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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the magnetoresistive sensor is composed of a plurality of magnetic tunnel junctions that are connected in a series-parallel way” on lines 6-7 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not use the phrase “series-parallel way” in the detailed description when describing any of the tunnel junctions. Applicant does not reasonably define a series-parallel way otherwise reasonably explain this feature to demonstrate to a person of ordinary skill in the art the manner in which such a feature is implemented in order to establish possession. Second, applicant states that the junctions are connected in series and parallel on lines 25 of page 9 to line 1 of page 10. However, the original disclosure does not show this or provide any explanation as to how or the manner in which these junctions are connected. No figure shows any form of actual connections between the junctions, and there is no further explanation of these types of connections. The Examiner acknowledges that connecting tunnel junctions in series and parallel in general is within the skill of one of ordinary skill, but the issue here is that the manner in which these junctions are connected matters, as it controls the type of output provided by the overall sensor. By not reasonably explaining the manner in which these junctions are connected, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably know what applicant is doing to connect these junctions, nor understand how duplicate such a connection based upon the disclosure. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the magnetoresistive sensor is connected by a push arm and/or a pull arm to form a push-pull bridge structure for measuring a magnetic field gradient or a magnetic field value, wherein, the push arm is composed of an interconnected array of push magnetoresistive sensor units, the array of push magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of push magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, and the push magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel; wherein the pull arm is composed of an interconnected array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units; the array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of pull magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, wherein the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel; wherein the push-pull bridge structure includes any one of a push-pull half-bridge structure, a push-pull full-bridge structure, a push-pull quasi-bridge structure and a single-arm electric bridge structure” on lines 2 to the end lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant is expressly claiming that the magnetoresistive sensor is connected by a push arm and/or a pull arm to form a push-pull bridge structure, but where such a structure cannot be formed without both a push and a pull arm. The definition of a push-pull bridge structure requires 1) an actual bridge, which is either a half or full bridge, and 2) both a push and a pull arm. If the structure only includes a push arm, or only includes a pull arm, it cannot by definition be a “push-pull” bridge structure. Applicant expressly claims that the sensor can be just a push or a pull arm, but applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant can form a “push-pull” bridge with just a push or a pull arm, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of such a feature.
2) Applicant is expressly claiming that the elements in the push or pull array have sensors connected “in series and in parallel.” However, the original disclosure does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which these sensors are actually connected. It is not reasonably to merely state that the sensors are connected in series and parallel without provide a single example of such a connection. The manner in which the sensors are connected matters and will change the overall output depending on ow they are connected, and thus, an explanation as to the manner in which they are connected is critical. However, the original disclosure does not show this or provide any explanation as to how or the manner in which these junctions/sensors are connected. No figure shows any form of actual connections between the junctions/sensors, and there is no further explanation of these types of connections. The Examiner acknowledges that connecting tunnel junctions/sensors in series and parallel in general is within the skill of one of ordinary skill, but the issue here is that the manner in which these junctions/sensors are connected matters, as it controls the type of output provided by the overall sensor. By not reasonably explaining the manner in which these junctions/sensors are connected, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably know what applicant is doing to connect these junctions/sensors in the manner applicant intended, nor understand how duplicate such a connection based upon the disclosure. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature.
3) Applicant recites “the push arm is composed of an interconnected array of push magnetoresistive sensor units, the array of push magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of push magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, and the push magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel,” but where it is applicant does not reasonably disclose what elements the above phrase corresponds to in light of the disclosure. For example, initially, it is unclear what applicant considers the push magnetoresistive sensor units. The details of each individual arm are not reasonably disclosed, and applicant is initially claiming push magnetoresistive sensor units as part of one arm, followed by the array being itself formed of sensor units connected in series and parallel, followed by the claim that each sensor unit itself is composed of sensors connected in series and parallel. As such, applicant has a nested set of sensor units that themselves are connected in a specific but undisclosed combination of series and parallel connections, and where within each individual sensor unit, another set of combinations of sensors being connected in an undisclosed combination of series and parallel connections is claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing this nested set of units and sensors with their own specific series and parallel connections as claimed. . This issue also pertains to the pull arm recitations of the claim as well, which recite a similar claim feature.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “the surface on one side of the coil has a first sub-region and a second sub-region; in the direction perpendicular to the coil, the push magnetoresistive sensor unit array is located in the first sub-region and the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit array is located in the second sub-region” on lines 5-9 lacks proper written description.
As claimed earlier and seen in Figures 1a-1d), the coil (3) is expressly disclosed to be separated from the sensor (5) by an electric shield (4). As such, the sensor array cannot be located in any sub-region of the coil, as it must be physically spaced away from the coil. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature, as any sub-region defined by the surface of the coil cannot reasonably include or have sensor array units located within such a region.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator comprises magnetic shielding pins and/or electric shielding pins; the magnetic shielding layer sets the electric potential through the magnetic shielding pins, and the electric shielding layer sets the electric potential through the electric shielding pins” on lines 2 to the end lacks proper written description.
1) First, applicant does not disclose a single example of shielding pins, where they are located, and how they relate or are otherwise implemented with regard to the actual shielding layers. While applicant does disclose a single electrical connection to the magnetic shielding or two connections to the electrical shielding, applicant never states or discloses that these are pins, nor distinguishes between a wire merely contacting a shield as opposed to the implementation of the above claimed pins. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which these pins are implemented, in light of the disclosure to demonstrate possession.
2) Applicant claims that the shields set their own electric potential, but such a feature is not clear in light of the disclosure. While a connected circuit element can set the potential of the shields, the shields themselves do not reasonably set their own potential, and applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the shields can set their own potential as claimed.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the signal transmitting circuit is connected to the coil in a passive or active manner” on lines 2-3 lacks proper written description. The signal transmitting circuit is shown and disclosed to be connected to the coil in the same manner throughout the disclosure (see circuit 6 and how it is connected in Figures 1a-1d). Applicant does not reasonably explain what a passive and active connection is, or the manner in which these different manners are implemented,. As best understood, applicant merely shows the transmitting circuit 6 connected to the coil, and regardless of whether it is connected to the coil, such a connection can only be active or passive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant connects the circuit to the coil in an active or passive manner as claimed, and would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the signal receiving circuit is connected to the magnetoresistive sensor in a passive or active manner.” on lines 2-3 lacks proper written description. The signal receiving circuit is shown and disclosed to be connected to the sensor in the same manner throughout the disclosure (see circuit 7 and how it is connected in Figures 1a-1d). Applicant does not reasonably explain what a passive and active connection is, or the manner in which these different manners are implemented,. As best understood, applicant merely shows the receiving 7 connected to the sensor, and regardless of whether it is connected to the sensor, such a connection can only be active or passive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant connects the circuit to the sensor in an active or passive manner as claimed, and would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features.
As to Claims 2-12,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-12 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “an electric shielding layer” on line 5 is indefinite. Lines 1-2 already recite “an electric shielding layer,” and as best understood, this shielding layer is the same as recited in the above phrase, but both are being distinctly recited when they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited shielding layers are therefore unclear.
The phrase “the electric shielding layer” on lines 8, 18, and 21 is indefinite. More than one electric shielding layer has been previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what shielding layer this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the magnetoresistive sensor is composed of a plurality of magnetic tunnel junctions that are connected in a series-parallel way” on lines 9-10 is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear what applicant means by a “series-parallel way.” First, it is unclear if the junction must be in series, in parallel, or a combination thereof. Applicant does not use this phrase in the detailed description when describing any of the tunnel junctions. Applicant does not reasonably define a series-parallel way otherwise reasonably explain this feature to demonstrate the full scope and metes and bounds of the feature, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize how such a feature should be interpreted. Second, applicant states that the junctions are connected in series and parallel on lines 25 of page 9 to line 1 of page 10. However, the original disclosure does not show this or provide any explanation as to how or the manner in which these junctions are connected. No figure shows any form of actual connections between the junctions, and thus it is unclear how the above “series-parallel way” feature should be interpreted, as it is unclear what elements/junctions are connected to each other, and it is unclear which junctions are connected in series, parallel, or any combination thereof. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand how to interpret such a feature. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this feature to mean that sensor elements connected in a bridge type configuration, similar to that of applicant’s Figure 5a, meets the claim feature.
The phrase “the electric shielding layer may instead be electrically connected to the second reference ground in a single-point or multi- point mode, or may be completely electrically isolated from the second reference ground” on lines 18-20 is indefinite.
Claim limitations must be definite, and thus any claim language must make clear that the feature is present in the claim, even if it is optional. Meaning, a claim feature reciting “the electric shielding layer CAN instead be electrically connected to the second reference ground in a single-point or multi- point mode” is definite, because the term “can” requires that the feature definitely can be implemented in this manner, even if it is not required or positively recited. However, the term “may” is not definite, because it does not reasonably establish any situation in which the claim feature must exist, even if not positively recited. For example, the phrase “it may rain outside” only establishes the possibility that it may rain, but it may never rain. From a claim perspective, this renders the claim indefinite, and such a feature may never exist, and thus may never be part of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting, as claimed, that none of the “may” claim limitations are positively recited or required in the claim.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the magnetoresistive sensor is connected by a push arm and/or a pull arm to form a push-pull bridge structure for measuring a magnetic field gradient or a magnetic field value, wherein, the push arm is composed of an interconnected array of push magnetoresistive sensor units, the array of push magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of push magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, and the push magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel; wherein the pull arm is composed of an interconnected array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units; the array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of pull magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, wherein the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel; wherein the push-pull bridge structure includes any one of a push-pull half-bridge structure, a push-pull full-bridge structure, a push-pull quasi-bridge structure and a single-arm electric bridge structure” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) Applicant is expressly claiming that the magnetoresistive sensor is connected by a push arm and/or a pull arm to form a push-pull bridge structure, but where such a structure cannot be formed without both a push and a pull arm. The definition of a push-pull bridge structure requires 1) an actual bridge, which is either a half or full bridge, and 2) both a push and a pull arm. If the structure only includes a push arm, or only includes a pull arm, it cannot by definition be a “push-pull” bridge structure. Applicant expressly claims that the sensor can be just a push or a pull arm, but applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant can form a “push-pull” bridge with just a push or a pull arm, and it is therefore unclear if just a push arm or pull arm reasonably meets the claim requirements.
2) Applicant claims “a single-arm electric bridge structure,” but applicant does not reasonably explain what such a structure is in light of the disclosure. A single “arm” would not reasonably be considered to be a bridge or bridge structure, and two arms are necessary to form a bridge, such as a half-bridge formed from two arms. Additionally, it is unclear what an “electric bridge structure” is, as such a structure is not reasonably well-known, and applicant does not reasonably explain or describe such a structure. It is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted, in that it is unclear if applicant intends the one arm embodiment (Figure 5d) to be an electrical bridge structure, or if applicant intends some other bridge structure to meet this claim feature. The metes and bounds and full scope of what a single arm electrical bridge structure can be considered or should be considered is not clear in light of the disclosure. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that a single bridge arm reasonably meets this claim limitation.
3) Applicant recites “the push arm is composed of an interconnected array of push magnetoresistive sensor units, the array of push magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of push magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, and the push magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel,” but where it is unclear what elements the above phrase corresponds to in light of the disclosure. For example, initially, it is unclear what applicant considers the push magnetoresistive sensor units. The details of each individual arm are not reasonably disclosed, and applicant is initially claiming push magnetoresistive sensor units as part of one arm, followed by the array being itself formed of sensor units connected in series and parallel, followed by the claim that each sensor unit itself is composed of sensors connected in series and parallel. As such, applicant has a nested set of sensor units that themselves are connected in a specific but undisclosed combination of series and parallel connections, and where within each individual sensor unit, another set of combinations of sensors being connected in an undisclosed combination of series and parallel connections is claimed. This feature is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear what components are required by this claim feature, and it is unclear in what manner these specific sensors and units must be connected, in light of the disclosure. This issue also pertains to the pull arm recitations of the claim as well, which recite a similar claim feature. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that having a sensor with arms formed from sensor elements in a series and parallel manner meets the claim features.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “the angle between the magnetic field sensitive direction of the push magnetoresistive sensing unit array and the reference horizontal direction is α, and the angle between the magnetic field sensitive direction of the pull magnetoresistive sensing unit array and the reference horizontal direction is β” on lines 1-5 is indefinite.
1) No angle was previously recited, and as more than one angle can exist, it is unclear what angle this phrase is referencing.
2) No reference horizontal direction was previously recited, and as more than one reference horizontal direction can exist, it is unclear what reference horizontal direction this phrase is referencing.
3) No “surface” for the coil was previously recited, and as a coil has more than one surface, it is unclear what surface this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the surface on one side of the coil has a first sub-region and a second sub-region; in the direction perpendicular to the coil, the push magnetoresistive sensor unit array is located in the first sub-region and the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit array is located in the second sub-region” on lines 5-9 is indefinite.
As claimed earlier and seen in Figures 1a-1d), the coil (3) is expressly disclosed to be separated from the sensor (5) by an electric shield (4). As such, the sensor array cannot be located in any sub-region of the coil, as it must be physically spaced away from the coil. It is therefore unclear how this feature should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this feature to mean that any region of space can be defined, even one beyond the boundaries of the coil, and considered a sub-region as claimed.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator comprises magnetic shielding pins and/or electric shielding pins; the magnetic shielding layer sets the electric potential through the magnetic shielding pins, and the electric shielding layer sets the electric potential through the electric shielding pins” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) First, applicant does not disclose a single example of shielding pins, where they are located, and how they relate or are otherwise implemented with regard to the actual shielding layers. While applicant does disclose a single electrical connection to the magnetic shielding or two connections to the electrical shielding, applicant never states or discloses that these are pins, nor distinguishes between a wire merely contacting a shield as opposed to the implementation of the above claimed pins. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which these pins are implemented, and would therefore not reasonably understand how this feature should be interpreted.
2) Second, to the extent that one or more electrical connections to the shielding layers are considered pins, the above phrase is further indefinite, because Claim 1 expressly claims numerous claim embodiments, including one in which the shielding layers are completely electrically isolated. As best understood, such a claimed embodiment is intended to capture the embodiment of Figure 1c, for which there are no electrical connections to any of the shields. As best understood, in these embodiments, no pins would be present, because the pins, as best understood, are used to electrically connect the shields for the purpose of connecting a potential. It is therefore unclear if any of the above claim features are required, in that these features, as best understood, are linked to some of the optional embodiments in Claim 1 pertaining to the shields, but not to all. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the above claim feature is linked to those embodiments that require a potential be connected to the shields, but does not apply to the embodiments that do not require such a potential, such as those where the shields are electrically isolated.
3) Applicant claims single-point and multi-point modes in Claim 1, but where the difference and relationship between these points and the above pins are unclear. To the extent that the pins are the points from Claim 1, applicant is distinctly reciting these features but where, in light of the disclosure, they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between the points of Claim 1 and the above pins are unclear.
4) Applicant claims that the shields set their own electric potential, but such a feature is not clear in light of the disclosure. While a connected circuit element can set the potential of the shields, the shields themselves do not reasonably set their own potential, and it is unclear what applicant means by such a phrase.
5) The phrase “the electric potential” recited twice in the above phrase is indefinite, as no electrical potential was previously recited, and because a potential or potentials were recited in Claim 1. It is unclear if the above electric potential is intended to refer to one or more of these potentials, or to some other potential.
6) Claiming that the shielding layer “sets” the electrical potential as is twice recited above is indefinite, because such a feature requires express action of the shield, and thus requires the use of the shield to perform such a setting of the potential. A use of the apparatus is a method step, and it is indefinite to recite a method step of using an apparatus inside an apparatus claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the signal transmitting circuit is connected to the coil in a passive or active manner” on lines 2-3 is indefinite. The signal transmitting circuit is shown and disclosed to be connected to the coil in the same manner throughout the disclosure (see circuit 6 and how it is connected in Figures 1a-1d). Applicant does not reasonably explain what a passive and active connection is, or the manner in which these different manners are implemented,. As best understood, applicant merely shows the transmitting circuit 6 connected to the coil, and regardless of whether it is connected to the coil, such a connection can only be active or passive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant connects the circuit to the coil in an active or passive manner as claimed, and would therefore not reasonably understand what a passive connection manner is, what an active connection manner is, or what the difference is between these two manners of connection. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that having the transmitting circuit connected to the coil reasonably meets the claim limitation.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the signal receiving circuit is connected to the magnetoresistive sensor in a passive or active manner.” on lines 2-3 is indefinite. The signal receiving circuit is shown and disclosed to be connected to the sensor in the same manner throughout the disclosure (see circuit 7 and how it is connected in Figures 1a-1d). Applicant does not reasonably explain what a passive and active connection is, or the manner in which these different manners are implemented,. As best understood, applicant merely shows the receiving 7 connected to the sensor, and regardless of whether it is connected to the sensor, such a connection can only be active or passive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant connects the circuit to the sensor in an active or passive manner as claimed, and would therefore not reasonably understand what a passive connection manner is, what an active connection manner is, or what the difference is between these two manners of connection. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that having the receiving circuit connected to the sensor reasonably meets the claim limitation.
As to Claims 8 and 12,
The entirety of the phrase “during packaging, the grains containing the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator are placed separately on a lead frame and then packaged with a packaging material; or during packaging, the grains containing the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator and the signal transmitting circuit are placed on a lead frame and then packaged with packaging materials; or during packaging, the grains containing the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator and signal receiving circuit are placed on a lead frame and then packaged with packaging materials; during packaging, the pins of the signal transmitting circuit and the pins of the signal receiving circuit on the lead frame are respectively located on two opposite sides of the lead frame; and the packaging material is any one of polymer material, ceramic material, ferromagnetic metal and non-magnetic metal” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) Claims 1, 8, and 12 are apparatus claims, and thus directed towards the final product. While product-by-process claim features are permitted, method steps of using apparatus, and method of forming steps that go beyond a product-by-process limitation are indefinite (see for example MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). At issue here is that applicant is going beyond a product-by-process limitation, as such limitations describe the process used for form the already claimed apparatus with no new structural limitation being recited in the claim. For example, claiming that the tunnel junctions are formed by etching or photolithography is permitted, as it merely describes a method of forming the apparatus already claimed. However, the above claim goes beyond such a concept, as it introduces new structural features not found in the apparatus already claimed, such as the lead frame, packing materials, being packaged, and the grains. These features go beyond mere product-by-process limitations, because the introduce new structural features as part of the final product, but where these features were not previously recited as part of the apparatus. As such, it is unclear whether any of these features are required in the claim, as they were never introduced as part of the apparatus or final product.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear if any of the features of these claims are positively recited. Applicant recites and links every claim feature to a portion of the manufacturing process of “during packaging,” but where applicant does not positively recite or require any form of packaging. The final product, for example, was not claimed to require any form of packaging as it is not claimed to be packaged. As such, it is unclear if the claims require this feature prior to any form of packaging. It is further unclear if any of the structural features introduced in this claim, but not previously claimed to be part of the apparatus, are required in this claim, such as the lead frame. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that none of the features recited in this claim are positively recited, as these features require the apparatus reach a packaging stage. As such, any prior art not yet packaged can reasonably be said to meet the above claim limitations, as these features are being treated as conditional limitations that require the condition of being packaged in order to be invoked.
3) The third issue is that it is unclear how these features should be treated, as method steps of using an apparatus inside an apparatus claim are indefinite. While these method steps are part of an overall method of manufacture, they recite any actual use of the apparatus structure features previously recited, where they recite, for example, “the grains containing the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator are placed separately on a lead frame and then packaged with a packing material” on lines 2-4 recites the actual use of the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator such that it is moved and placed onto a specific object (lead frame). Such a feature is reasonably intended to recite a use of the apparatus by moving and using it in a specific manner relative to other claim features. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” The claim recitations that are intended to recite an actual use of the apparatus, such as the above noted phrase, are therefore indefinite.
4) Lastly, this claim refers to features no previously recited, such as “the grains” on line 2, but where no grains were previously recited. As such, it is unclear what grains this phrase is referring to, and it is unclear what specific grains from the disclosure are being referenced.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “an electric shielding potential setting circuit and/or a magnetic shielding potential setting circuit; the electric shielding potential setting circuit ensures that the measured potential difference is equal to the set potential difference by comparing the measured potential difference between the magnetoresistive sensor and the coil with the set potential difference, and adjusting the potential size of the electric shielding layer; the magnetic shielding potential setting circuit ensures that the measured potential difference is equal to the set potential difference by comparing the measured potential difference between the magnetoresistive sensor and the coil with the set potential difference, and adjusting the potential size of the magnetic shielding layer” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) First, it is unclear if any of the above claim features are positively recited. Claim 1 expressly claims numerous claim embodiments, including one in which the shielding layers are completely electrically isolated. As best understood, such a claimed embodiment is intended to capture the embodiment of Figure 1c, for which there are no electrical connections to any of the shields. As best understood, in these embodiments, no pins or electrical connections to the shields would be present, because the pins/connections, as best understood, are used to electrically connect the shields for the purpose of connecting a potential and controlling a potential of the shields. It is therefore unclear if any of the above claim features are required, in that these features, as best understood, are linked to some of the optional embodiments in Claim 1 pertaining to the shields, but not to all. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the above claim feature is linked to those embodiments that require a potential be connected to the shields, but does not apply to the embodiments that do not require such a potential, such as those where the shields are electrically isolated. As such, none of the above recited features are required for the embodiment where no potential is applied to the shields, as this embodiment requires the potential of the shields to be floating.
2) The phrase “the measured potential difference” recited in the above phrase is indefinite, because no such difference was previously claimed. It is further unclear how this difference relates to any of the previously recited potentials.
3) The phrase “the set potential difference” recited in the above phrase is indefinite, because no such difference was previously claimed. It is further unclear how this difference relates to any of the previously recited potentials.
4) The phrase “the potential size” recited in the above phrase is indefinite, because no such size was previously claimed. It is further unclear how this size relates to any of the previously recited potentials.
5) The phrase “adjusting the potential size” twice recited is indefinite. Such a phrase is a method step of actually adjusting the potential size, and as explained above and in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), it is indefinite to recite method steps of using the apparatus in an apparatus claim. Here, the method step is the step of adjusting as claimed.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “a spacing ranging from 10 μm to 100 μm” on line 3 is indefinite. Applicant does not reasonably disclose what applicant considers a spacing of the coil. It is unclear what elements of the coil are spaced in the claimed manner, and it is therefore unclear what parts of the coil must be spaced in this manner.
As to Claims 2-12,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IDE et al. (IDE) (US 2010/0270866).
As to Claim 1,
IDE discloses A magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator with electric shielding layer, comprising: a magnetic shielding layer (41) (Paragraph [0077]), a coil (2) (Paragraph [0077]), an electric shielding layer (43) and a magnetoresistive sensor (R1-R4) (Paragraphs [0072],[0077],[0081] / note the shielding layer (43) is metal and will therefore shield against electric fields), the coil is located between the magnetic shielding layer and the electric shielding layer (Figure 5), the electric shielding layer is located between the coil and the magnetoresistive sensor (Figure 5 / note at least part of the shielding layer is between the coil and magnetoresistive sensor), the magnetoresistive sensor is composed of a plurality of magnetic tunnel junctions that are connected in a series-parallel way (Figures 1 and 2 / note that R1 and R3 are collectively in parallel with R3 and R4, and individually, R1 and R2 are in series when their output is not being taken, and note that his bridge configuration is substantially similar to that used by applicant in applicant’s Figure 5a); wherein a signal transmitting circuit (7) is electrically connected to two ends of the coil (Figure 1), and has a first reference ground (Figure 1); wherein a signal receiving circuit (15) is connected to the magnetoresistive sensor (Figure 1), and has a second reference ground (Figure 1 / note 11 or 12 for example); the magnetic shielding layer is electrically connected to the first reference ground in a single-point or multi-point mode, or is completely electrically isolated from the first reference ground (Figure 5 / note the shield is embedded in insulator 62 and thus electrically isolated) (Paragraph [0078]), the electric shielding layer may instead be electrically connected to the second reference ground in a single-point or multi- point mode, or may be completely electrically isolated from the second reference ground, or the electric shielding layer and magnetic shielding layer are respectively electrically connected to any potential or potentials between the first reference ground and the second reference ground in a single-point or multi-point mode (Figure 5 / note the electric shielding layer (43) is isolated from the second reference ground).
As to Claim 5,
IDE discloses the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator comprises magnetic shielding pins and/or electric shielding pins; the magnetic shielding layer sets the electric potential through the magnetic shielding pins, and the electric shielding layer sets the electric potential through the electric shielding pins (Figure 5 / note that Claim 1 presented several optional embodiments, and the above feature is not directed towards the one where the shields are electrically isolated. Because IDE meets the embodiment that requires the shields to be electrically isolated, it is not required to disclose this claim feature, which is not directed towards the claimed embodiment being met by the prior art).
As to Claim 6,
IDE discloses the signal transmitting circuit is connected to the coil in a passive or active manner (Figure 1).
As to Claim 7,
IDE discloses the signal receiving circuit is connected to the magnetoresistive sensor in a passive or active manner (Figure 1).
As to Claims 8 and 12,
IDE discloses during packaging, the grains containing the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator are placed separately on a lead frame and then packaged with a packaging material; or during packaging, the grains containing the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator and the signal transmitting circuit are placed on a lead frame and then packaged with packaging materials; or during packaging, the grains containing the magnetic tunnel junction signal isolator and signal receiving circuit are placed on a lead frame and then packaged with packaging materials; during packaging, the pins of the signal transmitting circuit and the pins of the signal receiving circuit on the lead frame are respectively located on two opposite sides of the lead frame; and the packaging material is any one of polymer material, ceramic material, ferromagnetic metal and non-magnetic metal (Figure 5 / note that the entirety of the above claim feature is being treated as a product by process claim limitation that is only invoked when or if a packaging stage occurs, and that because IDE does not disclose a packaging stage, and would also reasonably disclose the claim features prior to such a stage, the prior art meets the above conditional claim features as the above claim feature is only reasonably invoked should a packaging stage occur).
As to Claim 9,
IDE discloses an electric shielding potential setting circuit and/or a magnetic shielding potential setting circuit; the electric shielding potential setting circuit ensures that the measured potential difference is equal to the set potential difference by comparing the measured potential difference between the magnetoresistive sensor and the coil with the set potential difference, and adjusting the potential size of the electric shielding layer; the magnetic shielding potential setting circuit ensures that the measured potential difference is equal to the set potential difference by comparing the measured potential difference between the magnetoresistive sensor and the coil with the set potential difference, and adjusting the potential size of the magnetic shielding layer (Figure 5 / note that because the prior art discloses the floating potential embodiment where, as claimed, the shields are isolated, the prior art need not meet the above claim feature which is only implemented in a different optional embodiment from Claim 1 where the shields are not isolated as claimed in Claim 1).
As to Claim 10,
IDE discloses the magnetic shielding layer, the coil, the magnetoresistive sensor and the electric shielding layer are isolated by insulating materials ((60), (57),(53)), and the insulating materials are photoresist, SiO2 or polyimide (Figure 5), (Paragraphs [0057].[0074],[0076] / note polyimide).
As to Claim 11,
IDE discloses the coil has a thickness ranging from 1 μm to 20 μm (Paragraphs [0056],[0072]), (Figure 5 / note the thickness of the coil is approximately the same as the shields, and thus is reasonably within this range as the shields are disclosed to be within this range) , a width ranging from 5 μm to 40 μm (Paragraphs [0056],[0072]), (Figure 5 / note the width of the coil is approximately the same as the thickness of the shields, and thus is reasonably within this range as the shields are disclosed to be within this range), and a spacing ranging from 10 μm to 100 μm (Paragraphs [0056],[0072]), (Figure 5 / note that this feature is being interpreted to be directed towards the spacing between the individual coil portions (2) of the coil, and the spacing is approximately the same as the thickness of the shields, and thus is reasonably within this range as the shields are disclosed to be within this range; the thickness of the magnetic shielding layer and the electric shielding layer varies from 1 μm to 20 μm (Paragraphs [0056],[0072]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDE et al. (IDE) (US 2010/0270866) in view of Deak et al. (Deak) (US 2019/0280650).
As to Claim 2,
IDE discloses the magnetoresistive sensor is connected by a push arm and/or a pull arm to form a push-pull bridge structure for measuring a magnetic field gradient or a magnetic field value (Paragraph [0042]), (Figures 3,4 / note the sensors will function as push-pull due to being exposed to opposite magnetic fields as seen in Figure 4). the push-pull bridge structure includes any one of a push-pull half-bridge structure, a push-pull full-bridge structure, a push-pull quasi-bridge structure and a single-arm electric bridge structure (Figures 1, 2, and 4).
IDE does not disclose the push arm is composed of an interconnected array of push magnetoresistive sensor units, the array of push magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of push magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, the push magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel; the pull arm is composed of an interconnected array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units; the array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of pull magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel.
Deak discloses the push arm is composed of an interconnected array of push magnetoresistive sensor units (Paragraphs [0051],[0056] / note opposing magnetic fields create the push/pull), (Figures 11-13), the array of push magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of push magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel (Paragraph [0056]), the push magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel (Paragraph [0056]); the pull arm is composed of an interconnected array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units (Paragraph [0056]),; the array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of pull magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel (Paragraph [0056]), the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel (Paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify IDE to include the push arm is composed of an interconnected array of push magnetoresistive sensor units, the array of push magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of push magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, the push magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel; the pull arm is composed of an interconnected array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units; the array of pull magnetoresistive sensor units is composed of pull magnetoresistive sensor units connected in series and in parallel, the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit is composed of a plurality of the magnetoresistive sensors connected in series and in parallel as taught by Deak in order to advantageously form each sensor arm with plural interconnected sensor elements, thereby providing redundant sensing should one sensor element fail, and in order to provide a higher degree of sensitivity by relying upon plural sensors per arm.
As to Claim 3,
IDE discloses the angle between the magnetic field sensitive direction of the push magnetoresistive sensing unit array and the reference horizontal direction is α (Figures 1-3 / note any direction can be a “reference horizontal direction”), and the angle between the magnetic field sensitive direction of the pull magnetoresistive sensing unit array and the reference horizontal direction is β (Figures 1-3 / note any direction can be a “reference horizontal direction”); the surface on one side of the coil has a first sub-region and a second sub-region; in the direction perpendicular to the coil (Figure 5), the push magnetoresistive sensor unit array is located in the first sub-region and the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit array is located in the second sub-region (Figure 5 / a region of space can be defined to include both the coil and sensors); when current flows through the first sub-region, magnetic field Ba is generated along the magnetic field sensitive direction of the push magnetoresistive sensor unit array, when current flows through the second sub-region, magnetic field Bp is generated along the magnetic field sensitive direction of the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit array; Ba and Bp are equal in size, the direction of Ba is the same as the magnetic field sensitive direction of the push magnetoresistive sensor unit array, while the direction of Bp is opposite to the magnetic field sensitive direction of the pull magnetoresistive sensor unit array, the range of α and β is 0-360° (Paragraph [0017] / note that the entirety of the feature beginning with the first “when” clause is conditional, and the prior art therefore meets this feature when the device is off, but also meets this limitation due to the oppositely generated magnetic fields). (Figure 5).
As to Claim 4,
IDE does not disclose the magnetoresistive sensor is a linear or a switched magnetoresistive sensor, and a plurality of magnetic tunnel junctions in the linear or switched magnetoresistive sensor are connected to form a two-port structure.
Deak discloses the magnetoresistive sensor is a linear or a switched magnetoresistive sensor, and a plurality of magnetic tunnel junctions in the linear or switched magnetoresistive sensor are connected to form a two-port structure (Paragraphs [0055],[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify IDE to include the magnetoresistive sensor is a linear or a switched magnetoresistive sensor, and a plurality of magnetic tunnel junctions in the linear or switched magnetoresistive sensor are connected to form a two-port structure as taught by Deak in order to advantageously form each sensor arm with plural interconnected sensor elements, thereby providing redundant sensing should one sensor element fail, and in order to provide a higher degree of sensitivity by relying upon plural sensors per arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2022/0187389 to GUO et al. which is relevant because it discloses a magnetic isolator, a coil, magnetic sensor as a TMR tunnel junction, and the use of plural shields, and 2) US 2017/0370969 to Okuyama et al. which discloses a current sensor that includes a magnetic detection element as a TMR junction located between two shields.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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 at 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights