DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yasuda et al. (US 2016/0103010).
In re claim 9, Yasuda, in figures 1-2, discloses a magnet element comprising: a magnet part (50); and a support (60) made of an elastic resin and configured to support the magnet part, wherein the support is a foam (see paragraph 28), and the foam has a columnar or cylindrical shape and the magnet part is disposed on an outer side surface of the foam (outer surface is interpreted as an external surface that is on an outside of the support).
In re claim 10, Yasuda, in figures 1-2, discloses that the foam includes a constricted portion on the outer side surface of the foam, the constricted portion is an annular groove (66), and the magnet part is fitted in the annular groove.
In re claims 11-12, Yasuda, in figures 1-2, discloses that the magnet part is disposed at one end in an extension and compression direction of the support (as seen in figure 2).
In re claims 13-14, Yasuda, in figures 1-2, discloses that the magnet part has a ring shape (see paragraph 29).
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) 21-22 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US 2016/0103010) in view of Reymann (US 9151591).
In re claims 21-22, Yasuda teaches the claimed device except for the induction coil. Raymann teaches a similar device having induction coils 8 and 9. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used coils as taught by Raymann to measure the position of the magnet of Yasuda to provide a more precise sensing of the position of the magnet.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
