 0040; Torres teaches a cube magnet in a cube holder in the elastomer dome).
As per claim 9, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses wherein the elastomer comprises at least one of a non-ferromagnetic elastic material and a plastic material (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 10 and Par 0039-0040; Torres teaches dome 10 comprises silicone rubber and a plastic holder).
As per claim 11, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses wherein the magnetometer Is located in a fixed position relative to the elastomer (Torres; Par 0039-0040; Torres teaches the sensor array is mounted on PCB 14 and the base of dome 10 is glued to said PCB 14, thus the sensor array is located in a fixed position relative to the dome 10).
As per claim 12, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses wherein the magnetometer is configured to remain in a substantially fixed position relative to the elastomer in response to a deformation of the elastomer (Torres; Par 0039-0040; Torres teaches the sensor array is mounted on PCB 14 and the base of dome 10 is glued to said PCB 14, thus the sensor array is located in a fixed position relative to the dome 10 when deformed).
As per claim 13, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses wherein the magnetic device is fully encompassed by the elastomer (Torres; Fig 4b and Par 0052; Torres teaches the elastomer dome containing the magnetic element has the base of the dome attached to the circuit board containing the Hall Effect sensors, which the Examiner reads as fully encompassing and in contact with the magnetometer, as the sensors are the magnetometer and the dome is fully over the sensors and in contact with their circuit board).
As per claim 14, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the at least three Hall-effect sensors are configured in at least a nine-dimensional Hall-effect sensor array (Wang; Fig 1(a) and page 651; Wang teaches the sensor array comprises at four 3D Hall effect sensors).
As per claim 15, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses an integrated circuit (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 14 and Par 0046), wherein each of at least three Hall-effect sensors are coupled to the integrated circuit (Torres; Par 0040 and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches the sensor array comprises four Hall-effect sensors 16 mounted on PCB 14).
As per claim 16, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 15. Torres further discloses wherein the magnetic device is positioned within the elastomer asymmetrically along a Z-axis that is normal to a plane parallel to a first side of the integrated circuit (Torres; Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches magnet 12 is mounted under the flat top surface of dome 10 along a Z-axis normal to the top surface of the PCB 14 as shown).
As per claim 18, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses wherein the magnetometer comprises an integrated circuit (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 14 and Par 0046), and wherein the magnetic device positioned within the elastomer comprises a magnet having a shape that does not have one-fold rotational symmetry along a Z-axis that is normal to a plane parallel to a first side of the integrated circuit (Torres; Fig 1a, Element 12, Fig 4, Element magnet holder, Par 0016, and Par 0040; Torres teaches a cube magnet (does not have one-fold rotational symmetry) embedded in a cube holder in the elastomer dome along a z-axis perpendicular to the top surface of the PCB as shown).
As per claim 21, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses wherein the at least three Hall-effect sensors are configured in a nine-dimensional Hall-effect sensor array (Wang; Fig 1(a) and page 651; Wang teaches the sensor array comprises at four 3D Hall effect sensors).
As per claim 22, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 21. Wang further discloses wherein three dimensions of the nine-dimensional Hall-effect sensor array are configured to determine an environmental and/or ambient magnetic field and six dimensions of the nine-dimensional Hall-effect sensor array are configured to determine a pose of the magnetic device positioned within the elastomer (Wang; Figs 2-3 and Page 652; Wang teaches the sensor array captures the magnets six degrees of freedom to determine the change in the magnetic field of the magnet embedded in the elastomer dome and is calibrated against a reference force and torque sensor).
As per claim 23, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 1. Torres further discloses a mounting arrangement configured to mount the sensing device to an end of a robotic appendage (Torres; Par 0046; Torres teaches the tactile sensor is mounted to the phalanges of the fingers of a robot).
As per claim 24, Torres discloses a sensing device (Torres; Fig 4 and Par 0046) comprising: a magnetometer configured to sense a change in a magnetic field (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 16 and Par 0045-0046) of a magnetic device (Torres; Figs 1a-4a, Element 12, Par 0039-0040 and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches magnet 12 is positioned within dome 10 and includes a magnetic field) positioned within and fully encompassed (Torres; Fig 4b and Par 0052; Torres teaches the elastomer dome containing the magnetic element has the base of the dome attached to the circuit board containing the Hall Effect sensors, which the Examiner reads as fully encompassing and in contact with the magnetometer, as the sensors are the magnetometer and the dome is fully over the sensors and in contact with their circuit board) a deformable material (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 10 and Par 0039-0040; Torres teaches using an elastomer dome); and at least one computing device in communication with the magnetometer (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 14 and Par 0046; Torres teaches the plurality of Hall-effect sensors 16 and the microcontroller are mounted on PCB 14 (magnetometer comprises the at least one computing device)), the at least one computing device configured to determine a deformation of the material based on the change in the magnetic field (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 16, Par 0039 and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches a sensor array (magnetometer) mounted on PCB 14 comprising a plurality of Hall-effect sensors 16 for detecting changes in the magnetic field from the magnet 12) to determine a force applied to the deformable material (Torres; Par 0039 and Par 0041; Torres teaches detecting changes in the magnetic field from the magnet 12 which measures the force applied to the elastomer dome).
Torres is silent on a change in the magnetic field along six degrees of freedom of the magnetic device, the magnetometer comprising at least three tri-axis Hall-effect sensors.
Wang teaches a change in the magnetic field along six degrees of freedom of the magnetic device (Wang; Figs 2-3 and Page 652; Wang teaches the sensor array captures the magnets six degrees of freedom to determine the change in the magnetic field of the magnet embedded in the elastomer dome and is calibrated against a reference force and torque sensor), the magnetometer comprising at least three tri-axis Hall-effect sensors (Wang; Fig 1(a) and page 651; Wang teaches the sensor array comprises at four 3D Hall effect sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic device of Torres to have the six degrees of freedom of Wang in order to provide more accurate physical measurements of the system (Wang; Page 653, Conclusion).
As per claim 25, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 24. Torres further discloses wherein the material comprises an elastomer (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 10 and Par 0039-0040; Torres teaches using an elastomer dome).
As per claim 26, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 25. Torres further discloses wherein the elastomer comprises a cavity housing the magnetic device (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 10, Par 0039-0040, and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches magnet 12 is positioned within a cavity in dome 10 as shown).
As per claim 27, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses the sensing device of claim 24. Torres further discloses wherein the material is at least partially formed around the magnetometer (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 10 and Par 0039-0040; Torres teaches the sensor array is mounted on PCB 14 and the base of dome 10 is glued to said PCB 14 (at least partially formed around the magnetometer)).
As per claim 28, the combination of Torres and Wang discloses a method comprising: receiving, from a magnetometer (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 16 and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches a sensor array (magnetometer) mounted on PCB 14 comprising a plurality of Hall-effect sensors 16 for detecting changes in the magnetic field from the magnet 12), magnetic field data associated with a magnetic field of a magnetic device positioned within and fully encompassed (Torres; Fig 4b and Par 0052; Torres teaches the elastomer dome containing the magnetic element has the base of the dome attached to the circuit board containing the Hall Effect sensors, which the Examiner reads as fully encompassing and in contact with the magnetometer, as the sensors are the magnetometer and the dome is fully over the sensors and in contact with their circuit board) a deformable material (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 10 and Par 0045-0046; Torres teaches PCB 14 includes a microcontroller for reading signals from sensor array (magnetometer) comprising a plurality of Hall-effect sensors 16 that detect changes in the magnetic field from the magnet 12 embedded within dome 10); detecting, with at least one computing device, a change in the magnetic field based on the magnetic field data (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 14 and Par 0046; Torres teaches the plurality of Hall-effect sensors 16 and the microcontroller are mounted on PCB 14 (magnetometer comprises the at least one computing device)); and determining, with the at least one computing device, a deformation of the material based on the change in the magnetic field (Torres; Fig 1a-4a, Element 16, Par 0046, and Par 0052-0055; Torres teaches the microcontroller determines the displacement of the dome 1 0 based on the signals from the sensors 16) to determine a force applied to the deformable material (Torres; Par 0039 and Par 0041; Torres teaches detecting changes in the magnetic field from the magnet 12 which measures the force applied to the elastomer dome).
Torres is silent on the magnetometer comprising at least three tri-axis Hall-effect sensors and a change in the magnetic field along six degrees of freedom of the magnetic device.
Wang teaches the magnetometer comprising at least three tri-axis Hall-effect sensors (Wang; Fig 1(a) and page 651; Wang teaches the sensor array comprises at four 3D Hall effect sensors) and a change in the magnetic field along six degrees of freedom of the magnetic device (Wang; Figs 2-3 and Page 652; Wang teaches the sensor array captures the magnets six degrees of freedom to determine the change in the magnetic field of the magnet embedded in the elastomer dome and is calibrated against a reference force and torque sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic device of Torres to have the six degrees of freedom of Wang in order to provide more accurate physical measurements of the system (Wang; Page 653, Conclusion).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Wang in view of Holgado et al (Holgado, Alexis Carlos, et al. "A multimodal, adjustable sensitivity, digital 3-axis skin sensor module." Sensors 20.11 (2020): 3128., cited in IDS, heretofore referred to as Holgado).
As per Claim 20, Torres discloses the sensing device of claim 1.
Torres fails to disclose wherein the magnetic device comprises two or more electromagnetic coils.
However, Holgado discloses wherein the magnetic device comprises two or more electromagnetic coils (Holgado; pages 5-6 and 8-9; figures 1-2 and 4; Holgado teaches an adjustable 3-axis tactile sensor that includes a Hall-effect sensor to measure changes in the position of a magnetic field generated by an electromagnet comprising a plurality of coils connected in a mixture of series and parallel connections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic device of Torres to be two or more electromagnetic coils, as taught by Holgado, for the advantages of providing adjustability to the sensing device such that the power draw and sensitivity thereof can be adjusted to conserve energy when unused and increase or decrease sensitivity by increasing or decreasing the power of the generated magnetic field. Additionally, the use several coils allows more practical and achievable amperage and voltage values to be reached (Holgado; Pages 8-9).
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torres in view of Wang in view of Cai et al (US 2011/0227569 A1, heretofore referred to as Cai).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Torres and Wang teaches the sensing device of claim 1.
The combination of Torres and Wang is silent on wherein the at least three tri-axis Hall- effect sensors comprise at least one first sensor arranged in an X-Y plane with respect to the magnetic device and at least one second sensor arranged non-planar with respect to the at least one first sensor.
Cai teaches wherein the at least three tri-axis Hall- effect sensors (Cai; Fig 6, Elements 404, 406, and 408) comprise at least one first sensor (Cai; Fig 6, Element 404) arranged in an X-Y plane with respect to the magnetic device and at least one second sensor arranged non-planar with respect to the at least one first sensor (Cai; Fig 6, Element 408 and Par 0051; Cai teaches the tri-axis sensor arrangement utilizes an orthogonal sensor arrangement in order to provide the x, y, and z axis measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic device of Torres and Wang to have the sensor arrangement of Cai in order to reduce power consumption (Cai; Par 0050).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Torres and Wang teaches the sensing device of claim 24.
The combination of Torres and Wang is silent on wherein the at least three tri-axis Hall- effect sensors comprise at least one first sensor arranged in an X-Y plane with respect to the magnetic device and at least one second sensor arranged non-planar with respect to the at least one first sensor.
Cai teaches wherein the at least three tri-axis Hall- effect sensors (Cai; Fig 6, Elements 404, 406, and 408) comprise at least one first sensor (Cai; Fig 6, Element 404) arranged in an X-Y plane with respect to the magnetic device and at least one second sensor arranged non-planar with respect to the at least one first sensor (Cai; Fig 6, Element 408 and Par 0051; Cai teaches the tri-axis sensor arrangement utilizes an orthogonal sensor arrangement in order to provide the x, y, and z axis measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the magnetic device of Torres and Wang to have the sensor arrangement of Cai in order to reduce power consumption (Cai; Par 0050).
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 ADAM S CLARKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571)272-2258. 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.
/ADAM S CLARKE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JUDY NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858