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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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. 2019/0235032 A1 to Lassalle-Balier (hereinafter “Lassalle-Balier”).
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 the first two magnetoresistive elements of the first branch arranged at a distance apparat from each other of the first two magnetoresistive elements, within the first branch on a macroscopic scale and at more than 0.5mm distance apart, and further does not explicitly teach 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, within the second branch on a macroscopic scale, wherein the macroscopic scale is associated with a dimension of the magnet arrangement.
Lassalle-Balier, in the field of magnetic field sensor having sensing element placement for reducing stray field sensitivity, teaches wherein a first two magnetoresistive elements of a first branch of the first full-bridge circuit are arranged at a distance apparat from each other of the first two magnetoresistive elements, within the first branch on a macroscopic scale and more than 0.5mm distance apart, 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, within the second branch on a macroscopic scale, wherein the macroscopic scale is associated with a dimension of the magnet arrangement (see paragraphs [0061] – [0064] and Fig. 8 which illustrates and describes a sensor having GMR elements with bridge configuration, and in particular to paragraph [0064] describing the yokes such as Ax, Cx arranged by pairs in a symmetric manner respective to the magnet and one yoke being placed at a position +Yp while the second yoke can be placed at -Yp (assuming Y=0 is at the center of the magnet), hence the spacing S between the yokes is 2*Yp and is being “selected high enough so that the bias due to the magnet is large enough to ensure a proper compensation of the misplacement along Y axis and stray field along the same axis and small enough to ensure the sensitivity is not too diminished for a far air gap signal”, hence reading on the invention as claimed).
Even though Lassalle-Balier does not explicitly state the macroscopic scale and more than 0.5mm distance apart, Lassalle-Balier states that the distance is “selected high enough”, hence being in macroscopic scale since macroscopic scale is considered to be large or high enough as claimed.
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 the arrangement of Lassalle-Balier into Spies in order to ensure proper compensation of stray field and improve sensitivity of the system (see paragraph [0064] of Lassalle-Balier).
Spies in view of Lassalle-Balier 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 for 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 Lassalle-Balier which teaches examples of magnetoresistive effects such as tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) based elements (see paragraph [0070] of Lassalle-Balier).
Regarding Claim 3, Spies in view of Lassalle-Balier 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. 8, 8A, 8B of Lassalle-Balier and corresponding descriptions describing second sensors ag paragraphs [0061] – [0064]) spaced apart from the magnet arrangement (see arrangement at Fig. 9a of Spies and/or see Figs. 8, 8A, 8B of Lassalle-Balier), wherein the second sensor (415 - 418 of Spies and/or see Figs. 8, 8A, 8B of Lassalle-Balier illustrating either the left or the right side) 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 [0061] – [0064] and Figs. 8, 8A, 8B of Lassalle-Balier as modified in claim 1 above, 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 [0061] – [0064] and Figs. 8, 8A, 8B of Lassalle-Balier as modified in claim 1 above 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 Lassalle-Balier as modified above teaches the distance as modified in claim 1 above, in particular see Lassalle-Balier teaching the spacing as being selected high enough as described at paragraph [0064]. Spies in view of Lassalle-Balier 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 Lassalle-Balier 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 Lassalle-Balier 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 Lassalle-Balier 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. 8, 8A, 8B of Lassalle-Balier and paragraphs [0061] – [0064]).
Regarding Claim 12, Spies in view of Lassalle-Balier 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).
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:
Loreit et al. (U.S. 2011/0309829 A1) teaches an assembly for measuring at least one component (x, y, z) of an applied magnetic field (H) including a surface area made of soft-magnetic material that is applied in the chip plane and separated into two partial regions (5) by a gap (6). The gap (6) is composed of gap sections having different longitudinal directions, and magnetic field sensitive elements (2) are accommodated in one or more gap sections disposed parallel to each other.
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
Prosecution Insights