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 .
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 4 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 4,
PNG
media_image1.png
252
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “a plane comprising the mounting face is perpendicular to the axis of rotation and, in addition, there is no contact with the rotating body or the magnetic field forming member” on lines 7-9 lacks proper written description.
As best understood, the above plane is referring to the mounting face (31a) of the substrate. Applicant is claiming that the plane, defined by the mounting face, does not have contact with the rotating body, which is shaft (40) in the above figure. However, this is not reasonably disclosed, as any plane defined or formed by the mounting surface of the substrate must go through the shaft (rotating body). While applicant may desire the “plane” to be completely limited to the surface of the substrate, a plane does not have a hole in it in the same way the substrate can such as seen with substrate (31) in Figure 3. A plane is a two-dimensional object such as a sheet of paper. Because the substrate completely surrounds the rotating body with the rotating body fully extending through the substrate, any plane formed by the surface of the substrate must extend through and thus make contact with the rotating body. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements the above claim feature, and would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had 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.
Claim 4 is 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 4,
PNG
media_image1.png
252
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The phrase “a plane comprising the mounting face is perpendicular to the axis of rotation and, in addition, there is no contact with the rotating body or the magnetic field forming member” on lines 7-9 is indefinite.
1) It is unclear what applicant means by the plane not making contact with the rotating body.
The first issue here is that, as best understood, applicant is referring to whether or not the plane extends through the rotating body. As best understood, the above plane is referring to the mounting face (31a) of the substrate. Applicant is claiming that the plane, defined by the mounting face, does not have contact with the rotating body, which is shaft (40) in the above figure. However, this is not reasonably disclosed, as any plane defined or formed by the mounting surface of the substrate must go through the shaft (rotating body). While applicant may desire the “plane” to be completely limited to the surface of the substrate, a plane does not have a hole in it in the same way the substrate can such as seen with substrate (31) in Figure 3. A plane is a two-dimensional object such as a sheet of paper. Because the substrate completely surrounds the rotating body with the rotating body fully extending through the substrate, any plane formed by the surface of the substrate must extend through and thus make contact with the rotating body. As such, the plane would extend through the rotating body, making it unclear what applicant means by reciting the above claim feature.
The second issue is what applicant means by the plane not making contact with the rotating body. The plane in question does not exist, and thus cannot make contact with any physical object. It is therefore unclear how a plane does or does not make contact with any object.
2) It is unclear how the plane can “comprise” the mounting surface. A plane is not a physical object, whereas a mounting surface is a physical object. It is therefore unclear what applicant means by reciting that the plane comprises the mounting surface, and the difference and relationship between the plane and mounting surface are unclear.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of the disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting the above phrase to mean that the plane is the mounting surface, and that the mounting surface cannot come into contact with the rotating body.
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 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_image2.png
738
449
media_image2.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).
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,
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), a plane comprising the mounting face is perpendicular to the axis of rotation and, in addition, there is no contact with the rotating body or 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 the casing of the magnetic sensor device 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2014/0062465 to Oyama, 2) US 2015/0015245 to Inoue et al., and 3) US 2025/0060391 to Sawai et al. which all disclose a rotation detecting device using the Barkhausen effect
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