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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 11, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed April 28, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 7 , & 14 were amended. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 30, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026, please refer to Applicant’s remarks pp. 6-10, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the amendments, the Applicant has presented a set of arguments pointing out their rationale of how the prior art reference(s) made of record in the most recent Non-Final Office Action, mailed January 30, 2026, does not teach, suggest, and/or disclose the currently recited claim limitations. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant in their submitted response presents the argument that the prior art reference(s) Kishi (US2023/0132014), in view of Matsumoto (US2023/0160723), as cited by the Applicant, do no teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, the limitation(s) “(i) the ferromagnetic structure extending, towards the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face; (ii) the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face; (iii) the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face; and (iv) the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in in magnetic field orientation.”, recited in amended independent claim 1, similarly amended independent claims 7 & 14, which recite similar claim limitations.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to highlight is that the remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or legal conclusion of obviousness is allegedly in error. The legal decisions cited discuss various aspects of an obviousness analysis, but Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations not tied to the facts of the cases. Thus, the remarks in response to the obviousness rejection do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP 714.02 and are not persuasive. Therefore, rejections for the above listed limitations for independent claims 1, 7, & 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, are maintained.
Applicant in their submitted response, page 8, presents the argument that the prior art reference(s) Kishi (US2023/0132014), in view of Matsumoto (US2023/0160723), as cited by the Applicant, do no teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, the amended limitation(s) “the ferromagnetic structure completely surrounds the magnet”, the term “completely”, amended into independent claims 1, 7, & 14.
In light of the amendments in independent claims 1, 7, & 14, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, in view of Steinich et al. (US2008/0164867), in view of Steinich et al. (US 2010/0013466), and further in view of Ausserlechner (US20160216132). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, and now in light of new prior art reference(s) Steinich’867, Steinich’466, and Ausserlechner, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the limitation(s) for the above stated amendments in independent claims 1, 7, & 14. Kish, in view of Matsumoto, in view of Steinich’867, in view of Steinich’466, and further in view of Ausserlechner, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in independent claims 1, 7, & 14, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claim 1, dependent claims 2-6, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, amended independent claim 7, dependent claims 8-13, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 7, amended independent claim 14, and dependent claims 15-19, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 14, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference(s) follow.
Applicant in their submitted response, page 8, presents the argument that the prior art reference(s) Kishi (US2023/0132014), in view of Matsumoto (US2023/0160723), as cited by the Applicant, do no teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, the amended limitation(s) stated above, that now “clarify that the axis of the rotatable component extends through the center of the flat end face”, of amended independent claims 1, 7, & 14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first section the Examiner would like to highlight is how the prior art reference(s), Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, read(s) on amended independent claims 1, 7, & 14. Kishi discloses magnets 34/35 that possess an outer peripheral surface 343, and flat end faces (surface 341). The magnets are fixed to the flat portion 31(which is perpendicular to the rotation center C1 (axis) in X,Y directions), and their flat end faces are disposed perpendicular to the axis of rotation ([0020]-[0025], [0028], & [0037]-[0038]). Figures 1, 3-4, & 7, further illustrate rectangular magnets with flat end faces perpendicular to their axis, and are not “offset from the axis of rotation C1” as stated by the Applicant in the remarks on pp. 8. The Non-Final OA further mentions/maps these claim limitations in pp. 5, 10, & 15-16.
The second section the Examiner would like to highlight is how in light of the amendments in independent claims 1, 7, & 14, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, in view of Steinich et al. (US2008/0164867), in view of Steinich et al. (US2010/0013466), and further in view of Ausserlechner (US2016/0216132). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, and now in light of new prior art reference(s) Steinich’867, Steinich’466, and Ausserlechner, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, that “clarify that the axis of rotation of the rotatable component extends through the center of the flat end face” limitation(s) for the above stated amendments in independent claims 1, 7, & 14. Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, in view of Steinich’867, in view of Steinich’466, and further in view of Ausserlechner, further disclose and corroborate the additional limitations that have been amended and included in independent claims 1, 7, & 14, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments in regard to “the axis of rotation of the rotatable component…” are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claim 1, dependent claims 2-6, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, amended independent claim 7, dependent claims 8-13, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 7, amended independent claim 14, and dependent claims 15-19, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 14, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference(s) follow.
Applicant in their submitted response, page 8, presents the argument that the prior art reference(s) Kishi (US2023/0132014), in view of Matsumoto (US2023/0160723), and further in view of Yoshiya (US2023/0184565), as cited by the Applicant, do no teach, suggest, and/or disclose individually or in combination, the original and amended limitation(s) stated above, referencing to “Section 2143.03 of the MPEP…” in pp. 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks, further stating the “obviousness“ is not present, in regard to amended independent claims 1, 7, & 14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to break the argument presented into two sections. The first section the Examiner would like to highlight is that the remarks directed to a listing of case law do not provide any specific reasons, just generalizations not tied to the facts of the application, as to why either the findings of fact or legal conclusion of obviousness in the rejection is allegedly in error, please refer to MPEP 2143.02 (I) & (II). As to making a prima facie case of obviousness, upon review, the Examiner’s rejection satisfied the requirements for applying Rationale G in MPEP 2143(I)(G). Thus, the remarks in response to the obviousness rejection do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP 714.02 and are not persuasive. Therefore, rejections for the above listed limitations for independent claims 1, 7, & 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, are maintained.
The second part the Examiner would like to highlight is that the prior art reference(s) Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, in view Yoshiya, in view of Steinich’867, in view of Steinich’466, and further in view of Ausserlechner, in light of the amendments, read(on) amended independent claims 1, 7, & 14, as stated above. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing, and the rejections of amended independent claim 1, dependent claims 2-6, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, amended independent claim 7, dependent claims 8-13, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 7, amended independent claim 14, and dependent claims 15-19, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 14, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference(s) follow.
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 14-19 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.
Claim 14 recites, “a magnetic field of a magnet that will rotate about an axis of rotation…” in ll. 1-2, is not disclosed in the specification or the figures provided, therefore the claim contains new subject matter, not disclosed in the current disclosure(s). The new claim language is part of a method mentioning “a magnetic field of a magnet” that rotates about an axis, neither description provided in the disclosure focus on “…a magnetic field of a magnet that will rotate about an axis of rotation…” which is an important limitation in the methodology. Instead, disclosures mention “a sensor for sensing rotation position of a rotatable component…” and ”a sensor system for sensing rotational position of a rotatable component…”. Claims 15-19 are rejected by virtue of dependence on independent claim 14, which do not rectify the defect.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi et al. (US 2023/0132014 A1, Pub. Date Apr. 27, 2023, hereinafter, Kishi), in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2023/0160723 A1, Pub. Date May 25, 2023, hereinafter, Matsumoto), in view of Steinich et al. (US 2008/0164867 A1, Pub. Date Jul. 10, 2008, hereinafter, Steinich’867), in view of Steinich et al. (US 2010/0013466 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 21, 2010, hereinafter, Steinich’466), and further in view of Ausserlechner (US 2016/0216132 A1, Pub. Date Jul. 28, 2016, hereinafter, Ausserlechner).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kishi teaches:
A sensor for sensing rotational position of a rotatable component that is rotatable about an axis of rotation, comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]: discloses a sensor (magnetic sensor unit 50) that detects the rotational position of a rotatable component (throttle pipe 12) rotating about an axis of rotation (rotation center C1)):
a Hall sensor ([0020]-[0021] & [0025]: magnetic sensor 22 constitutes Hall sensor configured to detect a change of a magnetic field); and
a magnet assembly disposed at a first predetermined distance from the Hall sensor , the magnet assembly comprising (Fig. 1; [0020]-[0025], [0031], [0040], & [Claim 9]: magnet assembly constitutes yoke 30 and magnets 34/35, that faces the sensor and is separated by a spatial gap (predetermined distance)):
a magnet, the magnet having an outer peripheral surface and a flat end face, the flat end face disposed perpendicular to the axis of rotation that extends through a center of the flat end face (Figs. 1, 3-4, & 7; [0020]-[0025], [0028], & [0037]-[0038]: discloses magnets 34/35 (magnet) having a surface 341 (flat end face), an outer surface 343 (outer peripheral surface), and gaps D1/D2, where the flat portion 31, and thus the magnet face, are perpendicular to the rotation center C1 (axis) in X,Y directions, the flat end face perpendicular to the Z-axis or the sensing axis, figures further illustrate rectangular magnets with flat end faces perpendicular to their axis); and
Kishi, in combination with Matsumoto, are silent in regard to:
a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface, the ferromagnetic structure completely surrounding the magnet and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face,
However, Steinich’867, in combination with Steinich’466, further teach:
a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface, the ferromagnetic structure completely surrounding the magnet (Steinich’867: Fig. 2b; [0017]-[0019] & [0095]: teaches a ferromagnetic structure (encoder shielding 101b) that defines an inner peripheral surface that completely surrounds the longitudinal sides of the magnet, Fig. 2b illustrates the shielding extends axially toward the sensor “like a cap”, extending beyond the flat end face of the magnet to overlap the sensor; Steinich’466: [0014], [0048], & [0051]: both Steinich sources teach a tubular or pot shaped flux conductor (ferromagnetic structure) that has an inner peripheral surface, that completely surrounds (concentrically surrounds) the magnet),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor unit of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto, by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic sleeve structure taught by Stenich’867 and Steinich’466, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is provided by both Steinich references. Steinich’867 teaches that utilizing a pot-shaped shielding completely surrounds the longitudinal sides of the magnet and reaches like a cap over the sensor element “serve to cause a coordinated guidance of the use field of the encoder magnet and optimize its flux pattern” while simultaneously guiding “the inevitable scatter portion of this use into this shielding in a targeted manner.” A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the tubular/pot-shaped completely surrounding and extending ferromagnetic geometry of Steinich’867 and Steinich’466 to the Kishi sensor assembly in order to predictably reduce magnetic field scattering, optimize the concentration of the magnetic flux pattern directed at the Hall sensor, and shield the assembly from external magnetic interference, predictably increasing the measurement precision and reliability of the rotational position sensor (KSR).
However, Matsumoto, in combination with Steinich’867, and Steinich’466, further teach:
and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face (Matsumoto: Fig. 55; [0193]-[0195], [0207], [0207], [Claim 4], & [Claim 11]: teaches a yoke 157 having protrusions 168/168, where the height of the protrusions 168 and 169, is higher than the first magnet 151, extending a distance beyond the flat end face; Steinich’867: Fig. 2b; [0017]-[0019] & [0095]; Steinich’466: [0014], [0048], & [0051]: both Steinich sources teach a tubular or pot shaped flux conductor (ferromagnetic structure) that moves forward or past the encoder magnet, extending a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face toward the sensor),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor unit of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto (extending its height beyond the magnet face), by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic sleeve structure taught by Stenich’867 and Steinich’466, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is provided by both Steinich references. Steinich’867 teaches that utilizing a pot-shaped shielding completely surrounds the longitudinal sides of the magnet and reaches like a cap over the sensor element “serve to cause a coordinated guidance of the use field of the encoder magnet and optimize its flux pattern” while simultaneously guiding “the inevitable scatter portion of this use into this shielding in a targeted manner.” Further, Steinich’466 teaches that extending the sleeve-shaped concentrically surrounding flux conductor past the encoder magnet provides a reliable mechanical mechanism for “influencing the field of said encoder magnet”. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the tubular/pot-shaped completely surrounding and extending ferromagnetic geometry of Steinich’867 and Steinich’466, and/or Matsumoto’s height extension beyond the magnet face, to the Kishi/Matsumoto sensor assembly in order to predictably reduce magnetic field scattering, optimize the concentration of the magnetic flux pattern directed at the Hall sensor, reduce angle error, improve the linearity of the magnetic field orientation at the sensor location, and shield the assembly from external magnetic interference, predictably increasing the measurement precision and reliability of the rotational position sensor (KSR).
Kishi, in combination with Matsumoto, Steinich’867, and Steinich’466, are silent in regard to:
wherein:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face;
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face; and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation.
However, Matsumoto, in combination with Steinich’867, and Ausserlechner, further teach:
wherein:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (Matsumoto: Figs. 56-57; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0193]-[0196], & [0201]-[0202]: describes the magnetic vector curvature (field orientation variation) of a magnet structure without the protrusions (yoke extension), the magnet alone exhibits undesirable errors/variation, this would be the first variation; Steinich’867: [0017], [0026], [0072]-[0073], [0110], & [Claim 5]: establishes that the bare magnet has an “inevitable scatter portion” (first variation); Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], & [0115]: teaches engineering proof of designing the magnetic/ferromagnetic assembly to cause the magnetic field gradient (variation) to approach to zero (vanish) at the sensor location);
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (Matsumoto: Fig. 55; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0193]-[0196], & [0201]-[0202]: describes the magnetic vector curvature (field orientation variation) of the assembly with the extended yoke (protrusions) exhibits the second variation (linearized/improved field); Steinich’867: [0017], [0026], [0072]-[0073], [0110], & [Claim 5]: the surrounding sleeve optimizes the flux pattern (second variation); Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], [0092], & [0115]); and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation (Matsumoto: Figs. 56-57; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0128]-[0129], [0190]-[0191], [0193]-[0197], & [0201]-[0202]: compares the two states, stating that with the protrusion (second variation), the “curvature… increases similarly to… the solid-line magnetic vector” (i.e., becomes more linear/accurate), reducing the variation (error) with the extended structure, without the protrusion (first variation), the error is larger; Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], [0056], [0072], [0091], [0115], [0126], & [Claim 6]: teaches the magnetic/ferromagnetic assembly to cause the magnetic field gradient (variation) to approach zero (vanish ) at the sensor location. The assembly drives the variation toward zero, the natural field variation of the magnet (first variation) is greater than the field variation of the shielded assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor unit of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto (extending its height beyond the magnet face), by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic shield extending past the magnet face, as taught by Stenich’867, and to configure the magnetic ferromagnetic geometry to drive the magnetic field variation (gradient) to zero at the sensor location as taught by Ausserlechner, according to known methods. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to apply the surrounding, extending ferromagnetic shield of Steinich’867 to the Kishi/Matsumoto assembly, to capture the bare magnet’s “inevitable scatter” and mathematically reduce the field gradient to zero to make the rotational sensor robust against manufacturing, placement, and alignment tolerances, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]), wherein a magnetic density measured at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face of the magnet assembly (Fig. 3; [0020]-[0025], [0031]-[0032], [0036], [0040], [Claim 1], & [Claim 11]: discloses measuring the magnetic field at a first predetermined distance (gap) from the flat face of the magnets/yoke)
Kishi, is silent in regard to:
remains substantially constant from the center to a predetermined radial distance from the center.
However, Matsumoto, further teaches:
remains substantially constant from the center to a predetermined radial distance from the center (Figs. 3, 55-57, & 62; [0082]-[0083], [0193]-[0196], & [0199]-[0202]: teaches that modifying, extending the ferromagnetic structure/yoke (protrusions) creates a magnetic field profile where the error is minimized (i.e., the field/vector remains consistent/linear) over a wider distance (stroke range) from the center, this equates to the field density/magnetic density (force in mT) remaining “substantially constant” or usable over that predetermined radial distance, Figs. 56-57 illustrate flattened error/field profile indicated by the solid line, Fig. 62 graph shows the Magnetic Force Difference [mT] on the Y-axis remaining flat (constant) across the Stroke Amount (radial distance) on the X-axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the yoke of Kishi’s assembly to include the extending protrusions taught by Matsumoto, to create the specific field profile, constant, linearized density (linearize magnetic field vector to make the magnetic density or vector angle substantially constant or linear), over a wider radial distance/range from the center, yielding predictable results (KBR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]), wherein the inner peripheral surface of the ferromagnetic structure is spaced apart from the outer peripheral surface of the magnet (Figs. 4 & 7; [Abstract], [0003], [0006], [0021]-[0025], [0028], [0031]-[0036] & [Claim 1]: teaches that the receptacle (concave portion 36/inner peripheral surface of ferromagnetic structure) is dimensionally larger than the magnet, the dimensional different creates a space (gap) between the inner surface of the yoke and the outer surface of the magnet 34 (outer peripheral surface), covered by a “resin” mentioned in [0023], therefore the surfaces are “spaced apart” and not in direct touching contact, Fig. 7 depicts the physical spacing (air gap) between the outer edge of the magnets 34/35 and the inner wall of the yoke’s bent portions 32/33).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]), wherein the inner peripheral surface of the ferromagnetic structure contacts the outer peripheral surface of the magnet (Figs. 4 & 6; [0020]-[0022], [0030]-[0031], & [0034]-[0038]: discloses a yoke 30 made of a soft magnetic material (ferromagnetic structure), the yoke 30 includes concave portions 36/37 and bent portions (flanges) that form an inner peripheral space to hold the magnets for positioning, where the wall surface (inner surface of the yoke) is described as being in surface contact with the outer surface of the magnet).
Regarding independent claim 7, Kishi teaches:
A sensor system for sensing rotational position of a rotatable component that is rotatable about a rotational axis (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]: discloses a magnetic sensor unit 50 (sensor system) for detecting “rotational displacement” of a rotor 13/throttle pipe 12 (rotatable component) about a rotation center C1 (rotational axis)), the sensor system comprising (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0018]-[0025]):
a Hall sensor ([0020]-[0021] & [0025]: magnetic sensor 22 constitutes Hall sensor configured to detect a change of a magnetic field); and
a magnet assembly disposed on the rotatable component and at a first predetermined distance from the Hall sensor (Figs. 1 & 3; [0005]-[0006], [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0025], & [Claim 9]: magnet assembly constitutes yoke 30 and magnets 34/35 fixed to the rotor 13/throttle pipe 12 (rotatable component), and are disposed apart from each other (first predetermined distance) from the sensor 22), the magnet assembly comprising (Fig. 1; [0020]-[0025]):
a magnet, the magnet having an outer peripheral surface and a flat end face, the flat end face disposed perpendicular to the rotational axis, the rotational axis extending through a center of the flat end face (Figs. 1, 3-4, & 7; [0020]-[0025], [0028], & [0037]-[0038]: discloses magnets 34/35 (magnet) having a surface 341 (flat end face), an outer surface 343 (outer peripheral surface), and gaps D1/D2, where the flat portion 31, and thus the magnet face, are perpendicular to the rotation center C1 (axis) in X,Y directions, the flat end face perpendicular to the Z-axis or the sensing axis, figures further illustrate rectangular magnets with flat end faces perpendicular to their axis); and
Kishi, in combination with Matsumoto, are silent in regard to:
a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface, the ferromagnetic structure completely surrounding the magnet and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face,
However, Steinich’867, in combination with Steinich’466, further teach:
a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface, the ferromagnetic structure completely surrounding the magnet (Steinich’867: Fig. 2b; [0017]-[0019] & [0095]; Steinich’466: [0014], [0048], & [0051]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor system of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto, by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic sleeve structure taught by Stenich’867 and Steinich’466, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is provided by both Steinich references. Steinich’867 teaches that utilizing a pot-shaped shielding completely surrounds the longitudinal sides of the magnet and reaches like a cap over the sensor element “serve to cause a coordinated guidance of the use field of the encoder magnet and optimize its flux pattern” while simultaneously guiding “the inevitable scatter portion of this use into this shielding in a targeted manner.” A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the tubular/pot-shaped completely surrounding and extending ferromagnetic geometry of Steinich’867 and Steinich’466 to the Kishi/Matsumoto sensor system in order to predictably reduce magnetic field scattering, optimize the concentration of the magnetic flux pattern directed at the Hall sensor, and shield the assembly from external magnetic interference, predictably increasing the measurement precision and reliability of the rotational position sensor (KSR).
However, Matsumoto, in combination with Steinich’867, and Steinich’466, further teach:
and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face (Matsumoto: Fig. 55; [0193]-[0195], [0207], [0207], [Claim 4], & [Claim 11]; Steinich’867: Fig. 2b; [0017]-[0019] & [0095]; Steinich’466: [0014], [0048], & [0051]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor system of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto (extending its height beyond the magnet face), by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic sleeve structure taught by Stenich’867 and Steinich’466, according to known methods. Steinich’867 teaches that utilizing a pot-shaped shielding completely surrounds the longitudinal sides of the magnet and reaches like a cap over the sensor element “serve to cause a coordinated guidance of the use field of the encoder magnet and optimize its flux pattern” while simultaneously guiding “the inevitable scatter portion of this use into this shielding in a targeted manner.” Further, Steinich’466 teaches that extending the sleeve-shaped concentrically surrounding flux conductor past the encoder magnet provides a reliable mechanical mechanism for “influencing the field of said encoder magnet”. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the tubular/pot-shaped completely surrounding and extending ferromagnetic geometry of Steinich’867 and Steinich’466, and/or Matsumoto’s height extension beyond the magnet face, to the Kishi/Matsumoto sensor system in order to predictably reduce magnetic field scattering, optimize the concentration of the magnetic flux pattern directed at the Hall sensor, reduce angle error, improve the linearity of the magnetic field orientation at the sensor location, capture magnetic scattering, and shield the assembly from external magnetic interference, predictably improving the measurement precision and reliability of the assembly against external interference (KSR).
Kishi, in combination with Matsumoto, Steinich’867, and Steinich’466, are silent in regard to:
wherein:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face;
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face; and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation.
However, Matsumoto, in combination with Steinich’867, and Ausserlechner, further teach:
wherein:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (Matsumoto: Figs. 56-57; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0193]-[0196], & [0201]-[0202]; Steinich’867: [0017], [0026], [0072]-[0073], [0110], & [Claim 5]; Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], & [0115]);
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (Matsumoto: Fig. 55; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0193]-[0196], & [0201]-[0202]: describes the magnetic vector curvature (field orientation variation) of the assembly with the extended yoke (protrusions) exhibits the second variation (linearized/improved field); Steinich’867: [0017], [0026], [0072]-[0073], [0110], & [Claim 5]: the surrounding sleeve optimizes the flux pattern (second variation); Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], [0092], & [0115]); and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation (Matsumoto: Figs. 56-57; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0128]-[0129], [0190]-[0191], [0193]-[0197], & [0201]-[0202]; Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], [0056], [0072], [0091], [0115], [0126], & [Claim 6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor system of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto (extending its height beyond the magnet face), by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic shield extending past the magnet face, as taught by Stenich’867, and to configure the magnetic ferromagnetic geometry to drive the magnetic field variation (gradient) to zero at the sensor location as taught by Ausserlechner, according to known methods. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to apply the surrounding, extending ferromagnetic shield of Steinich’867 to the Kishi/Matsumoto assembly, to capture the bare magnet’s “inevitable scatter” and mathematically reduce the field gradient to zero to make the rotational sensor system robust against manufacturing, placement, and alignment tolerances, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Kishi teaches:
The sensor system of claim 7 (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]), further comprising:
Kishi, is silent in regard to:
a processing circuit coupled to receive a sensor signal from the Hall sensor, the sensor signal indicative of the rotational position of the rotatable component, the processing circuit configured to process the sensor signal to thereby determine the rotational position of the rotatable component.
However, Matsumoto, further teaches:
a processing circuit coupled to receive (Fig. 6; [0092]-[0096], [0103], & [0105]: discloses a signal processing section 112 and an ECU 200 (processing circuit) that are electrically connected to the sensor) a sensor signal from the Hall sensor (Fig. 6; [0092]-[0096], [0098]-[0102], & [0109]: processor acquires detection signals (sine/cosine) from the detector), the sensor signal indicative of the rotational position of the rotatable component (Fig. 6; [0102]-[0103] & [0105]-[0106]), the processing circuit configured to process the sensor signal to thereby determine the rotational position of the rotatable component (Fig. 6; [0102]-[0103], [0105]-[0106], [0109]-[0110], & [0112]-[0115]: processor calculates the position (e.g., via arctangent calculation) based on the received signals, Fig. 6 is a block diagram showing the signal processing unit 120 and ECU 200 coupled to the Detection unit 109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the processing circuit, such as the signal processor or ECU, taught by Matsumoto into the sensor system of Kishi, to convert the raw analog magnetic field changes detected by Kishi’s magnetic sensor 22 (Hall sensor) into a digital or calculated rotational position value that can be used for the engine control described by Kishi in paragraph [0025], yielding predictable results (KBR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 7 (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0017]-[0025], & [Claim 10]), wherein a magnetic density measured within at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face of the magnet assembly (Fig. 3; [0020]-[0025], [0031]-[0032], [0036], [0040], [Claim 1], & [Claim 11]: discloses measuring the magnetic field at a first predetermined distance (gap) from the flat face of the magnets/yoke)
Kishi, is silent in regard to:
remains substantially constant from the center to a predetermined radial distance from the center.
However, Matsumoto, further teaches:
remains substantially constant from the center to a predetermined radial distance from the center (Figs. 3, 55-57, & 62; [0082]-[0083], [0193]-[0196], & [0199]-[0202]: teaches that modifying, extending the ferromagnetic structure/yoke (protrusions) creates a magnetic field profile where the error is minimized (i.e., the field/vector remains consistent/linear) over a wider distance (stroke range) from the center, this equates to the field density/magnetic density (force in mT) remaining “substantially constant” or usable over that predetermined radial distance, Figs. 56-57 illustrate flattened error/field profile indicated by the solid line, Fig. 62 graph shows the Magnetic Force Difference [mT] on the Y-axis remaining flat (constant) across the Stroke Amount (radial distance) on the X-axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor unit of Kishi’s assembly by incorporating the extending protrusions (mounting portion/protrusions) and magnetic field distribution characteristics taught by Matsumoto, further teaching a position sensor, which can be rotational (Fig. 3; [0082]) where the yoke features are used to relieve magnetic saturation and ensure the magnetic flux density (measured in mT) remains “almost constant throughout the stroke range to create” (Fig. 62; [0202]), to improve detection accuracy and linearity across the rotational range ([0074-[0077]) over a wider radial distance/range from the center, yielding predictable results (KBR).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Kishi teaches:
The sensor system of claim 7 (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0017]-[0025], & [Claim 10]), wherein the inner peripheral surface of the ferromagnetic structure is spaced apart from the outer peripheral surface of the magnet (Figs. 4 & 7; [Abstract], [0003], [0006], [0021]-[0025], [0028], [0031]-[0036] & [Claim 1]: teaches that the receptacle (concave portion 36/inner peripheral surface of ferromagnetic structure) is dimensionally larger than the magnet, the dimensional different creates a space (gap) between the inner surface of the yoke and the outer surface of the magnet 34 (outer peripheral surface), covered by a “resin” mentioned in [0023], therefore the surfaces are “spaced apart” and not in direct touching contact, Fig. 7 depicts the physical spacing (air gap) between the outer edge of the magnets 34/35 and the inner wall of the yoke’s bent portions 32/33).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Kishi teaches:
The sensor system of claim 7 (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0017]-[0025], & [Claim 10]), wherein the inner peripheral surface of the ferromagnetic structure contacts the outer peripheral surface of the magnet (Figs. 4 & 6; [0020]-[0022], [0030]-[0031], & [0034]-[0038]: discloses a yoke 30 made of a soft magnetic material (ferromagnetic structure), the yoke 30 includes concave portions 36/37 and bent portions (flanges) that form an inner peripheral space to hold the magnets for positioning, where the wall surface (inner surface of the yoke) is described as being in surface contact with the outer surface of the magnet).
Regarding independent claim 14, Kishi, in combination with Steinich’867, teach:
A method for straightening the magnetic field of a magnet that will rotate about an axis of rotation of a component, the method comprising the steps of (Kishi: Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0007], & [0017]-[0026]: discloses a method of assembling a magnetic sensor unit, which results in modifying the magnetic field, discloses a component (throttle pipe 12) rotating about an axis (C1) with a magnet; Steinich’867: [Abstract], [0017]-[0020], & [0095]: teaches the method of guiding and optimizing (straightening) the magnetic field of the rotating magnet):
providing a magnet, the magnet having an outer peripheral surface and a flat end face, the flat end face disposed perpendicular to the axis of rotation that extends through a center of the flat end face (Figs. 1, 3-4, & 7; [0020]-[0025], [0028], & [0037]-[0038]: teaches providing magnets 34/35 with outer peripheral surfaces (outer surface 343) and flat end faces (surface 341), fixed to a flat portion 31 perpendicular to the rotation center C1 (axis) in X,Y directions, the flat end face perpendicular to the Z-axis or the sensing axis, figures further illustrate rectangular magnets with flat end faces perpendicular to their axis);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor unit of Kishi, by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, pot-shaped ferromagnetic shielding taught by Steinich’867, which extends beyond the front face of the magnet toward the sensor like a cap, according to known methods. Steinich’867 teaches that utilizing this completely surrounding, extending shielding serves as a flux conductor to “cause a coordinated guidance of the use field of the encoder magnet and optimize its flux pattern”, while simultaneously acting to “guide the inevitable scatter portion of this use field into this shielding in a targeted manner”. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to apply the pot-shaped completely surrounding, and extending ferromagnetic shield of Steinich’867 to the rotational sensor assembly of Kishi, in order to predictably capture and guide magnetic field scattering, optimize the concentration of the magnetic flux directed at the sensor, and shield the assembly from external magnetic interference, predictably increasing the measurement precision and reliability of the position sensor, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Kishi, in combination with Matsumoto, are silent in regard to:
providing a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface; and
completely surrounding the magnet with the ferromagnetic structure such that the ferromagnetic structure (i) is fixedly mounted relative to the magnet and (ii) extends a first predetermined distance beyond the flat end face, to thereby produce a magnet assembly,
However, Steinich’867, in combination with Steinich’466, further teach:
providing a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface (Steinich’867: Fig. 2b; [0017]-[0019] & [0095]; Steinich’466: [0014], [0048], & [0051]); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor method of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto, by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic sleeve structure taught by Stenich’867 and Steinich’466, according to known methods. Steinich’867 teaches that utilizing a pot-shaped shielding completely surrounds the longitudinal sides of the magnet and reaches like a cap over the sensor element “serve to cause a coordinated guidance of the use field of the encoder magnet and optimize its flux pattern” while simultaneously guiding “the inevitable scatter portion of this use into this shielding in a targeted manner.” A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the tubular/pot-shaped completely surrounding and extending ferromagnetic geometry of Steinich’867 and Steinich’466 to the Kishi/Matsumoto sensing method in order to predictably reduce magnetic field scattering, optimize the concentration of the magnetic flux pattern, and shield the assembly from external magnetic interference, predictably increasing the measurement precision and reliability of the rotational position sensor (KSR).
However, Kishi, in combination with Matsumoto, Steinich’867, and Steinich’466, further teach:
completely surrounding the magnet with the ferromagnetic structure such that the ferromagnetic structure (i) is fixedly mounted relative to the magnet (Kishi: Fig. 4; [0007], [0020]-[0025], [0034], & [0037]-[0038]: teaches step (i) where the ferromagnetic structure (yoke 30) and magnets are fixedly mounted relative to each other (both fixed to the rotor); Steinich’867: Fig. 2b; [0017]-[0019] & [0095]; Steinich’466: [0014], [0048], & [0051]) and (ii) extends a first predetermined distance beyond the flat end face, to thereby produce a magnet assembly (Kishi: Fig. 4; [0007], [0020]-[0025], [0034], & [0037]-[0038]; Matsumoto: Figs. 56-57; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0193]-[0196] & [0201]-[0202]: describes the magnetic vector curvature (field orientation variation) of a magnet structure without the protrusions (yoke extension), the magnet alone exhibits undesirable errors/variation, this would be the first variation; Steinich’867: Fig. 2b; [0017]-[0019] & [0095]: further teaches extending the shielding over the front end (beyond the flat end face) like a cap to produce the final assembly), wherein:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor assembly of Kishi/Matsumoto, by replacing the step of applying an open yoke with the step of completely surrounding the magnet with the extending “tubular” or “pot-shaped” ferromagnetic sleeve taught by Steinich’867 and Steinich’466, according to known methods. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize the concentration of the magnetic flux pattern directed at the sensor and capture magnetic scattering (i.e., to straighten the field), predictably improving the measurement precision and magnetic shielding of the final rotating component, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Kishi, in combination with Matsumoto, Steinich’867, and Steinich’466, are silent in regard to:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at the flat end face;
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at the flat end face; and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation.
However, Matsumoto, in combination with Steinich’867, and Ausserlechner, further teach:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at the flat end face (Matsumoto: Figs. 56-57; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0193]-[0196] & [0201]-[0202]; Steinich’867: [0017], [0026], [0072]-[0073], [0110], & [Claim 5]; Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], & [0115]);
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at the flat end face (Matsumoto: Fig. 55; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0193]-[0196], & [0201]-[0202]; Steinich’867: [0017], [0026], [0072]-[0073], [0110], & [Claim 5]; Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], [0092], & [0115]); and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation (Matsumoto: Figs. 56-57; [0071]-[0073], [0077], [0128]-[0129], [0190]-[0191], [0193]-[0197], & [0201]-[0202]; Ausserlechner: [0038]-[0039], [0054], [0056], [0072], [0091], [0115], [0126], & [Claim 6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic sensor method of Kishi, as modified by Matsumoto (extending its height beyond the magnet face), by replacing Kishi’s partially covering yoke with the completely surrounding, extending tubular or pot-shaped ferromagnetic shield extending past the magnet face, as taught by Stenich’867, and to configure the magnetic ferromagnetic geometry to drive the magnetic field variation (gradient) to zero at the sensor location as taught by Ausserlechner, according to known methods. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to apply the surrounding, extending ferromagnetic shield of Steinich’867 to the Kishi/Matsumoto assembly, to capture the bare magnet’s “inevitable scatter” and mathematically reduce the field gradient to zero to make the rotational sensor system robust against manufacturing, placement, and alignment tolerances, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Kishi teaches:
The method of claim 14 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0007], & [0017]-[0026]), wherein the inner peripheral surface of the ferromagnetic structure is spaced apart from the outer peripheral surface of the magnet (Figs. 4 & 7; [Abstract], [0003], [0006], [0021]-[0025], [0028], [0031]-[0036] & [Claim 1]: teaches that the receptacle (concave portion 36/inner peripheral surface of ferromagnetic structure) is dimensionally larger than the magnet, the dimensional different creates a space (gap) between the inner surface of the yoke and the outer surface of the magnet 34 (outer peripheral surface), covered by a “resin” mentioned in [0023], therefore the surfaces are “spaced apart” and not in direct touching contact, Fig. 7 depicts the physical spacing (air gap) between the outer edge of the magnets 34/35 and the inner wall of the yoke’s bent portions 32/33).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Kishi teaches:
The method of claim 14 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0007], & [0017]-[0026]), wherein the inner peripheral surface of the ferromagnetic structure contacts the outer peripheral surface of the magnet (Figs. 4 & 6; [0020]-[0022], [0030]-[0031], & [0034]-[0038]: discloses a yoke 30 made of a soft magnetic material (ferromagnetic structure), the yoke 30 includes concave portions 36/37 and bent portions (flanges) that form an inner peripheral space to hold the magnets for positioning, where the wall surface (inner surface of the yoke) is described as being in surface contact with the outer surface of the magnet).
Claims 3-4, 10-11, & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, in view of Yoshiya et al. (US 2023/0184565 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 15, 2023, hereinafter Yoshiya), in view of Steinich’867, in view of Steinich’466, and further in view of Ausserlechner.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]),
Kishi, and Matsumoto, in combination, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is circular.
However, Yoshiya, further teaches:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is circular (Figs. 1, 4, & 6B; [0012], [0021]-[0024], [0036], [0046], [0080]-[0081], [0084], [0087], [0122], [0144]-[0145], [0150]-[0151], [0178], [0184], & [Claim 18]: teaches a ring magnet with an outer diameter, with a circular (annular) end face, figures illustrate the magnet 101/60 as a circular ring with a flat top/bottom end face).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet of Kishi’s assembly, as modified by Matsumoto, substituting the rectangular magnets with the circular (ring-shaped or disc-shaped) configuration taught by Yoshiya, to accommodate different mounting requirements (e.g., mounting around a shaft) or to achieve a rotationally symmetric magnetic field, which is a common design consideration in magnetic sensors, where the selection of a magnet’s shape (circular, rectangular, square, etc.) is a routine design choice dependent on the mechanical interface and the desired symmetry of the magnetic flux distribution, that would facilitate and optimize assembly around the rotational axis (handlebar/shaft) symmetry, and yield the expected predictable results (KBR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 1 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[0025]: discloses a rectangular-shaped magnet, where a square is a rectangle with equal width and length),
Kishi, and Matsumoto, in combination, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is square.
However, Yoshiya, further teaches:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is square (Figs. 1 & 12; [0021]-[0024] [0027], [0036], [0046], [0080]-[0081], [0084], [0087], [0097], [0122], [0144]-[0145], [0150]-[0151], [0178], [0181], & [Claim 18]: teaches a ring magnet with an outer diameter, with a circular (annular) end face, also discloses that the “through opening” can be a “circular cross-section, or a regular polygon, e.g. an equilateral triangle, a square, a pentagon, or a hexagon, an octagon, etc.”, where the shape of the magnet can vary and would be a matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rectangular magnet of Kishi’s assembly to have a square end face, selecting a specific rectangular proportion (square vs. oblong) would be a matter of routine choice that would optimize the magnet’s footprint within the sensor housing and to provide symmetric flux distribution, where a square is a rectangle with equilateral sides, where a rectangular genus renders the square species obvious as a matter of design choice, and Yoshiya teaches that magnet shape variations are possible, to achieve specific flux distribution or packaging requirements, yielding expected predictable results (KBR), and since it has been held that omission of an element (square magnet) and its function in a combination where the remaining element (rectangular magnet) perform the same functions involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 7 (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0017]-[0025], & [Claim 10]),
Kishi, and Matsumoto, in combination, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is circular.
However, Yoshiya, further teaches:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is circular (Figs. 1, 4, & 6B; [0012], [0021]-[0024], [0036], [0046], [0080]-[0081], [0084], [0087], [0122], [0144]-[0145], [0150]-[0151], [0178], [0184], & [Claim 18]: teaches a ring magnet with an outer diameter, with a circular (annular) end face, figures illustrate the magnet 101/60 as a circular ring with a flat top/bottom end face).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet of Kishi’s assembly, as modified by Matsumoto, substituting the rectangular magnets with the circular (ring-shaped or disc-shaped) configuration taught by Yoshiya, to accommodate different mounting requirements (e.g., mounting around a shaft) or to achieve a rotationally symmetric magnetic field, which is a common design consideration in magnetic position sensors, where the selection of a magnet’s shape (circular, rectangular, square, etc.) is a routine design choice dependent on the mechanical interface and the desired symmetry of the magnetic flux distribution, and to facilitate and optimize assembly around the rotational axis (handlebar/shaft) symmetry, yielding the expected predictable results (KBR).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 7 (Figs. 1-3; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0017]-[0025], & [Claim 10]: discloses a rectangular-shaped magnet, where a square is a rectangle with equal width and length),
Kishi, and Matsumoto, in combination, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is square.
However, Yoshiya, further teaches:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is square (Figs. 1 & 12; [0021]-[0024], [0027], [0036], [0046], [0080]-[0081], [0084], [0087], [0097], [0122], [0144]-[0145], [0150]-[0151], [0178], [0181], & [Claim 18]: teaches a ring magnet with an outer diameter, with a circular (annular) end face, also discloses that the “through opening” can be a “circular cross-section, or a regular polygon, e.g. an equilateral triangle, a square, a pentagon, or a hexagon, an octagon, etc.”, where the shape of the magnet can vary and would be a matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rectangular magnet of Kishi’s assembly to have a square end face, selecting a specific rectangular proportion (square vs. oblong) would be a matter of routine choice that would optimize the magnet’s footprint within the sensor housing and to provide symmetric flux distribution, where a square is a rectangle with equilateral sides, where a rectangular genus renders the square species obvious as a matter of design choice, and Yoshiya teaches that magnet shape variations are possible, to achieve specific flux distribution or packaging requirements, yielding expected predictable results (KBR), and since it has been held that omission of an element (square magnet) and its function in a combination where the remaining element (rectangular magnet) perform the same functions involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 14 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0007] & [0017]-[0026]),
Kishi, and Matsumoto, in combination, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is circular.
However, Yoshiya, further teaches:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is circular (Figs. 1, 4, & 6B; [0012], [0021]-[0024], [0036], [0046], [0080]-[0081], [0084], [0087], [0122], [0144]-[0145], [0150]-[0151], [0178], [0184], & [Claim 18]: teaches a ring magnet with an outer diameter, with a circular (annular) end face, figures illustrate the magnet 101/60 as a circular ring with a flat top/bottom end face).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnet of Kishi’s assembly, as modified by Matsumoto, substituting the rectangular magnets with the circular (ring-shaped or disc-shaped) configuration taught by Yoshiya, according to known methods. To accommodate different mounting requirements (e.g., mounting around a shaft) or to achieve a rotationally symmetric magnetic field, which is a common design consideration in magnetic position sensors, where the selection of a magnet’s shape (circular, rectangular, square, etc.) is a routine design choice dependent on the mechanical interface and the desired symmetry of the magnetic flux distribution, and to facilitate and optimize assembly around the rotational axis (handlebar/shaft) symmetry, yielding the expected predictable results (KBR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Kishi teaches:
The sensor of claim 14 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0007] & [0017]-[0026]),
Kishi, and Matsumoto, in combination, are silent in regard to:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is square.
However, Yoshiya, further teaches:
wherein the flat end face of the magnet is square (Figs. 1 & 12; [0021]-[0024], [0027], [0036], [0046], [0080]-[0081], [0084], [0087], [0097], [0122], [0144]-[0145], [0150]-[0151], [0178], [0181], & [Claim 18]: teaches a ring magnet with an outer diameter, with a circular (annular) end face, also discloses that the “through opening” can be a “circular cross-section, or a regular polygon, e.g. an equilateral triangle, a square, a pentagon, or a hexagon, an octagon, etc.”, where the shape of the magnet can vary and would be a matter of design choice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rectangular magnet of Kishi’s assembly to have a square end face, selecting a specific rectangular proportion (square vs. oblong) would be a matter of routine choice that would optimize the magnet’s footprint within the sensor housing and to provide symmetric flux distribution, where a square is a rectangle with equilateral sides, where a rectangular genus renders the square species obvious as a matter of design choice, and Yoshiya teaches that magnet shape variations are possible, to achieve specific flux distribution or packaging requirements, yielding expected predictable results (KBR), and since it has been held that omission of an element (square magnet) and its function in a combination where the remaining element (rectangular magnet) perform the same functions involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963), In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi, in view of Matsumoto, in view of Johnson et al. (US 2004/0008025 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 15, 2004, hereinafter Johnson), in view of Steinich’867, in view of Steinich’466, and further in view of Ausserlechner.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Kishi teaches:
The method of claim 14 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0007], & [0017]-[0026],
Kishi, and Matsumoto, in combination, are silent in regard to:
wherein:
a first magnetic density measured at a second predetermined distance from the flat end face of the magnet decreases radially outwardly, in a continuous and non-linear manner, from a first maximum magnitude at the center, and
a second magnetic density measured at the second predetermined distance from the flat end face of the magnet assembly remains substantially constant from the center to a predetermined radial distance from the center.
However, Johnson, further teaches:
wherein:
a first magnetic density measured at a second predetermined distance from the flat end face of the magnet decreases radially outwardly, in a continuous and non-linear manner, from a first maximum magnitude at the center (Figs. 1, 3, & 5; [Abstract], [0001], [0003]-[0005], [0008]-[0011], [0021]-[0022], [0031], [0034]-[0036], [0038], [0040]-[0041], [0044], [0046]-[0047], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], [Claim 19], & [Claim 31]: discloses the ”first magnetic density”, stating the flux density of the magnets is at a maximum at the center and decreases towards edges in a continuous, non-linear manner (refer to figures) from a first magnitude), and
a second magnetic density measured at the second predetermined distance from the flat end face of the magnet assembly remains substantially constant from the center to a predetermined radial distance from the center (Figs. 1, 3, & 5; [Abstract], [0001], [0003]-[0004], [0022], [0031], [0034], & [0040]: teaches achieving a substantially linear magnetic flux density profile along a spatial dimension/predetermined distance (air gap length)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply by combination, the field straightening structure taught by Matsumoto (teaches a method for straightening the magnetic field by providing a ferromagnetic yoke with protrusions that extend beyond the magnet face), to the magnet assembly of Kishi, where both Matsumoto and Johnson teach a first and second magnetic density, and Johnson further teaches flux density is at a maximum at the center and decreases radially outwardly in a continuous and non-linear manner. Johnson also teaches a second magnetic density that achieves a substantially linear magnetic flux density along a spatial dimension/predetermined distance (air gap length). Matsumoto also teaches a second magnetic density that is substantially constant (linearized) over a predetermined radial distance (stroke range), thus the combination of prior art references would linearize the magnetic field and ensure the magnetic density sensed by the Hall sensor remains constant over the operational range, and yield expected predictable results (KBR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Honda et al. (US2014/0103911A1) discloses a rotation angle detection device.
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-5:00 pm MST.
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 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 01, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights