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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
The information disclosure statement filed 8/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
DE 19539458 A1 has not been considered. No statement of relevance in English has been provided for this reference.
JP 09-166612 A1, JP H02-116753 A1, DE 2518054, JP 11-064363, JP 08-097486 A, JP H06-273437, JP 63-300911, JP H03-29817, and EP 0898180 have not been considered. While a statement of relevance for these documents was provided, the actual documents have not been provided with all figures. As such, these documents have not been considered.
JP 363-084176 and JP 363-263782 have not been considered as no foreign document with either number have been provided.
WO 2006/056829, the 46 page Response (with Amended Claims) to European Examination Report dated June 29,2021 for European Application 19192640.1, the 1 page 21st Century Letter dated March 14,2019, the 2 page DCMD Instruction Letter dated February 13, 2019, the 23 page Response to Notices of Reasons for Refusal dated June 16, 2022, has not been considered as the document was not provided.
The International report on Patentability dated November 2, 2023 for PCT application No. PCT/US2022/020107 has not been considered because no document with this date has been provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claims 1, 17, and 23,
The term “further” on line 7 of Claim 1, line 4 of Claim 17, and line 9 of Claim 23 is objected to for containing a typographical issue. As best understood, applicant meant to use the term “farther” instead of “further,” as the “farther” is directed towards physical distances. The claim term is being interpreted to mean “farther.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 15,
PNG
media_image1.png
570
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “the target rotates around a rotation axis, and the sensor device is positioned so that the rotation axis passes through the sensor device” on lines 1-2 lacks proper written description.
Claim 1 requires that there are two sensor clusters, with one sensor cluster farther from the target than the other sensor cluster (see lines 6-8). While the manner in which such a feature is implemented with regard to Figure 1B, the manner in which applicant implements such a feature in Figure 1A, as seen in the above. The above figure shows the sensor device positioned on the rotation axis, and is the only disclosed way that applicant implements such a feature. However, while applicant discloses sensor clusters that are side by side, when placing sensor cluster side by side in chip 133 seen above, all sensors from all clusters will be at the same axial distance from the target (115) at all times. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant implements sensor clusters at different distances from the target when the sensor device is positioned so that the rotation axis passes through the sensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements such a claim feature to reasonable demonstrate possession of the claim feature.
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “the target comprises a ring magnet with magnetic pole pairs” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Claim 1 is directed towards “A sensor device for sensing a magnetic field generated by a target,” and where applicant demonstrates an example sensor device as seen in Figure 2A. This sensor device does not include the target being sensed, and it does not include the magnetic field being detected. Instead, it includes the mechanism used for sensing the target, as explicitly disclosed in the preamble of Claim 1. As such, the claims are directed towards the sensor device itself and what itself is configured or capable of performing. This claim is indefinite because this claim is solely directed towards the object being sensed (target), and this object is not part of the sensor device. As such, it is unclear how such a phrase should be treated, as applicant is claiming aspects of the target to further limit Claim 1, but where none of what is being claimed is part of the sensor device and none of what is being claimed reasonably limits the sensor device. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase as an intended use of the sensor device, where the sensor device must be able to detect a target having the above ring magnet configuration, but where the target is not required in the claim.
As to Claims 13 and 14,
The phrases “the target is radially magnetized” on line 1 of Claim 13 and “the target is axially magnetized” on line 1 of Claim 14 are indefinite. Claim 1 is directed towards “A sensor device for sensing a magnetic field generated by a target,” and where applicant demonstrates an example sensor device as seen in Figure 2A. This sensor device does not include the target being sensed, and it does not include the magnetic field being detected. Instead, it includes the mechanism used for sensing the target, as explicitly disclosed in the preamble of Claim 1. As such, the claims are directed towards the sensor device itself and what itself is configured or capable of performing. This claim is indefinite because this claim is solely directed towards the object being sensed (target), and this object is not part of the sensor device. As such, it is unclear how such a phrase should be treated, as applicant is claiming aspects of the target to further limit Claim 1, but where none of what is being claimed is part of the sensor device and none of what is being claimed reasonably limits the sensor device. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase as an intended use of the sensor device, where the sensor device must be able to detect a target having the above magnetization, but where the target is not required in the claim.
As to Claims 15 and 16,
The phrases “the target rotates around a rotation axis, and the sensor device is positioned so that the rotation axis passes through the sensor device” on lines 1-2 of Claim 15 and “the target rotates around a rotation axis, and the sensor device is positioned to the side of the rotation axis” on lines 1-2 are indefinite. Claim 1 is directed towards “A sensor device for sensing a magnetic field generated by a target,” and where applicant demonstrates an example sensor device as seen in Figure 2A. This sensor device does not include the target being sensed, and it does not include the magnetic field being detected. Instead, it includes the mechanism used for sensing the target, as explicitly disclosed in the preamble of Claim 1. As such, the claims are directed towards the sensor device itself and what itself is configured or capable of performing. This claim is indefinite because this claim is solely directed towards the object being sensed (target), and this object is not part of the sensor device. As such, it is unclear how such a phrase should be treated, as applicant is claiming aspects of the target and relative positioning of the sensor to the target to further limit Claim 1, but where the target is not part of the sensor device, and thus the sensor device cannot reasonably be positioned with reference to a target when the target is not reasonably part of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase as an intended use of the sensor device, where the sensor device must be able to be positioned in the claimed manner, but where the sensor device does not have to be positioned in the claimed manner.
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, 5-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bussan et al. (Bussan) (US 2017/0089940 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
500
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
500
577
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Bussan discloses A sensor device for sensing a magnetic field generated by a target (14 / 32) (Figures 1,3B / Note that while the embodiment of Figure 3A is not relied upon, this figure shows how the target at the bottom of the page is positioned relative to the first and second clusters of magnetic sensing elements), (Paragraphs [0039],0041]), comprising: a first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements comprising a first magnetic field sensing element (either 58 in example one or one of 50,52 in example two), and a second magnetic field sensing element (either 56 in example one or the other of 50,52 in example two) positioned orthogonal to the first magnetic field sensing element (Figure 3B), (see above figures), (Paragraphs [0042],[0051]/ note the two bridges are separately spaced and aligned with respect to target 14 such that one bridge is farther from the target than the other); and a second cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (either 46,58 in example one or 46,48 in example two) positioned a distance from the first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements and configured to be positioned further from the target than the first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (see above figures / note the second cluster is farther from the target because at least element 46, which is part of the second cluster, is farther from the target than any other element), (Figure 3B), (Paragraphs [0042],[0051]), the second cluster comprising a third magnetic field sensing element (46 in example one or 46 or 48 in example two), and a fourth magnetic field sensing element (52 in example one or the other of 48 or 48 in example two) positioned orthogonal to the third magnetic field sensing element (Figure 3B), (see above figures).
(Note: Two different examples of interpretations are provided for the above claims in order to demonstrate the manner in which the prior art discloses the various dependent claims, and different interpretations are required of the figures depending on the dependent claim features.. That stated, for simplicity, above Example One discloses the above claim features because the first cluster of sensing elements from bridge A are entirety closer to the target than those of the second cluster of sensing elements of bridge B as seen above. The above Example Two also discloses the claim features, because at least part of the second cluster of sensing elements is farther from the target than any portion of the sensing elements from the first cluster, because sensing element 46 (part of the second cluster) is farther away from the target than any other element. As such, both examples reasonably disclose the claim features.).
As to Claim 2
Bussan discloses wherein the first magnetic field sensing element and the third magnetic field sensing element each have a first axis of maximum sensitivity to a magnetic field, and the second magnetic field sensing element and the fourth magnetic field sensing element each have a second axis of maximum sensitivity to the magnetic field, wherein the first axis and the second axis are orthogonal to one another (see above figures / note that in Example Two, the first element can be (50), the third element (46), each having the same first axis of sensitivity, and the second element (48) and the fourth (52) have the same second axis of sensitivity, and where the first and second axes are perpendicular to each other).
As to Claim 5,
Bussan discloses the first magnetic field sensing element (52) and the third magnetic field sensing element (46) are differentially coupled to produce a first channel signal (Figure 4 / note the combination of 46 and 52 is a differential output at (26)).
As to Claim 6,
Bussan discloses wherein the second magnetic field sensing element (50) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (48) are differentially coupled to produce a second channel signal (Figure 4 / note the combination of 46 and 52 is a differential output at (20)).
As to Claim 7,
Bussan discloses wherein the differential coupling of the first magnetic field sensing element and the third magnetic field sensing element and the differential coupling of the second magnetic field sensing element and the fourth magnetic field sensing element provides the sensor device with stray field immunity (Figure 4 / the prior art discloses the differential coupling and sensor clusters as claimed, and as best understood, it is these features that provide stray field immunity. As such, in light of the disclosure, because the prior art discloses the features that provide stray field immunity, and because the prior art discloses a substantially similar device as applicant, such a feature is reasonably a property of the system and thus part of Bussan).
As to Claim 8,
Bussan discloses a phase shift between the first channel signal and the second channel signal is ninety degrees (Paragraph [0061]).
As to Claim 9,
Bussan discloses a memory storing instructions; and a controller that, when executing the instructions, is configured to: determine at least one of a speed at which the target is rotating, a direction in which the target is rotating, or an angle of rotation of the target (Paragraph [0099] / note that processor 324 must include a memory storing instructions that the processor executes to determine the above speed).
As to Claim 10,
Bussan discloses the sensor device having a first side and a second side longer than the first side (Figure 1 / note the left/right dimension of the device (12) is longer than the width in the up/down direction), (Paragraph [0039]), wherein the sensor device is configured to sense the magnetic field of the target when the first side is facing the target (Figure 1 / note that the sensor device is configured to sense target when positioned as shown which discloses the claim feature).
As to Claim 11,
Bussan discloses the sensor device having a first side configured to face the target and a second side configured to face away from the target (Figure 1 / note the first side is the right side of (12) and the second side is the left side of (12)), (Paragraph [0039]), wherein the first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements is positioned proximal to the first side and the second cluster of magnetic field sensing elements is positioned proximal to the second side (Figures 1,3A,3B / note that Figure 3A is noted to show that the elements of the first cluster, such as that of bridge A are proximate the first side while the elements of the second cluster are proximate the second side).
As to Claim 12,
Bussan discloses wherein the target comprises a ring magnet with magnetic pole pairs (Paragraph [0041] / note the target is a multi-pole ring magnet), (Figure 2).
As to Claim 13,
Bussan discloses wherein the target is radially magnetized (Figure 2 / note this the same implementation of radial magnetization as that disclosed by applicant in applicant’s Figure 5).
As to Claim 14,
Bussan discloses wherein the target is axially magnetized (Figure 2 / note that the sensor device can be used to sense an axially magnetized target and thus discloses this claim feature).
As to Claim 15,
Bussan discloses wherein the target rotates around a rotation axis, and the sensor device is positioned so that the rotation axis passes through the sensor device (Figures 1, 2, 3A, and 3B / note that the sensor can be positioned in the claimed manner and therefore discloses the claim, as the target is not positively recited or required, and is instead only introduced as part of an intended use of the sensor device in Claim 1).
As to Claim 16,
Bussan discloses wherein the target rotates around a rotation axis, and the sensor device is positioned to the side of the rotation axis (Figures 1, 2, 3A, and 3B).
As to Claim 17,
Bussan discloses A method for sensing a magnetic field generated by a target (14 / 32) (Figures 1,3B / Note that while the embodiment of Figure 3A is not relied upon, this figure shows how the target at the bottom of the page is positioned relative to the first and second clusters of magnetic sensing elements), (Paragraphs [0039],0041]), comprising: employing a first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (see above figures) and a second cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (see above figures) in a sensor device (12) (see above figures), (Figure 3B), (Paragraph [0039]), the second cluster being positioned a distance from the first cluster and configured to be positioned further from the target than the first cluster (see above figures), (Paragraphs [0042],[0051]/ note the two bridges are separately spaced and aligned with respect to target 14 such that one bridge is farther from the target than the other), the first cluster comprising a first magnetic field sensing element (either 58 in example one or one of 50,52 in example two), and a second magnetic field sensing element (either 56 in example one or the other of 50,52 in example two) positioned orthogonal to the first magnetic field sensing element (Figure 3B), (see above figures), (Paragraphs [0042],[0051]/ note the two bridges are separately spaced and aligned with respect to target 14 such that one bridge is farther from the target than the other), and the second cluster comprising a third magnetic field sensing element (46 in example one or 46 or 48 in example two), and a fourth magnetic field sensing element (52 in example one or the other of 48 or 48 in example two) positioned orthogonal to the third magnetic field sensing element (Figure 3B), (see above figures); and determining at least one of a speed at which the target is rotating, a direction at which the target is rotating, or an angle of rotation of the target based on signals received from at least two of the first magnetic field sensing element the second magnetic field sensing element, the third magnetic field sensing element, and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0059]-[0064] / note the outputs from at least two elements are used to determine speed in the speed detector, and the outputs from at least two elements are used to determine direction as seen in Figure 7A).
(Note: Two different examples of interpretations are provided for the above claims in order to demonstrate the manner in which the prior art discloses the various dependent claims, and different interpretations are required of the figures depending on the dependent claim features.. That stated, for simplicity, above Example One discloses the above claim features because the first cluster of sensing elements from bridge A are entirety closer to the target than those of the second cluster of sensing elements of bridge B as seen above. The above Example Two also discloses the claim features, because at least part of the second cluster of sensing elements is farther from the target than any portion of the sensing elements from the first cluster, because sensing element 46 (part of the second cluster) is farther away from the target than any other element. As such, both examples reasonably disclose the claim features.).
As to Claim 18,
Bussan discloses wherein the first magnetic field sensing element and the third magnetic field sensing element each have a first axis of maximum sensitivity to a magnetic field, and the second magnetic field sensing element and the fourth magnetic field sensing element each have a second axis of maximum sensitivity to the magnetic field, wherein the first axis and the second axis are orthogonal to one another (see above figures / note that in Example Two, the first element can be (50), the third element (46), each having the same first axis of sensitivity, and the second element (48) and the fourth (52) have the same second axis of sensitivity, and where the first and second axes are perpendicular to each other).
As to Claim 20,
Bussan discloses the first magnetic field sensing element (52) and the third magnetic field sensing element (46) are differentially coupled to produce a first channel signal (Figure 4 / note the combination of 46 and 52 is a differential output at (26)), and the second magnetic field sensing element (50) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (48) are differentially coupled to produce a second channel signal (Figure 4 / note the combination of 46 and 52 is a differential output at (20)).
As to Claim 21,
Bussan discloses wherein the differential coupling of the first magnetic field sensing element and the third magnetic field sensing element and the differential coupling of the second magnetic field sensing element and the fourth magnetic field sensing element provides the sensor device with stray field immunity (Figure 4 / the prior art discloses the differential coupling and sensor clusters as claimed, and as best understood, it is these features that provide stray field immunity. As such, in light of the disclosure, because the prior art discloses the features that provide stray field immunity, and because the prior art discloses a substantially similar device as applicant, such a feature is reasonably a property of the system and thus part of Bussan).
As to Claim 22,
Bussan discloses a phase shift between the first channel signal and the second channel signal is ninety degrees (Paragraph [0061]).
As to Claim 23,
PNG
media_image2.png
500
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bussan discloses A system, comprising: a magnetic target (14/32) (Figures 1,3B / Note that while the embodiment of Figure 3A is not relied upon, this figure shows how the target at the bottom of the page is positioned relative to the first and second clusters of magnetic sensing elements), (Paragraphs [0039],0041]); and a sensor device (12) comprising: a first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (see above figure) comprising a first magnetic field sensing element (56) (see above figure), (Figure 3B), (Paragraph [0051]), and a second magnetic field sensing element positioned orthogonal to the first magnetic field sensing element (58), (see above figure), (Figure 3B), (Paragraph [0051]); and a second cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (see above figure) positioned a distance from the first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements and configured to be positioned further from the target than the first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (Figure 3B), (see above figure / note the second cluster is farther from the target which is (32) as seen in Figure 3A), (Paragraph [0051]), the second cluster comprising a third magnetic field sensing element (52), and a fourth magnetic field sensing element (56) positioned orthogonal to the third magnetic field sensing element (see above figure), (Figure 3B), (Paragraph [0051])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bussan et al. (Bussan) (US 2017/0089940 A1) in view of Wallner et al. (Wallner) (US 2002/0167310 A1).
As to Claims 3, 4, and 19,
Bussan discloses each of the first magnetic field sensing element, the second magnetic field sensing element, the third magnetic field sensing element, and the fourth magnetic field sensing element is a magnetoresistor (Paragraph [0043]).
Bussan does not disclose discloses at least one of the first magnetic field sensing element, the second magnetic field sensing element, the third magnetic field sensing element, and the fourth magnetic field sensing element is a vertical Hall plate element, wherein each of the first magnetic field sensing element, the second magnetic field sensing element, the third magnetic field sensing element, and the fourth magnetic field sensing element is a vertical Hall plate element.
Wallner discloses that it is known in the art of magnetic rotation detection to use either a magnetoresistor or vertical Hall sensor for magnetic rotation sensing (Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bussan to include substituting vertical Hall sensors for magnetoresistors to therefore include at least one of the first magnetic field sensing element, the second magnetic field sensing element, the third magnetic field sensing element, and the fourth magnetic field sensing element is a vertical Hall plate element, wherein each of the first magnetic field sensing element, the second magnetic field sensing element, the third magnetic field sensing element, and the fourth magnetic field sensing element is a vertical Hall plate element given the above disclosure and teaching of Wallner in order to advantageously utilize sensors with high resolution and great precision (Paragraph [0029]), (MPEP 2144.06)(II).
(Note: The Examiner acknowledges that paragraphs [0067] and [0068] generically discuss why the use of magnetoresistors are superior to Hall sensors. However, such an explanation does not reasonably disparage the combination, as merely because there are an advantage to use a magnetoresistor over a Hall sensor does not reasonably dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from using a Hall sensor. For example, MPEP 2123 (II) explains “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments … A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” Meaning, merely because the use of Hall sensors may be inferior in some respects to magnetoresistors is not reasonably a teaching away, especially when Wallner demonstrates they are as good if not superior in other respects. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the disclosure in Bussan does not reasonably specifically address vertical Hall sensors, which are substantially similar to that of magnetoresistors.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2025/0355064 to Halawani et al. which discloses a 3D Differential Sensor, 2) US 2022/0290968 to Kling et al. which discloses a rotational angle sensor using orthogonal sensing elements, and 3) US 2022/0196435 to Schott et al. which discloses a position sensor system using orthogonal vertical Hall sensors.
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