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 action is in response to the communication filed 11/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 9-10 directed towards the priority issue,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendment and notes that the previously raised issues are withdrawn. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that certain new amendments raise an issue of priority. In Claim 7, applicant is now claiming “magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into a second initialization state,” but where such a feature is neither supported by the instant or parent application. As was previously explained, applicant does not use both the first and second initialization states, and only uses one of these states as seen in paragraph [0049] of the parent application, for example, which explains that the sensor 120 can be initialized “in one of two ways.” Applicant does not repeat the entire process after the sensor has been initialized into one state with the sensor in the other of the two states. In fact, there would be no need for such a process because Claim 1 expressly requires that the sensor does match the second expected set of states, and thus has been determined to be valid and not at fault. The above claim phrase from Claim 7 therefore raises an issue of priority as the parent application does not support such a feature.
With regard to the arguments on pages 10-12 directed towards the previous 101 rejections,
Applicant initially argues that an improvement is provided, and thus the pending claims are not abstract, citing paragraph [0035]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, while paragraph [0035] may cite a benefit, it does not demonstrate that this benefit is an improvement over technology. This is especially true given that the applied prior art below discloses the claim features.
Second, as best understood, it is the argued and claimed process that applicant considers to be the improvement. However, the entirety of the process is abstract, because the entirety of the process is directed towards mathematical calculations that use comparisons (calculations) to determine whether or not the actual state of the sensor matches one or more expected states. Comparisons are mathematical calculations, and mathematical calculations have been held to be abstract (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As further explained in MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Meaning, while unconventional additional elements or a practical application can overcome a 101 rejection, the abstract idea itself cannot.
Applicant then argues that for Claim 1, the feature of the newly added determination of a turn count and subsequent outputting of the turn count overcomes the 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, a determination of a turn count is itself a mathematical calculation because any determination of specific turn count is, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a mathematical calculation, and thus abstract. As noted above, an abstract idea itself (judicial exception) cannot itself overcome a 101 rejection. The next feature of outputting the turn count likewise does not overcome the 101 rejection. Mere outputting the turn count is a mere field of use of the turn count and is conventional, as it is conventional to output turn counts. For example, Dietrich et al. (Dietrich) (WO 2016/198062) discloses the above features. Using the disclosure of US 2018/0172477 as a translation, paragraph [0068] explains that the number of rotations (turn count) can be read-out or looked-up, which must be it is output. Similarly, Schmitt (US 2017/0261345) discloses outputting the number of turns in paragraph [0007]. Furthermore, such a recitation is not a practical application because it has been held that mere or necessary outputting of a result is insufficient extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Any determination of a turn count must be necessarily output to be usable in any manner, and thus is not a practical application. Similarly, it has been held that mere outputting, such as to display an output, is insufficient extra-solution activity (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 18 recites similar language and the above explanation pertains to this claim as well.
In Claim 10, applicant recites similar language but adds a turn count decoder. However, such a feature is conventional because the devices from the above references that output the turn count can be considered turn count decoders that perform the same function as claimed, which is to output a turn count. A turn count decoder is therefore conventional, and also a field of use device which is necessary to provide any output of the turn count itself.
The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, because no practical application of the abstract idea is presented, as the only other features of the claims are conventional or field of use devices, or directed towards mere outputting of the end result of the abstract idea, but where it has been held that mere outputting of the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant then asserts that the determination and output of a turn count is a practical application, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons explained above. A determination, in light of the disclosure, is a mathematical calculation and thus directed towards a judicial exception, and merely outputting a signal based on the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as has been held and explained above.
With regard to the arguments on pages 12-13 directed towards the previous 112(a) and (b) rejections,
No specific arguments are presented with regard to these rejections. As such, those rejections that have been overcome by the prior art rejection are withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below.
With regard to the prior art rejections on pages 13-15,
Applicant argues that Dietrich et al. (Dietrich) (WO 2016/198062) does not disclose a first and second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns but without any further argument. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Figure 9 expressly shows that for each non-zero number of turns, there is plural expected sets of states. For example, for n=0.25, R1 has an expected set of states of 0 (or the combination of R1 and L1 can be the first set of expected set of states of 0 and -). Any other two states can be selected as the second set of expected states, such as those of just R2 or the combination of R2 and L2. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the Examiner did not identify a reason why the argued claim features would have promoted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such an inquiry is not pertinent to a 102 rejection. That stated, the Examiner previously provided a detailed explanation as to why it would have been obvious to such a person, and thus respectfully disagrees.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/007794, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
As to Claim 5,
Applicant is now claiming “the first expected set of states comprises a third expected set of states for a first non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field and a fourth expected set of states for a second non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field,” but where the parent disclosure does not reasonably disclose that the first set of states includes a third and fourth set of states as claimed. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to identify what the third and fourth expected set of states are in the parent application.
As to Claim 7,
In Claim 7, applicant is now claiming “magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into a second initialization state,” but where such a feature is neither supported by the instant or parent application. As was previously explained, applicant does not use both the first and second initialization states, and only uses one of these states as seen in paragraph [0049] of the parent application, for example, which explains that the sensor 120 can be initialized “in one of two ways.” Applicant does not repeat the entire process after the sensor has been initialized into one state with the sensor in the other of the two states. In fact, there would be no need for such a process because Claim 1 expressly requires that the sensor does match the second expected set of states, and thus has been determined to be valid and not at fault. The above claim phrase from Claim 7 therefore raises an issue of priority as the parent application does not support such a feature.
Similarly, the phrase “determining that a second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the first valid initialization state; in response to determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states, determining that there is a fault in the magnetic multi-turn sensor based on determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state” on lines 2 to the end is not supported by the parent application. The parent application does not disclose initializing the sensor into a second initialization state, followed by the above determination process. As explained in paragraph [0049] of the parent application, only one initialization state is selected and then used. This phrase, in the combination, is therefore not supported by the parent application.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “an initialization state decoder configured to: determine that outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor deviate from a first expected set of outputs fora non- zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on a first initialization state; and in response to determining that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor deviate from the first expected set of outputs, determine that the initialization state is a second initialization state based on the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor corresponding a second expected set of outputs for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second initialization state; and a turn count decoder configured to output a turn count of the multi-turn magnetic sensor based on the determination that the initialization state is the second initialization state and the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor” on the last three paragraphs is not supported by the parent application.
The parent disclosure does not originally disclose the use of sets of outputs as claimed. Instead, the parent disclosure discloses the use of sets of states, but a state of the sensor is not the same as an output. Applicant does not originally disclose obtaining sets of outputs as claimed in the parent application. One output can, for example, provide plural states, thus demonstrating that sets of outputs claimed are not inherent. That stated, the entirety of all determinations as originally disclosed are based on the sets of states of the sensor, and not any outputs. This phrase therefore is not reasonably supported by the parent application. Should applicant disagree, applicant is requested to specifically identify where in the parent application sets of outputs of obtained and used in the claimed manner by the specific components recited to rely upon them.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “the first expected set of outputs comprises a third expected set of outputs for a first non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field and a fourth expected set of outputs for a second non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field” on lines 6-8 is not reasonably supported by the parent application. The parent disclosure does not reasonably disclose that the first set of outputs includes a third and fourth set of outputs as claimed. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to identify what the third and fourth expected set of outputs are in the parent application.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the initialization state decoder is configured to determine that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor correspond to the second expected set of outputs by at least determining that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor correspond to a valid sequence of the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor for a non-zero number of turns of a magnetic field based on the second initialization state” on lines 2-7 is not supported by the parent application.
The parent disclosure does not originally disclose the use of sets of outputs as claimed. Instead, the parent disclosure discloses the use of sets of states, but a state of the sensor is not the same as an output. Applicant does not originally disclose obtaining sets of outputs as claimed in the parent application. One output can, for example, provide plural states, thus demonstrating that sets of outputs claimed are not inherent. That stated, the entirety of all determinations as originally disclosed are based on the sets of states of the sensor, and not any outputs. This phrase therefore is not reasonably supported by the parent application. Should applicant disagree, applicant is requested to specifically identify where in the parent application sets of outputs of obtained and used in the claimed manner by the specific components recited to rely upon them.
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 16/007,794, filed 6/13/2018, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Res Judicata
As explained in MPEP 706.07(h)(XI)(A) “In addition to the res judicata effect of a Board decision in an application (see MPEP § 2190, subsection II), a Board decision in an application is the "law of the case," and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application. See MPEP § 1214.01.” While applicant has filed a continuation and not an RCE, this section still explains that res judicata is in effect and that the Board decision controls in any subsequent, related application. Therefore, the Board decision on 5/10/2023 in 16/007,794 controls in the instant application.
As to Claims 1-8 and 10-20,
This is stated because the instant claims are substantially similar to those present when the Board rendered its decision. The instant application recites much of the same features as those previously claimed in the parent application, and to the extent that the features are the same or substantially the same, the same Dietrich et al. (Dietrich) (WO 2016/198062) reference previously asserted and affirmed by the Board is asserted against the instant claims as well. . Only to the extent that the Board determines that certain features, such as some of the now claimed details of the magnetoresistive segments were not already decided, res judicata would still reasonably cover and be in effect for most if not all other claim features for the reasons explained above, depending on the particular claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (judicial exception) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to Claim 1,
This claim is identified as a process claim (Step 1).
This claim further recites “determining a first set of magnetic states of the magnetoresistive elements at a non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi- turn sensor; determining that the first set of magnetic states deviate from a first expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on a first valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states; in response to determining that the first set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states, determining that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor is a second valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states based on determining that the first set of magnetic states corresponds to a second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states, determining a turn count of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi- turn sensor based on the first set of magnetic states and the determination that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor corresponds to the second valid initialization state,” which is an abstract idea. This phrase is deemed abstract because, as best understood, all of the above recited determination steps are mathematical calculations. Meaning, applicant is using mathematical calculations to determine a first set of states, because applicant uses a comparison to obtain these states (see paragraph [0048]), and a comparison of resistance values as disclosed is a mathematical operation. The later determinations are similarly mathematical calculations. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(c), mathematical calculations, including those reciting a step of determining without any actual formula claimed, have been held to be abstract (Step 2A, Prong One).
The above abstract idea is not reasonably integrated into any practical application, as no claim feature reasonably uses or otherwise implements the abstract idea for any reasonably practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two). While applicant now recites “outputting the turn count of the magnetic field” on the last two lines, such a recitation is not a practical application because it has been held that mere or necessary outputting of a result is insufficient extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Any determination of a turn count must be necessarily output to be usable in any manner, and thus is not a practical application. Similarly, it has been held that mere outputting, such as to display an output, is insufficient extra-solution activity (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As such, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
The remaining claim features are “magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into an initialization state, the initialization state being one of of at least two valid initialization states, wherein the magnetic multi-turn sensor comprises a magnetic strip comprising a plurality of magnetoresistive elements electrically coupled in series, wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements has at least two magnetic states each associated with a different resistance, and wherein the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor defines the magnetic states of the magnetoresistive elements at zero turns of a magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor,” but such features are conventional and therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, Dietrich et al. (Dietrich) (WO 2016/198062) discloses the above features. Using the disclosure of US 2018/0172477 as a translation, Dietrich discloses magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into an initialization state, the initialization states being one of at least two valid initialization states (for example the states at n=0 in Figure 9 or the set of expected states explained in paragraphs [0058]-[0061]), wherein the magnetic multi-turn sensor comprises a magnetic strip (1) comprising a plurality of magnetoresistive elements (segments (3)) electrically coupled in series (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0045]), wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements has at least two magnetic states each associated with a different resistance (Figure 9 / note each segment has an alignment/state of 0,+, or – and where each of these are assigned with a difference resistance as explained in paragraph [0047]), and wherein the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor defines the magnetic states of the magnetoresistive elements at zero turns of a magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor (Figure 9), paragraph [0068] explains that the number of rotations (turn count) can be read-out or looked-up, which must be it is output.
Schmitt (US 2017/0261345) likewise discloses magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into an initialization state, the initialization state being one of at least two valid initialization states (Figure 9), (Paragraphs [0097]-[0100] / note the initialization state is shown in Figure 9, and these states are reasonably valid as they reasonably correspond to a zero rotation state), wherein the magnetic multi-turn sensor comprises a magnetic strip (100) comprising a plurality of magnetoresistive elements (R1-R13) electrically coupled in series (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0055]), wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements has at least two magnetic states each associated with a different resistance (Paragraphs [0058]-[0061] / note that like applicant, each strip can have a high or low resistance), and wherein the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor defines the magnetic states of the magnetoresistive elements at zero turns of a magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor (Figure 9), outputting the number of turns in paragraph [0007].
Furthermore, the structural features / non-abstract features of the claims are field of use limitations, because they do not recite any particularly limiting feature as they are broadly recited and necessary for the operation and use of the abstract idea.
The above additional elements are therefore conventional, and thus insignificant extra-solution activity as explained in MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the Examiner also notes that the above feature amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. Here, the only reasonable way that the abstract idea can be implemented is with the type of sensor and initialization for this sensor as claimed as part of the additional element. This additional element therefore is required and necessary in order to implement the abstract idea, thus amounting to features necessary for data gathering and causing the claim to pre-empt the abstract idea. This feature is thus a field of use limitation that is necessary for any of the abstract idea to be implemented and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the forgoing reasons, this claim is directed towards an abstract idea without reciting a practical application or any feature that reasonably amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 2,
Both references mentioned above disclose the same type of magnetoresistive element and measurements thereof. The additional element of “measuring resistances of the magnetoresistive elements via a plurality of electrical connections, the electrical connections being electrically coupled to the magnetoresistive elements” is therefore reasonably disclosed by both references as seen in the cited sections of those references. The additional element therefore does not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the Examiner also notes that the above feature amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. Here, the only reasonable way that the abstract idea can be implemented is with the type of sensor and initialization for this sensor as claimed as part of the additional element. This additional element therefore is required and necessary in order to implement the abstract idea, thus amounting to features necessary for data gathering and causing the claim to pre-empt the abstract idea.
The remaining elements of the claim are directed towards a determination of the first set of magnetic states, but where such feature, as best understood, is a mathematical calculation, and thus directed towards an abstract idea for the reasons already explained above.
As to Claims 3 and 4,
These claims are directed towards the specific amount of domain walls propagated in the magnetoresistive element. Both cited references operate their magnetoresistive elements in the same manner as applicant as disclose the same type of sensor. Both references include a zero domain wall scenario and a full domain wall scenario as seen in the above cited sections. As such, these additional elements are conventional and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 5-7,
The only features recited in these claims are additional determination steps or features that a part of these steps but further defined in the claims, and these steps, as best understood, are mathematical calculations and thus abstract ideas for the same reasons already explained in the above rejection of Claim 1. While Claim 7 additionally recites “magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into a second initialization state” such an additional element is a field of use because no details of the initialization process are claimed, and because the abstract idea of Claim 7 necessarily requires this initialization step. Furthermore, it is conventional to initialize a magnetic sensor, as evidenced by the above noted prior art and paragraph [0004] of the instant application, thereby further demonstrating that such a step is insufficient extra-solution activity.
As to Claim 8,
First, this feature is not positively recited as it is only invoked “in response to” and thus “when” a magnetic field rotates 180 degrees. Because this feature is not positively recited, it does not necessarily contain an additional element. Second, to the extent that the above feature is given patentable weight and considered and additional element, both cited prior art references disclose the same type of magnetoresistive element as applicant using the same type of domain wall propagation as applicant. The prior art therefore is reasonably capable of performing this claim feature, thereby demonstrating that such a feature is conventional.
As to Claim 10,
This claim is an apparatus claim (Step 1).
As to Steps 2A and 2B, the features of this claim have already been addressed in the above rejection of Claim 1, the only difference being the term “states” is replaced with “outputs” in this claim, but where both refer to the same concept as best understood. This claim additionally recites a processing circuit operate coupled to the multi-turn sensor and comprising a initialization state decoder configured to perform a determination feature explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above to be abstract, and a turn count decoder configured to output a turn count of the multi-turn sensor based on the initialization state and the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor on the last three lines of the claim. Addressing Step 2A, Prong Two, no feature of this claim reasonably integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The turn count decoder as now recited is merely a field of use device as no particulars of the decoder are claimed, and this device is merely used to output a turn count. As was previously explained in the above rejection of Claim 1, the mere outputting of an end result of the abstract idea has been held to be insufficient extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
For Step 2B, no practical application of the abstract idea is implemented as explained above. The additional elements noted above do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they are conventional. Dietrich et al. (Dietrich) (WO 2016/198062) discloses an analysis device (26) that performs the functions of the above processing circuit (paragraph [0063]). This device must reasonably output the turn count (number of rotations), whether that is storing the value in memory or transmitting it elsewhere. Schmitt (US 2017/0261345) likewise discloses the claim features, as it discloses a processing device in Figures 6, 7, and 8 that processes the magnetic states of the magnetic strip, and includes a turn counter (the portion of the device that actually provides the number of turns) that provides an indication of a number of turns (paragraph [0078]). Furthermore, Mattheis et al. (Mattheis) (WO 2017097285) also discloses the above claims features, in that it discloses a processing circuit (6) operate coupled to the multi-turn sensor (2) and comprising a initialization state decoder configured to perform a determination feature similar to that claimed using a similar sensor as claimed and disclosed, along with a turn decoder (11) that outputs a number of turns (revolutions) (Paragraph [0068] of US 2018/0372510 used as an English translation). The turn count decoder has also been demonstrated to be conventional in the above rejection of Claims 1 and 18, as well as being a field of use device.
As such, the additional elements of this claim are conventional and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 11,
All three references mentioned above disclose the same type of magnetoresistive element and measurements thereof. The additional element of “the processing circuit is further configured to measure resistances of the magnetoresistive elements via a plurality of electrical connections that are electrically coupled to the magnetoresistive elements, wherein the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor are provided at the electrical connections” is therefore reasonably disclosed by both references as seen in the cited sections of those references. All three references use a plurality of electrical connections, such as connections 7 and 8 in Figure 1 of Dietrich and the connection nodes such as 401a,401b in Schmidt. The additional element therefore does not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 12 and 13,
These claims are directed towards the specific amount of domain walls propagated in the magnetoresistive element. All three cited references operate their magnetoresistive elements in the same manner as applicant as disclose the same type of sensor. Dietrich and Schmidt include a zero domain wall scenario and a full domain wall scenario as seen in the above cited sections. As such, these additional elements are conventional and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 14, 15, and 17,
The only features recited in these claims are additional determination steps, and these steps, as best understood, are mathematical calculations and thus abstract ideas for the same reasons already explained in the above rejection of Claims 1 and 10.
As to Claim 16,
Both Mattheis and Schmidt cited above disclose the same type of magnetoresistive element as applicant using the same type of domain wall propagation as applicant. The prior art therefore is reasonably capable of performing this claim feature, thereby demonstrating that such a feature is conventional.
As to Claim 18,
This claim is an apparatus claim (Step 1).
This claim recites the abstract idea of “determine a first set of magnetic states of the magnetoresistive elements at a non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi- turn sensor; determine that the first set of magnetic states deviate from a first expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on a first valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states; in response to determining that the first set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states, determine that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor is a second valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states based on determining that the first set of magnetic states corresponds to a second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states, determine a turn count of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi- turn sensor based on the first set of magnetic states and the determination that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor corresponds to the second valid initialization state. This phrase is abstract because, as explained in the above rejection of Claim 1 which is herein incorporated and applied against this claim, it is directed towards a mathematical calculation (Step 2A, Prong One).
As also explained in the above rejection of Claims 1 and 10, the claim does not recite any practical application of the abstract idea as no claim feature reasonably integrates this abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The remaining features constitute additional elements, where these elements are “processing circuit operatively coupled to a magnetic multi-turn sensor to receive signals from the magnetic multi-turn sensor, the magnetic multi-turn sensor comprising a magnetic strip comprising a plurality of magnetoresistive elements electrically coupled in series, wherein the magnetic multi-turn sensor is magnetically initialized into an initialization state of at least two valid initialization states, wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements has at least two magnetic alignments each associated with a different resistance, and wherein the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor defines the magnetic alignments of the magnetoresistive elements at zero turns of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor.” However, all of these features have previously been demonstrated to be conventional as explained in the above rejections of Claims 1 and 10, which are herein incorporated and applied against this claim. As such, the above additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B).
As to Claim 19,
All three references mentioned above disclose the same type of magnetoresistive element and measurements thereof. The additional element of “the processing circuit is further configured to measure resistances of the magnetoresistive elements via a plurality of electrical connections, the electrical connections being electrically coupled to the magnetoresistive elements,” is therefore reasonably disclosed by both references as seen in the cited sections of those references. All three references use a plurality of electrical connections, such as connections 7 and 8 in Figure 1 of Dietrich and the connection nodes such as 401a,401b in Schmidt. The additional element therefore does not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The remaining determine claim feature is abstract as it recites a mathematical calculation for the same reason explained in the rejection of Claims 1 and 10.
As to Claim 20,
This claim is directed towards the specific amount of domain walls propagated in the magnetoresistive element. Mattheis and Schmidt their magnetoresistive elements in the same manner as applicant as disclose the same type of sensor. Both references include a zero domain wall scenario and a full domain wall scenario as seen in the above cited sections. As such, these additional elements are conventional and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 2-8, 11-17, 19, and 20,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 5, 7, and 10-17 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 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.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the first expected set of states comprises a third expected set of states for a first non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field and a fourth expected set of states for a second non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field” on lines 5-7 introduces new matter. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that the first set of states includes a third and fourth set of states as claimed. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to identify what the third and fourth expected set of states are in the instant application. The specific number of states or what these sets of states are for any non-zero rotation are not reasonably disclosed, and thus further claiming a third and fourth set of these states as part of the first set introduces new matter.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into a second initialization state” on lines 2-3 introduces new matter. Applicant does not use both the first and second initialization states, and only uses one of these states as seen in paragraph [0050], which explains that the sensor 120 can be initialized “in one of two ways.” Applicant does not repeat the entire process after the sensor has been initialized into one state with the sensor in the other of the two states. In fact, there would be no need for such a process because Claim 1 expressly requires that the sensor does match the second expected set of states, and thus has been determined to be valid and not at fault. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
The phrase “determining that a second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the first valid initialization state; in response to determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states, determining that there is a fault in the magnetic multi-turn sensor based on determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state” on lines 2 to the end lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
1) . The instant application does not reasonably disclose the determination that a second set of states deviates from the first expected set of states in combination with the features of Claim 1. Claim 1 expressly requires that the magnetic sensor states correspond to the second expected set of states and are therefore valid states. A sensor cannot both be determined to have value states and, based upon applicant’s Figure 4, not have a fault but then be determined to have a fault.
2) In combination with the use of the second initialization state now recited on lines 2-3, the entirety of the above phrase introduces new matter, because applicant does not originally disclose using the second initialization state in the claimed manner after having expressly set the sensor into the first initialization state as recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “an initialization state decoder configured to: determine that outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor deviate from a first expected set of outputs fora non- zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on a first initialization state; and in response to determining that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor deviate from the first expected set of outputs, determine that the initialization state is a second initialization state based on the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor corresponding a second expected set of outputs for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second initialization state; and a turn count decoder configured to output a turn count of the multi-turn magnetic sensor based on the determination that the initialization state is the second initialization state and the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor” on the last three paragraphs introduces new matter.
The original disclosure does not originally disclose the use of sets of outputs as claimed. Instead, the original disclosure discloses the use of sets of states, but a state of the sensor is not the same as an output. Applicant does not originally disclose obtaining sets of outputs as claimed. One output can, for example, provide plural states, thus demonstrating that sets of outputs claimed are not inherent. That stated, the entirety of all determinations as originally disclosed are based on the sets of states of the sensor, and not any outputs. This phrase therefore introduces new matter. Should applicant disagree, applicant is requested to specifically identify where in the original disclosure sets of outputs of obtained and used in the claimed manner by the specific components recited to rely upon them.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “the first expected set of outputs comprises a third expected set of outputs for a first non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field and a fourth expected set of outputs for a second non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field” on lines 6-8 introduces new matter. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose that the first set of outputs includes a third and fourth set of outputs as claimed. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to identify what the third and fourth expected set of outputs are in the instant application. The specific number of outputs or what these sets of outputs are for any non-zero rotation are not reasonably disclosed, and thus further claiming a third and fourth set of these outputs as part of the first set introduces new matter.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the initialization state decoder is configured to determine that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor correspond to the second expected set of outputs by at least determining that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor correspond to a valid sequence of the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor for a non-zero number of turns of a magnetic field based on the second initialization state” on lines 2-7 introduces new matter.
The original disclosure does not originally disclose the use of sets of outputs as claimed. Instead, the original disclosure discloses the use of sets of states, but a state of the sensor is not the same as an output. Applicant does not originally disclose obtaining sets of outputs as claimed. One output can, for example, provide plural states, thus demonstrating that sets of outputs claimed are not inherent. That stated, the entirety of all determinations as originally disclosed are based on the sets of states of the sensor, and not any outputs. This phrase therefore introduces new matter. Should applicant disagree, applicant is requested to specifically identify where in the original disclosure sets of outputs of obtained and used in the claimed manner by the specific components recited to rely upon them.
As to Claims 11-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “determining that a second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the first valid initialization state; in response to determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states, determining that there is a fault in the magnetic multi-turn sensor based on determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state” on lines 4 to the end is indefinite.
Claim 1 expressly states and requires that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor “is” a second valid initialization state. This claim feature requires that no false state is detected at step 460, and thus the flow chart would proceed to step 470. The above claim 7 phrase however expressly requires determining that there is a fault in the magnetic multi-turn sensor based on determining that the second set of magnetic alignments corresponds to the second false state based on the second valid initialization state. This determination requires that a false state is detected at 460, and thus the flow chart proceeds to step 480. The combination of Claims 1 and 7 are therefore indefinite because they recite mutually exclusive claim features that cannot reasonably both exist as claimed. The magnetic sensor cannot reasonably both be determined to not have a fault in Claim 1 at step 460, but then be determined to have a fault at step 460 in a later claim. The sensor either does or does not have a fault at step 460, but it cannot reasonably have both. Such a claim combination is therefore indefinite, in light of the disclosure, because it is unclear how the features of Claim 7 should be treated, and it is unclear what the scope of the claim combination is given the above noted issues.
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 7 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.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “determining that a second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the first valid initialization state; in response to determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states, determining that there is a fault in the magnetic multi-turn sensor based on determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state” on lines 4 to the end fails to include all of the claim limitations from Claim 1.
Claim 1 expressly states and requires that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor “is” a second valid initialization state. This claim feature requires that no false state is detected at step 460, and thus the flow chart would proceed to step 470. The above claim 7 phrase however expressly requires determining that there is a fault in the magnetic multi-turn sensor based on determining that the second set of magnetic alignments corresponds to the second false state based on the second valid initialization state. This determination requires that a false state is detected at 460, and thus the flow chart proceeds to step 480. The magnetic sensor cannot reasonably both be determined to not have a fault in Claim 1 at step 460, but then be determined to have a fault at step 460 in a later claim. The sensor either does or does not have a fault at step 460, but it cannot reasonably have both. What Claim 7 must therefore reasonably be doing is removing the requirement from Claim 1 that the sensor does not have a detected false state at step 460 and now requiring that the sensor does have a detected false state at 460. This claim therefore must exclude part of Claim 1, and thus not include all of the limitations required in Claim 1, in light of the disclosure.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Dietrich et al. (Dietrich) (WO 2016/198062).
Note that US 2018/0172477 is being used as an English language equivalent of the above document and any cited paragraphs come from the US document.
As to Claims 1, 10, and 18,
Dietrich discloses a method for and sensor system/device with initializing a magnetic multi-turn sensor, the method and system/device comprising: magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into an initialization state, the initialization state being one of at least two valid initialization states (Figure 9 / note each segment will have its own desired starting state, and these are interpreted to be valid states, such as any two of the states represented by the – sign for n=0), wherein the magnetic multi-turn sensor comprises a magnetic strip comprising a plurality of magnetoresistive elements (note segments sensor (1)) electrically coupled in series (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0010] [0045]-[0047]), wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements has at least two magnetic states each associated with a different resistance Figure 9 / note each element can have an state represented by a +,-, and 0), and wherein the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor defines the magnetic states of the magnetoresistive elements at zero turns of a magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor (Figure 9 / note the initialization state of n=0 with zero rotation reasonably meets this feature); determining a first set of magnetic states of the magnetoresistive elements at a non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor (Paragraph [0049] / note that the determined set of states based on the measured voltages that are directly representative of the magnetic alignments similar to that of applicant),(Figure 9 / note each non-zero turn such as n=0.25 and their respective magnetic states of 0, -, +); a processing circuit (29) operatively coupled to the magnetic multi-turn sensor, the processing circuit comprising: an initialization state decoder (26) configured to implement determining that the first set of magnetic states deviate from a first expected set of states/outputs for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on a first valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states (Paragraphs [0058]-[0063] / note the first set of states, such as those at n=0.25, deviates in Figure 13 from the expected states seen in Figure 9 for n=0.25), (Figures 9,13); in response to determining that the first set of magnetic states/outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor deviate from the first expected set of states / outputs, determining that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor is a second valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states based on determining that the first set of magnetic states corresponds to a second expected set of states/outputs for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state of the at least two valid initialization states (Paragraphs [0021]-[0027] / note that when an incorrect state is detected, Dietrich resets the sensor to the correct states (correct value), and thus correct value must include one of the three valid states such as 0, -, and + as seen in Figure 9, and by setting the sensor to the correct states, the device must determine the sensor the initialization state is a second value state that corresponds to the determined second expected set of states by this reset), determining a turn count (number of rotations) of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi- turn sensor based on the first set of magnetic states and the determination that the initialization state of the magnetic multi-turn sensor corresponds to the second valid initialization state (Paragraph [0063] / note that any determination of rotations is only performed after any malfunction due to incorrect states has been corrected); and outputting the turn count of the magnetic field (Paragraph [0068] / note the number of rotations can be read-out of looked-up and thus must have been output to memory or displayed).
As to Claims 2, 11, and 19,
Dietrich discloses the processing circuit is further configured to implement determining the first set of magnetic states comprises: measuring resistances of the magnetoresistive elements via a plurality of electrical connections (L1-4,R1-4), the electrical connections being electrically coupled to the magnetoresistive elements; and determining the first set of magnetic states from the resistances (Paragraphs [0048]-[0050]), (Figure 9 / note the states represent alignments and therefore are reasonably considered alignments), wherein the outputs of the multi-turn sensor are provided at the electrical connections (Paragraphs [0048]-[0050]), (Figure 1).
As to Claims 3, 12, and 20,
Dietrich discloses wherein in the first valid initialization state, the magnetic strip is filled with domain walls at zero turns of the magnetic field with respect to the multi-turn magnetic sensor (Figure 9 / note this feature can occur during the original and normal use of the device, where the desired states are all high and have been changed to high or +).
As to Claims 4 and 13,
Dietrich discloses in the second valid initialization state, the magnetic strip contains no domain walls at zero turns of the magnetic field with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor (Figure 9 / note this feature is disclosed by way of the – states show for n=0).
As to Claim 5,
Dietrich disclose the first expected set of states comprises a third expected set of states for a first non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field and a fourth expected set of states for a second non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field (Figure 9 / note there are 8 different columns, and any one or two columns together can be considered a state, thus including at least four different expected states).
As to Claim 6,
Dietrich discloses determining that the first set of magnetic states corresponds to the second expected set of states comprises determining that the first set of magnetic states corresponds to a valid sequence of the magnetic states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state (Figure 9), (Paragraphs [0058]-[0062] / note the comparison is made to at least two states as part of the second expected set of states for each row in Figure 9, and where any two adjacent states can be considered a sequence).
As to Claim 7,
Dietrich discloses magnetically initializing the magnetic multi-turn sensor into a second initialization state (Paragraph [0020-[0023] / through the normal and ordinary use of the device, this feature is disclosed, because any resetting of the device can be considered a second initialization state that is later used to repeat the error detection and correction process), determining that a second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the first valid initialization state (Figures 9,13) (Paragraphs [0058]-[0063] / note for the same reasons explained in Claim 1, Dietrich meets this claim feature when repeating the fault detection process); and in response to determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the first expected set of states, determining that there is a fault in the magnetic multi-turn sensor based on determining that the second set of magnetic states deviate from the second expected set of states for the non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field based on the second valid initialization state (Figures 9,13) (Paragraphs [0058]-[0063] / note for the same reasons explained in Claim 1, Dietrich meets this claim feature when repeating the fault detection process).
As to Claim 8,
Dietrich discloses generating a domain wall at an end of the magnetic strip in response to the magnetic field rotating 180° with respect to the magnetic multi-turn sensor, thereby causing one of the magnetoresistive elements to change its magnetic state (Paragraph [0049]); and determining a state of the respective magnetoresistive elements from the outputs (the determined state is a low voltage or that there have been zero rotations detection).
As to Claim 14,
Dietrich disclose the first expected set of outputs comprises a third expected set of outputs for a first non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field and a fourth expected set of outputs for a second non-zero number of turns of the magnetic field (Figure 9 / note there are 8 different columns, and any one or two columns together can be considered an output, thus including at least four different expected outputs).
As to Claim 15,
Dietrich discloses the initialization state decoder is configured to determine that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor correspond to the second expected set of outputs by at least determining that the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor correspond to a valid sequence of the outputs of the multi-turn magnetic sensor for a non-zero number of turns of a magnetic field based on the second initialization state (Figure 9), (Paragraphs [0058]-[0062] / note the comparison is made to at least two states as part of the second expected set of states for each row in Figure 9, and where any two adjacent states can be considered a sequence).
As to Claim 16,
Dietrich discloses the multi-turn magnetic sensor further comprises a domain wall generator configured to: generate a domain wall at an end of the magnetic strip in response to a magnetic field rotating 180° with respect to the multi-turn magnetic sensor, thereby causing at least one of the magnetoresistive elements to change its resistance (Paragraph [0049]); and determining a state of the respective magnetoresistive elements from the outputs (the determined state is a low voltage or that there have been zero rotations detection).
As to Claim 17,
Dietrich discloses the turn count detector is a half-turn count (Figure 9 / note n=0.5).
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858