DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 04/02/24. The request for foreign priority to a FR application filed 10/07/21 has been received and is proper. Claims 1-15 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. 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.
Kleinknecht
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kleinknecht et al. (DE 10 2007 038395) (cited by Applicant). Kleinknecht is directed to a displacement sensor. See Abstract. Note: Kleinknecht is an “X” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion.
Claim 1: Kleinknecht discloses a measuring device [see Fig. 7] for measuring a linear position of a target, comprising: a magnetic circuit comprising a first armature element and a second armature element (two sides of 18), positioned one on either side of an axis X and manufactured with at least one ferromagnetic material; a magnet (10) disposed between the first armature element and the second armature element, such that a first pole of the magnet is positioned next to the first armature element, and that a second pole of the magnet is positioned next to the second armature element; a rod (13) configured to be secured to the target and inserted between the first armature element and the second armature element to slide along the axis X, the rod having a variable section along its length, such that a magnetic flux in the magnetic circuit depends on a linear position of the rod along the axis X; at least one sensor (20) configured to measure at least one parameter representative of the magnetic flux, and therefore of the linear position of the rod, and therefore of the linear position of the target; the first armature element and the second armature element each comprising a first portion (portion of 18 adjacent 10, 20) and a second portion (portion of 18 adjacent 13) successively defined along an axis Y perpendicular to the axis X, the magnet and the sensor being positioned between the first portion of the first armature element and the first portion of the second armature element, and the axis X between the second portion of the first armature element and the second portion of the second armature element. See Fig. 7.
Claim 2: Kleinknecht discloses that the rod has a truncated-shaped portion. See Figs. 1, 10-12.
Claim 3: Kleinknecht discloses that the second portion of the first armature element and the second portion of the second armature element each have a flat shape. See Fig. 7.
Claim 5: Kleinknecht discloses that the first portion of the first armature element and the first portion of the second armature element each have a flat shape. See Fig. 7.
Claim 6: Kleinknecht discloses that the first pole of the magnet is in contact with the first portion of the first armature element, and the second pole of the magnet is in contact with the first portion of the second armature element. See Fig. 7.
Claim 8: Kleinknecht discloses that the at least one sensor is a magnetic sensor. See Translation.
Claim 11: Kleinknecht discloses that the magnet is positioned between the rod and the sensor. See Fig. 7.
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.
Kleinknecht
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinknecht.
Claim 7: Kleinknecht is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not disclose the specific ferromagnetic material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an iron and nickel alloy because Kleinknecht already discusses the use of metals such as steel and aluminum, and this is ultimately a design choice based on the cost/availability of materials.
Claims 9-10: Kleinknecht is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not disclose whether the Hall effect sensor is analog or digital. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use analog or digital because it would be obvious to try since limited possibilities exist here.
Kleinknecht in view of Alfors
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinknecht in view of Alfors (U.S. Patent No. 5,164,668). Alfors is directed to a position sensor. See Abstract.
Claim 4: Kleinknecht is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not disclose the “semi-cylindrical shape” of the second portion of the armature elements. Alfors discloses that the second portion of the first armature element and the second portion of the second armature element each have a semi-cylindrical shape of axis X. See Figs. 6, 7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ this basic design feature to more closely match the shape of the cylindrical rod.
Kleinknecht in view of Mehnert
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinknecht in view of Mehnert et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0089728). Mehnert is directed to an integrated circuit arrangement for a position sensor. See Abstract.
Claim 12: Kleinknecht is relied upon as in claims 1 and 9 above but does not disclose the specifics of the analog electronic circuit. Mehnert discloses a position sensor (100, 200), wherein the at least one analogue Hall effect sensor is connected to an analogue electronic circuit having an operational amplifier connected as a subtractor, said analogue electronic circuit being arranged to subtract, to an electric measuring signal supplied by the at least one sensor, an offset voltage in order to utilize a full scale of an analogue-to-digital converter. See para. 0097-0101. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use this integrated circuit because this is typically how these electronic devices operate for proper functionality.
Kleinknecht in view of Baptiste
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinknecht in view of Baptiste (FR 3068098) (cited by Applicant). Baptiste is directed to a brake wear control system. See Abstract. Note: Baptiste is a “Y” reference in the cited ISA Written Opinion.
Claims 14-15: Kleinknecht is relied upon as in claim 1 but does not discuss the use in aircraft brakes. Baptiste discloses an aircraft with a brake system for the aircraft wheel, comprising actuators the apply a brake force on a thrust plate mounted on a stack of friction discs, with a wear indicator (6) that acts as a position sensor for the thrust plate. See Figs. 1, 3; Translation (“The indicator can for example be coupled to a thrust plate”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the Kleinknecht sensor in an aircraft brake thrust plate because position/displacement sensors are commonly used to measure wear of friction linings in aircraft brakes, to ensure proper timing of replacement and longevity of the aircraft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights