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 .
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 1-20 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.
Independent claim 1 requires “responsive to the change in the magnetic field, the TMR IC allows current flow therethrough.” What does the TMR IC allow current to flow therethrough? Is the current flowing through the TMR IC? If current were not flowing through the TMR IC before it was allowing current to flow, how would the TMR IC be functioning? If there is another circuit element the TMR IC is allowing current to flow, what circuit element is it? How is the TMR IC allowing the current to flow through any given circuit element? Clarification is required? All subsequent dependent claims 2-8 are also therefore rejected. Independent claims 9 & 18 contain similar language and are also therefore rejected along with all subsequent dependent claims.
Claims 9-17 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.
The term “high to low” in regards to voltage in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high to low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines high and low voltages? Is 1000 volts high and 0.001 volts low? Is 1,000,000 volts high and 1000 volts low? Is 100,000,000 volts high and 1,000,000 volts low? Is 1 volt high and 0.001 volts low? Clarification is required.
Claims 6-7 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.
What defines a “leaf-style lever” and a “wishbone-style lever?” These do not appear to be commonly used terms in the art and it is not clear from the specification what exactly the applicant is claiming. Clarification of these limitations is required.
Claims 12-15 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.
The term “high” in claims 12 & 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is 1,000,000 volts high” Is 100,000 volts high? Is 10,000 volts high? Is 1,000 volts high? Clarification is required.
The term “low” in claims 14-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is 0.001 volts low? Is 0.01 volts low? Is 0.1 volts low? Is 1 volt low? Is 10 volts low? Clarification is required.
Claims 16-17 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the customer system” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the customer system” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, & 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalathil et al (U.S. PGPub # 2013/0066587) in view of Bogos et al (U.S. PGPub 2013/0015844).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Kalathil teaches:
A positional detection device comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1 Elements 10 & 14. See paragraphs 0018-0023.);
a tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030.) integrated circuit (IC) (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030.) on a printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig. 1 Element 36. See paragraph 0031.) inside of the housing (Fig. 1 Elements 10 & 14. See paragraphs 0018-0023.);
a pair of magnets disposed on an actuator inside of the housing (Fig. 1 Element 12. See paragraphs 0018-0023. Any magnet is a superposition of many individual magnetic structures placed together and aligned in a magnetic field. Therefore, one magnetic is a collection of many.); and
an activation mechanism disposed outside of the housing and coupled to the actuator (Fig. 1 Elements 24 & 16. See paragraphs 0018-0023.), wherein activation of the activation mechanism causes the actuator to actuate, the pair of magnets to move towards the TMR IC (Fig. 1 Elements 24 & 16. See paragraphs 0018-0023.) , and a magnetic field around the TMR IC to change (Fig. 1 Elements 24 & 16. See paragraphs 0018-0023 wherein any moving magnet will necessarily have a changing field.), and
wherein, responsive to the change in the magnetic field, the TMR IC allows current flow therethrough (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030 wherein currently necessarily flows through a circuit for it to operate.).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kalathil does not explicitly teach:
a pair of magnets disposed on an actuator inside of the housing
Bogos teaches:
a pair of magnets disposed on an actuator inside of the housing (See Fig. 5A & 5B. See Fig. 14 Element 336 and paragraph 0117.).
PNG
media_image2.png
562
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
182
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Bogos to the teachings of Kalathil such that one would place magnets on an actuator because these tools, the actuators, are common, well-known devices used to move other elements reliably, accurately, and dependably.
Regarding claim 3, Kalathil & Boos teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil teaches the TMR IC is centered between the pair of magnets (Fig. 1 Elements 12 & 16 wherein the sensor can be at times perfectly on the centerline of the magnetic source which would meet the metes and bounds of this claim language.).
Regarding claim 4, Kalathil & Boos teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil teaches each of the pair of magnets faces the TMR IC (Fig. 1 Elements 12 & 16 wherein the sensor and the magnetic source face each other.).
Regarding claim 5, Kalathil & Boos teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil teaches a respective south pole of each of the pair of magnets faces the TMR IC (Fig. 1 Elements 12 & 16 wherein the sensor and the magnetic source face each other.).
Regarding claim 8, Kalathil & Bogos teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil teaches at least one resistor on the PCB that enables diagnostic functions (Fig. 4 Elements 60-1 through 60-4.).
Regarding claim 9, Kalathil teaches:
A positional detection device comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1 Elements 10 & 14. See paragraphs 0018-0023.);
a tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030.) integrated circuit (IC) (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030.) on a printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig. 1 Element 36. See paragraph 0031.) inside of the housing (Fig. 1 Elements 10 & 14. See paragraphs 0018-0023.);
a magnet disposed on an actuator (Fig. 1 Element 12. See paragraphs 0018-0023.);
a first resistor coupled to the TMR IC on the PCB (Fig. 4 Elements 60-1 through 60-4.); and
a second resistor coupled to the TMR IC on the PCB (Fig. 4 Elements 60-1 through 60-4.),
wherein activation of the actuator causes the magnet to move towards the TMR IC and a magnetic field around the TMR IC to change (Fig. 1 Elements 24 & 16. See paragraphs 0018-0023.),
wherein, responsive to the change in the magnetic field, a voltage output of the TMR IC changes from high to low (Fig. 1 Elements 24 & 16. See paragraphs 0018-0023 wherein any movement of the magnet will change the field from low to high or high to low depending on whether or not it is moving toward or away from the sensor.),
wherein, when the voltage output of the TMR IC is high, no current flows through the TMR IC or the first resistor (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030 wherein currently necessarily flows through a circuit for it to operate. If there is no current, it would be inoperable.), and
wherein, when the voltage output of the TMR IC is low, the current flows through the TMR IC and the first resistor (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030 wherein currently necessarily flows through a circuit for it to operate.).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bogos teaches:
on an actuator (See Fig. 5A & 5B. See Fig. 14 Element 336 and paragraph 0117.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Bogos to the teachings of Kalathil such that one would place magnets on an actuator because these tools, the actuators, are common, well-known devices used to move other elements reliably, accurately, and dependably.
Regarding claim 10, Kalathil & Bogos teach all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil teaches the first resistor is connected to the TMR IC in series (Fig. 4 Elements 60-1 through 60-4 wherein they can be connected any way necessary and are shown in both series and parallel.).
Regarding claim 11, Kalathil & Bogos teach all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil teaches the second resistor is connected to the TMR IC in parallel (Fig. 4 Elements 60-1 through 60-4 wherein they can be connected any way necessary and are shown in both series and parallel.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalathil et al (U.S. PGPub # 2013/0066587) in view of Bogos et al (U.S. PGPub 2013/0015844) & Gauthier et al (U.S. PGPub # 2021/0304980).
Regarding claim 2, Kalathil & Bogos teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil & Bogos do not explicitly teach the activation mechanism comprises a rubber dome that provides a spring force and haptics.
Gauthier teaches the activation mechanism comprises a rubber dome that provides a spring force and haptics (Paragraph 0094. Fig. 2 Element 16.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Gauthier to the teachings of Kalathil & Bogos such that the activation mechanism would comprise a rubber dome that provides a spring force and haptics because this provides the user with a comfortable device to use when using the positional detection device and because any item that one touches is necessarily going to provide haptics because it is touchable.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalathil et al (U.S. PGPub # 2013/0066587) in view of Bogos et al (U.S. PGPub 2013/0015844) & Wernlund et al (U.S. Pat. # 10,317,247).
Regarding claim 6, Kalathil & Boos teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil & Bogos do not explicitly teach the actuator comprises a leaf-style lever.
Wernlund teaches the actuator comprises a leaf-style lever (Fig. 1-4 Element 24. See column 6 lines 37-53.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Wernlund to the teachings of Kalathil & Bogos such that the actuator comprises a leaf-style lever because it is easy to use and implement. Levers are well-known and easy to use and understand.
Regarding claim 7, Kalathil & Bogos teach all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil does not explicitly teach the actuator comprises a wishbone-style lever.
Wernlund teaches the actuator comprises a wishbone-style lever (Fig. 1-4 Element 24. See column 6 lines 37-53.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Wernlund to the teachings of Kalathil & Bogos such that the actuator comprises a wishbone-style lever because it is easy to use and implement. Levers are well-known and easy to use and understand.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalathil et al (U.S. PGPub # 2013/0066587) in view of Wernlund et al (U.S. Pat. # 10,317,247).
Regarding claim 19, Kalathil teaches all elements of claim 18, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil does not explicitly teach the actuator comprises a lever disposed outside of the housing.
Wernlund teaches the actuator comprises a lever disposed outside of the housing (Fig. 1-4 Element 24. See column 6 lines 37-53.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Wernlund to the teachings of Kalathil & Bogos such that the actuator comprises a lever disposed outside of the housing because it is easy to use and implement. Levers are well-known and easy to use and understand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalathil et al (U.S. PGPub # 2013/0066587).
Regarding claim 18, Kalathil teaches:
A positional detection device comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1 Elements 10 & 14. See paragraphs 0018-0023.);
a switching device inside of the housing (Fig. 5 Element 120. See paragraph 0053.); and
a magnet coupled to an actuator (Fig. 1 Element 12. See paragraphs 0018-0023.), wherein activation of the actuator causes a magnetic field to change (Fig. 1 Element 12. See paragraphs 0018-0023. Fig. 1 Elements 24 & 16. See paragraphs 0018-0023 wherein any movement of the magnet will change the field from low to high or high to low depending on whether or not it is moving toward or away from the sensor.), and
wherein responsive to the change in the magnetic field (Fig. 1 Elements 24 & 16. See paragraphs 0018-0023 wherein any movement of the magnet will change the field from low to high or high to low depending on whether or not it is moving toward or away from the sensor.), the switching device allows current flow therethrough (Fig. 1 Element 16. See paragraphs 0025-0030 wherein currently necessarily flows through a circuit for it to operate.).
Regarding claim 20, Kalathil teaches all elements of claim 18, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil teaches at least one resistor on the PCB that enables diagnostic functions (Fig. 4 Elements 60-1 through 60-4 wherein if they function correctly the circuit can perform any necessary task.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 12,
The positional detection device of claim 9 wherein the voltage output of the TMR IC is high when the actuator is released.
Regarding claim 13,
The positional detection device of claim 12 wherein, when the voltage output of the TMR IC is high, the current flows through the second resistor.
Regarding claim 14,
The positional detection device of claim 9 wherein the voltage output of the TMR IC is low when the actuator is activated.
Regarding claim 15,
The positional detection device of claim 14 wherein, when the voltage output of the TMR IC is low, the current flows through the first resistor and the second resistor.
Regarding claim 16, Kalathil & Bogos teach all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil does not explicitly teach the TMR IC, the first resistor, and the second resistor form a circuit, wherein the circuit is connected to an external system via a pull up resistor, and wherein voltage output to the customer system is a full supply voltage when a wire between the circuit and the pull up resistor is broken.
Regarding claim 17, Kalathil & Bogos teach all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Kalathil does not explicitly teach the TMR IC, the first resistor, and the second resistor form a circuit, wherein the circuit is connected to an external system via a pull up resistor, and wherein voltage output to the customer system is 0 when a wire between the circuit and the pull up resistor is shorted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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 on 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights