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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the previous 112 rejections, these rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to Claim 4.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 directed towards Oyama et al. (Oyama) (WO 2016021074 A1),
As to Claim 1,
Applicant argues that Oyama does not disclose “a central part in a direction of extension of each magnetic wire rod is tangential to a reference circle centered on the reference line.” Applicant then acknowledges that Oyama discloses that the length direction of the sensors are parallel to the tangent direction of the rotation trajectory circle R. Because the length of the sensors, including the magnetic wire rod, are admitted to be tangential to circle R, which is substantially the same or in identical to the circle applicant refers to and is claiming, the prior art must disclose this claim feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
728
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As see above, the sensors, and their magnetic rods, must be tangential to a circuit that rotates around reference line AX. In fact, as best understood, both the prior art and the instant application disclose substantially the same configuration, and thus the prior art must disclose the claim feature. For example, as seen above, the a tangential line to a circle center at AX would be in the left right direction in the bottom figure seen above. The sensor is oriented in the same manner as the tangential line, as both extend in the left/right direction. As such, the sensor, including its wire rod, are all tangential to a reference circuit centered at AX.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Claim 4,
Applicant argues that Oyama does not disclose the casing of the magnetic sensor device has a coupling portion formed in a cylindrical configuration, an inside diameter of the coupling portion matches a diameter of the through hole in the substrate.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In light of the disclosure, a coupling portion is a section of the casing/housing that applicant is selecting, to meet the claim feature. While applicant’s specific implementation of a coupling portion may be narrower than such an interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “coupling portion” is therefore a portion or section of the overall housing. Oyama discloses such a feature, because Oyama expressly disclosing the housing (2) is cylindrical (Page 6, Last two lines), and because it reasonably has a portion that also is cylindrical and has an inner diameter that matches the through hole in the substrate as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
404
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Note that the coupling portion is not two sections as it appears above, but is instead the circular bottom of the entire casing/housing. The above figure is merely a cross-sectional view, and thus would not show the entire cylindrical nature of the bottom of the casing. As see above, the inner diameter of the hole in the housing (2) matches the diameter of the inner hole of the substrate (8) to allow the shaft to extend into and through the substrate and housing. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
As to the remaining arguments including those directed towards the new claims, the prior art reasonably discloses these claim features, and applicant’s attention is directed to the rejections found below.
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 1-4, 7-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oyama et al. (Oyama) (WO 2016021074 A1).
Note: the cited paragraphs from the above reference come from the provided English machine translation.
PNG
media_image1.png
728
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Oyama A magnetic sensor device, comprising: a plurality of magnetic sensors (5A-5C) (Paragraph 1-3), which have a magnetic wire rod (51) that generates a large Barkhausen effect and a coil (52) provided at an outer periphery of the magnetic wire rod (Paragraphs 1-3,1-3-1 / Pages 9-11), and a single casing (2) to which each of the plurality of magnetic sensors is secured (Paragraphs 1,1-3 / Pages 7 and 9-10), (see above figure / note that the sensors are fixed to the bottom of the housing/casing (2)), wherein the plurality of magnetic sensors are disposed on a single reference plane coincident with or parallel to a lower surface of the casing at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction about a reference line (axis AX) perpendicular to the reference plane and such that a direction of extension of the magnetic wire rods is parallel to the reference plane (see above figure), (Figures 2A,2B / note the single reference plane is a plane parallel to the bottom of the housing (2) and that extends into the page in Figure 2B, this plane cuts through all three sensors as the plane would extend in the up/down and left/right direction in Figure 2A as seen above, and the sensors are at predetermined intervals in a circumferential direction about the rotation axis (AX), which is the reference line), and such that a central part in a direction of extension of each magnetic wire rod is tangential to a reference circle centered on the reference line (see above figure / note that the wire rod of each sensor will extend tangentially to the above circle centered at AX).
As to Claim 2,
PNG
media_image3.png
440
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
252
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Oyama discloses a plurality of yokes (yoke 1: 6a,7a, yoke 2: 6b,7b, yoke 3: 6c,7c) that control the direction of the magnetic flux of an external magnetic field (Paragraph 1-4 / Page 14), (see above figures), (Figures 3A-3C / note these figures show examples of how the yokes influence / control the direction of the magnetic flux) , wherein the plurality of yokes are provided in one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of magnetic sensors (see above figures / note each sensor has its own respective yoke, and note that applicant’s yokes are formed by distinctly separated portions that are collectively called yokes, and the prior art is being interpreted in the same manner), and the plurality of yokes are secured to the casing along with the plurality of magnetic sensors (Figure 2B), (Paragraph 1-4).
As to Claim 3,
Oyama discloses the plurality of yokes are integrated with the casing by insert molding (Figures 2A,2B), (Paragraph [4-3-1] / while the prior art does disclose this feature by disclosing pressing parts into a mold, this feature is a product by process claim feature. Even if Oyama did not disclose the insert molding, such a feature does not reasonably impart any non-obvious structural difference, and thus the prior art still discloses the final product, and thus the claim feature. See MPEP 2113).
As to Claim 4,
PNG
media_image2.png
404
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oyama discloses A rotation sensing device that senses the rotation of a rotating body, comprising: the magnetic sensor device according to claim 1 (see above rejection), a magnetic field forming member (4a-4d) that rotates along with the rotating body (shaft 3) and that forms a rotating magnetic field at the outer periphery of the rotating body upon rotation of the rotating body (Figure 1), (Paragraph 1-1 / note this is a property of the system because a magnetic field will be present and rotate with the shaft as the shaft rotates), and a substrate (8) that has a mounting face and is disposed in proximity to the magnetic field forming member such that the mounting face thereof is facing up (Figure 2B), (Paragraph 1-2), the mounting face is perpendicular to an axis of rotation and, the substrate is disposed so as to be free of contact with the rotating body and the magnetic field forming member (Figure 2B / note the top surface of substrate 8, which is the mounting surface, does not and cannot come into contact with the rotating body (shaft) or magnetic field forming member (magnets) as doing so would damage the substrate as the shaft/magnets rotated), wherein a through hole is formed in the substrate, and the rotating body is inserted into the through hole without contact with the substrate (Figure 2B / note the through hole in the substrate (8) and the substrate does not contact the rotating body), wherein the casing of the magnetic sensor device has a coupling portion formed in a cylindrical configuration, an inside diameter of the coupling portion matches a diameter of the through hole in the substrate (see above figure), (Page 6, Last two lines), and the casing is secured to the substrate after having been disposed on the mounting face or above the mounting face such that the reference line is aligned with the axis of rotation of the rotating body and, in addition, the lower surface of the casing is parallel to the mounting face (Figures 2A,2B / note that claiming when the sensor device is secured to the substrate is a product by process feature directed towards the manufacture of the device, and that the prior art discloses this claim feature because such a feature does not reasonably impart any non-obvious feature in the final product, and the prior art otherwise discloses all the structural features of the claim).
As to Claim 7,
Oyama discloses the plurality of magnetic sensors comprises three magnetic sensors disposed at 120-degree intervals about the reference line (Page 10, Lines 5-8).
As to Claim 8,
PNG
media_image5.png
488
751
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Oyama discloses each magnetic sensor comprises a bobbin having a wire winding portion, two wire rod supporting portions at left and right ends of the bobbin, and two flange portions respectively provided between the wire winding portion and each wire rod supporting portion (see above figure / note that the wire must be wound around a wire winding portion, as the wiring cannot come into physical contact with the magnetic rod extending through them or they would short each other out, and the bobbin has flanges in either side to support the rod as seen in the figure above).
As to Claim 9,
PNG
media_image2.png
404
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oyama discloses the casing comprises a plurality of sensor holding portions coupled through a coupling portion (see above figures / note that each sensor is located in a portion of the case, and is supported by and thus held in place by a portion of the case, and each individual portion of the case supporting a respective sensor is a sensor holding portion).
As to Claim 10,
PNG
media_image2.png
404
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oyama discloses the coupling portion is formed in a cylindrical configuration with a center positioned on the reference line (see above figure).
As to Claim 11,
Oyama discloses the plurality of sensing holding portions have lower surfaces disposed within a same plane (see above figures / note the lower surface of the attachment mechanism for the sensors that attached the sensors to the casing are the holding portions and all must have lower surfaces and are all reasonably within a same plane), (Figures 2A,2B).
As to Claim 12,
Oyama discloses the casing is shaped to have rotation symmetry about the reference line when viewed from above (Page 6, Last two lines),(see above figures / note the casing/housing is a cylinder and reasonably centered on AX, thus disclosing the claim), (Figures 2A,2B)
As to Claim 13,
Oyama discloses the plurality of magnetic sensors are disposed such that the magnetic sensors are respectively equidistant from the reference line (Figure 2A).
As to Claim 14,
Oyama discloses the plurality of magnetic sensors are disposed such that front portions thereof are facing toward the reference line (Figures 2A,2B).
As to Claim 18,
Oyama discloses the magnetic wire rod is formed from a semi-rigid magnetic material containing iron and cobalt (Page 11, Lines 1-6 / note a rod formed from these materials must be semi-rigid).
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.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (Oyama) (WO 2016021074 A1) in view of Mitsuhashi (US 2021/0109122).
As to Claim 5,
Oyama discloses the plurality of yokes are collectively positioned by insert molding, Figures 2A,2B / note that this feature is a product by process feature, and a non-obvious difference does not exist in the final product of the instant application due to the use of insert molding), (see MPEP 2113).
Oyama does not disclose the plurality of magnetic sensors are inserted into sensor receiving holes provided in the casing.
Mitsuhashi discloses the magnetic sensor is inserted into a sensor receiving hole provided in a casing (6) (Figures 7A,7B,8D), (Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include an individual housing chamber for each of the sensors, where each housing chamber is the same as disclosed by Mitsuhashi, to therefore include the plurality of magnetic sensors are inserted into sensor receiving holes provided in the casing given the above disclosure and teaching of Mitsuhashi in order to advantageously providing individual protection for each of the magnetic sensors in addition to that of the overall case, thus providing an extra layer of protection for the sensors.
As to Claim 6,
Oyama does not disclose a plurality of forwardly protruding projections are formed on a rear face of each sensor receiving hole, and each projection presses against a bobbin of the magnetic sensor to secure the magnetic sensor in the sensor receiving hole.
Mitsuhashi discloses a plurality of forwardly protruding projections are formed on a rear face of each sensor receiving hole (Figure 7A / note the recesses 6c create protruding projections and these contact the magnetic sensor), and each projection presses against the magnetic sensor to secure the magnetic sensor in the sensor receiving hole (Figures 7A,7B,8D), (Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include a plurality of forwardly protruding projections are formed on a rear face of each sensor receiving hole, and each projection presses against a bobbin of the magnetic sensor to secure the magnetic sensor in the sensor receiving hole given the above disclosure and teaching of Mitsuhashi in order to advantageously providing individual protection for each of the magnetic sensors in addition to that of the overall case, thus providing an extra layer of protection for the sensors.
As to Claims 9 and 11,
PNG
media_image2.png
404
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oyama discloses the casing comprises a coupling portion that couples the sensors (see above figures).
Oyama is stated to disclose the casing comprises a plurality of sensor holding portions coupled through a coupling portion as explained in the rejection above because each sensor is located in a portion of the case, and is supported by and thus held in place by a portion of the case such as the fastening portion attaching the sensors to the casing, and each individual portion of the case supporting a respective sensor is a sensor holding portion, and all are the plurality of sensor holding portions have lower surfaces disposed within a same plane.
However, only to the extent that it is held that more than what was explained above is required to be a sensor holding portion, Oyama would not disclose the casing comprises a plurality of sensor holding portions coupled through a coupling portion, the plurality of sensor holding portions have lower surfaces disposed within a same plane.
Mitsuhashi discloses the magnetic sensor is inserted into a sensing portion provided in a casing (6) (Figures 7A,7B,8D), (Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include an individual housing chamber for each of the sensors, where each housing chamber is the same as disclosed by Mitsuhashi, to therefore include the casing comprises a plurality of sensor holding portions coupled through a coupling portion given the above disclosure and teaching of Mitsuhashi in order to advantageously providing individual protection for each of the magnetic sensors in addition to that of the overall case, thus providing an extra layer of protection for the sensors.
As to Claim 10,
PNG
media_image2.png
404
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Oyama discloses the coupling portion is formed in a cylindrical configuration with a center positioned on the reference line (see above figure).
As to Claim 15,
Oyama does not disclose the casing comprises sensor receiving holes formed in the lower surface of the casing, each sensor receiving hole being downwardly open and having a top portion sealed.
Mitsuhashi discloses the magnetic sensor is inserted into a sensor receiving hole provided in a casing (6), each sensor receiving hole being downwardly open and having a top portion sealed. (Figures 7A,7B,8D), (Paragraph [0104] / note that downward and upward are relative terms, and rotating the figures 180 degrees cause the hole to be downward).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include an individual housing chamber for each of the sensors, where each housing chamber is the same as disclosed by Mitsuhashi, to therefore include the casing comprises sensor receiving holes formed in the lower surface of the casing, each sensor receiving hole being downwardly open and having a top portion sealed given the above disclosure and teaching of Mitsuhashi in order to advantageously providing individual protection for each of the magnetic sensors in addition to that of the overall case, thus providing an extra layer of protection for the sensors.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (Oyama) (WO 2016021074 A1) in view of Taniguchi et al. (Taniguichi) (US 2014/0070799).
As to Claim 16,
Oyama discloses the substrate is fixed to the casing (Page 9, Section 1-2 Substrate).
Oyama does not disclose the specific attachment mechanism, and therefore does not disclose anchor fittings intended for securing the casing to a substrate are attached to the casing.
Taniguchi discloses anchor fittings (bolts) intended for securing the casing to a substrate are attached to the casing (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include anchor fittings intended for securing the casing to a substrate are attached to the casing as taught by Taniguchi in order to advantageously securely attach the substrate and casing in a manner that will not degrade over time like adhesive and will securely retain the case and substrate relative to each other as desired.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (Oyama) (WO 2016021074 A1) in view of Egawa (US 2022/0099462).
As to Claim 17,
Oyama does not disclose each magnetic sensor comprises two terminals respectively provided in rear portions of two wire rod supporting portions, each terminal formed in an L-curved rod-like configuration.
Egawa discloses each magnetic sensor comprises two terminals respectively provided in rear portions of two wire rod supporting portions, each terminal formed in an L-curved rod-like configuration (Figure 6B), (Paragraph [0060] / note collectively, 41A,41B or 42A,42B for each sensor are collectively L-shaped).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include each magnetic sensor comprises two terminals respectively provided in rear portions of two wire rod supporting portions, each terminal formed in an L-curved rod-like configuration as taught by Egawa in order to advantageously utilize terminals that can additionally as support posts for anchoring the ends of the electrical wires of the coils (Paragraph [0060]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (Oyama) (WO 2016021074 A1) in view of Kouno et al. (Kouno) (US 2014/0184208).
As to Claim 19,
Oyama does not disclose the casing is formed from a nonmagnetic material.
Kouno discloses the casing is formed from a nonmagnetic material (Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include the casing is formed from a nonmagnetic material as taught by Kouno in order to advantageously utilize a strong material that will protect the sensing devices but not negatively interference with the devices by altering the magnetic fields they are intended to detect.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (Oyama) (WO 2016021074 A1) in view of Atsushi (JP 2019200098).
Note: the cited paragraphs come from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claim 20,
Oyama does not disclose the magnetic wire rod has a diameter of approximately 0.1 mm to 1 mm and a length of approximately 10 mm to 30 mm.
Atsushi discloses the magnetic wire rod has a diameter of approximately 0.1 mm to 1 mm and a length of approximately 10 mm to 30 mm (Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Oyama to include the magnetic wire rod has a diameter of approximately 0.1 mm to 1 mm and a length of approximately 10 mm to 30 mm as taught by Atsushi in order to advantageously utilize a magnetic wire of sufficient dimension that generates a large Barkhausen effect and that can rapidly reverse in response to a change in the direction of the external magnetic field (Paragraph [0045]), this making detection easier.
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