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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the user interface [claims 3 & 8], an apparatus [claim 3], gaming console [claim 4], power tool [claim 4] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length as stated above. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: there is no structural relationship between “a trigger mechanism”, “a user interface” and “an apparatus” with any elements in claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, it also rejected for the reason above.
Claims 3-4 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.
a)Regarding claim 3, the claim states: “…movement of a trigger mechanism forming part of a user interface for an apparatus is directly related to the movement of the said interfering member.” It is not clear from the claim how the movement of the trigger mechanism relate to the movement of the interfering member. It is not clear if the trigger mechanism is connected to the interfering member or connected to parts or whole of a coil inductor in claim 1. Since claim 4 depends from claim 3, it also rejected for the reason above.
For examination purposes, the examiner is not given patentable weight at this time to the above limitation until further explanation is provided by the applicant.
b)Regarding claim 8, the claim states: “…linking the interfering member movement to a trigger mechanism that forms a part of a user interface.” It is not clear from the claim how the movement of the trigger mechanism relate to the movement of the interfering member. It is not clear if the trigger mechanism is connected to the interfering member or connected to parts or whole of a coil inductor in claim 6.
For examination purposes, the examiner is not given patentable weight at this time to the above limitation until further explanation is provided by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won et al [KR 20160109121 A].
PNG
media_image1.png
370
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Won et al disclose [see Fig. 1 above] an inductive based system for measuring movement, comprising measurement of the inductance of a coil inductor (combination of coils 11 and 21) formed as two parts (coils 11 and 21) with a gap [shown but not numbered] between the two coil parts (11 and 21), wherein the inductance of the inductor coil (11 and 21) is changed by a magnetic flux interfering member (shield/blocking plate 70) moving through the gap between the two parts of the inductor coil (11 and 21), and wherein the change in measured inductance is related to the movement of the said interfering member (70). However, the prior art does not explicitly teach the magnetic flux interfering member moving perpendicularly through the gap between the two parts of the inductor coil as claimed. It is a design choice to have interfering member to move perpendicularly or parallel in a gap between coil parts where the member is functional or mechanical equivalents know for the same purpose. [See MPEP 2144.06 In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have interfering member to move perpendicularly or parallel since in either direction have the same purpose of varying the inductance (magnetic field) of the two parts of the coil inductor during movement of the interfering member wherein the inductance of one part is not affected by the inductance of the second part during use.
Regarding claim 2, Won et al disclose wherein the said interfering member (70) is shaped to influence the travel distance over which the interfering member (70) will cause a continuous change in the inductance.
Regarding claim 5, Won et al disclose the inductor coil (11 and 21) and interfering member (70). However, the prior art does not disclose another similar inductor coil as claimed. It is a design choice to have more than one inductor coil where needed by a user [see MPEP 2144.04 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more than one inductor coil since it was held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 6, Won et al disclose a method of using inductive measurements to measure displacement of an object (coupler 18) including the steps of providing an inductor coil (combination of coils 11 and 21) with a gap [shown but not numbered] in a length of the coil (11 and 21) and moving a magnetic flux interfering member (shield/blocking plate 70) to the length of the coil and into the said gap in the inductor coil (11 and 21), and wherein the displacement to be measured [via coupler 18] is related to the movement of the interfering member (70) and therefore to the change in inductance caused by the said interfering member (70) movement. However, the prior art does not explicitly teach the magnetic flux interfering member moving perpendicularly through the gap between the two parts of the inductor coil as claimed. It is a design choice to have interfering member to move perpendicularly or parallel in a gap between coil parts where the member is functional or mechanical equivalents know for the same purpose. [See MPEP 2144.06 In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have interfering member to move perpendicularly or parallel since in either direction have the same purpose of varying the inductance (magnetic field) of the two parts of the coil inductor during movement of the interfering member wherein the inductance of one part is not affected by the inductance of the second part during use.
Regarding claim 7, Won et al disclose the step of shaping the interfering member (70) in a way to gradually change the inductance over a longer movement distance.
Regarding claim 9, Won et al disclose the inductor coil (11 and 21) and interfering member (70). However, the prior art does not disclose another similar inductor coil as claimed. It is a design choice to have more than one inductor coil where needed by a user [see MPEP 2144.04 In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have more than one inductor coil since it was held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 10, Won et al disclose the inductor coil (11 and 21) and interfering member (70); wherein using the measured inductances from the inductor coil (11 and 21) to provide differential measurement information and of using the differential measurement information to improve accuracy of said measurement of displacement[via coupler 18], and to improve signal strength and noise immunity [see translation pg. 7 for details].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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 E 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858