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 11/11/2025.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 – 16 and 18 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claims 11 and 17 have been canceled by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument “In particular, Mattheis' initialization conductor 25 (and its initialization constriction 26) are not located in proximity to any corner region of Mattheis spiral, but are instead located at a midpoint between such corner regions, as shown in FIG. 2 of Mattheis.”. The Examiner respectfully notes that the word “Proximity” can be defined as nearness in space. Therefore, Mattheis initialization conductor 25 (and its initialization constriction 26) is being considered as being located in proximity to one of the corner region of the spiral and meets the claim limitation.
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 – 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MATTHEIS et al. (2018/0372510).
As to claim 1, MATTHEIS et al. (hereinafter MATTHEIS) discloses a magnetic revolution counter and method for determining numbers of revolutions that can be determined by means of said revolution counter comprising a device (25, conductor for initializing the sensor element, Fig. 2, [0071]) for initialising a magnetic multi-turn sensor (2, Fig. 1, 2, [0068]), the multi-turn sensor (2) having a plurality of magnetoresistive sensing elements connected in series (R33, R34, [0105], Fig. 6) and arranged in at least one spiral configuration (20, [0070], the sensor element 2 is formed by a three-turn, square spiral 20 having pointed end) having a plurality of corner regions (Fig. 2, [0070]), the device comprising: a conductor (25, [0071]) arranged to be placed in proximity to the multi-turn sensor, wherein the conductor (25) is configured to generate a magnetic field when a current pulse is applied to a predetermined part of the conductor ([0083]), such that pairs of domain walls are generated in the magnetoresistive elements ([0081]) defining at least one corner region ( [0070], it is shown that the connections between the webs are quarter circles or quarter circle-like polygonal lines 302 (shown in the zoomed-in circle 301), which are composed of the same layer stack as the webs. These polygonal lines form the “corners” of the square spiral, ) of the at least one spiral (20; 112, 114, 115, Fig. 2); wherein the predetermined part of the conductor (25) to which the current pulse is applied is located in proximity to one of the corner regions and selected based on a direction of an external magnetic field in proximity to the multi-turn sensor ([0081, 2. This is followed by the nucleation of two domain walls by way of a current flow over a conductor 25 in the winding beneath the constriction 26. The current-induced Oersted field is above the nucleation field strength of the sensor element 2. The nucleated two domain walls are transported by the magnetic field of the magnet 4 oriented in the reference direction 28 (corresponding to FIG. 1) into the DW position 46 and into the DW position] the “reference direction 28” which determines the direction of current injected into conductor 25]).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, MATTHEIS discloses that the predetermined part of the conductor (25) is a part located in proximity to a corner region of the at least one spiral (20) (Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, MATTHEIS discloses that the conductor (25) is cross-shaped (Fig. 2).
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) 8 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATTHEIS et al. (2018/0372510).
As to claims 8 - 9, MATTHEIS disclose the conductor (25). MATTHEIS fails to explicitly disclose that the conductor comprises a non-ferromagnetic material and wherein the non-ferromagnetic material comprises one of: Gold, Copper, Aluminium and an alloy comprising Aluminium and Copper. However, it would have been a matter of choice that the conductor comprises a non-ferromagnetic material and wherein the non-ferromagnetic material comprises one of: Gold, Copper, Aluminium and an alloy comprising Aluminium and Copper wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed conductor was significant (Please Note MPEP 2144.04 II.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12 – 16 and 18 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 3 – 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 3 – 6, the prior art fails to show that a first conductor that extends from a first corner region of the at least one spiral to a second corner region of the at least one spiral. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights