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Claims 2-5, 7, and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention..
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a control unit including a sub digital conversion part configured to digitally convert the analog signal acquired from the sensor, and an abnormality detection part configured to perform an abnormality detection using main information according to the state information included in the digital signal and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element, wherein the abnormality detection part performs the abnormality detection using a value obtained by converting the analog signal into the state information as a sub information, or a value obtained by converting the state information into an analog output as a main information” on lines 10 to the end lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the abnormality detection part is configured to perform an abnormality detection using main information according to the state information included in the digital signal and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element as claimed. The disclosure repeats similar wording as the claim language, but without any reasonable explanation as to what the abnormality detection part does with any angle information (state information) to detect an abnormality. Merely converting an analog sensor signal into an angle measurement (state information) or the reverse does not reasonably identify any abnormality. In order to identify an abnormality, applicant must do something with this information, but where the elected embodiment is completely silent on any process, formula, or other reasonable explanation to reasonably demonstrate what the abnormality detection part is doing to perform abnormality detection as claimed. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 6, 8, and 10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1 and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1, 6, 8, and 10 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 1,
The phrase “and a calculation part configured to calculate a state information using the digitally converted detection signal of the main detection element, and being configured to output a digital signal including the state information and an analog signal according to the detection signal of the sub detection element” on lines 7-10 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what is “configured to output a digital signal including the state information and an analog signal according to the detection signal of the sub detection element” as claimed. As currently claimed, the calculation part is the component that would reasonably be configured to output the digital and analog signal. However, no calculation part is disclosed in the elected embodiment that outputs both a digital and analog signal. As see in Figure 3, for example, the angle calculation part outputs one signal, which is a digital signal, but the analog signal comes from the output of chip 44. As such, the above phrase can be interpreted to mean that the calculation part outputs a digital and analog signal, or in light of the disclosure, it can be interpreted that this phrase was intended to refer back to the overall sensor, and it is the sensor that outputs a digital and analog signal. This phrase is therefore indefinite because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what the claim feature is intended to mean. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this phrase is being interpreted to mean that the overall sensor is what is configured to provide the claimed digital and analog signals.
The phrase “converting the analog signal into the state information as a sub information” on lines 2-3 of the last paragraph is indefinite. The state information comes from the main detection element, and thus any output from another sensor cannot be the same as that from the main detection element. While it is understood that applicant’s intention is for the analog signal to be converted into a similar type of information as the main information, claiming the above conversion of the analog signal reasonably means that applicant is converting the output of the sub detection element into the output from the main detection element. There is a difference between claiming that the main detection element’s output is converted into an angle measurement, and the output of the sub detection element is also converted into an angle measurement, as opposed to claiming that the output of the sub detection element has been converted such that is the exact same output and data from the output of the main detection element. It is therefore unclear how this phrase should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that this phrase means that the output from the sub detection element is converted into information that is the same type of information as obtained from the main detection element, but where the information from the main element and the information from the sub element are distinct.
As to Claims 6, 8, and 10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1 and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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, 6, 8, and 10 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
493
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Harada discloses A detection device, comprising: a sensor (5),(51),(52),(60) including at least one main detection element (M1) configured to detect a change in a physical quantity of a detection target (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0179]), at least one sub detection element (H1) configured to detect a change in the physical quantity of the detection target (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0177]), a main digital conversion part (60) configured to digitally convert a detection signal of the main detection element (Paragraph [0179] / note section (60) is a digital angle converter), and a calculation part (65) configured to calculate a state information using the digitally converted detection signal of the main detection element (Paragraphs [0180],[0181],[0185] / note the digital angle signal phi is output to cos and sin circuits 66,68 and the up-down counter (calculation part) calculates the state information (phi angle) by counting) and being configured to output a digital signal including the state information and an analog signal according to the detection signal of the sub detection element (Figure 12), (Paragraphs [0185],[0188] / note the output of the amplified Hall sensors H1 and H2 are analog signals, and the output phi angle signal from (60) is a digital signal including the state information (angle)); and a control unit (53,70) including a sub digital conversion part (53) configured to digitally convert the analog signal acquired from the sensor (Figures 12,13B,13D), (Paragraph [0189] / note the sensor signals H1 and H2 have been converted to digital pulses VH1 and VH1 as seen in Figures 13A-13D), and an abnormality detection part (70) configured to perform an abnormality detection using main information according to the state information included in the digital signal and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element; wherein the abnormality detection part performs the abnormality detection using a value obtained by converting the analog signal into the state information as a sub information, or a value obtained by converting the state information into an analog output as a main information (Paragraphs [0180],[0181][0192]) / the digital angle phi is converted into an analog signal by way of the DACs 67 and 69, after which the output section compares the computed angle phi to a threshold and only outputs the angle phi when the deviation is smaller or equal to a threshold value, and thus is reasonably detecting an abnormality when the deviation is above the threshold as the signal is “abnormal” as it has deviated too far from the threshold).
As to Claim 6,
Harada discloses the sensor includes one main detection element and two sub detection elements (Figure 12 / note M1 as the main and H1,H2 as the two sub detection elements).
As to Claim 8,
Harada discloses the main detection element and the sub detection element are sealed in the same sealing part (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0130] / note all detection elements are sealed in the same chip 5).
As to Claim 10,
Harada discloses the main detection element and the sub detection element detect a rotational state of the detection target (Paragraph [0129]), and the state information is an angle information according to a rotation angle of the detection target (Paragraph [0202]).
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