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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 8. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4,5,7,10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Romero US 20190312579).
Regarding claim 1, Romero teach A magnetic sensor, (Note abstract) comprising:
a base including a first side and a second side; (Note 114, substrate, Fig. 1)
a current source; (110, Fig. 1)
at least one coil (108,Fig. 1) coupled to the base (114, Fig. 1) and coupled to the current source (110, Fig. 1) , wherein a magnetic flux is generated when the current source supplies a current to the at least one coil; (108 Fig. 1) and
a first sensor element and a second sensor element coupled to the base, (104, Fig.1, par. 0024) wherein the first sensor element and second sensor element are configured to measure magnetic flux density, (claim 1, a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements configured to detect the first and second magnetic fields; ) and
the generated magnetic flux is configured to pass through the first sensor element in a first direction and pass through the second sensor element in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction. (Note claim 1, a first coil supported by the substrate and configured to carry a first current in a first direction to generate a first magnetic field; a second coil, supported by the substrate and nested within the first coil to form a gap between the first and second coils, the second coil configured to carry a second current in a second, opposite direction to generate a second magnetic field; a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements configured to detect the first and second magnetic fields)
Regarding claim 4, Romero teach wherein the first and second sensor elements are at least one of a Hall Effect element, Giant magnetoresistance (GMR) element, or a Tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) element. (Note par. 0020)
Regarding claim 5, Romero teach wherein the at least one coil (108, Fig. 1) is disposed in the base. (Note 114, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 7, Romero teach wherein the current source is an alternating current source. (Note par. 0026)
Regarding claim 10, Romero teach wherein the first sensor element and the second sensor element disposed over the second side. (Note Fig. 1, gmr’s are over the bottom side which is interpreted as the second side.
Regarding claim 12, Romer teach wherein the first sensor element and second sensor element are embedded in the base. (Note GMR(s) 104, Fig. 1) Examiner’s position is that the GMR’s are at least partially embedded due to the connection to the base 114.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Deak et al. (US 20190346514).
Romero teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Romero does not teach wherein the base is a printed circuit board.
Deak et al. teach wherein the base is a printed circuit board. (Note par. 0009)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to include the teaching of wherein the base is a printed circuit board to reduce electronic noise.
Regarding claim 3, Romero does not teach wherein the at least one coil is disposed on one or more layers of the printed circuit board.
Deak et al. teach wherein the at least one coil is disposed on one or more layers of the printed circuit board. (Note par. 0036, The PCB substrate includes the spiral initialization coil.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to include the teaching of wherein the at least one coil is disposed on one or more layers of the printed circuit board to provide support for the coil.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Ishida et al. (US 20200003847).
Romero teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Romero does not teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density measured by the first sensor element and second sensor element.
Ishida et al. teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density measured by the first sensor element and second sensor element. ([0095] FIG. 10 illustrates the configuration of the magnetic field measuring device 10 provided with the switching unit 710 and an adjustment current generating unit 1010 according to a variant of the magnetic field measuring device 10 of the present embodiment. The magnetic field measuring device 10 illustrated in this figure further includes the adjustment current generating unit 1010 in addition to the configurations of the magnetic field measuring device 10 illustrated in FIG. 7. The adjustment current generating unit 1010 generates an adjustment current Iadjust.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to include the teaching of wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density measured by the first sensor element and second sensor element to adjust the magnetic field.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Shintaku (US 5140267).
Romero teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Romero does not teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz.
Shintaku teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz. (Note column 7, lines 7-10)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to include the teaching of wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz to power the device to function.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Ogomi et al. (US 20130119980)
Romero teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Romero does not teach wherein the current source is a constant direct current source.
Ogomi et al. teach wherein the current source is a constant direct current source. (Note par. 0127)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Romero to include the teaching of the current source is a constant direct current source to provide stable and predictable voltages, crucial for sensitive equipment.
Claims 13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20100060269) in view of Romero (US 20190312579).
Regarding claim 13, Schmid teach A magnetic levitation actuator assembly, comprising:
a linear stator; (Note 30, Fig. 1, par.0034)
a magnetic sensor positioned adjacent to the linear stator, wherein the magnetic sensor (Note par. 0042) comprises:
a base; (110, par. 0086)
an electromagnet including at least one coil configured to generate a magnetic flux, (70 magnet coils, par. 0035) the at least one coil coupled to the base; and
a first sensor element (120, par. 0042) and a second sensor element (130, par. 0042) coupled to the base, wherein:
the first sensor element and second sensor element are configured to measure magnetic flux density, (Note [0042] A first exemplary embodiment of the pole position measurement device 100 as shown in FIG. 1 is illustrated in more detail, in the form of an enlarged illustration, in FIG. 2. The pole position measurement device 100 has a pair of magnetic field sensors for measurement of the stator magnetic field S of the track-side stator 30) and
Schmid does not teach the magnetic flux generated by the at least one electromagnet is configured to pass through the first sensor element in a first direction and pass through the second sensor element in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction.
Romero teach the magnetic flux generated by the at least one electromagnet is configured to pass through the first sensor element in a first direction and pass through the second sensor element in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction. (Note claim 1, a first coil supported by the substrate and configured to carry a first current in a first direction to generate a first magnetic field; a second coil, supported by the substrate and nested within the first coil to form a gap between the first and second coils, the second coil configured to carry a second current in a second, opposite direction to generate a second magnetic field; a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements configured to detect the first and second magnetic fields)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmid to include the teaching of the magnetic flux generated by the at least one electromagnet is configured to pass through the first sensor element in a first direction and pass through the second sensor element in a second direction that is opposite to the first direction to processes the changes in (and/or the state of) the signal to determine position, movement, or other characteristics of target. (Note Romero par. 0030)
Regarding claim 16, Schmid does not teach wherein the electromagnet further comprises an alternating current source coupled to the at least one coil configured to supply an alternating current to the coil to generate the magnetic flux.
Romero teach wherein the electromagnet further comprises an alternating current source coupled to the at least one coil configured to supply an alternating current to the coil to generate the magnetic flux. (Note par. 0026)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmid to include the teaching of wherein the electromagnet further comprises an alternating current source coupled to the at least one coil configured to supply an alternating current to the coil to generate the magnetic flux to allow current to be transmitted over long distances with minimal energy loss.
Regarding claim 19, Schmid teach wherein the first sensor element and second sensor element are embedded in the base. (Note pole position measurement device 100 that has magnetic sensor elements 120 130, that is at least partially embedded in base 110, Fig. 1)
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20100060269) in view of Romero (US 20190312579) further in view of Shintaku (US 5140267).
Schmid teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Schmid does not teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz.
Shintaku teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz. (Note column 7, lines 7-10)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmid to include the teaching of wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz to power the device to function.
Regarding claim 18, Schmid does not teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 20 kHz.
Shintaku teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 20 kHz. (Note column 7, lines 7-10)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmid to include the teaching of wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 20 kHz to power the device to function.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20100060269) in view of Romero (US 20190312579) further in view of Ogomi et al. (US 20130119980)
Schmid teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Schmid does not teach wherein the electromagnet further comprises a direct current source coupled to the at least one coil configured to supply a current to the coil to generate the magnetic flux.
Ogomi et al. teach wherein the current source is a constant direct current source. (Note par. 0127)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmid to include the teaching of wherein the electromagnet further comprises a direct current source coupled to the at least one coil configured to supply a current to the coil to generate the magnetic flux to provide stable and predictable voltages, crucial for sensitive equipment.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20100060269) in view of Romero (US 20190312579) further in view of Ishida et al. (US 20200003847).
Schmid teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 20,Schmid does not teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density measured by the first sensor element and second sensor element.
Ishida et al. teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density measured by the first sensor element and second sensor element. ([0095] FIG. 10 illustrates the configuration of the magnetic field measuring device 10 provided with the switching unit 710 and an adjustment current generating unit 1010 according to a variant of the magnetic field measuring device 10 of the present embodiment. The magnetic field measuring device 10 illustrated in this figure further includes the adjustment current generating unit 1010 in addition to the configurations of the magnetic field measuring device 10 illustrated in FIG. 7. The adjustment current generating unit 1010 generates an adjustment current Iadjust.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmid to include the teaching of wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density measured by the first sensor element and second sensor element to adjust the magnetic field.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20100060269) in view of Romero (US 20190312579) further in view of Yamashita et al. (US 20100117638)
Schmid teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Schmid does not teach wherein the electromagnet has a magnetic axis that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base, wherein the at least one coil is disposed between the first sensor element and the second sensor element.
Yamashita et al. teach wherein the electromagnet has a magnetic axis that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base,(Note vertical direction par. 0075) wherein the at least one coil (23, Fig. 5B) is disposed between the first sensor element (21a, Fig. 5B) and the second sensor element. (21b, Fig. 5B)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmid to include the teaching of wherein the electromagnet has a magnetic axis that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base, wherein the at least one coil is disposed between the first sensor element and the second sensor element to measure the sensitivity of a vertical direction magnetic field. (Note Yamashita et al. par. 0039)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858