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, see remarks page 6-8, filed 7/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and the rejection of Claim(s) 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666 B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of ZINOBER SVEN (Hereinafter, “Zinober”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO2014005769A2 (Publication Date 2014-01-09) and the rejection of Claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawate et al. (Hereinafter, “Kawate”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020097042 A1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 7-8, of the remarks, filed on 7/06/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and the rejection of Claim(s) 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666 B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of ZINOBER SVEN (Hereinafter, “Zinober”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO2014005769A2 (Publication Date 2014-01-09) and the rejection of Claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawate et al. (Hereinafter, “Kawate”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020097042 A1, that “As explained in paragraph [0069] of Applicant's published specification, the π form of the coupling element helps reducing magnetic losses. And, as explained in paragraph [0054] of Applicant's published specification, the position of the coils L1 and L2 relative to the protuberances leads to an increase of the magnetic response of the coils L1 to a change of the distance d, which facilitates the detection of a displacement between the fixed object and the coupling element.
The cited combination of Eric and Goto does not teach or suggest at least the highlighted features of amended claim 1. More specifically, neither Eric nor Goto disclose the claimed arrangement or shape for the coupling element. With respect to now-cancelled claim 9, the Office contends that Eric "teaches an inductive sensor (D1), wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object made of a ferrite material in tT form or in half-torus form or in rod form or in sheet form (Figure 9 shows that the magnetic coupling element 2 is in sheet form)." Office Action, at 17. That is, the Office relies on Eric as allegedly teaching a magnetic coupling element in sheet form. However, the Office does not identify, and Applicant cannot identify, any portion of Eric that discloses "the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object made of a ferrite material in π form or in half-torus form," as recited by amended claim 1.
For at least the reasons described above, the cited combination of references does not teach or suggest each and every feature of amended independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is patentable over Eric and Goto, alone or in combination. And because dependent claims 2, 4-6, 8, and 10-14 depend, either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, they too are patentable for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as well as for the additional features they recite. Applicant therefore respectfully requests the Examiner to withdraw the § 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 10-14 (remarks-page 7).
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eric in view of Goto and further in view of WO Publication No. 2014005769A2 (hereinafter "Zinober"). Office Action, at 19.
Zinober does not cure the failure of Eric and Goto to disclose or make obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1, from which claims 3 and 15 depend. Accordingly, for at least the reasons described above in connection with independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 3 and 15.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eric in view of Goto and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2002/0097042 (hereinafter "Kawate"). Office Action, at 23.
Kawate does not cure the failure of Eric and Goto to disclose or make obvious the subject matter of independent claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. Accordingly, for at least the reasons described above in connection with independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 7 (Remarks-Page 8).”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7-8 (stated above), filed 7/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and the rejection of Claim(s) 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666 B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of ZINOBER SVEN (Hereinafter, “Zinober”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO2014005769A2 (Publication Date 2014-01-09) and the rejection of Claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666B1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawate et al. (Hereinafter, “Kawate”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020097042 A1, as applied to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 4/08/2026 have been fully considered and is persuasive because applicant has amended the claim. Therefore, the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-15 has been withdrawn. However, applicant has amended the claim 1, and added the limitation, “wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object made of a ferrite material in π form or in half-torus form.” which necessitates a new ground of rejection. Schanz in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20180259411 A1 is applied to meet at least the amended limitation of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/08/2026 has been withdrawn. Claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and further in view of Schanz in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20180259411 A1, as set forth below.
Applicant argues, “the π form of the coupling element helps reducing magnetic losses. And, as explained in paragraph [0054] of Applicant's published specification, the position of the coils L1 and L2 relative to the protuberances leads to an increase of the magnetic response of the coils L1 to a change of the distance d, which facilitates the detection of a displacement between the fixed object and the coupling element”. However, claim does not recite these limitations and therefore is not required by the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument that does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., the π form of the coupling element helps reducing magnetic losses. And, as explained in paragraph [0054] of Applicant's published specification, the position of the coils L1 and L2 relative to the protuberances leads to an increase of the magnetic response of the coils L1 to a change of the distance d, which facilitates the detection of a displacement between the fixed object and the coupling element) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
In response to Applicant's argument that the π form of the coupling element helps reducing magnetic losses. And, as explained in paragraph [0054] of Applicant's published specification, the position of the coils L1 and L2 relative to the protuberances leads to an increase of the magnetic response of the coils L1 to a change of the distance d, which facilitates the detection of a displacement between the fixed object and the coupling element, applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in the light of the specification. Although these elements (the π form of the coupling element helps reducing magnetic losses. And, as explained in paragraph [0054] of Applicant's published specification, the position of the coils L1 and L2 relative to the protuberances leads to an increase of the magnetic response of the coils L1 to a change of the distance d, which facilitates the detection of a displacement between the fixed object and the coupling element) are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed explicitly. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Applicant argues that, “However, the Office does not identify, and Applicant cannot identify, any portion of Eric that discloses "the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object made of a ferrite material in π form or in half-torus form," as recited by amended claim 1” which is not persuasive. Previous claim 9 recites, “wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object made of a ferrite material in π form or in half-torus form or in rod form or in sheet form.”. Therefore, the limitation, “wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object in π form or in half-torus form” was not required by the claim. However, because of the amendment claim now requires, “wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object in π form or in half-torus form”. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1, as applied to the Non-Final office Action mailed on 4/08/2026 has been withdrawn. Claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and further in view of Schanz in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20180259411 A1, as set forth below. Applicant’s argument is moot in view of newly applied combination of references. See the rejection set forth below.
Dependent Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and further in view of Schanz in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20180259411 A1, dependent Claim(s) 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666 B1 and Schanz ‘411 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of ZINOBER SVEN (Hereinafter, “Zinober”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO2014005769A2 (Publication Date 2014-01-09), and dependent Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666B1 and Schanz ‘411 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawate et al. (Hereinafter, “Kawate”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020097042 A1, as set forth below see the rejection set forth below.
New claims 16-17 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and further in view of Schanz in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20180259411 A1.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 set forth in the amendment submitted 7/06/2026 form the basis of the present examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEGROS ERIC et al. (Hereinafter, “Eric”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO 2008047001 A2 (Publication Date 2008-04-24) in view Goto et al. (Hereinafter, “Goto”) in the US patent Number US 6552666 B1 and further in view of Schanz in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20180259411 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Eric teaches an inductive sensor ("Inductive device for measuring the position of a target, and method implemented by this device"; Description Line 1; a device for measuring the position or displacement of a target by induction balance. It also targets a process implemented by this device; TECHNICAL FIELD Line 1-2; Figure 1-4) comprising
a fixed part [1] (sensor 1 as the fixed part) and a movable part [2] (target 2 as the movable part) (The sensor 1 according to the invention makes it possible to determine the distance between said sensor 1 and a target 2, preferably metallic and/or ferromagnetic; Page 12 Line 35-36; the sensor being able to be fixed; Page 2 Description Line 12-13),
the movable part [2] (Magnetic devices can measure the movements of a target without contact; Page 2; State of the prior art Line 1) comprising:
a proof body [pendulum or concrete] that is movable or deformable, in a first direction (Z) (the invention can be applied in a non-limiting manner to the measurement of relative positions of two objects, for example in the field of robotics or machine tools, or for the measurement of the relative positions of segmented mirrors of a telescope. It can also be applied in a non-limiting manner to any measurement of position or deformation in the field of civil engineering such as the evolution of a crack, the sensor and the target being able to be fixed on two sides of the crack substantially facing each other, or for example the inclination of a pendulum (tele pendulum), or the effects of stresses in concrete (extensometer); Page 2 Description Line 8-15; target is fixed to a telescope or pendulum or concrete as the proof body as it deforms because of the stress or crack; magnetic coupling element is moving in a direction as the first direction and therefore the test body is also moving in the same direction as the first direction),
a magnetic coupling element (Fe) [2] (target 2 as the coupling element) (The sensor 1 according to the invention makes it possible to determine the distance between said sensor 1 and a target 2, preferably metallic and/or ferromagnetic; Page 12 Line 35-36; the invention can be applied in a non-limiting manner to the measurement of relative positions of two objects, for example in the field of robotics or machine tools, or for the measurement of the relative positions of segmented mirrors of a telescope. It can also be applied in a non-limiting manner to any measurement of position or deformation in the field of civil engineering such as the evolution of a crack, the sensor and the target being able to be fixed on two sides of the crack substantially facing each other, or for example the inclination of a pendulum (tele pendulum), or the effects of stresses in concrete (extensometer); Page 2 Description Line 8-15);
the fixed part [1] (the sensor as the fixed part being able to be fixed; Page 2 Description Line 12-13) comprising:
a voltage generator [VE] configured to generate an excitation signal [IE] (A voltage source, generating an alternating excitation voltage VE of pulsation w, is connected to the terminals of the transmitter coils El, E2 connected in series. The voltage VE generates an excitation current IE passing through the two transmitter coils El and E2 which respectively create a magnetic field Hl and H2; Page 12 Line 22-25);
a coil transformer comprising an emission inductance ([E1, E2] in Figure 4 [L1, LG] in Figure 9) mounted in parallel with the generator [VE] and a reception inductance [R]/LM (A sensor 1 comprises a set of three coils, including two transmitter coils E1, E2 and one receiver coil R. To simplify Figure 1, only one turn has been drawn per coil. In reality, each coil consists of several turns; Page 12 Line 18-21; The sensor comprises a first peripheral transmitter coil LI (shown in bold in Figure 10) surrounding a second receiver coil LM (or measuring coil). The LM coil can either surround a third LG transmitter coil (or guard coil, shown in dotted lines in Figures 10 to 12) as shown in Figure 11, or be "interdigitated" with the LG coil as shown in Figure 12. In a variant not shown, one could imagine that the LG coil surrounds the LM coil. The LM, LI, and LG coils are made in plane 3 of the sensor, and each consist of several turns which are contained in plane 3, of different and substantially concentric diameters; Page 17 Line 13-19);
the axis of the emission inductance (L1) and the axis of the reception inductance (LM) being oriented in the first direction (Z) (Claim 24: Device according to claim 23, characterized in that it comprises an alignment, along an alignment direction (Y), of several transmitting or receiving coils (LMc4, LMcI; LMg4, LMd4) each belonging to a different sensor, and in that it further comprises means for determining, from the reception signals of the sensors to which the aligned coils belong, an angular coordinate or an angular displacement of the target around an axis (Z, X) substantially perpendicular to the alignment direction (Y));
the magnetic coupling element [2] being placed with respect to the coil transformer so as to magnetically couple the emission inductance (L1) and the reception inductance [LM]; the magnetic coupling element being separated from an end of the emission inductance [L1] by a separation distance [d] (The sensor 1 according to the invention makes it possible to determine the distance between said sensor 1 and a target 2, preferably metallic and/or ferromagnetic. The shape, dimensions, number of turns, winding direction and relative positions of the coils are such that, when target 2 is a defined equilibrium distance from sensor 1, the mutual inductances M1 and M2 are of the same value but of opposite signs, i.e. the reception signal VR is substantially zero; Page 12 Line 35-38 & Page 13 Line 1-2; This sensor allows the measurement of the frontal distance (along the X axis) separating the plane 3 of production of the sensor coils and a target 2. The sensor comprises a first peripheral transmitter coil LI (shown in bold in Figure 10) surrounding a second receiver coil LM (or measuring coil). The LM coil can either surround a third LG transmitter coil (or guard coil, shown in dotted lines in Figures 10 to 12) as shown in Figure 11, or be "interdigitated" with the LG coil as shown in Figure 12. In a variant not shown, one could imagine that the LG coil surrounds the LM coil. The LM, LI, and LG coils are made in plane 3 of the sensor, and each consist of several turns which are contained in plane 3, of different and substantially concentric diameters; Page 17 Line 11-19);
an acquisition chain [7] (measuring circuit 7 as the acquisition chain) connected to the reception inductance (Lz) and configured to generate a signal [VR] of measurement of the variation of the distance (d) following a movement or the deformation of the proof body [2] (A measuring circuit 7 connected to the terminals of the receiving coil processes the reception signal VR: the reception signal VR is amplified by at least one amplification stage 4 of gain gl, then is demodulated with a demodulator 5 synchronous with the excitation signal VE, then finally is filtered using a low-pass filter 6 defining the bandwidth of the sensor 1. The amplitude of the obtained VS output signal depends on the value of the absolute distance between the target surface of the coils and the sensor. Circuit 7 therefore makes it possible to determine the distance d between the sensor and the target. An analog computer and a set of offset and gain adjustments can improve the linearity of the distance measurement in order to directly obtain an output voltage VS which depends linearly on the distance d: VS = K d with K a linearity constant; Page 14 Line 4-13);
the measurement signal [VR] corresponding to a measurement of the variation of the frequency or of the amplitude of the voltage at the terminals of the reception inductance (Lz) (The reception signal VR may further include information on the nature of a material of the target modifying the mutual inductances. Ml, M2. If the frequency of the VE excitation signal is less than a few hundred kilohertz, the phase of the VR reception signal relative to the VE excitation signal depends on the nature of the target material. The circuit may therefore further comprise means for analyzing the phase of the reception signal VR and means for determining, from the reception signal VR, the material of the target. However, in a preferred embodiment, the frequency or pulsation w of the excitation signal is high (typically between a few hundred kilohertz and a few megahertz). In this way, the sensitivity of the VR reception signal to the type of target material is minimized and the sensitivity of the reception signal to the position or displacement of the target relative to the sensor is maximized; Page 14 Line 14-25);
wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) [2] is an object made of a ferrite material (The sensor 1 according to the invention makes it possible to determine the distance between said sensor 1 and a target 2, preferably metallic and/or ferromagnetic; Page 12 Line 35-36).
However, Eric fails to teach that a magnetic coupling element (Fe) is distinct from the proof body (CE), wherein the magnetic coupling element (FE) is mechanically secured to the proof body (CE) so as to follow the movement or deformation of the proof body (CE) in the first direction, wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object in π form or in half-torus form.
Goto teaches a phase difference detection device and method for use in position detection and a position detection system which are applicable to detection of both rotational positions and linear positions (Column 1 Line 12-15),
wherein a magnetic coupling element (Fe) [20] (magnetic coupling section 20) in Figure 1 is distinct from the proof body (CE) [10] (the winding section 10 as the proof body) (Figure 1 shows a magnetic coupling element [20] (magnetic coupling section 20) in Figure 1 is distinct from the proof body [10]),
wherein the magnetic coupling element [20] is mechanically secured to the proof body [10] (FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an example of a linear position detector device which is applicable to a phase difference detection device according to the present invention. The linear position detector device generally comprises a winding section 10 and a variable magnetic coupling section 20. The variable magnetic coupling section 20, which is coupled to a predetermined mechanical system (not shown) that is an object of detection by the detector device, is capable of linearly reciprocating in response to a varying linear position of the mechanical system; Column 6 Line 33-42; Figure 1 shows the magnetic coupling element [20] is mechanically secured to the proof body [10]) so as to follow the movement or deformation of the proof body (CE) in the first direction (On the other hand, the winding section 10 is positionally fixed in a suitable manner. Thus, the variable magnetic coupling section 20 linearly moves relative to the winding section 10, in response to a varying linear position of the mechanical system to be detected (object of detection). Conversely, the winding section 10 may be constructed to move in response to a varying linear position of the mechanical system to be detected, with the variable magnetic coupling section 20 fixed in position. In short, this detector device is constructed to detect a linear position of the variable magnetic coupling section 20 relative to the winding section 10. The direction of such a relative linear displacement is denoted in FIG. 1 by a double-head arrow X; Column 6 Line 42-55). The purpose of doing so is to provide a phase difference detection device, to perform a high-accuracy position detection without being influenced by unwanted phase variation caused by various factors, other than a position-to-be-detected, such as impedance change in a position sensor due to temperature change, to provide superior high-speed response characteristics, to significantly simplify detection-signal transmission lines and also to minimize adverse influences of external disturbances, such as temperature changes, on the detection signal on the transmission lines, to permit a high-accuracy position detection without being influenced by various factors, other than the position-to-be-detected, such as impedance change of the sensor due to temperature change and ununiform lengths of wiring cables.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the proof body and the magnetic coupling element of Eric with the winding section and magnetic coupling element of Goto, because Goto teaches to secure the magnetic coupling element mechanically to the proof body provides a phase difference detection device, performs a high-accuracy position detection without being influenced by unwanted phase variation caused by various factors, other than a position-to-be-detected, such as impedance change in a position sensor due to temperature change, provides superior high-speed response characteristics, significantly simplifies detection-signal transmission lines and also minimizes adverse influences of external disturbances, such as temperature changes, on the detection signal on the transmission lines (Column 2 Line 39-50), permits a high-accuracy position detection without being influenced by various factors, other than the position-to-be-detected, such as impedance change of the sensor due to temperature change and ununiform lengths of wiring cables (Column 4 Line 22-26).
The combination of Eric and Goto fails to teach wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object in π form or in half-torus form.
Schanz teaches a pressure sensor with at least one membrane loaded with a pressure to be measured. The invention further relates to a method for measuring a pressure comprising the step of: loading a membrane with the pressure to be measured (Paragraph [0001] Line 1-5),
wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) [44] in Figure 6/7 (first membrane forms an integral part of pressure body 44 as the magnetic coupling element) is an object in π form or in half-torus form (A practical execution example of the first membrane 12 having the wall 70 is shown in FIG. 10. Here, as previously explained with reference to FIG. 1 and FIG. 6, the first membrane forms an integral part of the pressure body 44. For the magneto-elastic detection of surface stresses, the pressure body 44 is made from a suitable ferromagnetic material; Paragraph [0107] Line 1-7; FIG. 7 shows a schematic arrangement of the magneto-elastic pressure sensor 10 with a ferrite core 34, 36, the planar coils 32 embedded in the printed circuit board—board areas 62, 64 opposite the ferromagnetic measuring body—and the pressure body 44 integrally provided with the measuring membrane—first membrane 12. When pressure is applied to the first membrane, tensile stresses 96 and compressive stresses 88 occur at the surface; Paragraph [0126] Line 1-8). The purpose of doing so is to exhibit a higher compressive strength, to provide higher accuracy, to detect a direction or change of direction of magnetic field lines of a magnetic field induced into the membrane or into an element coupled to the membrane and to detect mechanical stress in the membrane or in the element coupled to the membrane from the detected direction or change of direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the magnetic coupling element of Eric and Goto in view of Schanz, because Schanz teaches to have the magnetic coupling element (Fe) in π form or in half-torus form exhibits a higher compressive strength, provides higher accuracy (Paragraph [0013]), detects a direction or change of direction of magnetic field lines of a magnetic field induced into the membrane or into an element coupled to the membrane and detects mechanical stress in the membrane or in the element coupled to the membrane from the detected direction or change of direction (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the acquisition chain comprises an analogue-digital converter (DAC) for converting the voltage at the terminals of the reception inductance (Lz) into a first digital signal (Vaig) (These combinations can be made directly at the level of the electronic signals coming from the sensors, or after demodulation of the amplitudes (or even phase) of the signals from the different sensors. In the latter case, the signals to be combined are analog values, or digital values resulting from an analog/digital conversion. Similarly, linearization operations (e.g. division) can be done at different levels, analog before or after demodulation, or on digital signals; Page 34 Line 15-20).
Regarding claim 4, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the excitation signal (Vin) is a square-wave pulse (The currents applied on the coils produce a weak force, little disturbing on the position of the target. The superposition of a direct current or more generally at a frequency (s) different from that used for the measurement, or of pulse shape, or switched over time, can be used to control the position of the target, for example in a position control device provided around the device according to the invention; Page 35 Line 6-10; Therefore, excitation signal can be pulsed and example of pulsed signal is triangular or square wave signal).
Regarding claim 5, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the fixed part further comprises a capacitive element (C1) and a resistive element (Rs) mounted in series with the emission inductance (L1) so as to produce an RLC circuit powered by the voltage generator (G1) (The relative position of LG versus LM was compared (see Figures 11 and 12). The two possibilities of FIGS. 11 and 12 are valid for each pair LMi, LGi (i being an index varying from 1 to 4, which can of course also describe the means of the center "ci" cl to c4). A better sensitivity is obtained by winding simultaneously (or contiguously) LG and LM over a part of the space, as illustrated in Figure 12. We will say that the coils are "interdigitated" in this common area. However, this configuration also leads to significantly increase parasitic capacitances between these windings. This results in a limitation of the resonant frequency, as well as a greater thermal drift of the sensor, due to parasitic capacitance-series resistance coupling. Although this decreases the initial sensitivity of the sensor, a preferred embodiment of the invention is to realize the LG coils inside LM, without common area "interdigitated", as shown in Figure 11; Page 27 Line 23-33).
Regarding claim 6, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the acquisition chain comprises a computer (ECU) (A measuring circuit 7 connected to the terminals of the receiving coil processes the reception signal VR: the reception signal VR is amplified by at least one amplification stage 4 of gain gl, then is demodulated with a demodulator 5 synchronous with the excitation signal VE, then finally is filtered using a low-pass filter 6 defining the bandwidth of the sensor 1. The amplitude of the obtained VS output signal depends on the value of the absolute distance between the target surface of the coils and the sensor. Circuit 7 therefore makes it possible to determine the distance d between the sensor and the target. An analog computer and a set of offset and gain adjustments can improve the linearity of the distance measurement in order to directly obtain an output voltage VS which depends linearly on the distance d: VS = K d with K a linearity constant; Page 14 Line 4-13) configured to:
carry out a sampling of the first digital signal (Vaig) in order to extract the amplitude (A1) of the voltage at the terminals of the reception inductance (Lz);
calculate the deviation between the extracted amplitude (A1) and a predetermined reference amplitude (Ao). (For example, the amplitude of the signals recorded will be used. These different relationships were explained throughout the presentation. For ease of reading, they are included in this section. Y comes from (LM1-LM3), with a relation of proportionality (and non-linearities with strong Y). The coefficient of proportionality depends on X. Linearizations of the latter are possible by dividing for example by (LM1 + LM3) or other linear combinations. From this term (LM1-LM3) is subtracted k times θ .sub.y (described later) if this angular term is measured. The term k of geometric origin is not very variable with X.
Similarly, Z is proportional to (LM2-LM4).
X comes from LMc or the sum of all the sensors, for example LM1 + LM2 + LM3 + LM4 possibly supplemented by LMc1 + LMc2 + LMc3 + LMc4,. The relation is not linear, but can be more by transformations (inverse x gives 1 / x ...)
. θ .sub.y is from (+ LMCL LMc4) - (+ LMc2 LMc3). Similarly θ .sub.z comes from (LMc1 + LMc2) - (LMc3 + LMc4). The coefficient of proportionality also depends on X.
θ .sub.x comes from (LMgI-LMdI), or (LMgI-LMdI) + (LMg3-LMd3) (which is preferred to reduce the cross-sensitivities to Y or Z), or from (LMgI-LMdI) + (LMg2- LMd2) + (LMg3-LMd3) + (LMg4-LMg4). The relationship is linear. The coefficient of proportionality depends primarily on X. (LMgi + LMdi replaces LMi in the previous equations.)
These linear combinations therefore result in the first order of the sum or the subtraction possibly weighted by coefficients (as for the fifteenth embodiment of FIG. 27 for example). These combinations can be done directly at the electronic signals from the sensors, or after demodulation of the amplitudes (or phase) of the signals of the different sensors. In the latter case, the signals to be combined are analog values, or digital values resulting from an analog / digital conversion. Similarly, the linearization operations (for example division) can be done at different levels, analog before or after demodulation, or on digital signals; Page 32 Line 33-38 & Page 33 Line 1-20).
Regarding claim 8, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the acquisition chain comprises an amplifier circuit (AMP) mounted upstream of the analogue-digital converter (DAC) to amplify the voltage at the terminals of the reception inductance (Lz) (A measuring circuit 7 connected to the terminals of the receiving coil processes the reception signal VR: the reception signal VR is amplified by at least one amplification stage 4 of gain gl, then is demodulated with a demodulator 5 synchronous with the excitation signal VE, then finally is filtered using a low-pass filter 6 defining the bandwidth of the sensor 1. The amplitude of the obtained VS output signal depends on the value of the absolute distance between the target surface of the coils and the sensor. Circuit 7 therefore makes it possible to determine the distance d between the sensor and the target. An analog computer and a set of offset and gain adjustments can improve the linearity of the distance measurement in order to directly obtain an output voltage VS which depends linearly on the distance d: VS = K d with K a linearity constant; Page 14 Line 4-13; These combinations can be made directly at the level of the electronic signals coming from the sensors, or after demodulation of the amplitudes (or even phase) of the signals from the different sensors. In the latter case, the signals to be combined are analog values, or digital values resulting from an analog/digital conversion. Similarly, linearization operations (e.g. division) can be done at different levels, analog before or after demodulation, or on digital signals; Page 34 Line 15-20).
Regarding claim 10, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the ferrite material is chosen such that the thermal sensitivity of the relative magnetic permeability (ur) of said material is less than 1%/°C (For metal targets, the conduction of eddy currents does not occur in the whole mass of the target but on a certain thickness. This phenomenon is called "skin effect". The thickness depends on the square root of the conductivity of the target, itself subject to a strong thermal drift (typically 3900 ppm / ° C - part per million per degree Celsius - for copper). The position of the thickness of the target opposing the field of the coil is therefore poorly defined and depends on the temperature. Similarly, the variation of the inductance of the target depends on the conductance of the target and therefore the temperature. Since the variation of the inductance of the coil is small compared to the nominal value of this impedance, this type of device has the defect of being very sensitive to the surrounding temperature. This type of device therefore needs to be coupled to a temperature measurement in order to be able to correct a measurement of the position of the target by measuring the inductance variation; Page 3 Line 26-33).
Regarding claim 11, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the emission inductance (L1) and the reception inductance (L2) are produced by coplanar metal tracks deposited on a printed circuit board (PCB) (The turns of each coil may be non-limiting circular, square or rectangular. The transmitting and receiving coils of a sensor can be made substantially in the same area. The coils can for example be made on different grooves of the same rigid structure. The coils can also be made by screen printing turns on a single layer or multilayer printed circuit, each coil can then be made on a different layer of circuit; Page 7 Line 1-5; Figure 10).
Regarding claim 12, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein each of the emission inductance (L1) and of the reception inductance (Lz) is produced by a coil wound around a solid rod (The turns of each coil may be non-limiting circular, square or rectangular. The transmitting and receiving coils of a sensor can be made substantially in the same area. The coils can for example be made on different grooves of the same rigid structure. The coils can also be made by screen printing turns on a single layer or multilayer printed circuit, each coil can then be made on a different layer of circuit; Page 7 Line 1-5; Figure 10; Page 13 Line 1-22; coil can be wound around a solid rod as the rigid structure).
Regarding claim 13, Eric teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the emission inductance (L1) is disposed alongside the reception inductance (Lz) or superposed on the reception inductance (L2) (A preferred arrangement of the coils makes it possible to obtain these conditions: the coils are arranged so that, when the target 2 is at the equilibrium distance, the two flows Ψl and Ψ2 are, as seen by the receiver coil R, of the same value but opposite signs (Ψl and Ψ2 equilibrate at the level of the coil R), that is to say that the flow seen by the receiver coil R is substantially zero. For this, the transmitting coils El, E2 and receiver R of the assembly are made substantially in the same plane 3. Each coil comprises several turns contained in the plane 3, of different diameters and substantially concentric. The emitting coils E1, E2 are connected in series with opposite directions of rotation of their turns. Thus, if the current IE traverses the first transmitting coil El in the plane 3 in one direction (clockwise in FIG. 1), the current IE travels the second transmitting coil E2 in the plane 3 in an opposite direction (counter-clockwise direction). in Figure 1). The first transmitting coil El surrounds the second transmitting coil E2 which surrounds the receiver coil R. Les. three coils El, E2, R are substantially concentric. In Figure 1, the coils El, B2 and R are shown circular, but they can also be for example square or rectangular. The coils are made on a multilayer printed circuit. The first transmitting coil El is formed in a layer of the circuit between a layer in which the second transmitting coil E2 is produced and a layer in which the receiver coil R. is produced. Alternatively, the receiver coil R could surround the second transmitter coil E2. Similarly, the receiver coil R could be made in a layer between the layer where the emitting coil El is produced and the layer in which the emitter coil E2 is produced; Page 13 Line 1-22).
Regarding claim 14, Eric in view of Goto teaches an inductive sensor (D1),
wherein the movable part comprises N magnetic coupling elements (Fei, Fez) mechanically secured to the proof body (CE) aligned in a row, with N an integer strictly greater than 1; and wherein the fixed part comprises N-1 intermediate magnetic coupling elements disposed between the emission inductance (L1) and the reception inductance (Lz) (How to perform excitation and measurement, in current or voltage mode? For a couple of two coils L1 and L2 in magnetic coupling, the relationship connecting currents and voltages is as follows: Ul = Llωj .il + M12.ωj.I2 U2 = M12.ωj. il + L2.ωj.i2; M12 being the mutual inductance between L1 and L2, UI being the voltage across L1 U2 being the voltage across L2, it being the flowing current L1 i2 being the flowing current L2 ω being the pulsation of the excitation signal U1, it is on L1. We could have written M21 in the second equation, but this term is exactly M12. We can then: - Apply a voltage on the coil 1, - Apply a current on the coil 1, - Measure a voltage on the coil 2; Page 32 Line 7-18; Eric discloses more than one magnetic coupling and therefore magnetic coupling N is more than one disposed between the emission inductance (L1) and the reception inductance (Lz)).
Regarding claim 16, Eric teaches an inductive sensor,
wherein the magnetic coupling element (FE) is the object made of the ferrite material (The sensor 1 according to the invention makes it possible to determine the distance between said sensor 1 and a target 2, preferably metallic and/or ferromagnetic; Page 12 Line 35-36).
The combination of Eric and Goto fails to teach an inductive sensor, wherein the magnetic coupling element (FE) is the object in π form, and wherein the magnetic coupling element (FE) comprises a base and two parallel protuberances which extend from said base in the first direction, the base being fixed onto a surface of the proof body (CE), and the two parallel protuberances extend orthogonally to said surface downwards.
Schanz teaches a pressure sensor with at least one membrane loaded with a pressure to be measured. The invention further relates to a method for measuring a pressure comprising the step of: loading a membrane with the pressure to be measured (Paragraph [0001] Line 1-5),
wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) [44] in Figure 6/7 (first membrane forms an integral part of pressure body 44 as the magnetic coupling element) is an object in π form (A practical execution example of the first membrane 12 having the wall 70 is shown in FIG. 10. Here, as previously explained with reference to FIG. 1 and FIG. 6, the first membrane forms an integral part of the pressure body 44. For the magneto-elastic detection of surface stresses, the pressure body 44 is made from a suitable ferromagnetic material; Paragraph [0107] Line 1-7; FIG. 7 shows a schematic arrangement of the magneto-elastic pressure sensor 10 with a ferrite core 34, 36, the planar coils 32 embedded in the printed circuit board—board areas 62, 64 opposite the ferromagnetic measuring body—and the pressure body 44 integrally provided with the measuring membrane—first membrane 12. When pressure is applied to the first membrane, tensile stresses 96 and compressive stresses 88 occur at the surface; Paragraph [0126] Line 1-8); and wherein
the magnetic coupling element (FE) comprises a base and two parallel protuberances which extend from said base in the first direction (Figure 10: Modified Figure 10 of Schanz below shows the magnetic coupling element (FE) comprises a base and two parallel protuberances which extend from said base in the first direction),
the base being fixed onto a surface of the proof body (CE), and the two parallel protuberances extend orthogonally to said surface downwards (Figure 10: Modified Figure 10 of Schanz below shows the base being fixed onto a surface of the proof body (CE) in view of Eric, and the two parallel protuberances extend orthogonally to said surface downwards).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 10: Modified Figure 10 of Schanz
The purpose of doing so is to exhibit a higher compressive strength, to provide higher accuracy, to detect a direction or change of direction of magnetic field lines of a magnetic field induced into the membrane or into an element coupled to the membrane and to detect mechanical stress in the membrane or in the element coupled to the membrane from the detected direction or change of direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the magnetic coupling element of Eric and Goto in view of Schanz, because Schanz teaches to have the magnetic coupling element (Fe) in π form exhibits a higher compressive strength, provides higher accuracy (Paragraph [0013]), detects a direction or change of direction of magnetic field lines of a magnetic field induced into the membrane or into an element coupled to the membrane and detects mechanical stress in the membrane or in the element coupled to the membrane from the detected direction or change of direction (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Eric and Goto fails to teach an inductive sensor, wherein, in an initial state of the inductive sensor (D1), a second protuberance of the two parallel protuberances is placed at a predetermined distance with respect to a top end of the reception inductance (L₂).
Schanz teaches a pressure sensor with at least one membrane loaded with a pressure to be measured. The invention further relates to a method for measuring a pressure comprising the step of: loading a membrane with the pressure to be measured (Paragraph [0001] Line 1-5),
PNG
media_image2.png
351
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7: Modified Figure 7 of Schanz
wherein, in an initial state of the inductive sensor (D1), a second protuberance of the two parallel protuberances is placed at a predetermined distance with respect to a top end of the reception inductance (L₂) [32] (Figure 7: Modified Figure 7 of Schanz above shows in an initial state of the inductive sensor (D1), a second protuberance of the two parallel protuberances is placed at a predetermined distance with respect to a top end of the reception inductance (L₂) [32]; Claim does not recite what distance is considered as the predetermined distance and therefore any distance from the top of the reception inductance can be considered as the predetermined distance). The purpose of doing so is to exhibit a higher compressive strength, to provide higher accuracy, to detect a direction or change of direction of magnetic field lines of a magnetic field induced into the membrane or into an element coupled to the membrane and to detect mechanical stress in the membrane or in the element coupled to the membrane from the detected direction or change of direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Eric and Goto in view of Schanz, because Schanz teaches to place a second protuberance of the two parallel protuberances at a predetermined distance with respect to a top end of the reception inductance exhibits a higher compressive strength, provides higher accuracy (Paragraph [0013]), detects a direction or change of direction of magnetic field lines of a magnetic field induced into the membrane or into an element coupled to the membrane and detects mechanical stress in the membrane or in the element coupled to the membrane from the detected direction or change of direction (Paragraph [0020]).
Claim(s) 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666 B1 and Schanz ‘411 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of ZINOBER SVEN (Hereinafter, “Zinober”) in the Patent Application Publication Number WO2014005769A2 (Publication Date 2014-01-09).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Eric, Goto and Schanz fails to teach an inductive sensor (D1), wherein the acquisition chain comprises a computer (ECU) configured to: extract the resonance frequency (f1) of the voltage at the terminals of the reception inductance (L2) from the first digital signal (Vaig). calculate the deviation between the extracted resonance frequency (fi) and a predetermined reference frequency (fo).
Zinober teaches an eddy current sensor and a method for measuring a force (DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION Line 3),
wherein the acquisition chain comprises a computer (ECU) configured to: extract the resonance frequency (f1) of the voltage at the terminals of the reception inductance (L2) from the first digital signal (Vaig). calculate the deviation between the extracted resonance frequency (fi) and a predetermined reference frequency (fo) (Series resonant circuit comprising a capacitance C, an inductance L (p) and a resonant circuit comprising: The resistance R. The inductance L (p) corresponds to the sensor coil from the eddy current sensor according to the approach presented here. The sensor coil changes its inductance value in response to a positional change Δp of the sensor surface. When the inductance is changed, the resonant circuit has a changed resonant frequency. In a frequency range above and below the frequency range of the two stages; Page 14 Line 7-11). The purpose of doing so is to adjust the characteristic quality of the sensor resonant circuit, to determine the impedance of the sensor coil, the resonant frequency of the sensor resonant circuit or the quality of the sensor
resonant circuit or any combination thereof using a suitable impedance, to evaluate an alternating current flowing through the sensor coil and to infer the distance between the sensor surface and the sensor coil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Eric, Goto and Schanz in view of Zinober, because Zinober teaches to extract the resonance frequency of the voltage at the terminals of the reception inductance adjusts the characteristic quality of the sensor resonant circuit, determines the impedance of the sensor coil, the resonant frequency of the sensor resonant circuit or the quality of the sensor resonant circuit or any combination thereof using a suitable impedance (Page 4), evaluates an alternating current flowing through the sensor coil and to infer the distance between the sensor surface and the sensor coil (Page 5).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Eric, Goto and Schanz fails to teach a device for measuring weight or pressure comprising an inductive sensor (D1) as claimed in claim 1.
Zinober teaches an eddy current sensor and a method for measuring a force (DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION Line 3),
wherein a device for measuring weight or pressure comprising an inductive sensor (D1) (In other words, FIG. 1 shows an eddy current sensor 100 for detecting force, pressure or acceleration, for example in a MEMS design, i.e. in microsystem technology. The basic principle of the eddy current measurement method is based on the following principle; Page 11 Line 21-23). The purpose of doing so is to measure a force or a pressure, a counterpart to generate a defined resistance against the force or the pressure, to detect a deflection of the counterpart and to measure the force or force per area (pressure) , can be deduced via a spring constant or an equivalent material value, to deduce an applied acceleration via the deflection, the spring constant and a mass of the counterpart, to measure a deflection of a surface with respect to an emitter, for example an electrical coil (Page 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Eric, Goto and Schanz in view of Zinober, because Zinober teaches to include a device for measuring weight or pressure measures a force or a pressure, a counterpart to generate a defined resistance against the force or the pressure, detects a deflection of the counterpart and measures the force or force per area (pressure), can be deduced via a spring constant or an equivalent material value, deduces an applied acceleration via the deflection, the spring constant and a mass of the counterpart, measures a deflection of a surface with respect to an emitter, for example an electrical coil (Page 2).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eric ‘001 A2 in view of Goto ‘666B1 and Schanz ‘411 A1, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kawate et al. (Hereinafter, “Kawate”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20020097042 A1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Eric, Goto and Schanz fails to teach an inductive sensor (D1), wherein the excitation signal (Vin) is a voltage ramp.
Kawate teaches non-contact position sensors and more particularly to such sensors which are digital pulse transformer position sensors (Paragraph [0002] Line 1-3),
wherein the excitation signal (Vin) is a voltage ramp (Due to the inductance of the coil, grounding the capacitor produces an approximately linear current ramp resulting in a sustained signal to the sense input. A sample rate generator provides a signal x for turning on the transistor; Paragraph [0032] Line 7-14). The purpose of doing so is to provide a signal x for turning on the transistor allowing the capacitor to discharge producing the desired di/dt pulse as well as a signal for latching a sampled value in each sense circuit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Eric, Goto and Schanz in view of Kawate, because Kawate teaches to include the excitation signal (Vin) as a voltage ramp provides a signal for turning on the transistor allowing the capacitor to discharge producing the desired di/dt pulse as well as a signal for latching a sampled value in each sense circuit (Paragraph [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jost et al. (US 3940992 A) discloses, “Transducer- [Abstract] A magnetostrictive pressure transducer is disclosed wherein pressure in the range of 0 to 1000 psi can be accurately measured. The pressure transducer apparatus includes a diaphragm causing the pressure to be applied unidirectionally on sensor material having the property of undergoing changes in magnetic induction when a pressure is applied thereto, the change in magnetic induction being related to the applied pressure. Referring first to FIG. 1, there is shown a pressure sensing cartridge for sensing of applied pressure in accordance with the present invention. The cartridge includes a magnetostrictive stud 10 made of material having magnetic properties. The stud is preferably composed of iron-cobalt alloys, nickel-iron alloys or ferrites. In particular alloys of iron-cobalt have been found to be effective since such alloys have a level of permeability which optimizes the output to noise ratio of the system and also since such alloys have magnetic properties which are less temperature dependent than other known magnetic materials. To minimize the volume required for the electronics (required for energizing the cartridge and detecting the output signal) and to optimize the frequency response of the pressure transducer, relatively high excitation frequencies are required. At higher frequencies the reactive components of the electronics decrease in volume. However the depth of penetration (skin depth) of the magnetic field decreases with frequency so that smaller cross-sectional areas of the magnetostrictive stud are active in influencing the electrical circuit. The skin depth depends on the electrical resistivity and the magnetic permeability of the material. For instance, for a frequency of 1000 Hz and average magnetic material, the skin depth is less than 10 mils. Thus in the preferred embodiment the sensor element is made in a tubular configuration as by rolling one end of a sheet toward a second end but spaced therefrom. The spacing may be maintained by placing a non-magnetic core of plaster if desired. The sheet may also be rolled upon itself in the form of a scroll to increase the active surface area without a significant increase in volume-However Jost does not disclose a magnetic coupling element (Fe) is distinct from the proof body (CE), wherein the magnetic coupling element (FE) is mechanically secured to the proof body (CE) so as to follow the movement or deformation of the proof body (CE) in the first direction, wherein the magnetic coupling element (Fe) is an object made of a ferrite material.”
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 NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights