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 1/14/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/14/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
With regard to the IDS filed 4/2/2024, applicant lists a US application noting that the entire file history was included. The Examiner notes that listing a “file” on an IDS is not proper, but also notes that what applicant has provided is merely the actual US application including the specification, claims, and figures. No other documents have been provided, and because it is proper to list a US application on an IDS, this application has been considered as provided.
With regard to the IDS filed 3/28/2024, applicant lists that US 20170291640 corresponds to JP2017-191092A, but this Japanese document has not been provided. As such, the Japanese document has not been considered, and it has been struck-through.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 and 9 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 8,
The phrase “the power supply terminals include a constant power supply terminal that is constantly supplied with power from a battery, and a terminal via power supply to which the power supply is cut off when the power is turned off” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) Claim 8 is an apparatus claim, and therefore directed towards the final product and not any use thereof. The above phrase is expressly claim that the constant power supply terminal “is constantly supplied with power from a battery,” thus positively requiring that the terminal be constantly supplied with power, rendering the claim phase indefinite. Constantly supplying a terminal with power is the same as reciting a method step of constantly supplying the terminal with power, and MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) explains “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.” Furthermore, this phrase is indefinite because it is unclear if the battery is or is not required, because the battery is expressly linked to the positive use to supply power to the terminal. The same issue exists with the recitation of “a terminal via power supply to which the power supply is cut off when the power is turned off.” Such a phrase reasonably include the power supply being cut off, which is also a method step raising the same issue. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the above phrases are being interpreted to mean that the power supply terminal has an intended use to be constantly supplied by a battery, but that no battery or constant power supply is required. Similarly, the terminal via power supply is being interpreted to have an intended use of having power supply cut off when the power is turned off, but where no actual power is supplied or cut off from the terminal.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear what a “terminal via power supply” means in light of the disclosure. It is unclear if the terminal is part of the power supply or merely has an intended use of receiving power from the power supply. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is being interpreted to mean “a terminal to which the power supply is cut off when the power is turned off.”
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the main detection element and the sub detection element detect a rotational state of the detection target” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) The first issue is that applicant is positively claiming the elements “detect a rotation state of the detection target,” thus positively reciting a use of the elements to detect rotation. Such a recitation is the same as reciting method step of detecting a rotation, as a positive use if a method of use. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) explains “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.” As such, this phrase is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is being interpreted to mean that the elements are configured to detect rotation.
2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming a rotational state above, but where applicant previously recited that the elements detect a change in a physical quantity of the detection target in Claim 1. As best understood, the physical quantity is the now recited rotational state in Claim 9, but where these features are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between the physical quantity in Claim 1 and the rotational state of Claim 9 are therefore unclear.
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 7-9 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
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 main detection element (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0133]); 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]); wherein the sensor outputs to the control unit a digital signal containing information generated by the signal processing section corresponding to a detection value of the main detection element and an analog signal corresponding to a detection value of the 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).
As to Claim 2,
Harada discloses the signal processing section is configured as one signal processing chip in which an AD conversion part (64) that digitally converts the detection value of the 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 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 main detection element, the 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 including the main detection element and a sub chip including the 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/down 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 main detection element and the sub detection element are provided individually for each of the main detection element and the 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 constantly supplied with power from a battery, and a terminal via power supply to which the power supply is cut off when the power is turned off, 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 main detection element and the sub detection element detect a rotational state of the detection target (Abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 9 of copending Application No. 18/620,689 (‘689) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to Claim 1,
‘689 discloses A detection device, comprising: a sensor including at least one main detection element configured to detect a change in a physical quantity of a detection target (Claim 1, First paragraph), at least one sub detection element configured to detect a change in a physical quantity of the detection target (Claim 1, First paragraph), and a signal processing section (calculation part) configured to process a detection signal of the main detection element (Claim 1, First paragraph / note the calculation part calculates state information using the main detection element signal, and thus processes the signal); and a control unit configured to acquire a signal from the sensor according to a change in the physical quantity of the detection target (Claim 1, Second paragraph / note the control unit receives an analog signal from the sensor and digitally converts it); wherein the sensor outputs to the control unit a digital signal containing information generated by the signal processing section corresponding to a detection value of the main detection element and an analog signal corresponding to a detection value of the sub detection element (Claim 1 / note most features of this claim use the same wording as found in ‘689. Note that the control unit receives an analog signal from the sub detection element that is digital converts, and receives the digital signal based on a detection signal from the main detection element by way of its abnormality detection part).
As to Claim 3,
‘689 discloses wherein the main detection element, the sub detection element, and the signal processing section are sealed with one sealing part.
As to Claim 9,
‘689 discloses wherein the main detection element and the sub detection element detect a rotational state of the detection target (Claim 9).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2006/0028203 to Kawashima et al, 2) US 2019/0120659 to Bussan, and 3) US 2019/0107552 to Muramatsu et al. which all disclose sensors with different signal paths..
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