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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification does not numerically identify the “hard magnetic layer” (first instance in Claim 1) in the figures. The specification states: “a protective layer 15 is provided over the hard-magnetic layer to protect the scanned hard-magnetic layer from damage and/or environmental influences”, suggesting that the hard-magnetic layer is element 14 of figure 3. For the purposes of examination, the hard magnetic layer will be interpreted as element 14 in figure 3 of the drawings.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification does not discuss “the differently magnetized regions” as in claim 8, ln.3. It is not understood from the specification, the way in which these regions are differently magnetized. For example, north and south are not mentioned anywhere in the specification nor any other differing set of magnetizations. See corresponding 35 USC § 112 rejection below for the claim interpretation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the “differently magnetized regions”, as recited in Claim 8, ln.3, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
the “tracks”, as recited in Claim 13, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the limitation "the magnetic signal device have a resolution of 10 to 20 bits, in particular on one or more tracks" is not properly supported in the specification to show that the applicants had possession of the claimed invention. There are three mentions of "bits." Two are recitations of the same claim language. The only description states "resolutions of up to 18 bits" which does not conform with "10 to 20 bits." Furthermore, "tracks" are mentioned twice, merely as recitations of the same claim language. It is not clear, based on the available record, where or what these "tracks" are or how they allow for the claimed resolution, or otherwise how they the tracks and resolution relate to each other at all. As a result, the applicants do not show possession of Claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 14 (lns. 3-10) recites:
“wherein the hard-magnetic layer is applied directly from the gas phase to the supporting element by one of the following methods:
- hollow cathode gas flow sputtering
- hollow cathode sputtering
- electroplating
- PVD method
- CVD method
- plasma spraying”.
In this case, the claim is narrowed to six possible "gas phase" modes of forming the hard-magnetic layer. Five of the six modes are well known to be gas phase. However, electroplating is well known to be a liquid phase coating process. See "Electroplating" by LibreTexts Chemistry, attached hereto. Nothing in the prior art suggests that electroplating can be done in a gas phase. Electroplating is highly mature and predictable. The specification provides no direction and no working examples regarding how electroplating can be accomplished by gas phase. As a result, there would be an undue amount of experimentation for the person of ordinary skill to practice the invention of Claim 14.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the component" (lns. 3, 15, and 18). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the component” will refer to “a rotating component” (ln.2). Claims 2-14 depend from Claim 1 and therefore inherit this rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation: “wherein at least 75% by weight, preferably at least 85% by weight, particularly preferably at least 90% by weight” (lns.6-7), is indefinite due to the use of a broad range, followed by narrower ranges that the applicant deems preferable, thus not clearly setting forth the desired range. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “wherein at least 75% by weight”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 85% by weight, particularly preferably at least 90% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted such that the hard magnetic layer will consist of one or more of the claimed compounds (NdFeB, Co5Sm, and/or Co2Sm17) by at least 75% by weight. Furthermore the use of the “preferably” further renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it is unknown exactly what is claimed. Claims 2-14 depend from Claim 1 and therefore inherit this rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "for example" in the recitation: “the magnetic structure, for example the magnetic field strength at different heights and/or orientations” (lns.15-16), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of further examination, the recitation: “for example the magnetic field strength at different heights and/or orientations” will not be read into the claim for examination purposes. However, the claim language and specification (p.2, ln.28 – p.3, ln.7) give context to the term “magnetic structure”, such that Examiner understands that the term “structure” does not refer to a physical object that is a magnetic structure, but instead refers to characteristics of the magnetic field created by the hard-magnetic layer, such as magnetic field strength. Therefore, the limitation “magnetic structure” will be interpreted as any magnetic characteristic of the hard-magnetic layer. Claims 2-14 depend from Claim 1 and therefore inherit this rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of "can be measured... to enable conclusions to be drawn..." (ln.17) is indefinite because it is unclear what or who is enabled to draw a conclusion. If the limitation is referring to a controller, no controller is described. If referring to a human, there is vast disparity in how humans draw conclusions based on gathered evidence. Furthermore, "conclusions to be drawn about the rotation and/or position of the component" is indefinite because it is completely unclear what conclusions are sought, or what a conclusion even is, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear." For examination purposes, the recitation of "can be measured... to enable conclusions to be drawn..." will be interpreted such that positional measurement of the rotation is possible by an observer. Claims 2-14 depend from Claim 1 and therefore inherit this rejection.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation: “the hard-magnetic layer has an average thickness of between 10 and 100 µm, preferably more than 15 µm, particularly preferably between 25 and 60 µm” is indefinite due to the use of a broad range, followed by narrower ranges that the applicant deems preferable, thus not clearly setting forth the desired range. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the hard-magnetic layer has an average thickness of between 10 and 100 µm”, and the claim also recites “preferably more than 15 µm, particularly preferably between 25 and 60 µm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Furthermore the use of the “preferably” further renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it is unknown exactly what is claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, the phrase "in particular" in the recitation: “the supporting structure comprises a non-magnetic, in particular ceramic, material” (lns.2-3), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the claim is limited to a non-magnetic material.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation: “preferably with an average thickness of up to 10 µm” (ln.2) is indefinite because the word “preferably” renders the metes and bounds of the term, “an average thickness” indefinite as it is unclear whether or not it is necessary that the claimed “further layer” have a value of average thickness of 10 µm. For the purposes of further examination, the average thickness of the further layer will be interpreted as having any thickness.
Regarding Claim 6, the recitation: “preferably Fe and/or Zr and/or Cu” (ln.2) is indefinite because the word “preferably” renders the metes and bounds of the term, “Fe and/or Zr and/or Cu” indefinite as it is unclear whether or not it is necessary for the transition metals to be “Fe and/or Zr and/or Cu”. For the purposes of further examination, the term “preferably” will not be read into the claim, such that the transition metals that are contained in the hard-magnetic layer will be “Fe and/or Zr and/or Cu”.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the differently magnetized regions” in ln.3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes Examiner interprets “the differently magnetized regions” as being any magnetized region with at least a north and a south pole, as would be the broadest interpretation of the specification and the figures.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation: “in particular on one or more tracks” is indefinite because it is not ascertainable as to what these tracks are referring to structurally. The specification, despite referencing the term “tracks” on p.6 (see ln.19 and ln.31), does not describe the structure or context of the term “tracks” within the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is impossible to determine what resolution is being referred to and the claim cannot be examined on the merits at this time.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The recitation of, “the hard-magnetic layer has been applied to the supporting element by at least one of the following methods: …- electroplating” improperly broadens Claim 1 from which it depends because claim 1 is limited to gas-phase deposition and electroplating is a liquid deposition process. Claim 10 is limited to gas phase deposition because it is dependent from Claim 1. Claim 10 lists six options as to how the hard-magnetic layer is "applied": five gas methods and one liquid method. Hollow cathode gas flow sputtering, hollow cathode sputtering, PVD, CVD and plasma spraying are gas "application" methods that properly limit Claim 1. Electroplating is a liquid application method that improperly broadens claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 9-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottmyer et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2008/0252286 in view of Brauer et al. (Annual Report 2015, translation cited in third party IDS dated 07/16/2024) in view of Bandorf et al. (Hard Magnetic CoxSmy Coatings by Means of Gas Flow Sputtering, translation cited in third party IDS dated 07/16/2024), and in further view of Kabashima et al. US Patent No.: US 6,762,897.
Regarding Claim 1, as best interpreted above, Kottmyer teaches a magnetic signal device for measuring the position of a rotating component of a drive machine (see [0021]-[0024] and figures 3-4, in which magnetic assembly 30 and hall sensor assembly 31, serve to measure the position of rotating component, which is the shaft of a motor described in [0022]. Said shaft is inserted into central opening 42, seen in figure 3 and [0022]), the signal device being coupled in a rotationally fixed manner to the component of the drive machine (see [0021]-[0024] and figures 3-4, in which the component, shaft described in [0022], rotates rotor assembly 130 to be detected and thus they must be rotationally fixed in order to function) and the signal device having a supporting element (figure 3-4, hub 32 upon which the magnets 50 sit, discussed in [0026]),
so that, depending on the angle of rotation of the component, the magnetic structure, for example the magnetic field strength at different heights and/or orientations, such that positional measurement of the rotation is possible by an observer (see [0025] teaching that rotational movement information is determined by the hall sensors; also see [0002] teaching that the device is a position encoder, and then see [0003]-[0005], teaching that position encoders serve to provide information to determine position via magnetic material and magnetic sensors).
Kottmyer is silent in explicitly disclosing: a magnetizable, hard-magnetic layer deposited on the supporting element from a gas phase directly on the supporting element, and the hard-magnetic layer has a magnetic remanence of 0.3 T to 1.3 T in its scanning region and after magnetization the hard-magnetic layer has a magnetic structure in the direction of rotation. However, Brauer teaches a magnetizable, hard-magnetic layer deposited on the supporting element from a gas phase directly on the supporting element (see Brauer p.40, par.2, left side of page, stating "a magnetic layer is sputtered directly onto a commercial roller bearing", thus teaching a gas phase deposition of a hard magnetic layer onto a base; see par.3, right side of page, further teaching “Hollow-cathode gas flow sputtering ... is very suitable for the deposition of magnetic materials”), and the hard-magnetic layer has a magnetic remanence of 0.3 T to 1.3 T in its scanning region and after magnetization (see Brauer p.41, par.1, stating "with a remanence greater than 0.6 T and a coercive field strength above 500 kA / m these layers have excellent hard magnetic properties”; Examiner notes, as it was stated above in the rejection of Claim 1 under 112(b), that the term magnetic structure refers to any magnetic characteristic of the hard-magnetic layer, i.e. field characteristics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Kottmyer with those of Brauer because the gas flow sputtering method “is very suitable for the deposition of magnetic materials” and “a remanence greater than 0.6 T…ha[s] excellent hard magnetic properties” (as stated in Brauer p.40-41, further motivating hard magnetic materials and gas flow sputtering method).
The teachings of Kottmyer and Brauer are silent in explicitly disclosing: wherein at least 75% by weight (as interpreted by Examiner, see above) based on the composition of the hard-magnetic layer of the hard-magnetic layer consist of one or more of the following compounds
- NdFeB and/or
- Co5Sm and/or
- Co2Sm17
However, Bandorf teaches: wherein at least 75% by weight based on the composition of the hard-magnetic layer of the hard-magnetic layer consist of one or more of the following compounds: Co5Sm (Bandorf p.7, par.1, states “These produce layers with the hard magnetic phases Co5Sm and Co17Sm2”. Regarding the limitation, as best interpreted by examiner, "at least 75% by weight...," Bandorf teaches CoxSmY materials and is silent regarding any alloying materials, impurities or additives, and does not suggest any, and therefore the materials taught by Bandorf are considered to be entirely CoxSmy materials within manufacturing tolerances, well above 75% by weight).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Kottmyer and Brauer with those of Bandorf in order “to produce layers with hard magnetic phases” (as discussed in Bandorf p.7, par.1).
The teachings of Kottmyer, Brauer, and Bandorf do not sufficiently disclose that the hard-magnetic layer has a magnetic structure in the direction of rotation. However, Kabashima teaches that the hard-magnetic layer has a magnetic structure in the direction of rotation (see Kabashima figure 3, in which the magnetic field lines are in the rotational direction, in a plane orthogonal to the rotational axis; again, note that “a magnetic structure” is best interpreted to mean magnetic field attributes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kottmyer, Brauer, and Bandorf with those of Kabashima such that the magnetic field is in the direction of rotation because such a design results in increased accuracy and small size (see Kabashima col.8, lns.29-36).
Regarding Claim 2, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein the hard-magnetic layer has an average thickness of between 10 and 100 µm, preferably more than 15 µm, particularly preferably between 25 and 60 µm, in its scanning region (see Brauer p. 41, title of figure, describing "Hard-magnetic hysteresis of a gas-flow-sputtered rare- earth magnetic layer 10 µm thick”; see the rejection above under 112(b), in which the claim is only limited to an average thickness of between 10 and 100 µm).
Regarding Claim 3, as interpreted by Examiner, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure is provided of comprises a non-magnetic material (see Kottmyer [0022] teaching that hub 32 is of a non-magnetic material).
Regarding Claim 4, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting structure comprises a metallic material (see Kottmyer [0027] in which aluminum is suggested for use as the supporting structure material of element 32).
Regarding Claim 5, as interpreted by Examiner, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein a further layer is provided over the scanning region of the hard-magnetic layer as a protective layer for protecting the hard-magnetic layer (see Kottmyer figure 3, further layer 56 over the scanning region of the magnetic layer).
Regarding Claim 7, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic signal device is configured as a rotationally symmetrical pole wheel (see Kottmyer figure 4 and [0022], which teaches that 30 is a rotationally symmetrical pole wheel).
Regarding Claim 9, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein the supporting element is non-magnetic (see Kottmyer [0022], [0027] in which the supporting structure material of element 32 is non-magnetic).
Regarding Claim 10, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein the hard-magnetic layer has been applied to the supporting element by at least one of the following methods: hollow cathode gas flow sputtering (see Brauer, p.40, par.3 on right side of page, stating "Hollow-cathode gas flow sputtering ... is very suitable for the deposition of magnetic materials.").
Regarding Claim 11, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic detection device with the magnetic signal device claim 1 and a sensor unit with a sensor working with a XMR and/or Hall measuring method (see Kottmyer [0025] and figure 4, Hall detectors 35 and 37).
Regarding Claim 14, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach a method for producing the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein the hard-magnetic layer is applied directly from the gas phase to the supporting element by one of the following methods: hollow cathode gas flow sputtering (see Brauer, p.40, par.3 on right side of page, stating "Hollow-cathode gas flow sputtering ... is very suitable for the deposition of magnetic materials.").
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottmyer et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2008/0252286 in view of Brauer et al. (Annual Report 2015, translation cited in third party IDS dated 07/16/2024) in view of Bandorf et al. (Hard Magnetic Coxsmy Coatings by Means of Gas Flow Sputtering, translation cited in third party IDS dated 07/16/2024), in further view of Kabashima et al. US Patent No.: US 6,762,897, and in further view of Zhang et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2020/0243233.
Regarding Claim 6, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, but are silent in explicitly teaching wherein the hard-magnetic layer contains further alloying elements from the series of transition metals in its scanning region, preferably Fe and/or Zr and/or Cu. However, Zhang teaches wherein the hard-magnetic layer contains further alloying elements from the series of transition metals in its scanning region, preferably Fe and/or Zr and/or Cu (see Zhang [0029]-[0036] teaching adding 24% iron, zirconium, and copper to a CoxSmy-based magnet). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima with those of Zhang because “for some applications, such as motors, data sensors and aerospace accessories, magnet materials characterized by remanence that does not change with the temperature at high temperatures are desirable. No doubt, samarium-cobalt magnets having a positive temperature coefficient of remanence are more favorable. A positive temperature coefficient of remanence means that the remanence increases as the temperature increases” (as discussed in Zhang [0006]).
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kottmyer et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2008/0252286 in view of Brauer et al. (Annual Report 2015, translation cited in third party IDS dated 07/16/2024) in view of Bandorf et al. (Hard Magnetic Coxsmy Coatings by Means of Gas Flow Sputtering, translation cited in third party IDS dated 07/16/2024) in further view of Kabashima et al. US Patent No.: US 6,762,897, and in further view of Kim et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0285754.
Regarding Claim 8, as interpreted by Examiner, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic signal device according to claim 1, wherein an angular accuracy of less than or equal to 0.10° between the differently magnetized regions is achievable when the hard-magnetic layer is magnetized. However, Kim teaches wherein an angular accuracy of less than or equal to 0.10° between the differently magnetized regions is achievable when the hard-magnetic layer is magnetized (see Kim [0067]-[0068], teaching a .10° resolution, which is a measure of angular accuracy; Examiner notes interpretation of the claim limitation “differently magnetized regions” under 112(b), see above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima with those of Kim in order to improve accuracy of the rotational measuring system (as discussed in Kim [0004] and [0067]-[0068]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima teach the magnetic detection device according to claim 11, but are silent in explicitly disclosing wherein a distance of 0.1 mm to 3 mm is provided between the sensor and the magnetic signal device. However, Kim discloses wherein a distance of 0.1 mm to 3 mm is provided between the sensor and the magnetic signal device (see Kim [0074]-[0075], which states “Generally, the distance between a magnet and a hall sensor is designed to be within a range of 0.3 mm to 0.6 mm and the distance may be designed to be about 1 mm”, which is within the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Kottmyer, Brauer, Bandorf, and Kabashima with those of Kim in order to improve accuracy of the rotational measuring system (as discussed in Kim [0004] and [0067]-[0068]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852