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 4/23/2026.
No prior art is being applied to claims 27 and 28 because the prior art does not disclose, or make obvious, the respective features of “the magnetic target rotates around a rotation axis, and the sensor device is positioned so that the rotation axis passes through the sensor device,” and “the magnetic target rotates around a rotation axis, and the sensor device is positioned to the side of the rotation axis” as are currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 27 and 28,
The phrase “the magnetic target rotates” on line 1 introduces new matter. Applicant is positively reciting the rotation of the magnetic target, but where nothing in the claim is reasonably capable of actually rotating the magnet. While a mere method step of rotating a magnet is proper in a method claim, in an apparatus claim, some device must reasonably be capable of this ability. Nothing in the claim, including the magnet itself, can reasonably rotate the magnet as claimed. However, by claiming that magnet rotates, applicant must reasonably be ascribing the ability to rotate the magnet to some claimed element, but again, where none are capable of this ability. This feature therefore introduces new matter, because applicant does not originally disclose the ability of the magnet to rotate based with those features recited in the claim.
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 27 and 28 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 Claims 27 and 28,
The phrase “the magnetic target rotates” on line 1 is indefinite. Claim 23 is directed towards the final product and not any use thereof. However, reciting that the magnetic target actually rotates is the same as reciting a method step of rotating the magnet, because it reasonably requires the use of the magnet to rotate in the claimed manner. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” Nothing about the magnetic target itself is configure to rotate, as the magnet itself does not have such an ability, as it is another object that must actually rotate the magnet. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because applicant is positively reciting the actual use of the magnet to rotate in the claim, which is therefore indefinite.
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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23, 25, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ausserlechner (US 2015/0309127).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 1 and 23,
Ausserlechner discloses A system comprising a magnetic target (140) (see above figure), (Paragraph [0052]), and a sensor device for sensing a magnetic field generated by a target, the sensor device comprising: a first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (see above figure) comprising a first magnetic field sensing element configured to be maximally sensitive to a first axis of a magnetic field (see above figure / note the first cluster element in the 90 degree box), and a second magnetic field sensing element positioned orthogonal to the first magnetic field sensing element (see above figure); 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 farther from the target than the first cluster of magnetic field sensing elements (see above figure), the second cluster comprising a third magnetic field sensing element (see above figure / note the second cluster element in the 90 degree box) configured to be maximally sensitive to the first axis of the magnetic field (Figure 13 / note that while the sensitive directions are anti-parallel, they are still maximally sensitive along the same axis (first axis), the third magnetic field sensing element being differentially coupled to the first magnetic field sensing element to produce a first channel signal (Figures 8,13 / note the elements are differentially coupled), and a fourth magnetic field sensing element positioned orthogonal to the third magnetic field sensing element (see above figure / note the element in the 180 degree box), (Paragraphs [0031],[0048]), [0075] / note the point of the sensors is to detect the magnetic field generated by the conductor (140)).
As to Claim 2,
Ausserlechner discloses wherein the second magnetic field sensing element is configured to be maximally sensitive to a second axis of the magnetic field and the fourth magnetic field sensing element is configured to be maximally sensitive to the second axis of the magnetic field, wherein the first axis and the second axis are orthogonal to one another (see above figure), (Figure 13 / note the second and fourth elements are also maximally sensitive along the same axis, even if in antiparallel directions), (Paragraphs [0031],[0048]), [0075])).
As to Claim 3,
Ausserlechner discloses wherein 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 (Paragraph [0048]).
As to Claim 4,
Ausserlechner 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 vertical Hall plate element (Paragraph [0048]).
As to Claim 6,
Ausserlechner discloses the second magnetic field sensing element and the fourth magnetic field sensing element are differentially coupled to produce a second channel signal (Figures 8,13).
As to Claim 7,
Ausserlechner 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 (Figures 8,13 / note that this is a property of the system, and that because the prior art discloses a substantially similar configuration as applicant, it reasonably includes this feature).
As to Claim 8,
Ausserlechner discloses, wherein a phase shift between the first channel signal and the second channel signal is ninety degrees (Figure 13 / note the two channels are phase shifted by 90 degrees).
As to Claim 10,
Ausserlechner discloses the sensor device having a first side and a second side longer than the first side, wherein the sensor device is configured to sense the magnetic field of the target when the first side is facing the target (Figure 13 / note the sensor device is formed from rectangular structures that face the target and thus meet this claim feature).
As to Claim 11,
Ausserlechner discloses the sensor device having a first side configured to face the target and a second side configured to face away from the target, 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 (Figure 13 / note the first side is the side of the rectangular structures facing the target, and the second side is the opposite side).
As to Claims 25 and 26,
Ausserlechner discloses the magnetic target is radially magnetized, the magnetic target is axially magnetized (Paragraph [0052] / note the magnetic field will generate in both axial and radial directions due to the flow of current, and thus the conductor will be a temporary magnet of both types).
As to Claim 29,
Ausserlechner discloses the first magnetic field sensing element is oriented in parallel with the third magnetic field sensing element and wherein the second magnetic field sensing element is oriented coplanar with the fourth magnetic field sensing element (Figure 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 9,
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 9 is the inclusion of 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. It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
As to Claim 17,
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 17 is the inclusion of 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. It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior
As to Claim 24,
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 24 is the inclusion of the magnetic target comprises a ring magnet with magnetic pole pairs. It is this feature found in the claim, as it is claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior
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