DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/16/2026
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaaf, US-PGPUB 2015/0081246 (hereinafter Schaaf) (cited by the Applicant) in view of Mandokoro, US-PGPUB 2015/0316396 (hereinafter Mandokoro)
Regarding Claims 1 and 15. Schaaf discloses a position calculation device configured to calculate a position of a magnet installed on a moving body that is configured to move relatively in a first direction with respect to a fixed member (Abstract, measuring relative position of a magnet; Paragraph [0052], fixed position, Paragraph [0013], Fig. 1), the position calculation device comprising: a first magnetic sensor and a second magnetic sensor installed on the fixed member, and arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance in the first direction, and configured to detect a magnetic flux density of a magnetic field generated by the magnet (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0065], plurality of magnetic sensors or probes fixedly arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance); and a calculation circuit (Fig. 9, Evaluation and calculation unit 108) configured to calculate the position of the magnet (Paragraph [0025], position of the magnetic field source or magnet; Paragraph [0001])), using an arithmetic equation including a first ratio between a first component in the first direction and a second component in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, of a first magnetic flux density detected by the first magnetic sensor, a second ratio between a third component in the first direction and a fourth component in the second direction, of a second magnetic flux density detected by the second magnetic sensor, and the predetermined distance (Paragraph [0031], Paragraph [0052], position of the magnet, based on magnetic sensors detecting at least two orthogonal magnetic field components, Bz and By, as quotient or ratio in Paragraphs [0029], where quotient is the arithmetic equation, Paragraph [0053], [0056], ratio).
Schaaf does not disclose a first and second magnetic sensor mounted on a circuit board installed on the cylinder of the actuator arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance, and an attachment member configured to be installed in the cylinder of the actuator, to fix the position calculation device to the cylinder of the actuator.
Mandokoro discloses a first and second magnetic sensor mounted on a circuit board installed on the cylinder of the actuator arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance, and an attachment member configured to be installed in the cylinder of the actuator, to fix the position calculation device to the cylinder of the actuator (Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs [0026]-[0034], [0003]-[0005])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Mandokoro in Schaaf and have a first and second magnetic sensor mounted on a circuit board installed on the cylinder of the actuator arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance, and an attachment member configured to be installed in the cylinder of the actuator, to fix the position calculation device to the cylinder of the actuator, so as to determine the position of the magnet and continuously detect an operating state of the actuator
Regarding Claim 2. Schaaf discloses two magnetic poles possessed by the magnet are arranged alongside one another in the first direction (Fig. 9, N/S); and the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet (Paragraph [0025], position of the magnetic field source or magnet; Paragraph [0001]), in accordance with whether or not the second component is greater than or equal to zero, whether or not the fourth component is greater than or equal to zero, and an order in which the two magnetic poles are arranged (note: the limitations “whether or not…” is interpreted as “regardless of whether something happens or not.” In other words, the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet regardless of whether any of the component satisfies the recited condition in regard to the zero) (nonetheless, Paragraph [0031], Paragraph [0057]-[0058], and Fig. 2 shows the magnitudes with respect to zero that are used to calculate the position of the magnet)
Regarding Claim 3. Schaaf discloses the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet (Paragraph [0025], position of the magnetic field source or magnet; Paragraph [0001]), in accordance with whether or not a product of the
second component and the fourth component is less than zero, and in a case that the product of the second component and the fourth component is greater than or equal to zero, the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet in accordance with whether or not a magnitude of the first magnetic flux density is greater than a magnitude of the second magnetic flux density (note: the limitations “whether or not…” is interpreted as “regardless of whether something happens or not.” In other words, the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet regardless of whether any of the component satisfies the recited condition in regard to the zero.) (nonetheless, Paragraph [0031], Paragraph [0057]-[0058], and Fig. 2 shows the magnitudes with respect to zero that are used to calculate the position of the magnet)
Regarding Claim 14. Schaaf discloses each of the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor is a Hall sensor configured to detect the magnetic flux density based on a voltage generated according to a Hall effect (Paragraph [0065], Hall probes)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaaf, US-PGPUB 2015/0081246 in views of Mandokoro, US-PGPUB 2015/0316396 and Hayashi et al., US-PGPUB 2006/0169334 (hereinafter Hayashi)
Regarding Claim 15. Schaaf does not disclose an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the fixed member.
Mandokoro discloses an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the cylinder of the actuator (Paragraph [0007]-[0019]), and Hayashi discloses an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the fixed member (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Mandokoro and Hayashi in Schaaf and have an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the cylinder of the actuator, so as to accurately determine the position of the magnet in a secured, fixed position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights