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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-2 and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 02(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 7 and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7 and 8 of co-pending Application No. 18/419,345 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7 and 8 of co-pending application 18/419,345 recites all the features of independent claims 1, 7 and 8 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Current Application 18/420,288
Co-pending application 18/419,345
A position detection device for detecting a position of a moving member moving forward and backward in a predetermined moving direction, comprising:
a detection object provided at the moving member;
a substrate comprising a dielectric material and provided with an excitation coil for generating a magnetic field in an area including the detection object, and a detection coil being interlinked with a magnetic flux of the magnetic field;
a power supply unit for supplying an alternating current to the excitation coil;
a calculation unit that calculates the position of the moving member based on an output voltage of the detection coil; and
a magnetic field diffusion suppression member for suppressing a spread of a magnetic field generated by energization to the excitation coil,
wherein the moving member moves forward and backward along a linear axis, and the detection coil detects a position of the moving member along the linear axis.
A position detection device for detecting a position of a moving member moving forward and backward in a predetermined moving direction, comprising:
a detection object attached to the moving member;
a substrate provided with an excitation coil positioned to face the moving member and parallel to the moving direction of the moving member for generating a magnetic field in an area including the detection object, and a detection coil being interlinked with a magnetic flux of the magnetic field;
a power supply unit for supplying an alternating current to the excitation coil;
a calculation unit that calculates the position of the moving member based on an output voltage of the detection coil;
and
a spacing fluctuation suppression structure including a housing that supports the moving member and the substrate such that a facing surface of the substrate faces the detection object circumferentially around a central axis of the moving member and that suppresses fluctuations in a spacing between the facing surface of the substrate and the detection object.
7. The position detection device, according to claim 1, wherein the detection coil comprises
two detection coils provided on the substrate, and phases of the voltages induced in the respective two detection coils while the moving member moves from one moving end to the other moving end are different from each other.
7. The position detection device, according to claim 1, wherein the detection coil
comprises two detection coils provided on the substrate, and phases of the voltages
induced in the respective two detection coils while the moving member moves from one
moving end to the other moving end are different from each other.
8. The position detection device, according to claim 1, wherein the moving member is a
rack shaft of a steering device of a vehicle.
8. The position detection device, according to claim 1, wherein the moving member is a
rack shaft of a steering device of a vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0350728 to Tiemann et al. (hereinafter Tiemann).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tiemann discloses a position detection device for detecting a position of a moving member device (Figs. 1-3, scale 1 and/or scanning unit 10 detect moving position, at least para. 0044) moving forward and backward in a predetermined moving direction (Fig. 1, scale 1 and/or scanning unit 10 move forward and backward in the X direction), comprising:
a detection object provided at the moving member (first and second sensors 11 and 12 are provided on scanning unit 10, para. [0044]);
a substrate comprising a dielectric material and provided with an excitation coil for generating a magnetic field in an area including the detection object, and a detection coil being interlinked with a magnetic flux of the magnetic field (sensors 11 and 12 are formed on an intermediate layer which acts as a substrate with excitation windings 111, 121 and scanning windings 112, 113, 122, 123 which operate in an equivalent manner as claimed; see [0047] and [0049]; see Figs. 3-4);
a power supply unit for supplying an alternating current to the excitation coil (the excitation windings 111, 121 are energized with a time-changing excitation current; see [0046]-[0049]);
a calculation unit that calculates the position of the moving member based on an output voltage of the detection coil (evaluation unit 13 calculates the position of the moving member based on the measured scanning signals 51, 52; see [0051]); and
a magnetic field diffusion suppression member for suppressing a spread of a magnetic field generated by energization to the excitation coil (the sensor 10 of Tiemann comprises all the limitations as claimed including an intermediate layer 16 composed of a soft magnetic core 17 that is provided on both sides with a layer 18, 19, para. 0055; see Fig. 3},
wherein the moving member moves forward and backward along a linear axis (Figs. 1-3, scale 1 and/or scanning unit 10 move forward and backward in the X direction), and the detection coil detects a position of the moving member along a linear axis (excitation windings 111, 121 and scanning windings 112, 113, 122, 123 of sensors 11 and 12 detect position of scale 1 and/or scanning unit 10; see [0047] and {0049}; see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Tiemann discloses wherein the detection object is arranged on one side of the substrate (Fig. 3, at least sensors 11 and 12) and the magnetic field diffusion suppression member is arranged on another side of the substrate (Fig.3, layers 18 and 19 are arranged on other side of sensors 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 3, Tiemann discloses wherein the excitation coil comprises a pair of long side portions extending parallel to the moving direction of the moving member (Fig. 4, excitation coil 111 or 121), wherein the detection coil is disposed between the pair of long side portions (Fig. 4, coils 112 113 or 122, 123), and wherein the magnetic field diffusion suppression member is arranged to cover an entire area between the pair of long side portions on the substrate (Fig. 3, intermediate layer 16 composed of a soft magnetic core 17 that is provided on both sides with a layer 18, 19, para. 0055).
Illustrated below is Fig. 3 of Tiemann marked and annotated for applicant’s reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
938
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Tiemann discloses wherein the magnetic field diffusion suppression member comprises a conductive metal or a magnetic material with higher magnetic permeability than the moving member (scanning unit 10 includes core 17 which is composed of a soft magnetic electrically conductive material and the permeability of core 17 is preferably greater than that of the two layers 18, 19, para. 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 7, Tiemann discloses wherein the detection coil comprises two detection coils provided on the substrate (Fig. 4, scanning coils 112 and 113 and/or scanning coils 122, 123), and phases of the voltages induced in the respective two detection coils while the moving member moves from one moving end to the other moving end are different from each other (the voltage induced in scanning windings 112, 113, 122, 123 varies as a function of position.at least para. 0034, 0047 and 0049).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0350728 to Tiemann et al. (hereinafter Tiemann) in view of US2004/0194559 to Nakamura et al. (hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 8, Tiemann fails to disclose wherein the moving member is a rack shaft of a steering device of a vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses wherein the moving member is a rack shaft of a steering device of a vehicle (Fig. 1, shaft 12b and Fig. 6, shaft 101).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tiemann as taught by Nakamura, in order to mount the sensor in a rack shaft to detect the torque occurring in a steering system, as taught by Nakamura at least at para. 0065.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein a distance between a middle portion between the pair of long side portions and the magnetic field diffusion suppression member in the substrate is longer than a distance between each of the pair of long side portions and the magnetic field diffusion suppression member.
Regarding claims 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the substrate includes a rectangular-shaped portion formed with the excitation coil and the detection coil which is long in the moving direction of movement of the moving member, and wherein the magnetic field diffusion suppression member is disposed in a range including a position across the rectangular-shaped portion of the substrate in its shortitudinal direction.
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 Douglas X Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)431-0716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8h30-17h00.
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, John Fristoe can be reached at 571-272-4926. 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.
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights