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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “a magnet assembly disposed a first predetermined distance…”, on line 1, recommend modifying to read, “a magnet assembly disposed on a first predetermined distance…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 & 7-19 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.
Claims 2 & 9 recite the limitation "the magnet assembly remains substantially constant from the center…" in ll. 2-3, where the term “substantially” is considered indefinite in the claim limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the magnet assembly disposed on…” in line 4, without prior disclosure. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this claim limitation as “a magnet assembly disposed on…”. Claims 8-13 are also rejected by virtue of dependency on independent claim 7, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “A method for straightening the magnetic field of a magnet,” in line 1, without prior disclosure. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this claim limitation as “A method for straightening a magnetic field of a magnet,”. Claims 15-19 are also rejected by virtue of dependency on independent claim 14, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the magnet assembly remains substantially constant from the center…" in line 6, where the term “substantially” is considered indefinite in the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 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).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kishi teaches:
A sensor, comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0006], & [0017]-[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 a first predetermined distance from the Hall sensor (Fig. 1; [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0025], & [Claim 9]: magnet assembly constitutes yoke 30 and magnets 34/35), 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 an axis 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
a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface, the ferromagnetic structure surrounding the magnet (Fig. 4; [0020]-[0025], [0034], & [0037]-[0038]: the yoke 30 (ferromagnetic structure) made of soft magnetic material, where the yoke has concave portions 36 with a wall surface 384 (inner peripheral surface) that surrounds/contacts the magnet within the concave portion)
Kishi, is silent in regard to:
and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face, 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, further teaches:
and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face (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), wherein:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (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);
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (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)); and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second
variation in magnetic field orientation (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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the yoke of Kishi, which already surrounds the magnet, by extending its height beyond the magnet face, as taught by Matsumoto, to achieve the benefit of improved detection accuracy of the sensor and magnetic field linearization, reduce angular error, improving the linearity of the magnetic field orientation at the sensor location, preventing magnetic saturation, and ensuring magnetic difference is almost constant, and yielding predictable results (KBR).
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 30 (sensor system)for detecting “rotational displacement” of a rotor 13 (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
the 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 (rotatable component), and are disposed apart from each other (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
a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface, the ferromagnetic structure surrounding the magnet (Fig. 4; [0020]-[0025], [0034], & [0037]-[0038]: the yoke 30 (ferromagnetic structure) made of soft magnetic material, where the yoke has concave portions 36 with a wall surface 384 (inner peripheral surface) that surrounds/contacts the magnet within the concave portion)
Kishi, is silent in regard to:
and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face, 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, further teaches:
and extending, toward the Hall sensor, a second predetermined distance beyond the flat end face (Fig. 55; [0193]-[0195], [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), wherein:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (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);
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at least at the first predetermined distance from the flat end face (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)); and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation (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).
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, which already surrounds the magnet, by extending beyond the magnet face, as taught by Matsumoto, to achieve the benefit of improved detection accuracy of the sensor, shape the magnetic field linearization, reduce angular error, improving the linearity of the magnetic field orientation at the sensor location, preventing magnetic saturation and ensuring magnetic difference is almost contact, and yielding predictable results (KBR).
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 teaches:
A method for straightening the magnetic field of a magnet, the method comprising the steps of (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001], [0005]-[0007], & [0017]-[0026]: discloses a method of assembling a magnetic sensor unit, which results in modifying the magnetic field):
providing a magnet, the magnet having an outer peripheral surface and a flat end face, the flat end face disposed perpendicular to an axis 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);
providing a ferromagnetic structure having an inner peripheral surface (Fig. 4; [0020]-[0025], [0034], & [0037]-[0038]: the yoke 30 (ferromagnetic structure) made of soft magnetic material, where the yoke has concave portions 36 with a wall surface 384 (inner peripheral surface)); and
surrounding the magnet with the ferromagnetic structure such that the ferromagnetic structure (i) is fixedly mounted relative to the magnet (Fig. 4; [0007], [0020]-[0025], [0034], & [0037]-[0038]: the yoke 30 (ferromagnetic structure) made of soft magnetic material, where the yoke has concave portions 36 with a wall surface 384 (inner peripheral surface) that surrounds/contacts the magnet within the concave portion)
Kishi, is silent in regard to:
and (ii) extends a first predetermined distance beyond the flat end face, to thereby produce a magnet assembly, wherein:
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, further teaches:
and (ii) extends a first predetermined distance beyond the flat end face, to thereby produce a magnet assembly (Fig. 55; [0193]-[0195], [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 the yoke height beyond the flat end face of the magnet), wherein:
the magnet exhibits a first variation in magnetic field orientation at the flat end face (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),
the magnet assembly exhibits a second variation in magnetic field orientation at the flat end face (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)), and
the first variation in magnetic field orientation is greater than the second variation in magnetic field orientation (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).
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, which already surrounds the magnet, by extending beyond the magnet face, as taught by Matsumoto, to achieve the benefit of improved detection accuracy of the sensor (straightening or uniform effect on the magnetic field), shape the magnetic field linearization, reduce angular error, improving the linearity of the magnetic field orientation at the sensor location, preventing magnetic saturation and ensures magnetic difference is almost constant, and yielding predictable results (KBR).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Kishi teaches:
The sensor system 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 sensor system 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, and further in view of Yoshiya et al. (US 2023/0184565 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 15, 2023, hereinafter Yoshiya).
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, 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, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2004/0008025 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 15, 2004, hereinafter Johnson).
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, and 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 yielded expected predictable results (KBR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Vig et al. (US5781005) discloses a hall-effect ferromagnetic-article-proximity sensor adapted to sense a ferromagnetic object. Schmitt et al. (US2022/0308132A1) discloses a magnetic sensor system. Franke et al. (US2018/0031391A1) discloses a measuring system for determining the position of a transducer and at least one magnetic field sensor.
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 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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 01/28/2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 1/28/2026