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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
A election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 11-20. Applicant argues “the pending claims of the instant application do not present a serious search burden on the Examiner”. Examiner disagrees. In the requirement for Election/Restriction the Examiner disclosed Group I fails to require compensating a harmonic in an output voltage using a scaling parameter defined by comparing a first magnetic field strength detected by a first Hall sensor and a second magnetic field strength detected by a second Hall sensor as required in Group II. Group I also further limits the apparatus and claimed layers within the apparatus, not claimed in Group II, which is additional support of a serious search burden by the Examiner (emphasis added). Group II can be accomplished by a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect from the claim of Group I. Group II fails to require a magnetoresistive element comprising a barrier layer, a fixed layer, and a free layer, and wherein the barrier layer is arranged between the free layer and the fixed layer as required in Group I. Group II also further limits the method of determining parameters, not claimed in Group I, which is additional support of a serious search burden by the Examiner (emphasis added). In addition, Group II claims a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect from the claim of Group I.
Thus Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper and Claims 1-10, 21-23 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “scaling unit” of Claim 11 and “scaling logic” of Claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claimed limitations are combined with functional language however the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 discloses “a scaling unit” however the specification fails to disclose how “a scaling unit” disclosed as block 40, as defined by the drawings, and functional language of generating a compensation voltage using a scaling parameter as required by the claim. The Specification is further void of any structure of the claimed unit within the device to define the scaling unit. The written description is required to describe subject matter 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. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim 20 discloses “scaling logic” however the specification fails to disclose how “scaling logic” with a scaling unit disclosed as block 40, as defined by the drawings, and functional language of generating a compensation voltage using a scaling parameter. The Specification is further void of any structure of the claimed unit within the device to define the scaling unit and scaling logic. A search of “scaling logic” fails to support the claimed subject matter as known in the art. The written description is required to describe subject matter 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
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 discloses “a scaling unit” however the specification fails to disclose how “a scaling unit” disclosed as block 40 as defined by the drawings, generates a compensation voltage using a scaling parameter. The Specification is further void of any structure of the claimed unit within the device to define the scaling unit. Therefore the claimed subject matter is unclear and indefinite. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency.
Claim 20 discloses “scaling logic” however the specification fails to disclose how “scaling logic” with a scaling unit disclosed as block 40 as defined by the drawings, generates a compensation voltage using a scaling parameter. The Specification is further void of any structure of the claimed unit within the device to define the scaling unit and scaling logic. Therefore the claimed subject matter is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the amplitude unit" in Line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesugi et al. (US 20080218915), hereinafter ‘Uesugi’, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20100219822), hereinafter ‘Suzuki’.
Regarding Claim 11, Uesugi discloses a device for compensating a harmonic in an output voltage of at least one xMR sensor assembly, the device comprising: the at least one xMR sensor assembly (Para [0005]) comprising at least one magnetoresistive element (Fig. 3, 332), wherein the at least one magnetoresistive element comprises a barrier layer (Fig. 3, 44), a fixed layer (Fig. 3, 43), and a free layer (Fig. 3, 45), and wherein the barrier layer is arranged between the free layer and the fixed layer (Fig. 3. 44 arranged between layer 43 and 45; Para [0005] barrier layer as an energy barrier in the tunneling effect is sandwiched between the pinned layer (fixed) and the free layer; Para [0005] The TMR effect element has a magnetization-pinned layer (pinned layer) in which the magnetization direction is fixed), and wherein the at least one xMR sensor assembly has the output voltage (Para [0036] an amplifier for amplifying output voltage from the TMR effect element); at least one excitation magnet (Para [0043] a main magnetic pole layer 340/345); at least one demodulation unit electrically connected to the at least one xMR sensor assembly (Para [0036] demodulator circuit connected to TMR effect element), wherein the demodulation unit is arranged to generate a demodulation voltage by converting the output voltage of the at least one xMR sensor assembly (Para [0036] an amplifier for amplifying output voltage from the TMR effect element, and a demodulator circuit for demodulating the amplified output voltage).
Uesugi fails to explicitly disclose a scaling unit electrically connected to the demodulation unit, the scaling unit being arranged to generate a compensation voltage using a scaling parameter; and a superposing unit electrically connected to the at least one xMR sensor assembly and the scaling unit, wherein the superposing unit is arranged to superpose the compensation voltage with the output voltage of the at least one xMR sensor assembly.
Suzuki teaches a magnetic field detection apparatus that detects the angle and intensity of a magnetic field using magneto-resistive elements (hereinafter also referred to as MR (magnetoresistive) elements) with the known method of using a scaling unit arranged to generate a compensation voltage using a scaling parameter (Para [0153] in a known method resistor 151 as scaling unit which change in ambient temperature due to temperature characteristics as the scaling parameter as the resistor changes with the temperature; alternatively compensation voltage can be accomplished even ambient temperature has changed due to voltage difference remaining constant as further disclosed in Para [0153]) to generate a compensation voltage and a superposing unit electrically connected to the at least one xMR sensor assembly and the scaling unit, wherein the superposing unit (Para [0237] subtraction unit 271 receives the output signal voltage) is arranged to superpose the compensation voltage with the output voltage of the at least one xMR sensor assembly (Para [0024] offset voltage is stored in advance and the offset voltage (compensation voltage) is subtracted from a signal voltage (output voltage) for compensation) for the benefit of accurately determining a magnetic field.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the xMR sensor assembly device of Uesugi with the known scaling method and superposing unit of Suzuki for the benefit of providing a compensated voltage to accurately determine a magnetic field.
Regarding Claim 12, Uesugi further discloses wherein the barrier layer, the fixed layer, and the free layer are arranged along an axis; and the excitation magnet is arranged along the axis (Fig. 2, all layers along horizontal axis).
Regarding Claim 13, Uesugi further discloses wherein the fixed layer comprises a ferromagnet (Para [0047] pinned layer 43 formed of a ferromagnetic material; Para [0005] The TMR effect element has a magnetization-pinned layer (pinned layer) in which the magnetization direction is fixed).
Regarding Claim 14, Uesugi further discloses in which the free layer comprises a permanent magnet (Para [0047] free layer formed of a ferromagnetic material; known in the art Ferromagnetism is the property or type of material, whereas a permanent magnet is the result or application of that property).
Regarding Claim 15, Uesugi fails to explicitly disclose in which the excitation magnet is arranged rotatable about an axis relative to the at least one xMR sensor assembly.
Suzuki teaches a magnetic field detection apparatus that detects the angle and intensity of a magnetic field using magneto-resistive elements (hereinafter also referred to as MR (magnetoresistive) elements) having an excitation magnet arranged rotatable about an axis relative to the at least one xMR sensor assembly (Fig. 6, rotatable magnet 505 relative to magnetic field sensor 502; Para [0155-0158]) for the benefit of detecting the direction .theta. of the magnetic field and measurement of the rotation angle of the rotation axis is possible.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the xMR sensor assembly device of Uesugi with the rotation angle detection apparatus teachings for the benefit of detecting the direction .theta. of a magnetic field and measurement of a rotation angle of a rotation axis in an rotatable magnet arrangement as taught by Suzuki in Fig. 6 and Para [0155-0158].
Regarding Claim 16, Uesugi discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one demodulation unit comprises a plurality of separate demodulation units. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to provide a plurality of separate demodulation units for the benefit of demodulating signals at a plurality or variations of frequencies/amplitudes/phases, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Benis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 17, Uesugi in view of Suzuki further discloses wherein the scaling parameter is fixedly defined (Suzuki in Para [0153] alternatively compensation voltage can be accomplished even ambient temperature has changed due to voltage difference remaining constant, thus interpreted as fixedly defined).
Regarding Claim 18, Uesugi in view of Suzuki further discloses in which the scaling parameter is variable, and the scaling unit determines the scaling parameter using at least one of an amplitude unit and a temperature unit (Suzuki in Para [0153] in the known method, resistor 151 as scaling unit which change in ambient temperature due to temperature characteristics as the scaling parameter as the resistor changes with the temperature).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesugi et al. (US 20080218915), hereinafter ‘Uesugi’, in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20100219822), hereinafter ‘Suzuki’, inand further Bi et al. (US 20210190472), hereinafter ‘Bi’.
Regarding Claim 19, Uesugi and Suzuki fail to disclose wherein the amplitude unit comprises at least a first Hall sensor and a second Hall sensor.
Bi teaches a method and system comprising scaling compensation and harmonic amplitude compensation comprising multiple magnetoresistive sensors and Hall sensors (Para [0001] Para [0052-0053] plurality of magnetoresistive sensors; Para [0147] disclosing plurality of parts) for the benefit of calculating the absolute electrical angle according to the relative electrical angle and the polarity position (Para [0005-0016]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the xMR sensor assembly device of Uesugi and rotation angle detection apparatus teachings of Suzuki with the scaling compensation and harmonic amplitude compensation comprising multiple magnetoresistive sensors and Hall sensors teachings of Bi for the benefit of calculating the absolute electrical angle according to the relative electrical angle and the polarity position as taught by Bi in Para [0005-0016].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858