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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2025 and 12/14/2023 are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 is disclosed as depending from Claim 30. It appears Claim 30 should depend on Claim 29. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 28, 38 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Tekin (US 20170138764), hereinafter ‘Tekin’.
Regarding Claims 28 and 39, Tekin discloses a linear position transducer (Fig. 1, 10 linear position sensor), comprising: a sensor rod (Fig. 1, 16 rod; Para [0027]); a plurality of Hall effect sensor elements (Fig. 3, 34 plurality of Hall switches; Para [0032]) arranged along an axis of said sensor rod (Para [0028] a sensing device 36 disposed in an internal space of rod 16) within an interior of said sensor rod (Fig 3, switches 34 disposed on device 36 within interior of rod 16); said 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); an axial ring magnet having a hole with a diameter larger than a diameter of said sensor rod (Figs. 9B-9D, hole of ring magnet 30 larger than diameter of rod 16; magnet device 18 hole larger than diameter of rod 16; Para [0031] magnet device 18 formed as a hollow cylindrical body); said axial ring magnet being arranged around said sensor rod (Figs. 9B-9D, ring magnet 30 shown around rod 16; magnet device 18 shown around rod 16); and an embedded microcontroller system communicationally connected to said plurality of Hall effect sensor elements (Fig. 6, signal conditioning unit 42 communicationally connected to mounting device 28 for hall switches 34) for receiving signals representing magnetic fields (Para [0044] 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 shown in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B and process said output to determine which of the plurality of Hall switches has been closed by the influence of the magnetic field; Para [0046] As previously mentioned, signal conditioning unit 42 may be directly connected to the plurality of Hall switches); said microcontroller system being configured for determining a relative axial position between said axial ring magnet and said sensor rod based on said received signals representing 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); and said microcontroller system being configured for determining said relative axial position based on received signals representing said at least two components of said magnetic field from each of 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).
Regarding Claim 38, Tekin further discloses a cylinder of piston type (Para [0026] cylindrical tube 12), comprising a piston and a cylinder body (Para [0026] an outer cylindrical tube 12, a piston 14), and a linear position transducer (Para [0025] linear position sensor 10) according to claim 28.
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) 29 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekin (US 20170138764), hereinafter ‘Tekin as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Kato et al. (US 20210269093), hereinafter ‘Kato’.
Regarding Claims 29 and 40, Tekin fails to explicitly disclose wherein said microcontroller system is configured for determining said relative axial position 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 correlation 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 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 correlation 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) 30, 31, 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 claims 29 and 40 above and further in view of Foong et al. (US 20160086080), hereinafter ‘Foong’.
Regarding Claims 30, 31, 41 and 42, Tekin and Kato fail to explicitly disclose wherein said 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 of Claims 30 and 41, and of Claims 31 and 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, said two Hall effect sensor elements being the Hall effect sensor elements with the presently strongest detected magnetic field.
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 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 Para [0022-0034].
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tekin (US 20170138764), hereinafter ‘Tekin as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Marzano (US 20200209396), hereinafter ‘Marzano’.
Regarding Claim 37, Tekin fails to explicitly disclose wherein said Hall effect sensor elements are spaced apart along said axis of said sensor rod by more than 20 mm, preferably by more than 25 mm.
Marzano discloses a location monitoring system wherein systems may use Hall effect sensors to determine a position with the Hall effect sensors spaced several millimeter across and may be spaced over 70 mm apart, with an achievable resolution being over 35mm for the benefit providing an optimal resolution for location monitoring (Para [0004]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date to combine and provide Hall effect sensor elements spaced apart along said axis of said sensor rod by more than 20 mm, preferably by more than 25 mm for the benefit of providing an alternative arrangement which further provides optimal resolution for location monitoring as taught by Marzano in Para [0004].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-36 and 43-47 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: 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.
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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights