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 09/23/2025.
Claims 1 – 16 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument on page 6 of remarks at line 1, “the magnet has the ability of rotate freely”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the magnet has the ability of rotate freely) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) Page 6, lines 2 – 3, “for reducing error caused by rotational movement during position sensing”. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for reducing error caused by rotational movement during position sensing” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Page 6, lines 4 – 5, “the lines of flux are not perfectly perpendicular to the magnetic rod”. Page 6, lines 7-8, “mitigates the need for installing a physical anti-rotation device for the magnet”. Page 6, lines 8 - 10, “the lines of flux of the magnet being offset from perpendicular, a zero-point can be calibrated, such that, when the magnet rotates, the calibrated zero changes to read above or below zero”. Page 7, line 21, “that the magnetic member is rotatable”. Page 7, lines 22 - 23, “capable of reducing error caused by rotation of the magnetic member”. are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) Page 8, lines 9 - 10, “reducing error caused by rotational movement during position sensing”. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for reducing error caused by rotational movement during position sensing” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Page 8, lines 6 - 7, “incapable of detecting a rotation of the magnetic member”.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument on Page 9, lines 1 - 3, “Applicant submits that, as YAMAMOTO shows Hall IC sensors 34A, 34B (and 34C) are longitudinally distributed over the length of the magnetic member, but not locating two or more sensors on a radius around the magnetic rod”. However, Examiner respectfully notes that Fig. 2A of YAMAMOTO clearly discloses two or more sensors on a radius around the magnetic rod.
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 (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 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 – 4, 6, 8, 9 – 12, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (7,218,099).
As to claim 1, Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto) discloses a displacement sensor comprising: a magnetic rod (32) attached to a movable object (14), wherein the magnetic rod (32) is configured to create lines of magnetic flux (33), (Col. 4, lines 15 - 20), (Fig. 1); two or more linear position sensors (34A, 34B), (Fig. 2A), (Col. 5, lines 7 - 10) configured to translate respective sensed lines of magnetic flux into corresponding output signals (50A, 50B), (Col. 4, lines 45 - 49), wherein the two or more linear position sensors (34A, 34B), (Fig. 2A) are positioned substantially equidistant to each other on a radius around the magnetic rod (32) attached to the movable object (14); and electronics (40, 42) configured to sum the corresponding signals and determine the average of the corresponding signals (Col. 8, lines 2 - 16), (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
702
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
622
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Yamamoto discloses a displacement sensor comprising a magnetic rod (32) attached to a movable object (14), two or more linear position sensors positioned (34A, 34B), (Fig. 2A), (Col. 5, lines 7 - 10) substantially equidistant to each other on a radius around the magnetic rod (32) attached to the movable object (14), and electronics (40,42), the method comprising: measuring magnetized lines of flux (33) being radiated from the magnetic rod (32) attached to the movable object (14); the linear position sensors (34A, 34B) translating respective sensed lines of flux (33) into corresponding signals (50A, 50B), (Col. 4, lines 45 - 49); and using the electronics (40, 42) to sum the corresponding signals and determine the average of the corresponding signals (Col. 8, lines 2 - 16), (Fig. 3).
As to claims 2 and 10, Yamamoto discloses that each linear position sensor (34A, 34B) reduces or increases its output signal based on the lines of magnetic flux that it senses (Col. 1, lines 5 – 12 and Col. 2, lines 1 - 3).
As to claims 3 and 11, Yamamoto discloses that a circular permanent magnet (ring shaped) is attached to the magnetic rod to create lines of flux (Col. 8, lines 40 - 47).
As to claims 4 and 12, Yamamoto discloses that the corresponding signals comprise voltages (Col. 4, lines 45 - 46).
As to claims 6 and 14, Yamamoto discloses that the contactless sensors comprise Hall effect Sensors (34A, 34B), (Note Abstract).
As to claims 8 and 16, Yamamoto discloses that the contactless sensors (34A, 34B) are substantially equidistant from the centerline of the magnetic rod (22) (Fig. 2A).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (7,218,099) in view of BARTOLOTTA et al. (2017/0370330).
As to claims 5 and 13, Yamamoto discloses that the linear position sensors comprise contactless sensors (34A, 34B), (Hall sensor, Note Abstract). BARTOLOTTA et al. (hereinafter BARTOLOTTA) discloses an exhaust gas recirculation valve actuator device wherein BARTOLOTTA clearly discloses that the contactless position sensor may be a Hall effect sensor, a magneto-resistive sensor, or the like [0046]. 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 use contactless sensors as position sensors.
As to claims 7 and 15, Yamamoto discloses the contactless sensors (34A, 34B), (Hall sensor, Note Abstract). However, BARTOLOTTA discloses that the contactless position sensor may be a Hall effect sensor, a magneto-resistive sensor, or the like [0046]. 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 use a magneto-resistive sensor as contactless sensor.
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 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