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 filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of Applicant’s response, see Remarks Page 9 last paragraph, disclosing “Applicant has amended independent claim 28 to add "each one of" in front of the "Hall effect sensor" in order to emphasize that the provided signals are provided by each separate Hall effect sensor and is not a result of a combination of signals from different sensors”. Applicant has further failed to disclose the location of support in the Specification as originally filed for the amendment adding "each one of" in front of the "Hall effect sensor" in order to emphasize that the provided signals are provided by each separate Hall effect sensor and is not a result of a combination of signals from different sensors. At best the Specification discloses in the Abstract “the Hall effect sensor elements and is configured for determining a relative axial position between the axial ring magnet and the sensor rod on received signals representing the two components of the magnetic field from each of at least two Hall effect sensor elements” however the emphasis “from each of at least two” elements is required, not by each separate Hall effect sensor as argued. Therefore Tekin discloses Hall effect sensor elements being configured to provide signals representing a magnetic field at the position of respective said Hall effect sensor element (Para [0033] Hall switch may consist of a Hall effect plate and The Hall effect plate produces an output that depends on the magnitude of the applied magnetic field); said Hall effect sensor elements being configured to provide signals representing at least two components, transverse to each other, of a magnetic field at the position of respective said Hall effect sensor element (Fig. 10A/10B; Para [0055-0056] a single ring magnet producing an axial magnetic field on one side surface; right side of dashed line and left side of dashed line producing different magnetic fields) as disclosed in the Office Action of 06/22/2026.
In view of Applicant’s arguments, disclosing “at least two transvers components of a magnetic field at the very position of a single Hall element” on Page 9, “The claimed inventions therefore recite measurement and reporting of multiple magnetic-field components by an individual sensing element” on Page 12, “Tekin never determines position from multiple magnetic-field-componen measurements obtained from an individual sensor location” on Page 13, “They do not disclose an individual Hall switch measuring and outputting separate transverse field components” on Page 13, “measurement of at least two transverse magnetic-field components at each sensing location” on Page 14, “The Examiner relies on Marzano (US20200209396) solely for a spacing dimension exceeding 20 mm. However, claim 37 depends from claim 28 and therefore incorporates all features of claim 28, including: off-axis Hall effect sensor placement; measurement of at least two transverse magnetic-field components by each Hall effect sensor element” on Page 16 and “when each Hall effect sensor element provides measurements of at least two transverse magnetic field components” on Page 17 all are related to the argument as addressed above in which Applicant has failed to provide support for in the Specification as originally filed for the amendment.
In view of Applicant’s argument, see Remarks Pages 14-15, disclosing “Foong's general teaching that neural networks can map inputs to outputs does not teach or suggest Applicant's specific input feature set. The relevant issue is not whether neural networks were known, but whether the claimed multi-component magnetic-signature inputs were taught or suggested.” The examiner would like to remind the applicant that the test for obviousness is not limited to what a prior art inventor includes or does not include in their disclosure. The test of obviousness is what the combined teachings would have made obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Foong teaches using neural networks in the context of magnetic position sensor for the benefit of mapping arbitrary sets of inputs to another set of outputs such as relating position to magnetic field measurements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide wherein a predefined relation data comprises an artificial neural network trained on data sets that represent magnetic field characteristics of two components of a magnetic field from at least two Hall effect sensor elements and corresponding relative positions between an axial ring magnet and said at least two Hall effect sensor elements the use of neural networks adapted to operate with only two components of a magnetic field from only two Hall effect sensor elements at a time as input data, said two Hall effect sensor elements being the Hall effect sensor elements with the presently strongest detected magnetic field for the benefit of mapping arbitrary sets of inputs to another set of outputs, such as relating position to magnetic field measurements, to optimize statistical significance of any parameter relating to position of magnetic field measurements as taught by Foong.
In view of Applicant’s argument, See Remarks Page 16, disclosing “Applicant does not claim spacing as an arbitrary design choice. The specification explains that increased spacing becomes possible because off-axis sensing provides additional magnetic- field information unavailable in traditional one-dimensional sensing systems”. Obtaining additional magnetic field information as argued can directly be attributed to and obvious in providing optimal resolution since it is routine in the art to conduct measurements and determine optical spacing for statistical significance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 28-31, 37, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 discloses “each one of said Hall effect sensor elements being configured to provide signals representing at least two components, transverse to each other, of a magnetic field at the position of respective said Hall effect sensor element”. The amended claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. At best the Specification discloses in the Abstract “the Hall effect sensor elements and is configured for determining a relative axial position between the axial ring magnet and the sensor rod on received signals representing the two components of the magnetic field from each of at least two Hall effect sensor elements” however the emphasis “from each of at least two…elements is required. Therefore the amendment as claimed is considered new matter.
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) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Tekin (US 20170138764), hereinafter ‘Tekin’.
Regarding Claim 39, Tekin discloses method for determining a linear position (Fig. 1, 10 linear position sensor), comprising the steps of: registering parameters of a magnetic field by a plurality of Hall effect sensor elements (Fig. 3, 34 plurality of Hall switches; Para [0032]) arranged along an axis of a sensor rod (Fig. 1, 16 rod; Para [0027]; Para [0028] a sensing device 36 disposed in an internal space of rod 16) within an interior of the sensor rod (Fig 3, switches 34 disposed on device 36 within interior of rod 16), said sensor rod being located through an axial ring magnet (Figs. 9B-9D, ring magnet 30 shown around rod 16; magnet device 18 shown around rod 16); wherein said step of registering parameters of a magnetic field comprises registering parameters of at least two transverse components of said magnetic field (Fig. 10A/10B; Para [0055-0056] a single ring magnet producing an axial magnetic field on one side surface; right side of dashed line and left side of dashed line producing different magnetic fields); communicating signals representing said magnetic field to an embedded microcontroller system (Fig. 6, signal conditioning unit 42 communicationally connected to mounting device 28 for hall switches 34); and determining a relative axial position between said axial ring magnet and said sensor rod based on said communicated signals representing said magnetic fields (Para [0028] A magnet device 18 is attached to piston 14 such that it is disposed around rod 16 and movable along the same with a movement of piston 14 in hydraulic cylinder 100. In this manner, a sensing device 36 (see, for example, FIG. 3) disposed in an internal space of rod 16 may detect a position of magnet device 18 during movement of piston 14; Para [0044] output of signal conditioning unit 42 to determine the position of piston 14); said Hall effect sensor elements are arranged with an off-axis displacement with respect to an axis of said sensor rod (Para [0053] that mounting device 28, i.e., the Hall switches mounted on the same, are offset from a central axis of rod 16); wherein said step of communicating signals comprises communicating signals representing said parameters of at least two transverse components of said magnetic field from at least two Hall effect sensor elements; and wherein said step of determining said relative axial position is performed based on communicated signals representing said at least two transverse components of said magnetic field from each of said at least two of said Hall effect sensor elements (Para [0044] two or more of the mounting units may have the same configuration, and that any appropriate number of mounting units may be combined to form mounting device 28. In addition, one mounting unit 28-0 may have a different configuration than the other mounting units 28-1, 28-2 and 28-3 and may include a control unit including, for example, signal conditioning unit 42 for receiving the output generated by the circuits and determine which of the plurality of Hall switches has been closed by the influence of the magnetic field).
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) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekin (US 20170138764), hereinafter ‘Tekin as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 20210269093), hereinafter ‘Kato’.
Regarding Claim 40, Tekin fails to explicitly disclose wherein said step of determining said relative axial position is performed by correlating magnetic field strengths of said at least two components of said at least two Hall effect sensor elements with a relative axial position between said axial ring magnet and said sensor rod, said correlating being performed according to predefined relation data between magnetic field strengths and relative axial positions.
Kato discloses a position sensor comprising a processor system that outputs a signal when intensity of a magnetic field is sensed by a magnetic field sensor equal to or larger than a threshold and outputs a predetermined signal when the intensity of the magnetic field is less than a threshold. Wherein the signal as it relates to the thresholds correlate and indicates position of the magnets relative to the magnetic field sensor for the benefit of providing a position sensor that can detect a position along a long stroke and that can limit an increase in size (Para [0005-0006]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide determining said relative axial position is performed by correlating magnetic field strengths of said at least two components of said at least two Hall effect sensor elements with a relative axial position between said axial ring magnet and said sensor rod, said correlating being performed according to predefined relation data between magnetic field strengths and relative axial positions for the benefit of providing a position sensor that can detect a position along a long stroke and that can limit an increase in size as taught by Kato in Para [0005-0006].
Claim(s) 41 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekin (US 20170138764), hereinafter ‘Tekin, in view of Kato et al. (US 20210269093), hereinafter ‘Kato’ as applied to claim 40 above and further in view of Foong et al. (US 20160086080), hereinafter ‘Foong’.
Regarding Claims 41 and 42, Tekin and Kato fail to explicitly disclose wherein said step of determining said relative axial position is performed by entering data for said magnetic strengths into an artificial neural network, said artificial neural network being trained on data sets that represent magnetic field characteristics of at least two components of a magnetic field from at least two Hall effect sensor elements and corresponding relative positions between an axial ring magnet and said at least two Hall effect sensor elements, whereby said artificial neural network provides an estimate of a relative position as an output of Claim 41, and of Claim 42, wherein said artificial neural network is adapted to operate with only two components of a magnetic field from only two Hall effect sensor elements at a time as input data.
Foong teaches using neural networks in the context of magnetic position sensor for the benefit of mapping arbitrary sets of inputs to another set of outputs such as relating position to magnetic field measurements (Para [0022-0034]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide wherein said step of determining said relative axial position is performed by entering data for said magnetic strengths into an artificial neural network, said artificial neural network being trained on data sets that represent magnetic field characteristics of at least two components of a magnetic field from at least two Hall effect sensor elements and corresponding relative positions between an axial ring magnet and said at least two Hall effect sensor elements and said artificial neural network is adapted to operate with only two components of a magnetic field from only two Hall effect sensor elements at a time as input data for the benefit of mapping arbitrary sets of inputs to another set of outputs, such as relating position to magnetic field measurements, to optimize statistical significance of any parameter relating to position of magnetic field measurements as taught by Foong in Para [0022-0034].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 43-47 are 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 Claim 43, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein said step of communicating signals representing said magnetic field comprises the part steps of: reading, by slave microcontrollers, data representing magnetic field components from Hall effect sensor elements, wherein each of said slave microcontroller controls an element array of at least two Hall effect sensor elements; and sending signals representing said read magnetic field components from said slave microcontroller to a master microcontroller” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Claims 32-36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claim 32, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein said Hall effect sensor elements are grouped into at least one element array of at least two Hall effect sensor elements, said microcontroller system comprising a master microcontroller and slave microcontrollers, each element array being controlled by a respective said slave microcontroller, wherein said slave microcontrollers are communicating with said master microcontroller” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
