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
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, 2, 8, 9, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10/760,927 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Buck et al. discloses a sensor comprising a stationary magnetic field generator (see sensor 1-1D shown in Fig. 4) for generating a stationary magnetic field (a magnetic flux which is introduced into the measuring transducer 4 shown in Fig. 1), and a moveable magnetically conductive part (col. 4, lines 52-55), moveable to influence the stationary magnetic field (a magnetic flux which is introduced into the measuring transducer 4 shown in Fig. 1), a difference in influence being indicative of the position of the magnetically conductive part (col. 4, lines 54-57, the measuring transducer 4 is magnetically conductive and the magnetic field sensor 10-10D comprises a carrier 14A-14D shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 2, the sensor as claimed in claim 1 in which the stationary magnetic field generator is a permanent magnet (col. 4, lines 56-59 shows a permanent magnet 16A-16D shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 8, Buck et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 1 in which the magnetically conductive part is associated with a first part of an object, the position of which is to be detected (col. 4, lines 54-61).
With respect to claim 9, Buck et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 8 in which the first part moves relative to a second part of the object (col. 8, lines 48-63).
With respect to claim 22, Buck et al. discloses a sensing method comprising the steps of: creating a stationary magnetic field using a stationary magnetic field generator (see sensor 1-1D shown in Fig. 4); influencing the stationary magnetic field by moving a movable magnetically conductive part through the stationary field (a magnetic flux which is introduced into the measuring transducer 4 shown in Fig. 1); and detecting an influence made by the moving part on the stationary magnetic field using a sensor (col. 4, lines 54-57, the measuring transducer 4 is magnetically conductive and the magnetic field sensor 10-10D comprises a carrier 14A-14D shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 23, Buck et al. discloses a sensing method comprising the steps of: a stationary field coil creating a Magneto Motive Force (see sensor 1-1D shown in Fig. 4); a stationary magnetically conductive part with low reluctance (a magnetic flux which is introduced into the measuring transducer 4 shown in Fig. 1); a moveable magnetically conductive part with low reluctance (a magnetic flux which is introduced into the measuring transducer 4 shown in Fig. 1); an air gap with high reluctance connecting the stationary magnetically conductive part and moveable magnetically conductive part (col. 8, lines 61-67), thus creating a magnetic path (col. 7, lines 57-60); the moveable magnetically conductive part varying the air gap when it moves, thus influencing the flow of magnetic flux (col. 2, lines 58-65); and a sensor detecting a difference in the flow of magnetic flux for a given Magneto Motive Force (col. 8, lines 1-12).
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.
Claims 3-7, 10-16, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10/760,927 B2) in view of Reymann et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,019 B2).
With respect to claim 3, Bucks et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Bucks et al. does not disclose in which the stationary magnetic field generator is an electromagnet.
Reymann et al. discloses in which the stationary magnetic field generator is an electromagnet (col. 6, lines 40-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bucks et al. to include the stationary magnetic field generator is an electromagnet as taught by Reymann et al. to predictably allow for its great precise control and feedback mechanisms.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Bucks et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claims 3 in which the electromagnet is part of an oscillator (see Reymann et al. col. 6, lines 50-58).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Bucks et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 3 in which the electromagnet is able to cause an oscillation frequency (see Reymann et al. col. 6, lines 50-58) suitable for adaptation and measurement with a micro-processor (see Reymann et al. col. 8, lines 24-27; measuring system 12 shown in Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 6, Bucks et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 2.
Bucks et al. does not disclose in which the permanent magnet is able to cause an oscillation frequency suitable for adaptation and measurement with a micro-processor.
Reymann et al. discloses in which the permanent magnet is able to cause an oscillation frequency suitable for adaptation and measurement with a micro-processor (col. 6, lines 50-58; col. 8, lines 24-27; measuring system 12 shown in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bucks et al. to include in which the permanent magnet is able to cause an oscillation frequency suitable for adaptation and measurement with a micro-processor as taught by Reymann et al. to predictably allow for its great precise control and feedback mechanisms.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Bucks et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 3 in which the electromagnet is able to cause an oscillation frequency (see Reymann et al. col. 6, lines 50-58) suitable for adaptation and measurement with a micro-processor (see Reymann et al. col. 8, lines 24-27; measuring system 12 shown in Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 10, Buck et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 8.
Buck et al. does not disclose in which the first part is an axle.
Reymann et al. discloses in which the first part is an axle (see semicircular ferromagnetic coil core 5 shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Buck et al. to include in which the first part is an axle as taught by Reymann et al. to predictably allow torque or rotational force to be applied reducing friction and physical wear and tear.
With respect to claim 11, Buck et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Buck et al. does not disclose in which the moveable magnetically conductive part is located around a part of the axle.
Reymann et al. discloses in which the moveable magnetically conductive part is located around a part of the axle (see semicircular ferromagnetic coil core 5 shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Buck et al. to include in which the moveable magnetically conductive part is located around a part of the axle taught by Reymann et al. to predictably allow torque or rotational force to be applied reducing friction and physical wear and tear.
With respect to claim 12, Buck et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 1.
Buck et al. does not disclose in which the moveable magnetically conductive part is a magnetically conductive ring located around the axle.
Reymann et al. discloses in which the moveable magnetically conductive part is located around a part of the axle (see semicircular ferromagnetic coil core 5 shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor of Buck et al. to include in which the moveable magnetically conductive part is located around a part of the axle taught by Reymann et al. to predictably allow torque or rotational force to be applied reducing friction and physical wear and tear.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Buck et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 12 in which the moveable magnetically conductive ring is off-centre with the axle (see Reymann et al. col. 8, lines 24-39).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Buck et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 13 in which the moveable magnetically conductive ring is sloped at a part of the surface thereof (see Reymann et al. col. 8, lines 24-39 showing semicircular sloped curve).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Buck et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 13 which the moveable magnetically conductive ring is irregular at a part of the surface thereof (see Reymann et al. coil 6 which is irregular in shape wrapped around the coil 5 shown in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Buck et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 13 in which the moveable magnetically conductive ring is sloped at a major side surface thereof (see Reymann et al. col. 8, lines 24-39 showing semicircular sloped curve).
With respect to claim 19, Buck et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 2.
Buck et al. does not disclose in which the magnet is spaced apart from at least one side of the ferrite ring.
Reymann et al. discloses in which the magnet is spaced apart from at least one side of the ferrite ring (col. 8, lines 24-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Buck et al. to include in which the magnet is spaced apart from at least one side of the ferrite ring as taught by Reymann et al. to predictably allow torque or rotational force to be applied reducing friction and physical wear and tear.
With respect to claim 21, Buck et al. and Reymann et al. discloses the sensor as claimed in claim 10 in which a printed circuit board is located around at least part of the axle (see Reymann et al. detection circuit 2 shown in Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA AKHTER HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Eman A Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/FARHANA A HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858