Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-100033, filed on 6/19/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/20/24, 8/4/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 3, 13, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Makino et al. (US 2021/0156933). (“Makino).
6. Regarding claim 1, Makino teaches A magnetic sensor device [Figures 1-21, Abstract teaches a magnetic sensor device] comprising: a support substrate [Figures 5, 11-13 shows a support substrate 61]; and a sensor substrate fixed to the support substrate, wherein the sensor substrate includes a first surface that faces the support substrate, and a second surface that is located on an opposite side to the first surface and that is provided with a functional film including a plurality of magnetic detection elements [Figures 5, 11-13, a sensor substrate 40 is shown fixed to the support substrate 61, the sensor substrate 40 includes a first surface and a second substrate, provided with a functional film 40a/41/42 including magnetic detection elements 11-14], a hole portion is formed in the first surface, an outline of the hole portion includes at least one corner, and each of the plurality of magnetic detection elements is disposed not to overlap any of the at least one corner in a plan view seen in a plane-normal direction from the second surface toward the first surface [Figures 5, 11-13, a hole (through hole) is shown running through the magnetic sensor 1, an outline of the hole portion includes corner, magnetic detection elements 11-14 are disposed not to overlap the corner].
7. Regarding claim 3, Makino teaches wherein each of the plurality of magnetic detection elements is disposed not to overlap the outline in the plan view [Figures 5, 11-13, arrangement of magnetic detection elements 11-14 is shown].
8. Regarding claim 13, Makino teaches wherein the hole portion is a bottomed hole recessed from the first surface toward the second surface, and a depth of the bottomed hole is less than or equal to half a thickness of the sensor substrate in the plane-normal direction [Figures 5, 11-13, the hole portion is a bottomed hole recessed from the first surface towards the second surface].
9. Regarding claim 14, Makino teaches further comprising a wiring layer provided in a layer more distant from the support substrate than the functional film in the plane-normal direction, wherein each of the plurality of magnetic detection elements is disposed at an inside of the outline of the wiring layer in the plan view [Figures 5, 11-13 teaches coil 30 which would act as a wiring layer].
10. Regarding claim 15, Makino teaches wherein the hole portion includes an inner surface inclined with respect to the plane-normal direction, and each of the plurality of magnetic detection elements is disposed not to overlap the inner surface in the plan view [Figures 5, 11-13, the hole portion arrangement is shown].
11. Regarding claim 16, Makino teaches An angle sensor comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 [Figures 5, 11-13, 20-21 teaches measuring angle].
12. Regarding claim 18, Makino teaches A current sensor comprising the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 [Figures 5, 11-13, a current sensor is taught].
13. Regarding claim 20, Makino teaches A magnetic sensor device [Figures 1-21, Abstract teaches a magnetic sensor device] comprising: a support substrate [Figures 5, 11-13 shows a support substrate 61]; and a sensor substrate fixed to the support substrate, wherein the sensor substrate includes a first surface facing the support substrate, and a second surface that is located on an opposite side to the first surface and that is provided with a functional film including a plurality of magnetic detection elements [Figures 5, 11-13, a sensor substrate 40 is shown fixed to the support substrate 61, the sensor substrate 40 includes a first surface and a second substrate, provided with a functional film 40a/41/42 including magnetic detection elements 11-14], a hole portion that is a bottomed hole recessed from the first surface toward the second surface or a through hole penetrating from the first surface to the second surface is formed in the first surface, and an outline of the hole portion is a circle not including a corner [Figures 5, 11-13, a hole (through hole) is shown running through the magnetic sensor 1, penetrating from the first surface to the second surface, an outline of the hole portion is shown].
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.
14. 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.
15. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino in view of Kikuchi (JP 2010205893, provided in the IDS).
15. Regarding claim 2 Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor substrate is fixed to the support substrate by using an adhesive, and the hole portion is filled with the adhesive.
However, Kikuchi teaches wherein the sensor substrate is fixed to the support substrate by using an adhesive, and the hole portion is filled with the adhesive [Figures 1-3, Abstract teaches use of adhesive in the recessed portion].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino with Kikuchi. Doing so would allow Makino to comprise adhesive in the hole between the elements/layers as a holding agent.
16. Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino.
17. Regarding claim 4, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein some of the plurality of magnetic detection elements are disposed at an inside of the outline in the plan view, and the remainder of the plurality of magnetic detection elements are disposed at an outside of the outline in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to arrange magnetic detection elements in a manner mentioned here because it has been held that re-arrangement of parts is a design choice considered obvious in the field of art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
18. Regarding claim 5, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein all the plurality of magnetic detection elements are disposed at an inside of the outline in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to arrange magnetic detection elements in a manner mentioned here because it has been held that re-arrangement of parts is a design choice considered obvious in the field of art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
19. Regarding claim 6, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein all the plurality of magnetic detection elements are disposed at an outside of the outline in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to arrange magnetic detection elements in a manner mentioned here because it has been held that re-arrangement of parts is a design choice considered obvious in the field of art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
20. Regarding claim 7, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of magnetic detection elements is disposed at an interval of 1 ?m or more from the outline in a direction perpendicular to the plane-normal direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to optimize the value of interval/distance because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
21. Regarding claim 8, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of magnetic detection elements include at least one first magnetic detection element disposed to overlap the outline in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to arrange magnetic detection elements in a manner mentioned here because it has been held that re-arrangement of parts is a design choice considered obvious in the field of art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
22. Regarding claim 9, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of magnetic detection elements further include a plurality of second magnetic detection elements disposed not to overlap the outline in the plan view, and some of the plurality of second magnetic detection elements are disposed at an inside of the outline in the plan view, and the remainder of the plurality of second magnetic detection elements are disposed at an outside of the outline in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to comprise a second set of magnetic field detection elements and arrange magnetic detection elements in a manner mentioned here because it has been held duplication of parts (magnetic detection elements) is considered obvious in the field of art, see
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.); also that re-arrangement of parts is a design choice considered obvious in the field of art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
23. Regarding claim 10, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of magnetic detection elements further include at least one second magnetic detection element disposed not to overlap the outline in the plan view, and all of the at least one second magnetic detection element are disposed at an inside of the outline in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to comprise a second set of magnetic field detection elements and arrange magnetic detection elements in a manner mentioned here because it has been held duplication of parts (magnetic detection elements) is considered obvious in the field of art, see
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.); also that re-arrangement of parts is a design choice considered obvious in the field of art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
24. Regarding claim 11, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of magnetic detection elements further include at least one second magnetic detection element disposed not to overlap the outline in the plan view, and all of the at least one second magnetic detection element are disposed at an outside of the outline in the plan view.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to comprise a second set of magnetic field detection elements and arrange magnetic detection elements in a manner mentioned here because it has been held duplication of parts (magnetic detection elements) is considered obvious in the field of art, see
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.); also that re-arrangement of parts is a design choice considered obvious in the field of art, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
25. Regarding claim 12, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor device.
Makino does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of magnetic detection elements are disposed at intervals of 1 ?m or more from all of the at least one corner in an in-plane direction perpendicular to the plane-normal direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino to optimize the value of interval/distance because it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05).
26. Claims 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino in view of Annen et al. (US 2015/0012234). (“Annen”).
27. Regarding claim 17, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor.
Makino does not explicitly teach A magnetic compass comprising the magnetic sensor device.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino with Annen. Doing so would allow Makino to use the magnetic sensor device in a magnetic compass and help improve the compass functionality.
28. Regarding claim 19, Makino teaches the magnetic sensor.
Makino does not explicitly teach A camera module comprising an autofocus mechanism and/or an optical image stabilization mechanism including the magnetic sensor device.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Makino with Annen. Doing so would allow Makino to use the magnetic sensor device in a camera and help improve the camera functionality.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wada et al. (US 2017/0052232), Figures 1-7 shows a magnetic sensor device comprising substrates, magnetic sensing elements, corners arranged in a similar manner to that of the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858