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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 08/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10, and 13-15 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 6-7 that Lee does not teach the amended limitation of “to calculate a mean value of the first and second input..” Applicant argues on page 6 that Lee does not teach the amended limitation of the claimed sensing-range arrangement. Applicant argues on Page 9 that Lee nor Han alone or in combination teach the amended claim limitation of mean value in combation with the claimed sensing-range arrangement. Applicant argues on page 11 that Bilbao teaches calculating an average of first and second values and providing that average as a position, and that Bilbao concerns determines first and second values from multiple magnetic sensor signals and averaging those values, and that this is materially different from the present claims which recite calculating a mean value of a first signal from a first rack-bar magnetic sensor and a second signal from a second rack-bar magnetic sensor, in combination with the claimed sensing range arrangement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner does agree that Lee and Han are silent towards teaching the amended limitation. Previously disclosed prior art Bilbao de Mendizabal (US20200370924) was utilized in the amendment (as previously disclosed in the now cancelled Claim 2) to teach the claimed limitation of “wherein the processor is configured to calculate a mean value of the first signal and the second signal and calculate the position of the rack bar based on the calculated mean value”, as Bilbao de Mendizabal teaches in [0070] and [0072] the utilization of calculating averages for the first and second value and utilizing the average as the position value. Applicant’s argument that Bilbao de Mendizabal is materially different from the claimed invention. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As Bilbao de Mendizabal teaches magnetic position sensors with arrangements, the combination with Lee in view of Han with Bilbao de Mendizabal teaches the claimed limitations, as Lee teaches in [0007] and Figure 2 magnetic sensors with magnets installed on a rack bar.
Applicant argues on Page 10 that Han allegedly shows one sensor mounted left of center and another sensor mounted right of center, but a sensor being physically located to the left or right of center does not establish that the center and one stroke end are within the first sensor’s sensing range and that the center and the opposite stroke end are within the second sensor’s sensing range. Applicant argues that the claim language is not merely a physical left/right placement limitation and requires a relationship between the rack stroke and the actual sensing ranges of the sensors. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that 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. That is, it would only require routine skill in the art to ensure that the positioning of the sensors on the rack bar are within a sensing range.
Applicant argues on Page 10 that it is not adequately explained why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Lee and Han to arrive at the claimed configuration in which the sensor ranges overlap at the stroke center and extend toward opposite stroke ends while the processor calculates rack position based on the mean value of the two sensor signals, and that the stated rationale that placing sensors on the rack housing yields predictable results does not address the amended claim as a whole. Applicant argues that it may explain why a sensor could be mounted on a rack housing, but it does not explain why the particular claimed sensing range arrangement and mean-value calculation would have been obvious. Applicant argues that the rejection relies on Lee for using two sensor signals, Han for sensor placement, and Bilbao for averaging but has not established why those isolated teachings would have led a person of ordinary skill to the claimed stroke-extension architecture. Applicant argues on Page 11 that the proposed combination appears to be based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee to incorporate the teaching of Han to dispose the magnetic sensor on the rack housing and the positioning of the sensors on the rack bar. Lee details in [0003] that for stable steering it is necessary to precisely determine the position of the rack bar and control it to the required position according to the driver’s operation, with further details in [0007] of utilizing the magnetic sensors to detect magnetism by magnets and a control unit calculates a displacement value of the rack bar using the magnetic sensor values. Han details in paragraph 13 that the magnetic sensors are installed at specific positions so that the pair of magnetic sensors allows the control to monitor the position of the rack bar. Thus having the magnetic sensors installed at a certain interval on the rack, this would yield predictable results when measuring the position of the rack by the emitted magnetic fields from the magnets in the rack. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee in view of Han to incorporate the teaching of Bilbao de Menzibal to calculate the average of the signal values. As Lee details the utilization of magnetic sensors for the position measurements, the incorporation of Bilbao de Menzibal’s teaching to utilize the average for the position as Bilbao de Menzibal details in [0073] that this is an advantage that reduces signal-to-noise ratio and reduces the influence of local defects in the magnetic structure. Thus, by utilizing the average of the signal values to calculate the position, this is an improvement that yields predictable results when monitoring the position of magnets with magnetic sensors, as it is reducing errors in the measurement.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues on Page 12 that Lee’262 does not teach or suggest the claimed relationship information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee’262 teaches in [0022] the storing of a plurality of data including offset values, predetermined range of radius values, predetermined permissible ranges to the mean value and the standard deviation value, and a second storing unit to store the plurality of sampled values sampled by the sampling unit. That is, it is teaching the storing of the relationship information as detailed in the claim. The incorporation into the teaching of Lee’262 into that of Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Menzibal teaches the claimed limitation, as Bilbao de Menzibal details in [0072] that the “average value as the position value”, thus the storing of the “mean” (average) value would constitute storing the position value of the rack bar.
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, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR20200107484) in view of Han (KR20070081503) and Bilbao de Mendizabal (US20200370924)
In regards to Claims 1, 6, and 10, Lee teaches “the first magnetic sensor being configured to generate a first signal by detecting magnetism generated by magnets disposed on a rack bar (“a first magnet installed on a rack bar of an automobile steering device; a second magnet installed at a position opposite to the position where the first magnet is installed on the rack bar; a first magnetic sensor that detects magnetism by the first magnet and outputs a first signal” – [0007]);
a second magnetic sensor spaced apart from the first magnetic sensor, the second magnetic sensor being configured to generate a second signal by detecting the magnetism generated by the magnets (“a first magnet installed on a rack bar of an automobile steering device; a second magnet installed at a position opposite to the position where the first magnet is installed on the rack bar; a second magnetic sensor that detects magnetism by the second magnet and outputs a second signal” – [0007]; Figure 2 shows the magnetic sensors spaced apart); and
a processor configured to calculate the position of the rack bar based on the first signal and the second signal (“a control unit [i.e. processor] that calculates a displacement value [i.e. position] of the rack bar using the first signal and the second signal” – [0007]).”
Lee is silent with regards to the language of “a first magnetic sensor disposed on a rack housing; a second magnetic sensor disposed on the rack housing; wherein the first magnetic sensor is disposed such that a center and one end of a stroke of the rack bar are provided in a first sensing range of the first magnetic sensor, and
wherein the second magnetic sensor is disposed such that the center and an other end of the stroke of the rack bar are provided in a second sensing range of the second magnetic sensor”
Han teaches “a first magnetic sensor disposed on a rack housing (Figure 3 and Paragraph 13 detail the rack bar 21 with the pair of magnetic sensors installed on the outer surface of the rack cylinder 23 [i.e. disposed on a rack housing]); a second magnetic sensor disposed on the rack housing (Figure 3 and Paragraph 13 detail the rack bar 21 with the pair of magnetic sensors installed on the outer surface of the rack cylinder 23 [i.e. disposed on a rack housing]); wherein the first magnetic sensor is disposed such that a center and one end of a stroke of the rack bar are provided in a first sensing range of the first magnetic sensor, and
wherein the second magnetic sensor is disposed such that the center and an other end of the stroke of the rack bar are provided in a second sensing range of the second magnetic sensor (Figure 3 shows the sensor 2 is mounted to the left of the center and sensor 3 is mounted to the right of the center of the rack bar).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teaching of Han to dispose the first and the second magnetic sensor on the outer surface of the rack cylinder. By disposing the sensors on the rack housing this is an improvement that yields predictable results when measuring the position of the rack by the emitted magnetic fields from the magnets in the rack.
Lee in view of Han are silent with regards to the language of “wherein the processor is configured to calculate a mean value of the first signal and the second signal and calculate the position of the rack bar based on the calculated mean value ”
Bilbao de Mendizabal teaches “wherein the processor is configured to calculate a mean value of the first signal and the second signal and calculate the position of the rack bar based on the calculated mean value (“the processing unit is adapted for determining a first value indicative of the relative position of the position sensor based on the first, second and third signal obtained from the first, second and third magnetic sensor; and the processing unit is adapted for determining a second value indicative of the relative position of the position sensor based on the second, third and fourth signal obtained from the second, third and fourth magnetic sensor” – [0070]; “The processing unit may be further adapted for calculating an average of the first and second value, and for providing this average value as the position value” – [0072])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Han to incorporate the teaching of Bilbao de Mendizabal to utilize the average of the signal values from the magnetic sensors for the position calculation. By utilizing the average of the signal values to calculate the position, this is an improvement that yields predictable results when monitoring the position of magnets with magnetic sensors.
In regards to Claim 4, Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee further teaches “wherein the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are disposed symmetrically the rack bar (Figure 2 shows the first magnetic sensor 231 and the second magnetic sensor 233 disposed symmetrically around the rack bar).”
Lee is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar.”
Han further teaches “wherein the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar (Figure 3 shows the sensors 2 and 3 disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal to incorporate the further teaching of Han to dispose the first and the second magnetic sensor on the outer surface of the rack cylinder. By disposing the sensors on the rack housing this is an improvement that yields predictable results when measuring the position of the rack by the emitted magnetic fields from the magnets in the rack.
In regards to Claim 8, Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee further teaches “wherein the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are disposed symmetrically the rack bar (Figure 2 shows the first magnetic sensor 231 and the second magnetic sensor 233 disposed symmetrically around the rack bar).”
Lee is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar.”
Han further teaches “wherein the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar (Figure 3 shows the sensors 2 and 3 disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal to incorporate the further teaching of Han to dispose the first and the second magnetic sensor on the outer surface of the rack cylinder. By disposing the sensors on the rack housing this is an improvement that yields predictable results when measuring the position of the rack by the emitted magnetic fields from the magnets in the rack.
In regards to Claim 13, Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee further teaches “wherein the first magnetic sensor comprises a Hall effect sensor (“the first magnetic sensor is a Hall IC, a voltage can be output linearly according to the strength of the magnetic field due to the Hall effect” – [0022]).”
In regards to Claim 14, Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee further teaches “wherein the second magnetic sensor comprises a Hall effect sensor (“the first magnetic sensor is a Hall IC, a voltage can be output linearly according to the strength of the magnetic field due to the Hall effect” – [0022]; “the second magnetic sensor can be implemented as a Hall IC” – [0023]).”
In regards to Claim 15, Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the claimed invention as detailed above in Claim 10. Lee further teaches “wherein the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor are disposed symmetrically the rack bar (Figure 2 shows the first magnetic sensor 231 and the second magnetic sensor 233 disposed symmetrically around the rack bar).”
Lee is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the first magnetic sensor is disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar with respect to the second magnetic sensor.”
Han further teaches “wherein the first magnetic sensor is disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar with respect to the second magnetic sensor (Figure 3 shows the sensors 2 and 3 disposed symmetrically about a center of a stroke of the rack bar).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal incorporate the further teaching of Han to dispose the first and the second magnetic sensor on the outer surface of the rack cylinder. By disposing the sensors on the rack housing this is an improvement that yields predictable results when measuring the position of the rack by the emitted magnetic fields from the magnets in the rack.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Lee’262 (US20070250262).
In regards to Claim 3, Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal is silent with regards to the language of “a memory storing relationship information, the relationship information including mean values of the first signal and the second signal according to the position of the rack bar, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the position of the rack bar by detecting the position of the rack bar corresponding to the calculated mean value from the relationship information stored in the memory”
Lee’262 teaches “a memory storing relationship information, the relationship information including mean values of the first signal and the second signal according to the position of the rack bar, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the position of the rack bar by detecting the position of the rack bar corresponding to the calculated mean value from the relationship information stored in the memory (“The electronic device may further include a first storing unit to store information on the offset value, the predetermined range of radius values, and the predetermined permissible ranges to the mean value and the standard deviation value, and a second storing unit to store the plurality of sampled values sampled by the sampling unit” – [0022]; “The distances, the mean value and the standard deviation value may be calculated using the following equations wherein (Xo, Yo, Zo) is a three-axis coordinate value of the offset value, (Xi, Yi, Zi) is a three-axis coordinate value of an output value output at the i-th place from the three-axis geomagnetic sensor, r(i) is a distance between the i-th three-axis output value and the offset value, Mean is the mean value, SD is the standard deviation value, i is a natural number and N is a number of samplings” – [0023])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal to incorporate the teaching of Lee’262 to store data relating to the position and to calculate the position of an object from magnetic sensor data based off the stored data. By utilizing the stored data in the calculation this is an improvement to reduce the errors and distortion in the measurement results associated with magnetic sensors.
In regards to Claim 7, Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal is silent with regards to the language of “wherein, in the calculation of the position of the rack bar, the position of the rack bar is calculated based on the calculated mean value from predetermined relationship information regarding mean values of the first and second signals according to the position of the rack bar”
Lee’262 teaches “wherein, in the calculation of the position of the rack bar, the position of the rack bar is calculated based on the calculated mean value from predetermined relationship information regarding mean values of the first and second signals according to the position of the rack bar (“The electronic device may further include a first storing unit to store information on the offset value, the predetermined range of radius values, and the predetermined permissible ranges to the mean value and the standard deviation value, and a second storing unit to store the plurality of sampled values sampled by the sampling unit” – [0022]; “The distances, the mean value and the standard deviation value may be calculated using the following equations wherein (Xo, Yo, Zo) is a three-axis coordinate value of the offset value, (Xi, Yi, Zi) is a three-axis coordinate value of an output value output at the i-th place from the three-axis geomagnetic sensor, r(i) is a distance between the i-th three-axis output value and the offset value, Mean is the mean value, SD is the standard deviation value, i is a natural number and N is a number of samplings” – [0023])”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Han and Bilbao de Mendizabal to incorporate the teaching of Lee’262 to store data relating to the position and to calculate the position of an object from magnetic sensor data based off the stored data. By utilizing the stored data in the calculation this is an improvement to reduce the errors and distortion in the measurement results associated with magnetic sensors.
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 YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights