DETAILED ACTION
Following applicant’s amendment filed 3/19/2026, claims 1 and 5-19 are pending with claims 5 and 6 withdrawn from consideration. Therefore, claims 1 and 7-19 are treated on their merits.
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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leisenheimer et al. (US Patent 11,255,697).
Regarding Claim 1, Leisenheimer discloses a cartridge (as shown in Figure 1) capable of generation of control signals for a water mixing system (the cartridge of Leisenheimer generates signals via sensor 115 and is capable of use with a water mixing system; the limitation of a water mixing system is recited as an intended use of the claimed cartridge and therefore the water mixing system is not required by the claim), comprising: a housing (unnumbered base shown in Figure 1 on which the magnetic sensor 115 is mounted), a lever attachment 105, which is moveable relative to the housing (thereby creating different air gaps between the magnet 110 and sensor 115; col. 3, lines 61-66), for the accommodation of a lever (the upper end of handle is at least capable of having a lever sleeved thereon; it is noted that a lever is not positively recited by the claim), and a detector device (including magnet 110 and sensor 115) for the generation of a signal (col. 5, lines 8-13), according to the position of the lever attachment 105 (col. 5, lines 8-13), wherein the detector device comprises a locator (magnet 110 in the same manner as achieved by applicant) and a valuator (Hall effect sensor 115 in the same manner as achieved by applicant), wherein the locator 110 is coupled to the lever attachment 105, wherein the locator 110 cooperates with the valuator 115, which is fitted in a fixed arrangement relative to the housing (as shown in Figure 1), wherein the locator 110 comprises a permanent magnet (col. 2, lines 60-64) moveable with the lever attachment 105 in three dimensions (x direction, y direction, and z direction; col. 2, lines 24-32; it is noted that tilting of 105 as disclosed by Leisenheimer will include movement of the magnet in the z direction) of a cartesian coordinate system (x, y, and z directions as described above), and wherein the valuator 115 comprises a Hall effect sensor (col. 5, lines 30-32), wherein the Hall effect sensor detects movements of the permanent magnet in the cartesian coordinate system (col. 5, lines 45-54).
Regarding Claim 7, Leisenheimer is seen as further disclosing a communications module and/or an energy supply apparatus (Leisenheimer discloses the sensor sends signals, which is seen to necessarily be achieved via a “communications module”).
Regarding Claim 19, Leisenheimer is seen as further disclosing the Hall effect sensor is an arrangement of three linear Hall effect sensors (multiple sensing elements 210 including three sets of “Hall plates” as described in col. 5, lines 45-54; it is noted that Hall plates as disclosed are seen to be readable as “linear Hall effect sensors” at least because each plate is inherently arranged along a line; it is noted that applicant’s specification as filed does not provide any special definition of the term “linear Hall effect sensor” and therefore this term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation).
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 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leisenheimer et al. (US Patent 11,255,697) in view of Terao et al. (US Patent 8,770,056).
Regarding Claim 16, Leisenheimer further discloses the valuator comprises a first valuator and a second valuator (sensor 115 includes first and second sensing elements 210).
Leisenheimer does not disclose the locator comprises a first locator and a second locator.
Terao teaches a detector device for a control element includes a first locator (magnet 91), a second locator (magnet 65), a first valuator (sensor 92 including Hall elements) and a second valuator (sensor 66 including Hall elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Leisenheimer such that the detector includes a first locator, a second locator, a first valuator, and a second valuator as taught by Terao for the purpose of providing an arrangement with increased accuracy as taught by Terao.
Regarding Claim 17, Leisenheimer in view of Terao (the proposed modification of Leisenheimer in view of Terao as described with respect to claim 16 above is incorporated herein) further discloses the locator comprises a first locator (in the manner taught by Terao as described above including magnet 91), and a second locator (in the manner taught by Terao as described above including magnet 65), and the valuator comprises a first valuator and a second valuator (first and second Hall elements as taught by both Leisenheimer and Terao); and wherein the second valuator is configured such that a value generated is independent of position of the lever attachment in a rotational direction, and the value generated is dependent upon a position of the lever in a tilting direction (Terao teaches sensor 66 is provided to detect tilting orientations in col. 6, lines 8-20; it is noted that Leisenheimer also discloses the hall sensor detects tilt angles).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leisenheimer et al. (US Patent 11,255,697).
Regarding Claim 18, Leisenheimer further discloses the lever attachment 105 in the cartridge is rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the cartridge (rotatable through a “twist angle” of 105; col. 2, lines 24-32).
Leisenheimer does not disclose wherein an angle of rotation of the lever attachment in the cartridge is rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the cartridge through an overall angular range of at least 210°.
However, the selection of the particular range of rotation of the lever attachment is an obvious matter of engineering design choice to accommodate the needs of a particular system (i.e. the scope of movement of the device associated with the handle) and furthermore it is noted that such a modification of the angular range of travel of a lever is seen to require a mere change in size/proportion of elements in the device and it has been generally held that mere changes in size/proportion are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, it is noted that applicant’s specification as filed does not describe any criticality of the claimed range of angular travel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed to modify the device of Leisenheimer such that the lever attachment in the cartridge is rotatable about the longitudinal axis of the cartridge through any overall angular range, including an angular range of at least 210°, for the purpose of providing any desired incremental change ratio of movement of a controlled device to angular rotation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Leisenheimer teaches a “control stick” for controlling a vehicle or industrial equipment and that a control stick as taught by Leisenheimer is not readable on the recited “cartridge” of claim 1. These arguments are not persuasive at least because the claimed “cartridge” is merely the name of the device in the preamble of the claim and therefore is not accorded patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02; “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”). Alternatively, in the event that the term “cartridge” is seen to define the claimed invention, the control stick of Lesienheimer is seen to be readable as a cartridge at least because the control stick is “a small part with a particular purpose that can be easily replaced with another similar part, used in a larger piece of equipment”, which is one of the definitions cited by applicant in the remarks filed 3/19/2026. That is, the control stick of Lesienheimer is a smaller part of the industrial equipment is at least capable of being replaced.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Craig Schneider can be reached on (571) 272-3607. 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.
/KEVIN F MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753