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, see page 9, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the Drawing Objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of 09/29/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of all pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,627,466 to Spies et al. (hereinafter “Spies”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0400760 A1 to Hainz (hereinafter “Hainz”).
Regarding Claims 1, 14 and 20, Spies teaches a position sensor system (see abstract, Col. 1, lines 7 – 13 describing a position measuring device) comprising:
a magnet arrangement (see Col. 3, lines 3 – 15 describing a scale formed of a magnetizable material and the scale having a graduation 1 formed by magnetizing a periodic pattern on the scale) having at least one north pole and one south pole (see Figs. 9a which illustrates the scale with the graduation 1 and having N and S poles); and
a first sensor (scanning unit 2 comprising a plurality of magnetoresistive elements, see Col. 3, lines 3 – 26 and Col. 5, lines 47 – 60, see also claim 1) spaced apart from the magnet arrangement (see arrangement at Fig. 9a, see also Col. 5, lines 58 – 60), wherein the first sensor comprises four magnetoresistive elements interconnected in a first full-bridge circuit and sensitive to a first field direction (see magneto-resistive elements 411 – 414, Fig. 9a, see Col. 5, line 53 – 64 describing the magneto-resistive elements 411 – 414 positioned over or opposite the graduation 1 to scan the graduation 1 and they are electrically connected to form a full bridge circuit, see also Col. 4, lines 17 – 26 describing sensitivity axis of the magneto-resistive elements, hence reading on the invention as claimed),
wherein a first two magnetoresistive elements of a first branch of the first full-bridge circuit are arranged at a distance apart (see for instance first branch at magneto-resistive elements 411, 412 of the full bridge circuit at Fig. 9a, 9b having a distance apart) from each other of the first two magnetoresistive elements.
Even though Spies teaches first branch of the first full-bridge circuit having first two and second two magneto-resistive elements spaced at a distance apart as described above including the dimensions of the elements as described at Col. 4, lines 26 - 36, Spies is silent regarding wherein a second two magnetoresistive elements of a second branch of the second full-bridge circuit arranged at the distance apart from each other of the second two magnetoresistive elements and that the distance apart being more than 0.5mm.
Hainz, in the field of magnetic sensor which are provided as magnetoresistive sensors arranged in asymmetrical bridge circuit, teaches wherein a second two magnetoresistive elements of a second branch of the first full-bridge circuit are arranged at the distance apart from each other of the second two magnetoresistive elements (see arrangement at Fig. 5A illustrating the first sensor arrangement 511 including a first pair of sensor elements L1 and L2 arranged in a left region of the magnetic sensor 510 and a second pair of sensor elements R1 and R2 arranged in a right region of the magnetic sensor 510, see paragraph [0067] which states “The first pair of sensor elements L1, L2 and the second pair of sensor elements R1, R2 may be equally spaced from a center of the magnetic sensor 510, which may also coincide with a center of a back bias magnet. Therefore, distance d1 may equal distance d2”, therefore since the distance d1 is equal to d2, the distance between the sensor elements (i.e., magnetoresistive elements as described at paragraphs [0068] and [0059] – [0064]) is at equal distance, i.e., for instance say distance between L1, R1 is same as distance between L2, R2 since d1 is same as d2 in the arrangement at Fig. 5A, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Hainz may be construed as not explicitly stating the distance being “apart of more than 0.5mm”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use magneto-resistive elements having distance apart of more than 0.5mm as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate spacing arrangement of Hainz into Spies, in order to improve accuracy of the sensor module (see for instance further advantages at paragraphs [0006] – [0007], [0083] of Hainz)
Spies in view of Hainz as modified above further teaches;
wherein the magnet arrangement is movable relative to the first sensor in a measuring direction, or the first sensor is movable relative to the magnet arrangement in the measuring direction (see Col. 3, line 41 – 43, and Col. 5, lines 57 – Col. 6, line 16 of Spies describing the scanning unit comprising the sensors being movable in the measuring direction X relative to the magnet arrangement 1, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claims 2 and 15, Spies teaches the claimed invention except wherein the four magnetoresistive elements are based on a magnetic tunnel resistance. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magnetic tunnel resistance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The modification of using tunnel magnetoresistance provides high sensitivity and resolution for accurate magnetic field detection and low power consumption for energy efficiency. In addition, see Hainz which teaches examples of magnetoresistive effects such as Tunnel Magneto-Resistance (TMR) based (see paragraph [0026] of Hainz).
Regarding Claim 3, Spies in view of Hainz as modified above teaches a second sensor (see second full-bridge with magneto-resistive elements 415 – 418, Figs. 9a, 9b, see Col. 6, lines 1 – 16 of Spies and/or see Figs. 4, 5B, 5C of Hainz and corresponding descriptions describing second sensors) spaced apart from the magnet arrangement (see arrangement at Fig. 9a of Spies), wherein the second sensor (415 - 418 of Spies) comprises another four magnetoresistive elements interconnected in a second full-bridge circuit and sensitive to a second field direction (see arrangement at Fig. 9a, see Col. 6, lines 1 – 16 of Spies stating “The second full bridge circuit generate a scanning signal S2 which is phase-shifted with respect to scanning signal S1 by 900”, “wherein each individual full bridge circuit generates a scanning signal which is phase-shifted with respect to the scanning signals generated by the other full bridge circuits and position-dependent with relation to the measuring direction X”, hence reading on the invention as claimed), wherein a first two magnetoresistive elements of a first branch of the second full-bridge circuit are arranged at the distance apart (see for instance first branch at magneto-resistive elements 415, 416 of the full bridge circuit at Figs. 9a, 9b of Spies having a distance apart which is similar to the distance between 411 and 412 as well as 413 and 414, and/or see paragraphs [0066] – [0078] and Figs. 4, 5B, 5C of Hainz, hence reading on the invention as claimed) and wherein a second two magnetoresistive elements of a second branch of the second full-bridge circuit are arranged at the distance apart (see for instance first branch at magneto-resistive elements 418, 417 of the full bridge circuit at Figs. 9a, 9b of Spies having a distance apart which is similar to the distance between 411 and 412, 413 and 414 as well as between 415 and 416, and/or see paragraphs [0066] – [0078] and Figs. 4, 5B, 5C of Hainz hence reading on the invention as claimed), wherein the second field direction is perpendicular to the first field direction (see Col. 5, line 57 – Col. 6, line 4 of Spies describing the scanning signal S1 at the output of the bridge circuit (i.e., first bridge circuit) which defines the position of the scanning unit 2 with relation to the graduation 1 in the measuring direction X and that of the second full bridge circuit generating a scanning signal S2 which is shifted with respect to the scanning signal S1 by 900, hence being perpendicular to each other, thus reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 4, Spies as modified above teaches wherein the measuring direction (measuring direction X, see for instance at Fig. 5a) runs in a plane which is spanned by the first field direction and the second field direction (see description at Col. 4, lines 17 – 26, Col. 5, line 57 – Col. 6, line 16, see Fig. 5a showing Y-axis and X-axis in same plane, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Spies in view of Hainz as modified above teaches a distance as modified in claim 1 above. Spies in view of Hainz is silent regarding wherein the distance is greater than or equal to 0.8mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use magneto-resistive elements having distance greater than or equal to 0.8mm as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Spies as modified above teaches wherein the distance (see for instance distance between 411 and 412, Figs. 9a, 9b) is parallel to the measuring direction (see arrangement at Fig. 5 with measuring X direction being parallel to the distance between the elements 411 – 418).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Spies as modified above teaches wherein the distance (see for instance different embodiment of Spies at Fig. 11 illustrating the active branch 4 formed by the magneto-resistive elements extending crosswise to the measuring direction X as described at Col. 6, lines 24 - 41) is perpendicular to the measuring direction (see arrangement at Fig. 11, illustrating measuring X direction being perpendicular to the crosswise arranged active branch 4 comprising the magneto-resistive elements, see Col. 6, lines 24 – 41, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 8, Spies in view of Hainz as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for wherein a minimum distance between the magnet arrangement and the first sensor is greater than 0.5mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use greater than 0.5mm distance as the minimum distance between the magnet arrangement and the first sensor as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Spies as modified above teaches wherein the four magnetoresistive elements (411-414) of the first sensor (3) are arranged in a common housing (see for instance Col. 3, lines 41 – 43 describing the scanning unit 2, which embodies the sensor 3 with the magneto-resistive elements 411-418, being located on a carriage, thus having the same housing, see Col. 6, lines 30 – 33, 51 – 54 and Fig. 12b, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Regarding Claim 10, Spies in view of Hainz teaches the magnet arrangement as described above except for wherein the magnet arrangement comprises a sintered ferrite material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sintered ferrite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). The modification allows the device to be of low cost, high electrical resistance and strong corrosion resistance.
Regarding Claim 11, Spies in view of Hainz as modified above teaches wherein the first two magnetoresistive elements of the first branch of the first sensor are located substantially at a same position in the measuring direction as the first two magnetoresistive elements of the first branch of the second sensor (see arrangement of for instance first two at 411, 412 of the first sensor and first two elements 415, 416 of the second sensor being at substantially same position in the measuring X direction as seen at Fig. 9a of Spies and/or see Figs. 4, 5B, 5C of Hainz and corresponding descriptions describing second sensors).
Regarding Claim 12, Spies in view of Hainz as modified above teaches the magnet arrangement 1 as described above except for wherein the magnet arrangement consists of a single dipole magnet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a single dipole magnet, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In addition, see Hainz illustrating a single dipole magnet 6 at Fig. 1C. Hence, reading on the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, Spies as modified above teaches an evaluation circuit (see Col. 1, lines 34 – 38 describing prior art use of downstream connected evaluation device that is connected to the bridge circuits to obtain measured positions; hence it would be obvious to use an evaluation circuit for obtaining the measured result as such, see also rectifier circuit 7, Fig. 10 of the sensor that provides the measuring signal Sd, hence reading on the invention as claimed) configured to determine a relative position between the magnet arrangement (1) the first sensor (2, 3) in the measuring direction (X), based on a first measured value between the first branch and the second branch of the first full-bridge circuit of the first sensor and based on a second measured value between the first branch and the second branch of the second full-bridge circuit of the second sensor (see circuitry at Fig. 9b which illustrates measuring signal Sd between the first and second full-bridge circuits as claimed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form accompanying this office action which includes the following relevant prior art:
Griffen et al. (U.S. No. 6,246,233 B1) teaches magnetoresistive sensor with reduced output signal jitter and temperature compensation. The arrangement includes magnetoresistive sensor elements in the top half of the first and second half-bridges spaced a distance apart by certain lambda amount.
Tombez et al. (U.S. 11,852,507 B2) teaches a magnetic position sensor device with error detection. The sensor structure comprises a first sensor at a first sensor location X1 and a second sensor at a second sensor location X2, spaced apart along an X-axis by a distance delta-X in the range from 1.0 – 3.0 mm.
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 MARRIT EYASSU whose telephone number is (571)270-1403. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Laura E. Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/MARRIT EYASSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855