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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 5/21/2026.
The terminal disclaimer filed 5/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on page 6 directed towards the previous Double Patenting Rejection and 112(b) rejections,
The previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn in light of the filed terminal disclaimer, and the previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to Claims 8 and 9.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-9 directed towards Harada et al. (Harada) (US 2011/0246133 A1),
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the claim features, but no specific arguments are presented as to why the prior art fails to disclose the claim features. The prior art expressly discloses that the signal processing circuit used in Figure 12 can be a digital device with analog to digital convertors as seen in Figure 28, and the comparators 53a,53b, which are being interpreted to be part of the control unit and not the sensor, do digitize a sensor output as evidenced by signals VH1 and VH2 in Figures 13b and 13d. Also, part 64 can be interpreted as an A/D converter as it does convert the sensor signal into a digital signal As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the prior art does reasonably disclose the claim features.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the power supply terminals include a constant power supply terminal that is connected to a battery that provides a constant power supply to the constant power supply terminal, and a terminal via power supply which is connected to the battery via a vehicle starting switch” on lines 2-5 introduces new matter.
The Examiner acknowledges that the vehicle starting switch (IG) and a battery is connected to the detection device as seen in Figure 3. However, the issue here is that the claims are solely directed towards the detection device and what it itself comprises. The detection device does not comprise, and is not disclosed to comprise, the vehicle itself, or a part of the vehicle such as the switch or battery that are part of the vehicle. Merely because the detection device may be connected to such a switch or battery does not make such a switch or battery part of the detection device. Applicant previously did recite that the constant power supply terminal is constantly supplied with power from a battery, but this was interpreted to mean that the terminals were intended to be used to be supplied with power from a battery, but not where such a battery was required in the claim.
The detection device is expressly disclosed to include the sensor and control unit (see the abstract for example), and thus requiring that the vehicle starting switch or battery to be part of the detection device, as claimed, introduces new matter because it is not originally disclosed to be part of the detection device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the signal processing section is configured as one signal processing chip including the first AD conversion part digitally converts the detection value of the at least one main detection element” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
Previously, applicant claimed in intended use of the AD conversion part to digitally convert the detection value. However, the above phrase has been amended to now more positively recite the actual digital conversion of the detection value, but wehre such a recitation is indefinite. A device claimed such that it “digitally converts” the detection value is reasonably reciting a method step of using the AD conversion part such that it positively and actively digitally performs a conversion. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” To the extent that this phrase positively recites the actual digital conversion of the detection value, this phrase is indefinite.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the power supply terminals include a constant power supply terminal that is connected to a battery that provides a constant power supply to the constant power supply terminal, and a terminal via power supply which is connected to the battery via a vehicle starting switch” on lines 2-5 is indefinite.
The Examiner acknowledges that the vehicle starting switch (IG) and a battery is connected to the detection device as seen in Figure 3. However, the issue here is that the claims are solely directed towards the detection device and what it itself comprises. The detection device does not comprise, and is not disclosed to comprise, the vehicle itself, or a part of the vehicle such as the switch or battery that are part of the vehicle. Merely because the detection device may be connected to such a switch or battery does not make such a switch or battery part of the detection device. Applicant previously did recite that the constant power supply terminal is constantly supplied with power from a battery, but this was interpreted to mean that the terminals were intended to be used to be supplied with power from a battery, but not where such a battery was required in the claim. The detection device is expressly disclosed to include the sensor and control unit (see the abstract for example), and it is unclear whether this switch or battery is or is not required in the claim.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the switch and battery are not required in the claim, and that the terminals claimed above have an intended use of being for connection to such a switch or battery, respectively, but where the switch and battery again are not required in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (Harada) (US 2011/0246133 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
330
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Harada discloses A detection device, comprising: a sensor (5) including at least one main detection element (M1) configured to detect a change in a physical quantity of a detection target (Paragraphs [0130],[0131],[0177],[0179] / note rotation detection of magnet (2)), (Figures 2A,12), at least one sub detection element (H1) configured to detect a change in a physical quantity of the detection target (Paragraphs [0130],[0131],[0177],[0179] / note rotation detection of magnet (2)), (Figures 2A,12), and a signal processing section (60) configured to process a detection signal of the at least one main detection element into a digital signal (Figure 12), (Paragraphs [0133],[0246]-[0249]), the signal processing section including a first AD conversion part (64 or 81 and/or 82) configured to digitally convert a detection value of the at least one main detection element (Figures 12,28 / note Figure 28 merely shows another implementation for circuit 60 that can be used with the circuit of Figure 12); and a control unit (53,70) configured to acquire a signal from the sensor according to a change in the physical quantity of the detection target (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0134]), the control unit including at least one second AD conversion part configured to digitally convert a detection value of the at least one sub detection element (Figures 12,13B,13D / note the output of the comparators are digital conversions of the output of the analog signals from the sensors as evidenced by the pulses in Figures 13B,D), (Paragraph [0194]); wherein the sensor outputs to the control unit (i) the digital signal of the at least one main detection element containing information generated by the signal processing section corresponding to a detection value of the at least one main detection element and (ii) the analog signal corresponding to a detection value of the at least one sub detection element (Figures 12,13A / note the output from H1 is analog in Figure 13A),(see above figure), (Paragraph [0179] / note the output from (65) is digital because (60) is s digital angle converter), wherein the sensor omits AD conversion of the detection value of the at least one sub detection element (Figure 12 / note the sensor itself does not perform AD conversion of the detection value, as it is the control unit that performs such a function).
As to Claim 2,
Harada discloses the signal processing section is configured as one signal processing chip including the first AD conversion part (64 or 81 and/or 82) digitally converts the detection value of the at least one main detection element (Paragraphs [0179],[0184]],[0185] / note the comparison output is a digital output as it is a pulse signal), an angle calculation part (65) that performs calculations using the digitally converted detection signal of the at least one main detection element (Paragraph [0185]), and a communication part (node where the actual angle is available) that outputs digital signals to the control unit are included (Paragraph [0255] / note all elements are included in the same chip (5)).
As to Claim 3,
Harada discloses the at least one main detection element, the at least one sub detection element, and the signal processing section are sealed with one sealing part (Paragraph [0255] / note all elements are included in the same chip (5)).
As to Claim 4,
Harada discloses a main chip includes the at least one main detection element and a sub chip including the at least one sub detection element are mounted on a signal processing chip constituting the signal processing section (Paragraph [0255] / note all elements are included in the same chip (5)), (Figure 2A / note the overall chip (5) can be considered the signal processing chip, and each element is formed in/on its own layer reasonable constituting a chip or subchip).
As to Claim 7,
Harada discloses wherein in the sensor, power supply terminals used for supplying power to the at least one main detection element and the at least one sub detection element are provided individually for each of the at least one main detection element and the at least one sub detection element (Figures 6 and 12), (Paragraph [0153] / note each element must have different terminals for supplying power as they are different type of sensors that are not connected to each other).
As to Claim 8,
Harada discloses the power supply terminals include a constant power supply terminal that is connected to a battery that provides a constant power supply to the constant power supply terminal, and a terminal via power supply which is connected to the battery via a vehicle starting switch, and the constant power supply terminal is connected to a main chip including the main detection element and the signal processing section (Figure 6 / note Vcc is the constant power supply and that each sensor element must have its own respective terminals that can receive power from the power supply, and that this supply can come from a battery or be cut off, thus reasonably meeting the claim requirements. Note that applicant does not claim any mechanism to cut off any power, and thus none are required in the claim).
As to Claim 9,
Harada discloses the at least one main detection element and the at least one sub detection element are configured to detect a rotational state of the detection target by detecting a change in the detected physical quantity of the detection target (Abstract).
As to Claim 10,
Harada discloses wherein the signal processing section is configured as one signal processing chip including the first AD conversion part digitally converts the detection value of the at least one main detection element, an angle calculation part that performs calculations using the digitally converted detection signal of the at least one main detection element, and a communication part that outputs digital signals to the control unit are included, and the sub detection element and the control unit are located outside of and spaced apart from the one signal processing chip (Figure 12), (Paragraphs [0536]-[0543] / note these paragraphs explain that as an alternative to forming the magnetoresistive (M1,M2) sensors and Hall sensors (H1,H2) together, they can alternatively be formed on their own substrates where the Hall sensors are formed on a semiconductive substrates having first and second conductive types and the magnetoresistors are formed of a thin film thus requiring a different material separate from the Hall sensors, and were either one individual can be considered a chip as a chip is merely a component formed of a semiconductor material, and lastly where this material must clearly be distinct from the processing as expressly seen in Figure 12).
As to Claim 11,
Harada discloses wherein the at least one main detection element, the at least one sub detection element, and the signal processing section are sealed with one sealing part, and the control unit is located outside of and spaced apart from the one sealing part (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0255]).
(Note: The Examiner acknowledges that applicant may have distinct materials and a more specific implementation for the above claim feature, but the above claim feature is broad in that it requires any material that can reasonably be considered a part or portion that seals everything but the control unit. To that point, a “part” is defined to mean “A portion, division, piece, or segment of a whole” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=part, which is consistent with applicant’s disclosure even if broader than intended. The “part” or portion of the chip that seals all components except the control unit can be considered the “one sealing part” of the claim, and the control unit would therefore be outside of an spaced from that sealing part, as the control unit is spaced from the other components as seen in Figure 12.)
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights