DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-39 are pending.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 307 (see Figure 3). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. The specification is objected to due to the following informality.
On page 9, it appears that the element “switch 306” in paragraph 30 should be revised to “switch 307” because the reference numeral 306 is used to denote the power control block (see Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is directed to the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the “sensor package” is disposed apart from the IC. Claim 3 lacks clarity because it describes the sensor package as being apart from the IC which is stated in claim 1 as being disposed in the package body of the sensor package. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as implying that the sensor is disposed apart from the IC.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11-12, 27, 33, 35-36, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong et al. (US 2019/0316934 – hereinafter “Chong”) and Ausserlechner (US 2011/0234215).
Per claim 1, Chong teaches a sensor device comprising:
a sensor (Fig. 1B; Hall sensor; ¶17) configured to produce an output signal indicative of a sensed physical phenomenon; an integrated circuit (IC) (Fig. 1B; processor 115; ¶17) disposed on a semiconductor die (Fig. 1B; semiconductor die 107; ¶17); a Wiegand sensor (Fig. 1A; Weigand module 100; ¶17) connected to the integrated circuit, wherein the Wiegand sensor includes a coil configured around a Wiegand wire, wherein the Wiegand sensor is configured to provide an energy pulse to the integrated circuit in response to a changing polarity of a sensed magnetic field (The Wiegand module 100 includes a coil configured around a Wiegand wire. In response to an external magnetic field, such as from an encoder, the Wiegand module 100 generates an energy pulse that is provided to the semiconductor die 107 (¶11 and 15-20)).
However, Chong does not explicitly teach a sensor package comprising a sensor and an integrated circuit that receives an output signal from the sensor that are disposed in a package body of the sensor package.
In contrast, Ausserlechner teaches a sensor package 100 comprising a mold body 140 that covers a sensor chip 130 and one or several magnetic field sensors 132 (Fig. 1A; ¶43 and 92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the circuits of Chong in a sensor package. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of protecting circuit components from the environment (Ausserlechner; ¶43).
Per claim 3, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the sensor package is disposed apart from the IC (The Hall sensor is disposed apart from the processor 115 (¶17-18)).
Per claim 9, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the Wiegand sensor comprises a discrete element disposed in the package body (In the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner, a mold body would cover the Wiegand module 100 (Ausserlechner; Fig. 1A)).
Per claim 11, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises a magnetic field sensor (A Hall sensor is provided (¶17)).
Per claim 12, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the sensor package of claim 11, wherein the magnetic field sensor comprises one or more Hall effect elements (A Hall sensor is provided (¶17)).
Per claim 27, Chong teaches a method of making a sensor device, the method comprising: providing a sensor (Fig. 1B; Hall sensor; ¶17) configured to produce an output signal indicative of a sensed physical phenomenon; providing an integrated circuit (IC) (Fig. 1B; processor 115; ¶17) disposed on a semiconductor die (Fig. 1B; semiconductor die 107; ¶17); and providing a Wiegand sensor (Fig. 1A; Weigand module 100; ¶17) connected to the integrated circuit, wherein the Wiegand sensor includes a coil configured around a Wiegand wire, wherein the Wiegand sensor is configured to provide an energy pulse to the integrated circuit in response to a changing polarity of a sensed magnetic field (The Wiegand module 100 includes a coil configured around a Wiegand wire. In response to an external magnetic field, such as from an encoder, the Wiegand module 100 generates an energy pulse that is provided to the semiconductor die 107 (¶11 and 15-20)).
However, Chong does not explicitly teach a sensor package comprising a sensor and an integrated circuit that receives an output signal from the sensor that are disposed in a package body of the sensor package.
In contrast, Ausserlechner teaches a sensor package 100 comprising a mold body 140 that covers a sensor chip 130 and one or several magnetic field sensors 132 (Fig. 1A; ¶43 and 92).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the circuits of Chong in a sensor package. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of protecting circuit components from the environment (Ausserlechner; ¶43).
Per claim 33, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the Wiegand sensor comprises a discrete element disposed in the package body (In the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner, a mold body would cover the Wiegand module 100 (Ausserlechner; Fig. 1A)).
Per claim 35, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the sensor comprises a magnetic field sensor (A Hall sensor is provided (¶17)).
Per claim 36, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 35, wherein the magnetic field sensor comprises one or more Hall effect elements (A Hall sensor is provided (¶17)).
Per claim 39, Chong in view of Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the sensor is disposed apart from the IC (The Hall sensor is disposed apart from the processor 115 (¶17-18)).
9. Claims 2, 8, 32, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in further view of Mehnert (US 2010/0052663 – hereinafter “Mehnert”).
Per claim 2, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the sensor is disposed in the IC.
In contrast, Mehnert teaches a rotary encoder 2 comprising a sensor arrangement 46 in the form of an integrated circuit chip wherein the sensor arrangement 46 includes a Hall probe and controller (Fig. 5; ¶63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the Hall sensor is disposed in an integrated circuit including the processor 115. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing an integrated sensor arrangement (Mehnert; ¶43).
Per claim 8, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the Wiegand sensor is disposed on the semiconductor die.
In contrast, Mehnert teaches a rotary encoder 2 comprising a sensor arrangement 46 in the form of an integrated circuit chip wherein the sensor arrangement 46 includes a controller and a Wiegand wire 28 with induction coil (¶63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the Wiegand module 100 is disposed on the semiconductor die 107. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing an integrated sensor arrangement (Mehnert; ¶43).
Per claim 32, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the method of claim 27, wherein the Wiegand sensor is disposed on the semiconductor die.
In contrast, Mehnert teaches a rotary encoder 2 comprising a sensor arrangement 46 in the form of an integrated circuit chip wherein the sensor arrangement 46 includes a controller and a Wiegand wire 28 with induction coil (¶63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the Wiegand module 100 is disposed on the semiconductor die 107. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing an integrated sensor arrangement (Mehnert; ¶43).
Per claim 38, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the method of claim 27, wherein the sensor is disposed in the IC.
In contrast, Mehnert teaches a rotary encoder 2 comprising a sensor arrangement 46 in the form of an integrated circuit chip wherein the sensor arrangement 46 includes a Hall probe and controller (Fig. 5; ¶63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the Hall sensor is disposed in an integrated circuit including the processor 115. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing an integrated sensor arrangement (Mehnert; ¶43).
10. Claims 4 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in further view of Dlugos et al. (US 6,191,687 – hereinafter “Dlugos”).
Per claim 4, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the IC is configured to switch from a low-power state to an active state in response to receiving the energy pulse from the Wiegand sensor.
In contrast, Dlugos teaches a Wiegand effect energy generator comprising a Wiegand generator 10 that produces energy pulses in response to the movement of magnets. The energy pulses are received by a transmitter 20 causing the transmitter 20 to wake up (Fig. 3A; col. 4, lines 31-65 and col. 5, lines 8-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the processor 115 is configured to switch from a low-power state to an active state in response to receiving the energy pulse from the Wiegand module 100. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of awakening circuitry in response to a detected magnetic event (Dlugos; col. 4, lines 31-65).
Per claim 28, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the method of claim 27, wherein the IC is configured to switch from a low-power state to an active state in response to receiving the energy pulse from the Wiegand sensor.
In contrast, Dlugos teaches a Wiegand effect energy generator comprising a Wiegand generator 10 that produces energy pulses in response to the movement of magnets. The energy pulses are received by a transmitter 20 causing the transmitter 20 to wake up (Fig. 3A; col. 4, lines 31-65 and col. 5, lines 8-25)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the processor 115 is configured to switch from a low-power state to an active state in response to receiving the energy pulse from the Wiegand module 100. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of awakening circuitry in response to a detected magnetic event (Dlugos; col. 4, lines 31-65).
11. Claims 5-6 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in view of Dlugos, in further view of Turner (US 2008/0303513).
Per claim 5, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 4, wherein the IC is configured to stay in the active state until receiving an off command.
In contrast, Turner teaches a wireless active wheel speed sensor 90 comprising a sleep/wakeup circuit 92 that is configured to receive a de-actuation command after the wheel speed sensor 90 has been activated (Fig. 3; ¶23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos such that the processor 115 is configured to stay in the active state until receiving an off command. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of controlling when a wireless sensor is in an active state (Turner; ¶23).
Per claim 6, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 4, wherein the IC is configured to stay in the active state for a specified time.
In contrast, Turner teaches a wireless active wheel speed sensor 90 that is configured to remain active until a predetermined time period elapses (Fig. 3; ¶23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos such that the processor 115 is configured to stay in the active state for a specified time. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of controlling the duration a wireless sensor is in an active state (Turner; ¶23).
Per claim 29, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos does not explicitly teach the method of claim 28, wherein the IC is configured to stay in the active state until receiving an off command.
In contrast, Turner teaches a wireless active wheel speed sensor 90 comprising a sleep/wakeup circuit 92 that is configured to receive a de-actuation command after the wheel speed sensor 90 has been activated (Fig. 3; ¶23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos such that the processor 115 is configured to stay in the active state until receiving an off command. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of controlling when a wireless sensor is in an active state (Turner; ¶23).
Per claim 30, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos does not explicitly teach the method of claim 28, wherein the IC is configured to stay in the active state for a specified time.
In contrast, Turner teaches a wireless active wheel speed sensor 90 that is configured to remain active until a predetermined time period elapses (Fig. 3; ¶23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Dlugos such that the processor 115 is configured to stay in the active state for a specified time. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of controlling the duration a wireless sensor is in an active state (Turner; ¶23).
12. Claims 7 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in view of Dlugos, in view of Turner, in further view of Solveson et al. (US 2006/0076838 – hereinafter “Solveson”).
Per claim 7, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in view of Dlugos in further view of Turner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 6, wherein the specified time is in accordance with a duty cycle.
In contrast, Solveson teaches a sensor apparatus comprising a microprocessor 122 that is configured to wake up from a low-power mode. Sensor data is transmitted by the sensor apparatus according to a duty cycle (¶75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in view of Dlugos in further view of Turner such that the specified time is in accordance with a duty cycle. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of allotting a time frame suitable for the wireless sensor to perform a task (Solveson; ¶75).
Per claim 31, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the method of claim 30, wherein the specified time is in accordance with a duty cycle.
In contrast, Solveson teaches a sensor apparatus comprising a microprocessor 122 that is configured to wake up from a low-power mode. Sensor data is transmitted by the sensor apparatus according to a duty cycle (¶75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in view of Dlugos in further view of Turner such that the specified time is in accordance with a duty cycle. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of allotting a time frame suitable for the wireless sensor to perform a task (Solveson; ¶75).
13. Claims 10 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in further view of Mehnert et al. (US 2012/0268109 – hereinafter “Document 2”).
Per claim 10, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the Wiegand sensor comprises two or more coils configured to detect change in polarity of a sensed magnetic field in two or more respective directions.
In contrast, Document 2 teaches a segment counter comprising Wiegand sensors Ws1 and Ws2 arranged perpendicularly to each other wherein each sensor includes a wire and two coils (Fig. 5; ¶27, 31, and 35),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the Wiegand sensor comprises two or more coils configured to detect change in polarity of a sensed magnetic field in two or more respective directions. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of enabling the determination of a position of a rotating body (Document 2; ¶33).
Per claim 34, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the method of claim 27, wherein the Wiegand sensor comprises two or more coils configured to detect change in polarity of a sensed magnetic field in two or more respective directions.
In contrast, Document 2 teaches a segment counter comprising Wiegand sensors Ws1 and Ws2 arranged perpendicularly to each other wherein each sensor includes a wire and two coils (Fig. 5; ¶27, 31, and 35),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the Wiegand sensor comprises two or more coils configured to detect change in polarity of a sensed magnetic field in two or more respective directions. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of enabling the determination of a position of a rotating body (Document 2; ¶33).
14. Claims 13-18 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in further view of Gehringer et al. (US 2015/0130450 – hereinafter “Gehringer”).
Per claim 13, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 11, wherein the magnetic field sensor comprises one or more magnetoresistance (xMR) elements.
In contrast, Gehringer teaches a multiturn (MT) rotary encoder 10 comprising a Wiegand wire sensor 12 that is configured to gain energy based on the orientation of an external magnetic field 40 and an xMR element 14 that uses the gained energy for determining a field strength and field direction. The xMR element 14 may be a TMR element, a GMR element, or an AMR element (Fig. 1; ¶77 and 80-81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the magnetic field sensor comprises one or more magnetoresistance (xMR) elements. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of measuring the strength and direction of an external magnetic field (Gehringer; ¶80).
Per claim 14, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Gehringer teaches the sensor package of claim 13, wherein the one or more xMR elements comprise one or more tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) elements (Gehringer; ¶81).
Per claim 15, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Gehringer teaches the sensor package of claim 13, wherein the one or more xMR elements comprise one or more anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) elements (Gehringer; ¶81).
Per claim 16, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Gehringer teaches the sensor package of claim 13, wherein the one or more xMR elements comprise one or more giant magnetoresistance (GMR) elements (Gehringer; ¶81).
Per claim 17, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the IC comprises one or more memories.
In contrast, Gehringer teaches a multiturn (MT) rotary encoder 10 comprising a Wiegand wire sensor 12 that is configured to gain energy based on the orientation of an external magnetic field 40 and an xMR element 14 that uses the gained energy for determining a field strength and field direction. A memory 78, such as an MRAM, is provided for storing position information (Fig. 1; ¶98, 137-138, and 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that an integrated circuit including the processor 115 includes one or more memories. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of storing position information (Gehringer; ¶163).
Per claim 18, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Gehringer teaches the sensor package of claim 17, wherein the one or more memories comprise magnetic random access memory (MRAM) (Gehringer; ¶138).
Per claim 37, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the method of claim 35, wherein the magnetic field sensor comprises one or more magnetoresistance (xMR) elements.
In contrast, Gehringer teaches a multiturn (MT) rotary encoder 10 comprising a Wiegand wire sensor 12 that is configured to gain energy based on the orientation of an external magnetic field 40 and an xMR element 14 that uses the gained energy for determining a field strength and field direction. The xMR element 14 may be a TMR element, a GMR element, or an AMR element (Fig. 1; ¶77 and 80-81).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the magnetic field sensor comprises one or more magnetoresistance (xMR) elements. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of measuring the strength and direction of an external magnetic field (Gehringer; ¶80).
15. Claims 19-20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in further view of Larsen (US 2021/0131586).
Per claim 19, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, further comprising a storage mechanism disposed in the package body and configured to store energy for use by the IC and/or sensor.
In contrast, Larsen teaches an absolute value position detection (APD) assembly 200 that includes an energy-harvesting sensor 258 comprising a Wiegand wire core 266. The APD assembly 200 may include a battery to store energy from the energy-harvesting sensor 258 and provide power to a counter and/or other components of the APD assembly 200 (Fig. 5; ¶28 and 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that it further comprises a storage mechanism disposed in the package body and configured to store energy for use by the IC and/or sensor. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing power to sensor components in an unstable power environment (Larsen; ¶30).
Per claim 20, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen teaches the sensor package of claim 19, wherein the storage mechanism comprises a battery disposed in the package body (In the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen, a battery is provided (Larsen; ¶30)).
Per claim 22, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the Wiegand sensor is configured to harvest energy from a host system producing one or more changing magnetic fields.
In contrast, Larsen teaches an absolute value position detection (APD) assembly 200 that includes an energy-harvesting sensor 258 comprising a Wiegand wire core 266. The energy-harvesting sensor 258 is activated by rotation of a magnet 254 of a drive element 108. The APD assembly 200 may include a battery to store energy from the energy-harvesting sensor 258 and provide power to a counter and/or other components of the APD assembly 200 (Fig. 5; ¶26, 28, and 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the Wiegand module 100 is configured to harvest energy from a host system producing one or more changing magnetic fields. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of providing power to sensor components in an unstable power environment (Larsen; ¶30).
Per claim 23, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen teaches the sensor package of claim 22, wherein the Wiegand sensor comprises one or more Wiegand coils, each configured to detect a changing magnetic field and produce a corresponding output signal (In the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen, the Wiegand module 100 includes a Wiegand coil configured to detect a changing magnetic field (Chong; Fig. 1B; ¶15)).
Per claim 24, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen teaches the sensor package of claim 23, wherein each changing magnetic field is produced by relative motion between the respective Wiegand coil and a moving magnetic target of a host system (In the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen, rotation of a magnet relative to the Wiegand module 100 produces a changing magnetic field (Larsen; ¶26)).
Per claim 25, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen teaches the sensor package of claim 24, wherein the host system comprises a moving system with one or more moving components having angular motion, wherein each Wiegand coil of the Wiegand sensor is configured for operation at a respective frequency corresponding to the one or more moving components of the host system (In the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen, the rotation of a magnet of a host system would be detected by the Wiegand coil of the Wiegand module 100 (Larsen; ¶26)).
16. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in view of Larsen, in further view of Mehnert et al. (US 2011/0184691 – hereinafter “Document 3”).
Per claim 21, Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 20, wherein the battery is disposed in the IC.
In contrast, Document 3 teaches a revolution counter comprising an integrated circuit including an energy storage device (claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner in further view of Larsen such that the battery is disposed in an integrated circuit including the processor 115. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of integrating an energy storage device with processing circuitry of a sensor (Document 3; claim 12).
17. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Chong and Ausserlechner, in further view of Schrubbe (US 2018/0051973).
Per claim 26, Chong in view of Ausserlechner does not explicitly teach the sensor package of claim 1, wherein the coil of the Wiegand sensor is configured to reset the Wiegand wire to a known domain state after powerup to have a known North-to-South transition or South-to-North transition to be detected.
In contrast, Schrubbe teaches a position sensing detector 42 comprising a reset magnet 18 and a Wiegand wire 26 disposed between the reset magnet 18 and position magnets 14 of a rotatable track 12. As movement occurs between the position sensing detector 42 and the track 12, the Wiegand wire 26 transitions to a reset state when the Wiegand wire 26 is influenced more by the reset magnet 18 than the position magnets 14. In the reset state, the Wiegand wire 26 is in an opposite polarization state as compared to the polarization state of the Wiegand wire 26 in a set state when it is influenced more by the position magnets 14 than the reset magnet 18 (Fig. 2; ¶20, 23, and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor package of Chong in view of Ausserlechner such that the coil of the Wiegand module is configured to reset the Wiegand wire to a known domain state after powerup to have a known North-to-South transition or South-to-North transition to be detected. One of ordinary skill would make such a modification for the purpose of enabling a Wiegand wire to alternate between a reset state and a set state (Schrubbe; ¶23).
Conclusion
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852