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 2/13/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the species election in the reply filed on 2/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that subject matter in the listed species is sufficiently related such that search for one species would encompass the remaining species. This is not found persuasive because a search for one species would not reasonably encompass the remaining species. The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably provide any specific arguments as to why a search for any one species in the identified groups of species found in the previous restriction requirement would reasonably encompass a search for the other species of each group. As outlined in the restriction, each species has a distinct sensing configuration using different numbers and configurations of reference and sensing assemblies (see for example paragraphs 12-15 of the restriction of 12/18/2025) in combination with different formats of sensing, such as the linear and rotation sensing and their distinct manner of implementing these features as explained in paragraphs 2-11 of the restriction. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees as a search for each configuration and combination of features would not reasonably be sufficiently coextensive for all species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/13/2026.
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 1-3, 7-11, 15-24, 27, 28, and 29 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 “at least two of the sensing assemblies” on line 4 is indefinite. The only previous recitation is for “a sensing assembly” on line 2, and thus plural sensing assemblies were not previously recited. It is unclear what plural sensing assemblies this phrase is referring to, and it is unclear if this phrase intends to include the sensing assembly recited on line 2. Furthermore, it is unclear how many elements are required, because if an assembly includes an element, then plural elements must be required but are not claimed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the initially recited sensing assembly is one of the above at least two sensing assemblies.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “n sensing elements are arranged to correspond to a single sensing assembly, where n>2; the sensing elements are arranged symmetrically relative to a central axis of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element” on lines 1-4 are indefinite.
1) Applicant claims “n sensing elements” distinctly from any previously recite sensing element or elements. As best understood, the n sensing elements is intended to include some or all of the previously recited sensing elements, but where no such relationship is claimed. As such, the difference and relationship between the above n sensing elements and any of the previously recite sensing elements are unclear.
2) Applicant claims “a single sensing assembly,” but where this recitation raises several issues. The first is that this assembly is distinctly recited from any previous assembly, and it is unclear if this assembly is intended to refer to one or more of the previously recited assemblies. It is unclear if this assembly refers to the “sensing assembly” on line 2 of Claim 1, one or more of the sensing assemblies on line 4, or some combination thereof.
3) It is unclear how the term “single” is intended to limit the claim features, as more than one sensing assembly was previously recited. While the intent may be to merely associate certain sensing elements to only one sensing assembly, reciting a “single” sensing assembly reasonably also limits the number of assemblies to just one, which is indefinite because Claim 1 expressly requires plural sensing assemblies.
4) The phrase “the sensing elements” is unclear, as it is unclear which sensing elements this phrase is referencing. Claim 3 recites “sensing elements” distinct from any other recitation, but Claim 1 also recites “at least one sensing element” which can include plural elements, making it unclear what sensing elements this phrase is referencing.
5) The phrase “ a corresponding magnetic aggregation element” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this element is intended to be distinct from that already recited in Claim 1, or if this element is intended to be the same as that recited in claim 1. The only specific sensing element recited in Claim 1 already has a corresponding (adjacent) magnetic aggregation element.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the above phrase is intended to mean that the sensing elements of Claim 1 can be those from Claim 3, that they must be arranged in a manner to correspond to only one sensing assembly, they must be symmetrically located relative to an axis of an aggregation element, and where the aggregation element can be the same as that recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the magnet to be detected is arranged in a width direction of the magnetic sensor; in the first state, a first sensing assembly is relatively away from the first magnetic pole and comprises a first sensing element group arranged in a first direction, and a second sensing assembly is relatively close to the first magnetic pole and comprises a second sensing element group arranged in the first direction” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
Applicant claims a first and second sensing assembly, but distinctly recites these from any of the sensing assemblies already recited in Claim 1. As best understood, the sensing assembly recitations in Claim 1 would reasonably include all sensing assemblies, rendering the difference and relationship to those assemblies of Claim 8 unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpretating that the sensing assemblies and elements can be different from those recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 9,
The phrases “sensing element group,” “sensing elements,” and “magnetic aggregation element” on lines 1-4 and in the last paragraph are indefinite. At issue here is that applicant is distinctly reciting these groups and elements from the previous recited sensing assemblies, sensing element, and magnetic aggregation element of Claim 1, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between the various elements and aggregation elements in the claim combination is therefore unclear, in light of the disclosure. For example, the sensing assemblies on lines 4-5 of Claim 1, as best understood, would include at least some of the sensing elements and aggregation elements of Claim 9, and would be or include some or all of the sensing assemblies of this claim. However, these features are being distinctly recited, rendering their difference and relationship as unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpretating that the sensing assemblies and elements can be different from those recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “sensing elements are configured to be of a same structure, and/or sensing assemblies are configured to be of a same structure; and the sensing element is configured to at least partially overlap an extension surface of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) Applicant is distinctly reciting the above sensing elements and sensing assemblies are being recited to be distinct from any previously assemblies and elements, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between the above assemblies and elements and those recited in Claim 1 are unclear.
2) The phrase “the sensing element” is unclear as more than one sensing element was previously recited, and it is unclear what sensing element this phrase is referencing.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpretating that the sensing assemblies and elements can be different from those recited in Claim 1.
3) It is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the above elements are configured to be “a same structure, and/or sensing assemblies.” This phrase can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the elements are all part of the same structure or formed in the same manner, which are two reasonable but completely distinct interpretations. Because this claim phrase can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, it is indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear what the relationship is between the above sensing elements and the sensing assemblies. It is unclear if the term “same” is applied to the sensing assemblies, or if applicant is claiming that sensing elements are configured to be of sensing assemblies. It is unclear what specific configuration of the sensing elements is being claimed with regard to the sensing assemblies. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the sensing elements must be part of sensing assemblies or can be formed to be identical sensor elements but do not have to be located in a same structure.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “a center of at least one reference element is configured to be at a position corresponding to an axis of symmetry of the extension surface of the magnetic aggregation element; and at least one of the reference assemblies is arranged at a carrying surface of the base plate” on lines 4-7 is indefinite.
1) Applicant in initially recites “a reference element” but then distinctly recites “at least one reference element” from that initial reference element. The phrase “at least one reference element” reasonably includes all reference elements, and thus these elements, in light of the disclosure, cannot reasonably be distinct. The difference and relationship between these elements are therefore unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear how many elements are required, because if an assembly includes an element, then plural elements must be required but are not claimed.
2) The phrase “at least one of the reference assemblies” is indefinite because plural reference assemblies were not previously recited, and it is unclear what assemblies this phrase is referencing. Furthermore, applicant does previously recite “a reference assembly,” but where this assembly cannot reasonably be plural assemblies. It is unclear if this reference assembly is one of the later recited reference assemblies are is intended to be distinct.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that plural assemblies and reference elements are required, and that the reference assembly and element initially recited are part of these later recitations.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “wherein in the first state, the first sensing assembly is relatively close to the first magnetic pole; and the first sensing assembly is at a first relative distance away from the first magnetic pole, the reference assembly is at a second relative distance away from the first magnetic pole, and the second relative distance is equal to or greater than the first relative distance” on lines 1-5 is indefinite.
No first sensing assembly was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what first sensing assembly this phrase is referencing. Furthermore, a sensing assembly and plural sensing assemblies were previously recited in Claim 1, and the difference and relationship between those assemblies and the above first sensing assembly is unclear. It is unclear if the first sensing assembly is one of these assemblies or is intended to be distinct.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpretating that the sensing assemblies and elements can be the same or different from those recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “the sensing element and the reference element are configured to be of a same structure” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing element,” and also includes implied sensing elements because the claimed sensing assemblies, in light of the disclosure, include sensing elements. As such, it is unclear what sensing element this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how this sensing element relates to any of the previously recited sensing elements or assemblies.
2) It is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the above elements are configured to be “a same structure.” This phrase can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the elements are all part of the same structure or formed in the same manner, which are two reasonable but completely distinct interpretations. Because this claim phrase can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, it is indefinite.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “wherein a sensing direction of the sensing element is perpendicular to an extension surface of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) ) Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing element,” and also includes implied sensing elements because the claimed sensing assemblies, in light of the disclosure, include sensing elements. As such, it is unclear what sensing element this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how this sensing element relates to any of the previously recited sensing elements or assemblies.
2) The phrase “ a corresponding magnetic aggregation element” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this element is intended to be distinct from that already recited in Claim 1, or if this element is intended to be the same as that recited in claim 1. The only specific sensing element recited in Claim 1 already has a corresponding (adjacent) magnetic aggregation element.
As to Claim 18,
The phrase “the sensing element comprises at least one Hall unit; a charge deflecting electrode at the Hall unit is configured to form a first Hall output, and a charge repelling electrode at the Hall unit is configured to form a second Hall output; and the sensing assembly takes the first Hall output and the second Hall output as signal outputs of the corresponding sensing element” on lines 1-5 is indefinite.
1) Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing element,” and also includes implied sensing elements because the claimed sensing assemblies, in light of the disclosure, include sensing elements. As such, it is unclear what sensing element this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how this sensing element relates to any of the previously recited sensing elements or assemblies.
2) Claim 1, likewise, recites “a sensing assembly” but also “at least two of the sensing assemblies,” making it unclear what sensing assembly the above phrase is referencing when applicant recites “the sensing assembly.”
3) The phrase “the corresponding sensing element” is indefinite because no corresponding element was previously recited, and more than one sensing element was previously recited. As such, it is unclear what sensing element this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “the sensing element comprises two Hall units or four Hall units; and at the Hall units, the charge deflecting electrodes are coupled to each other, the charge repelling electrodes are coupled to each other, power supply electrodes are coupled to each other, and reference electrodes are coupled to each other” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “at least one sensing element,” and also includes implied sensing elements because the claimed sensing assemblies, in light of the disclosure, include sensing elements. As such, it is unclear what sensing element this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear how this sensing element relates to any of the previously recited sensing elements or assemblies.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “A state detection apparatus, comprising a magnetic sensor according to claim 1 and configured to determine, according to an output of the magnetic sensor, current state data of a magnet to be detected; wherein the state data includes at least one of angle, velocity, acceleration and rotation stroke length” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that, as best understood, none of the processing is performed in the magnetic sensor, and instead, it is performed in the processing module, such as module 81 of the disclosure. That module, is not part of the sensor, and that module has not been positively recited. Applicant is claiming that the preamble device of a state detection apparatus itself is configured to “determine, according to an output of the magnetic sensor, current state data of a magnet to be detected,” but where no structural feature that is part of the state detection apparatus and necessary to make this determination has been recited. As best understood, applicant intends to rely upon an unclaimed component, the processing unit, to perform the above determination. Such a recitation is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear whether the necessary processing unit is or is not required in the claim, and it is therefore what claim scope of being recited and required by claiming a state detection apparatus configured to perform the determination.
As to Claim 21,
The phrase “a storage module (memory) configured to store state correction information (Paragraph [0110] / note stored calibration data; and an output processing module coupled to the magnetic sensor and configured to receive an output signal of the magnetic sensor and calculate the state data according to the output signal of the magnetic sensor, or coupled to the magnetic sensor and the storage module, and configured to adjust the state data according to the state correction information” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that applicant is now positively claiming the output processing module that is configured to calculate the state data as claimed. However, Claim 20 already recites a determination of the state data, and as best understood, that determination is the same as the calculation of the state data now recited in this claim. To that point 1) the difference and relationship between the determination of state data in Claim 20 and the now recited calculation of state data is unclear, because as best understood, both recitations refer to the same determination/calculation but are being distinctly recited, and 2) the difference and relationship between the determination of the state data from Claim 20 and the now recited output processing module in Claim 21 is unclear, because these features are being distinctly recited but where, as best understood, they are not distinct as the output processing unit is what performs the determination/calculation of the state data.
As to Claim 22,
The phrase “A state detection method applied to a magnetic sensor according to claim 1 and comprising: receiving a first intermediate signal and a second intermediate signal, wherein the first intermediate signal is formed at a first sensing element group arranged in a first sensing assembly in a first direction, the second intermediate signal is formed at a second sensing element group arranged in a second sensing assembly in the first direction, one of the first sensing assembly and the second sensing assembly is relatively close to the first magnetic pole, and the other of the first sensing assembly and the second sensing assembly is relatively away from the first magnetic pole; and performing at least a second operation according to the first intermediate signal and the second intermediate signal to determine first state data of a magnet to be detected” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) Applicant recites that this method claim depends from Claim 1, and thus must incorporate all of the features from Claim 1. This however raises an issue because none of the method steps in this claim clearly refer back to or otherwise rely upon the features of Claim 1. Applicant claims the receiving of signals formed at first and second sensing groups in respective first and second sensing assemblies, but all of these features are distinctly recited from those of Claim 1, but where Claim 1 already introduces a sensing assembly, at least two sensing assemblies, and a magnetic sensor. As best understood, the sensing assemblies are the same as or otherwise part of the sensing assemblies of Claim 22, and the magnetic sensor of Claim 1 would otherwise include any sensing assembly recited in Claim 22, but where this sensor is being distinctly recited from any of the features of Claim 22.
2) The phrase “to determine first state data of a magnet to be detected” is indefinite. The first issue is that Claim 1 already recites a magnet, and the difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited magnets is unclear, when as best understood, they refer to the same magnet of the disclosure. The second issue is that the above phrase is an intended use, and reciting an intended use in a method claim is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the actual use is or is not required.
As to Claim 24,
The phrase “determining whether a magnet to be detected is located in a width direction of the magnetic sensor or not; and if yes, receiving a first intermediate signal, a second intermediate signal, a third intermediate signal and a fourth intermediate signal, wherein the first intermediate signal is formed by performing a second operation on signals formed at the first sensing element group; the second intermediate signal is formed by performing the second operation on signals formed at the second sensing element group; the third intermediate signal is formed by performing the second operation on signals formed at a third sensing element group arranged in the first sensing assembly in a second direction; the fourth intermediate signal is formed by performing the second operation on signals formed at a fourth sensing element group arranged in the second sensing assembly in the second direction; and the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other; performing at least a second operation according to the first intermediate signal and the second intermediate signal to determine first state data of a magnet to be detected specifically comprises: performing a second operation on the first intermediate signal and the second intermediate signal to obtain a first output signal; performing the second operation on the third intermediate signal and the fourth intermediate signal to obtain a second output signal; and calculating first state data according to the first output signal and the second output signal” on lines 3 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that every feature recited above is being distinctly recited from those features found in Claims 1 and 21. Claim 1 already recites a magnetic sensor with sensor assemblies that must reasonably include all sensor elements. However, the above claimed sensor elements are all being distinctly recited from those of Claim 1 and of the magnetic sensor of Claim 1 itself. Furthermore, “state data” was already recited in Claim 21, and that state data is being distinctly recited from all state data of Claim 24, but where, as best understood, is not distinct from all state data of Claim 24, and would be the state date for one of the state data recitations of this claim. As such, the difference and relationship between the above claim features and those previously recited are unclear.
As to Claim 27,
The phrase “the sensing assembly comprises another sensing element, a central axis of the another sensing elements is aligned with a central axis of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element” on lines 3-4 is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims “the another sensing elements” but where plural another sensing elements were not previously recited. Instead, only one “another sensing element” was previously recited as seen above, and it is therefore unclear what plural another sensing elements this phrase is referencing. It is further unclear how many sensing elements are required in the claim.
2) The phrase “ a corresponding magnetic aggregation element” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this element is intended to be distinct from that already recited in Claim 1, or if this element is intended to be the same as that recited in claim 1. The only specific sensing element recited in Claim 1 already has a corresponding (adjacent) magnetic aggregation element.
As to Claim 28,
The phrase “the sensing assembly and the reference assembly are configured to be of a same structure” on lines 1-2 is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the above elements are configured to be “a same structure.” This phrase can reasonably be interpreted to mean that the elements are all part of the same structure or formed in the same manner, which are two reasonable but completely distinct interpretations. Because this claim phrase can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, it is indefinite. Furthermore, it is unclear what the relationship is between the above sensing elements and the sensing assemblies. It is unclear if the term “same” is applied to the sensing assemblies, or if applicant is claiming that sensing elements are configured to be of sensing assemblies. It is unclear what specific configuration of the sensing elements is being claimed with regard to the sensing assemblies. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the sensing elements must be part of sensing assemblies or can be formed to be identical sensor elements but do not have to be located in a same structure.
2) The phrase “The sensing assembly” is indefinite, because more than one sensing assembly was previously recited. As such, it is unclear what sensing assembly this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 2-3, 7-11, 15-24, 27, 28, and 29,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) 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 1-3, 7-11, 15-24, 27, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Close et al. (Close) (US 2022/0381586).
As to Claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
424
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Close discloses A magnetic sensor, comprising: a sensing assembly (H5-H8,IMC2 comprising a magnetic aggregation element (IMC2) and at least one sensing element (H6) adjacent to an extension surface of the magnetic aggregation element (Figures 2,4(b),4(c)), (Paragraphs [0087],[0115]); a base plate (substrate) (Paragraphs [0020],[0068]), (Figures 2,4(b),4(c) / note the substrate is reasonably the rectangular structure seen above), on a carrying surface of which at least two of the sensing assemblies (first: H8 plus adjacent IMC2, second: H6 plus adjacent IMC2) are arranged (Figures 2,4(b),4(c)); and when the magnetic sensor approaches a magnet to be detected, one of the sensing assemblies is relatively close to a first magnetic pole of the magnet to be detected and another of the sensing assemblies is relatively away from the first magnetic pole, at least in a first state (Figures 2,4(b),4(c) / note 1) that while the prior art discloses the above claim feature, this feature is not positively recited, and the prior art also discloses the claim feature when the magnetic sensor does not approach any magnet to be detected, such as when the sensor is located in a box ready for sale and has not been assembled with the object to be detected, and 2) that For Claim 24, while 4c,4c was asserted against this claim, the embodiment of Figures 3c,3d also disclose this claim feature, where the first assembly is H5-H8,IMC2 and the second assembly is H1-H4,IMC1, and the first assembly is closer to one of the poles during rotation as the pole approaches the first assembly then the second assembly will be to that pole, as the pole hasn’t reached the second assembly yet during rotation).
As to Claim 2,
Close discloses, wherein the extension surface of the magnetic aggregation element abuts against the carrying surface of the base plate; and the sensing element is arranged between a corresponding magnetic aggregation element and the base plate (Figure 4(a) / note that the definition of the term “abut” only requires the elements be adjacent, as the definition is “to be adjacent” per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/abut, and where such an interpretation, while broader than applicant’s disclosure, is consistent with applicant’s disclosure).
As to Claim 3,
Close discloses wherein n sensing elements are arranged to correspond to a single sensing assembly, where n>2; the sensing elements are arranged symmetrically relative to a central axis of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element (Figure 4(c) / note elements H8 and H7 are considered part of the same assembly and located symmetrically with respect to the IMC).
As to Claim 7,
Close discloses wherein the magnet to be detected is arranged in a width direction of the magnetic sensor, and in the first state, the sensing assembly is aligned with the magnet to be detected in a height direction of the magnetic sensor (Figures 4(a)-(c) / note that while the prior art discloses this feature, this feature is linked to the conditional feature of Claim 1, which is not positively recited, and thus this claim feature is likewise also not positively recited or required).
As to Claim 8,
Close discloses wherein the magnet to be detected is arranged in a width direction of the magnetic sensor; in the first state, a first sensing assembly (H4,H8) is relatively away from the first magnetic pole and comprises a first sensing element group arranged in a first direction, and a second sensing assembly (H3,H7) is relatively close to the first magnetic pole and comprises a second sensing element group arranged in the first direction (Figures 4(a)-(c) / note that while the prior art discloses this feature, this feature is linked to the conditional feature of Claim 1, which is not positively recited, and thus this claim feature is likewise also not positively recited or required).
As to Claim 9,
Close discloses in the first state, the first sensing assembly comprises a third sensing element group (H1,H2) arranged in a second direction (Figures 4(a)-(c)), and the second sensing assembly comprises a fourth sensing element group (H5,H6) arranged in the second direction Figures 4(a)-(c); the first sensing assembly comprises a first magnetic aggregation element (IMC1) (Figures 4(a)-(c)), the first sensing element group comprises two sensing elements arranged on two sides of the first magnetic aggregation element in the first direction (Figures 4(a)-(c)), and the third sensing element comprises two sensing elements arranged on two sides of the first magnetic aggregation element in the second direction (Figures 4(a)-(c)); and the second sensing assembly comprises a second magnetic aggregation element (IMC2) (Figures 4(a)-(c)), the second sensing element group comprises at least two sensing elements arranged on two sides of the second magnetic aggregation element in the first direction (Figures 4(a)-(c)), and the fourth sensing element group comprises at least two sensing elements arranged on two sides of the second magnetic aggregation element in the second direction (Figures 4(a)-(c) / note that while the prior art discloses this feature, this feature is linked to the conditional feature of Claim 1, which is not positively recited, and thus this claim feature is likewise also not positively recited or required).
As to Claim 10,
Close discloses sensing elements are configured to be of a same structure, and/or sensing assemblies are configured to be of a same structure; and the sensing element is configured to at least partially overlap an extension surface of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element (Figures 4(a)-(c)), (Paragraph [0069] / note all elements and assemblies are the same as seen in Figure 4(c)).
As to Claim 11,
Close discloses a reference assembly (H1-H4 and IMC1), comprising a magnetic aggregation element (IMC1) and a reference element (H4) adjacent to an extension surface of the magnetic aggregation element (Figures 2, 4(a)-(c)); wherein a center of at least one reference element is configured to be at a position corresponding to an axis of symmetry of the extension surface of the magnetic aggregation element; and at least one of the reference assemblies is arranged at a carrying surface of the base plate (Figures 4(a)-(c) / note that being “at” a position corresponding to an axis of symmetry only requires a position near the axis of symmetry, as “at” as a preposition means near, and does not require the element to be “on” the axis of symmetry).
As to Claim 15,
Close discloses wherein in the first state, the first sensing assembly is relatively close to the first magnetic pole; and the first sensing assembly is at a first relative distance away from the first magnetic pole, the reference assembly is at a second relative distance away from the first magnetic pole, and the second relative distance is equal to or greater than the first relative distance (Figures 4(a)-(c) / note H4 is the same distance to the magnet as H8, which in combination with the adjacent IMC is considered part of or all of the first sensing assembly, and note that while the prior art discloses this feature, this feature is linked to the conditional feature of Claim 1, which is not positively recited, and thus this claim feature is likewise also not positively recited or required).
As to Claim 16,
Close discloses the sensing element and the reference element are configured to be of a same structure (Figures 4(a)-(c)), (Paragraph [0069] / note all elements and assemblies are the same as seen in Figure 4(c)).
As to Claim 17,
Close discloses wherein a sensing direction of the sensing element is perpendicular to an extension surface of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element (Figures 4(a)-(c)), (Paragraph [0069] / note all elements and assemblies are the same as seen in Figure 4(c)) / note Hall sensors sensing fields perpendicular to their plane, which must be perpendicular to a surface of the aggregation element).
As to Claim 18,
Close discloses the sensing element comprises at least one Hall unit; a charge deflecting electrode at the Hall unit is configured to form a first Hall output, and a charge repelling electrode at the Hall unit is configured to form a second Hall output; and the sensing assembly takes the first Hall output and the second Hall output as signal outputs of the corresponding sensing element (Paragraph [0069]), (Figure 10 / note that the above deflecting and repelling feature are properties of how a Hall sensor works as explained in applicant’s disclosure, and thus because Hall sensors are used in Close, the above features are a property of the system).
As to Claim 19,
Close discloses the sensing element comprises two Hall units or four Hall units; and at the Hall units, the charge deflecting electrodes are coupled to each other, the charge repelling electrodes are coupled to each other, power supply electrodes are coupled to each other, and reference electrodes are coupled to each other (Paragraph [0069]), (Figure 10 / note 1) that the above deflecting and repelling feature are properties of how a Hall sensor works as explained in applicant’s disclosure, and thus because Hall sensors are used in Close, the above features are a property of the system, and that 2) two of the hall elements, such as H5 and H6 together can be considered a Hall unit, and all are electrically coupled together).
As to Claim 20,
Close discloses A state detection apparatus, comprising a magnetic sensor according to claim 1 and configured to determine, according to an output of the magnetic sensor, current state data of a magnet to be detected; wherein the state data includes at least one of angle, velocity, acceleration and rotation stroke length (Paragraph [0096] / note the angle value is the angle or rotation).
As to Claim 21,
Close discloses a storage module (memory) configured to store state correction information (Paragraph [0110] / note stored calibration data); and an output processing module coupled to the magnetic sensor and configured to receive an output signal of the magnetic sensor and calculate the state data according to the output signal of the magnetic sensor (Paragraph [0096]),(Figure 12 / note processing unit as the output processing module), or coupled to the magnetic sensor and the storage module, and configured to adjust the state data according to the state correction information.
As to Claim 22,
Close discloses A state detection method applied to a magnetic sensor according to claim 1 and comprising: receiving a first intermediate signal (signal B11) and a second intermediate signal (Bx1) (Figures 4(c),(e)), wherein the first intermediate signal is formed at a first sensing element group arranged in a first sensing assembly in a first direction, the second intermediate signal is formed at a second sensing element group arranged in a second sensing assembly in the first direction (Figure 4(c),4(e),12), one of the first sensing assembly and the second sensing assembly is relatively close to the first magnetic pole, and the other of the first sensing assembly and the second sensing assembly is relatively away from the first magnetic pole; and performing at least a second operation (angle determination) according to the first intermediate signal and the second intermediate signal to determine first state data of a magnet to be detected (Figure 4(c) / note the first group is closer to the magnet), (Paragraphs [0110],[0138]).
As to Claim 23,
Close discloses the second operation comprises a differential operation (Paragraph [0138] / note subtraction and difference).
As to Claim 24,
Close discloses receiving a first intermediate signal and a second intermediate signal specifically comprises: determining whether a magnet to be detected is located in a width direction of the magnetic sensor or not; and if yes, receiving a first intermediate signal, a second intermediate signal, a third intermediate signal and a fourth intermediate signal, wherein the first intermediate signal is formed by performing a second operation on signals formed at the first sensing element group; the second intermediate signal is formed by performing the second operation on signals formed at the second sensing element group; the third intermediate signal is formed by performing the second operation on signals formed at a third sensing element group arranged in the first sensing assembly in a second direction; the fourth intermediate signal is formed by performing the second operation on signals formed at a fourth sensing element group arranged in the second sensing assembly in the second direction; and the first direction and the second direction are perpendicular to each other; performing at least a second operation according to the first intermediate signal and the second intermediate signal to determine first state data of a magnet to be detected specifically comprises: performing a second operation on the first intermediate signal and the second intermediate signal to obtain a first output signal; performing the second operation on the third intermediate signal and the fourth intermediate signal to obtain a second output signal; and calculating first state data according to the first output signal and the second output signal (Figures 3b,3d / note that the entirety of this claim is dependent on whether the magnet is located in with width direction and that the above method is only performed when the magnet is in the width direction, and that because the magnet in the embodiment of Figure 3b,3d is not in the width direction, none of the above claim feature is required as the “if yes” clause above is not invoked as the answer is no).
As to Claim 27,
Close discloses the n sensing elements are arranged symmetrically relative to a central axis of the corresponding magnetic aggregation element (Figure 4(c) / see the above rejected of claim 3); and the sensing assembly comprises another sensing element (H5,H6, a central axis of the another sensing elements is aligned with a central axis of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element (Figure 4(c)).
As to Claim 28,
Close discloses the sensing assembly and the reference assembly are configured to be of a same structure (Figures 4(a)-(c)), (Paragraph [0069] / note all elements and assemblies are the same as seen in Figure 4(c)).
As to Claim 29,
Close discloses the reference element is configured to at least partially overlap an extension surface of a corresponding magnetic aggregation element (Figure 4(c)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2015/0137797 to Auuserlechner et al. which discloses off-axis magnetic field angle sensors, 2) US 2021/0156664 to Binder et al. which discloses a stray field robust out of shaft angle sensor and measurement system, and 3) US 2008/0180090 to Stolfus et al. which discloses a magnetic speed, direction, and movement sensor.
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