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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2002/0186011.
Regarding Claim 1, Murata teaches a magnetic sensor comprising:
at least one magnetic detection element configured to detect a target magnetic field (see figure 1A, sensor R2 and [0048]);
a magnetic layer having a first surface and a second surface located opposite to each other in a reference direction and a side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (see [0053]-[0054] and figure 1A, 42, which has two surfaces opposed to each other in a reference direction, with two sides); and
a surrounding layer that is formed of an organic material or a glass material and that is disposed entirely covering the side surface of the magnetic layer (see [0054] and figure 1A, 44 an organic surrounding layer),
wherein the at least one magnetic detection element is disposed at a position closer to the first surface than the second surface (seen in figure 1A, in which the sensor is closer to one of the two surfaces), and
the surrounding layer is not provided between the first surface of the magnetic layer and the at least one magnetic detection element in the reference direction (seen in figure 1A in which 44 is not between, or entirely between, 42 and sensor R2).
Regarding Claim 3, Murata teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnetic detection element overlaps, when seen in the reference direction, with the magnetic layer but not with the surrounding layer (see figure 1A showing the position of R2 relative to the magnetic layer and surrounding layer).
Regarding Claim 4, Murata teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 3, wherein the magnetic layer is a magnetic shield (see [0053]-[0054], in which 54 is a shield).
Regarding Claim 5, Murata teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnetic detection element overlaps, when seen in the reference direction, with the surrounding layer, and at least a part of the at least one magnetic detection element does not overlap, when seen in the reference direction, with the magnetic layer (seen in figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 7, Murata teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein a dimension of the surrounding layer in the reference direction is the same as a dimension of the magnetic layer in the reference direction (seen in figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 10, Murata teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein no nonmagnetic layer is provided between the first surface and the second surface of the magnetic layer (seen in figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 11, Murata teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnetic detection element includes a plurality of magnetic detection elements (seen in figure 1A, in which R2 is comprised of a plurality of elements).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2002/0186011 in view of Watson et al. US Patent No.: US 6,477,009.
Regarding Claim 2, Murata teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, but is silent in explicitly teaching wherein the surrounding layer is not provided at a position facing the second surface of the magnetic layer in the reference direction. However, Watson teaches wherein the surrounding layer is not provided at a position facing the second surface of the magnetic layer in the reference direction (see Watson figure 2 in which the surrounding layer 52 is not provided at the upper surface of layer 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the magnetic sensor of Murata with that of Watson in order to provide a separate layer adjacent to the upper surface of the magnetic layer that has hard, wear resistant mechanical properties (as discussed in Watson col.3,lns 23-28).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. US Patent No.: US 6,477,009 in view of Murata et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2002/0186011.
Regarding Claim 12, Watson teaches a magnetic sensor comprising:
a magnetic detection element configured to detect a target magnetic field (figure 2, sensor 32 and col.3, lns.17-28);
a magnetic layer having a first surface and a second surface located opposite to each other in a reference direction and a side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (figure 2, magnetic shield 36 has a near surface and a far surface relative to sensor 32 in the reference direction, shown as 24); and
a surrounding layer that is disposed entirely covering the side surface of the magnetic layer (figure 2, surrounding layer can be interpreted as 52),
wherein the magnetic detection element is disposed at a position closer to the first surface than the second surface (seen in figure 2), and
the magnetic detection element overlaps, when seen in the reference direction, with the magnetic layer but not with the surrounding layer (seen in figure 2, in which sensor 32 overlaps with magnetic layer 36, but not surrounding layer 52).
Watson is silent in explicitly teaching that the surrounding layer is formed of an organic material or a glass material. However, Watson teaches that the surrounding layer is formed of an organic material or a glass material (see Murata, [0054] and figure 1A, 44 an organic surrounding layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the magnetic sensor of Watson with the material of Murata in order to relieve thermal stress on the device (as discussed in Murata [0008]).
Regarding Claim 13, Watson and Murata teach the magnetic sensor according to claim 12, wherein the magnetic layer is a magnetic shield (see Murata [0053]-[0054], in which 54 is a shield; see Watson col.3, lns.9-28, stating that 36 is a magnetic shield).
Regarding Claim 14, Watson teaches a magnetic sensor comprising:
a magnetic detection element configured to detect a target magnetic field (figure 2, sensor 32 and col.3, lns.17-28);
a magnetic layer having a first surface and a second surface located opposite to each other in a reference direction and a side surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (figure 2, magnetic shield 36 has a near surface and a far surface relative to sensor 32 in the reference direction, shown as 24); and
a surrounding layer that is disposed entirely covering the side surface of the magnetic layer (seen in figure 2),
wherein the magnetic detection element is disposed at a position closer to the first surface than the second surface, the magnetic detection element overlaps, when seen in the reference direction, with the surrounding layer (seen in figure 2), and
at least a part of the magnetic detection element does not overlap, when seen in the reference direction, with the magnetic layer (seen in figure 2, in which sensor 32 overlaps with magnetic layer 36, but not surrounding layer 52).
Watson is silent in explicitly teaching that the surrounding layer is formed of an organic material or a glass material. However, Watson teaches that the surrounding layer is formed of an organic material or a glass material (see Murata, [0054] and figure 1A, 44 an organic surrounding layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the magnetic sensor of Watson with the material of Murata in order to relieve thermal stress on the device (as discussed in Murata [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-9, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE Claims 6 and 15, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the magnetic layer is a yoke configured to generate an output magnetic field including an output magnetic field component in a direction orthogonal to the reference direction when a magnetic field component including an input magnetic field component in a direction parallel to the reference direction is applied to the magnetic layer, and the at least one magnetic detection element is configured to detect the output magnetic field component as the target magnetic field,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “an insulating layer, wherein the surrounding layer has a third surface and a fourth surface located opposite to each other in the reference direction and an outer peripheral surface connecting the third surface and the fourth surface, and the insulating layer is disposed entirely covering the outer peripheral surface of the surrounding layer,” in combination with the other claim limitations. Claims 9 depends from base Claim 8, and therefore these claims are also allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852