DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the communication filed 6/26/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on page 4-5 directed towards JP 2022-158932 (‘932),
Applicant argues that the above reference does not disclose the feature of having a wiring with an area with magnetic detection elements arranged both inside and outside that area. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not claim such a feature. Applicant instead claims that “a portion” of the elements from the arrays are located inside or outside an “outline” of the wiring layer, and where the outline is the boundaries of the wiring layer. This scope is not the same as that which is argued.
Second, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant, as the prior art does disclose the argued claim feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
359
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen in the above figure, the overall outline of the wiring of the wiring layer is such that a portion of both the first and second magnetic element arrays are within and outside this outline, and thus the prior art reasonably discloses this feature. The above box reasonably represents the extend of the wiring of the entire wiring layer.
Even if the wiring were considered limited to the specific arrays for each sensor, the prior art would still disclose such a feature, because the wiring for each individual sensor is such that the elements have portions within and outside the outline of any wiring as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
359
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lastly, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claim features being argued are entirely conditional, in that the entirety of how the detection elements are related to any wiring outline are “when viewed in the plane-normal direction” as seen in the last paragraph. There is no requirement that the prior device be viewed in this direction, and the prior art would also disclose the claim feature when it is not viewed in the plane-normal direction, because this condition is not invoked.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2022-158932 (‘932).
Note that the cited paragraphs for this reference come from the provided English machine translation.
PNG
media_image3.png
359
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
368
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
359
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
‘932 discloses A magnetic sensor device comprising: a plurality of magnetic detection element arrays formed in a first layer (Figures 21 and 23 / note Figure 21 is relied upon solely to show a cross section for how the sensor elements are connected), (Paragraph [0095] / note the array of elements are indicated by element (2)); and a wiring layer (3,4) that is formed in a second layer different from the first layer and electrically connected to the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays (Figures 21,23), (Paragraphs [0087],[0096]), the wiring layer has an outline that defines boundaries of the wiring layer (see above figures), wherein the plurality of magnetic detection element arrays include a first magnetic detection element array (20a) and a second magnetic detection element array (20b) (Figure 23), and the first magnetic detection element array and the second magnetic detection element array are each configured of the same number of magnetic detection elements (Figure 23), and in a plane-normal direction from the second layer to the first layer, the number of magnetic detection elements of the first magnetic detection element array overlapping an outline of the wiring layer is substantially the same as the number of magnetic detection elements of the second magnetic detection element array overlapping the outline of the wiring layer (Figure 23 / note the sensor elements are overlapped by the wiring layer in the same way and by the same amount for both array 20a and array 20b), when viewed in the plane-normal direction, a portion of the magnetic detection elements of the first magnetic detection element array and a portion of the magnetic detection elements of the second magnetic detection element array are arranged inside the outline of the wiring layer (see above figures / note that both sensor element arrays have portions inside and outside the outline defined by the wiring layer, and further note that this feature is conditional, and there is no requirement that the any view occur “when viewed in the plane-normal direction” as expressly claimed), and another portion of the magnetic detection elements of the first magnetic detection element array and another portion of the magnetic detection elements of the second magnetic detection element array are arranged outside the outline of the wiring layer (see above figures / note that both sensor element arrays have portions inside and outside the outline defined by the wiring layer, and further note that this feature is conditional, and there is no requirement that the any view occur “when viewed in the plane-normal direction” as expressly claimed).
As to Claim 2,
‘932 discloses the first magnetic detection element array and the second magnetic detection element array are connected in series to each other (Figure 23 / note the elements are connected in the same manner as applicant and therefore must be in series) , with an output port (43) being interposed therebetween to form part of a bridge circuit (Figure 23)
As to Claim 4,
‘932 discloses An angle sensor comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0091]), (Figure 23 / note the intent of this device is as an angle sensor, and further that because the device is reasonably capable of functioning as an angle sensor as it discloses all of the structural elements of the claim, it is reasonably an angle sensor).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights