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 .
Priority
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. DE102023119832.7, filed on 7/26/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/08/24 and 7/30/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing unit” in claim 16.
According to the specification the “processing unit” as control unit, e.g., ECU.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 and 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMMERSCHMIDT et al. (US 20190120914, equivalent of US 11320497, provided by applicant, hereinafter HAMMERSCHMIDT).
Regarding to claim 1, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses a sensor device, comprising:
a first differential magnetic field sensor (fig.4[420-1]) mounted on a first surface (fig.4 shows 420-1 mounted on top surface of lead frame [430]); and
a second differential magnetic field sensor mounted on a second surface (fig.4[420-2]) (fig.4 shows 420-2 mounted on bottom surface of lead frame [430]).
However, fig, 4 does not show a magnet and the first differential magnetic field sensor mounted on the first side of the magnet and the second differential magnetic field sensor situated opposite the first surface.
Fig. 1 of HAMMERSCHMIDT shows sensor 100 mounted on a back bias magnet 102
Therefore, by incorporated the magnet of fig. 1 into fig.4 it would create the sensor with the first differential sensor and the second differential sensor mounted on the opposite side of the magnet.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would obvious to a POSTA to incorporate the magnet in order to generate a bias magnetic field, which is influenced by the moving pick-up wheel.
Regarding to claim 2, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein: the magnet is magnetized in a first direction, and each differential magnetic field sensor of the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor has a first sensor element and a second sensor element spaced apart from one another in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (fig.4 shows [420-1] and [420-2] each included S1 and S2 spaced apart from each other. Fig. 1 shows the magnetic field is perpendicular to the layout direction of the sensor elements).
Regarding to claim 3, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein: the sensor device is arranged relative to a ferromagnetic target structure (fig. 1 shows the sensor arranged relative to the target 110), and the sensor device and the ferromagnetic target structure are separated from one another by an air gap (fig. 1 shows the sensor and the target 110 separated from one another by an air gap).
Regarding to claim 4, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein: the ferromagnetic target structure has a linear ferromagnetic structure configured to move past the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor in the second direction (fig .1 shows the target 120 is a rotation wheel therefore the poles moving pass the sensor in the second direction).
Regarding to claim 5, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein: the ferromagnetic target structure has a ferromagnetic wheel configured to rotate about an axis of rotation (fig. 1 shows 110 or 120 as ferromagnetic wheel), and the axis of rotation either runs parallel to the first direction or runs in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and perpendicular to the second direction (fig. 1 shows the rotation axis perpendicular to the first axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
328
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 6, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 5, wherein the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor are arranged offset with respect to the axis of rotation (fig. 12 shows first and second sensors arranged offset with respect to the axis of rotation).
Regarding to claim 8, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 2, wherein: each differential magnetic field sensor of the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor has a third sensor element arranged between the first sensor element and the second sensor element of the respective differential magnetic field sensor (fig.4 shows [420-1] ] and [420-2] each included S1 and S2 and SC located between S1 and S2), all three sensor elements of the respective differential magnetic field sensor are sensitive in the first direction (S1, SC and S2 are sensitive in the first direction as shown in fig. 1), a first differential signal output by the respective differential magnetic field sensor is based on a measurement of the first sensor element and a measurement of the second sensor element (fig. 9 shows first differential output based on L and R elements), and a second differential signal output by the respective differential magnetic field sensor is based on measurements of all three sensor elements (fig. 9 shows first differential output based on L, R and C elements).
Regarding to claim 15, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 3, wherein: the ferromagnetic target structure has a single track of openings (fig. 1 shows 110 with single track opening), and the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor are aligned with the single track of openings (fig. 1).
Regarding to claim 16, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 15, further comprising: a processing unit configured to determine a speed of the ferromagnetic target structure based on differential signals output by the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor (paragraphs 0002 and 50 disclose a differential magnetic sensor 100 is used to detect a position and/or speed of a rotatably movable ferromagnetic toothed wheel or gearwheel (passive pick-up wheel) 110 and fig 9 shows the processing circuit to evaluate the signal from the sensors. Paragraph 0065 discloses the two sensor chips 420-1, 420-2 can be configured to provide their respective output signal (for example modulated current) in accordance with the same pulse protocol. This can facilitate an evaluation for example in an ECU).
Regarding to claim 17, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 16, wherein the processing unit is further configured to carry out an automotive safety check based on the differential signals output by the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor (paragraph 0002 and 57-58 discloses the sensors for use in ABS and ESP).
Regarding to claim 18, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 2, wherein: a first side edge of the magnet running in the second direction and sensor elements of the first differential magnetic field sensor are congruent in a plan view of the first surface of the magnet, and a second side edge of the magnet running in the second direction and sensor elements of the second differential magnetic field sensor are congruent in a plan view of the second surface of the magnet (fig. 4 in view of fig. 1 provided a magnet with a first side edge of the magnet running in the second direction (as shown in annotated above) and sensor elements of the first differential magnetic field sensor are congruent in a plan view of the first surface of the magnet, and a second side edge of the magnet running in the second direction and sensor elements of the second differential magnetic field sensor are congruent in a plan view of the second surface of the magnet).
Regarding to claim 19, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, further comprising: a printed circuit board, wherein the first differential magnetic field sensor is electrically connected to a first surface of the printed circuit board via connecting conductors and the second differential magnetic field sensor is electrically connected to a second surface of the printed circuit board via connecting conductors, the second surface being situated opposite the first surface (fig. 9 shows the circuit that evaluate the differential sensors which indicates that there is a printed circuit board for these components).
Regarding to claim 20, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 19, except wherein: the magnet has at least one cutout, and a mechanical connection between the printed circuit board and the magnet is provided by a printed circuit board section engaging into the at least one cutout of the magnet.
Fig. 4 in view of fig. 1 creates two differential sensors and a magnet therebetween. Furthermore, the claim does not show the criticality of “the magnet has at least one cutout, and a mechanical connection between the printed circuit board and the magnet is provided by a printed circuit board section engaging into the at least one cutout of the magnet”.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to have magnet has at least one cutout, and a mechanical connection between the printed circuit board and the magnet is provided by a printed circuit board section engaging into the at least one cutout of the magnet a matter of design choice without unexpected results.
Regarding to claim 21, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor are structurally identical (paragraph 0061 discloses sensor elements S1, S2, SC can each be Hall sensors or magnetoresistive sensors. In some examples, the two sensor chips 420-1, 420-2 can be structurally identical and based on the same sensor technology).
Regarding to claim 22, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the magnet, the first differential magnetic field sensor, and the second differential magnetic field sensor are encapsulated in a common encapsulation material (fig. 4 and paragraph 0060 discloses sensor arrangement 400 has a sensor housing or package 410).
Regarding to claim 23, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the magnet is a permanent back-bias block magnet (see fig .1 for block magnet 102).
Regarding to claim 24, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first differential magnetic field sensor (fig.4 [420-1]) and the second differential magnetic field sensor (fig.4 [420-2]) are arranged in a top-read configuration relative to the magnet (see fig .1 and fig. 4).
Regarding to claim 25, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses a method for producing a sensor device (fig. 4), wherein the method comprises:
mounting a first differential magnetic field sensor (fig.4[420-1]) on a first surface (top surface of 430)
mounting a second differential magnetic field sensor (fig.4[420-2]) on a second surface (bottom surface of 430)
However, fig, 4 does not show a magnet and the first differential magnetic field sensor mounted on the first side of the magnet and the second differential magnetic field sensor situated opposite the first surface.
Fig. 1 of HAMMERSCHMIDT shows sensor 100 mounted on a back bias magnet 102
Therefore, by incorporated the magnet of fig. 1 into fig.4 it would create the sensor with the first differential sensor and the second differential sensor mounted on the opposite side of the magnet.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date it would obvious to a POSTA to incorporate the magnet in order to generate a bias magnetic field, which is influenced by the moving pick-up wheel.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAMMERSCHMIDT as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Weiland et al (US 20200232822 hereinafter Weiland).
Regarding to claim 9, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 3, except wherein: the ferromagnetic target structure has a first track with a first number of openings and a second track with a second number of openings, the first number and the second number are different from one another, and the first differential magnetic field sensor is aligned with the first track and the second differential magnetic field sensor is aligned with the second track.
Fig. 1, 2 and 22 of Weiland discloses a ferromagnetic moving object 106 with first track 106a and second track 106b which have different number of target features form each other; fig. 22 shows the target features as gear which have openings between teeth; a differential sensor 102 with elements 104a and 104b where 104a aligned with 106a and 104b aligned with 106b.
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date, it would be obvious to a POSITA to detect the ferromagnetic structure of Weiland as matter of intended use and provide accuracy detection of angle of rotation, i.e., position, and direction of rotation of the electric motor shaft. One such application is for main drive electric motors used in electrical automobiles.
Regarding to claim 10, HAMMERSCHMIDT in view of Weiland discloses the sensor device according to claim 9, wherein the first number of openings is one less than the second number of openings (see fig. 1-2 and 22 of Weiland).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding to claim 7, HAMMERSCHMIDT discloses the sensor device according to claim 2, wherein, for each differential magnetic field sensor of the first differential magnetic field sensor and the second differential magnetic field sensor (fig.4 shows [420-1] and [420-2] each included S1 and S2).
The prior arts show two differential sensors each of differential sensor having first differential sensor sensitive in first direction and second differential sensor sensitive in second direction instead of each differential sensor has first element sensitive in one direction and second element sensitive in second direction.
Therefore, none of the prior arts teach it holds true that:
the first sensor element and the second sensor element are sensitive in the first direction and in the second direction, a first differential signal output by the magnetic field sensor is based on a measurement of the first sensor element in the first direction and a measurement of the second sensor element in the first direction, and a second differential signal output by the magnetic field sensor is based on a measurement of the first sensor element in the second direction and a measurement of the second sensor element in the second direction.
Claims 11-14 are further limit claim 7
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5818. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7AM - 4PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571)272-4448. 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.
/SON T LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863