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 with respect to claim(s) 1-20 has been considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
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 1,4,5,7,10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Polley et al. (US 11307267).
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)
Romero does not teach wherein the base is a printed circuit board and a controller configured to adjust the current supplied by the current source to the at least one coil based on the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element to maintain a substantially constant magnetic field strength at the first and the second sensor elements.
Polley et al. teach wherein the base is a printed circuit board (suggested by A Hall sensor may be a thin piece of rectangular semiconductor material. A terminal is located on each of the four edges of the rectangle, column 3, lines 23-24) and a controller configured to adjust the current supplied by the current source to the at least one coil based on the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element to maintain a substantially constant magnetic field strength at the first and the second sensor elements. (The gain of the respective Hall groups H1 115 and H2 119 depends on the magnitude of the respective bias currents I1 and I2. A larger bias current results in a higher Hall sensor gain. The feedback signal from gain calibration module 142 along bias control path 144 adjusts bias current source 108 to stabilize the signal at node 136 over a range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses. Also, bias current source 106 is configured to match bias current source 108 and adjust the output of Hall group H2 119 over the same range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses.) (Note column 7, lines 20-31)
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 and a controller configured to adjust the current supplied by the current source to the at least one coil based on the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element to maintain a substantially constant magnetic field strength at the first and the second sensor elements to stabilize the signal at node over a range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses. (Note Polley et al. column 7, lines 28-32)
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.
Regarding claim 11, Romer does not teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element, such that the current supplied to the at least one coil is increased or decreased to maintain a substantially constant magnetic flux generated by the at least one coil.
Polley et al. teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density measured detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element, such that the current supplied to the at least one coil is increased or decreased to maintain a substantially constant magnetic flux generated by the at least one coil. (The gain of the respective Hall groups H1 115 and H2 119 depends on the magnitude of the respective bias currents I1 and I2. A larger bias current results in a higher Hall sensor gain. The feedback signal from gain calibration module 142 along bias control path 144 adjusts bias current source 108 to stabilize the signal at node 136 over a range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses. Also, bias current source 106 is configured to match bias current source 108 and adjust the output of Hall group H2 119 over the same range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses.) (Note column 7, lines 20-31)
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 detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element, such that the current supplied to the at least one coil is increased or decreased to maintain a substantially constant magnetic flux generated by the at least one coil to stabilize the signal at node over a range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses. (Note Polley et al. column 7, lines 28-32)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Polley et al. (US 11307267) further in view of Deak et al. (US 20190346514).
Romero et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Romero as modified does not teach a printed circuit board includes one or more recesses or one or more pockets, and wherein the one or more recesses or the one or more pockets at least partially receive the first and second sensor elements.
Deak et a. teach a printed circuit board (1, Fig. 1) includes one or more recesses or one or more pockets, and wherein the one or more recesses or the one or more pockets at least partially receive the first and second sensor elements (6, Fig. 1) . Examiner’s position is that insulation 2 and 3 are mounted on the printed circuit board 1 and are interpreted as being part of the printed circuit board and the sensor elements are within the insulation layers which implies pockets.
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 a printed circuit board includes one or more recesses or one or more pockets, and wherein the one or more recesses or the one or more pockets at least partially receive the first and second sensor elements to form a compact sensing device.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Polley et al. (US 11307267) further 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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romero (US 20190312579) in view of Polley et al. (US 11307267) further in view of Mitra et al. (US 20020196016).
Romero teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Romero does not teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is greater than 1 kHz and up to about 3 kHz.
Mitra et al. teach wherein an alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is greater than 1 kHz and up to about 3 kHz. (Note par. 0016)
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 greater than 1 kHz and up to about 3 kHz to power the device to function.
Regarding claim 9, Romero does not teach wherein the alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1.5 kHz and about 3 kHz.
Mitra et al. teach wherein the alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1.5 kHz and about 3 kHz.
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 alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1.5 kHz and about 3 kHz to power the device to function.
Claims 13, 16, 19 and 20 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 Polley et al. (US 11307267).
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)
at least one 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 the second sensor element are configured to detect 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)
Schmid does not teach a current source coupled to the at least one coil and a controller configured to adjust a current supplied by the current source to the at least one coil based on the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element to maintain a substantially constant magnetic field strength at the first and the second sensor elements.
Romero teach a current source coupled to the at least one coil. ([0026] Coil driver 110 is a power circuit that supplies current to coils 108 to generate the magnetic field.)
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 a current source coupled to the at least one coil to produce alternating magnetic fields (i.e. magnetic fields with magnetic moments that change over time) (Note Romero par. 0026)
Polley et al. teach a controller configured to adjust the current supplied by the current source to the at least one coil based on the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element to maintain a substantially constant magnetic field strength at the first and the second sensor elements. (The gain of the respective Hall groups H1 115 and H2 119 depends on the magnitude of the respective bias currents I1 and I2. A larger bias current results in a higher Hall sensor gain. The feedback signal from gain calibration module 142 along bias control path 144 adjusts bias current source 108 to stabilize the signal at node 136 over a range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses. Also, bias current source 106 is configured to match bias current source 108 and adjust the output of Hall group H2 119 over the same range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses.) (Note column 7, lines 20-31)
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 teach a controller configured to adjust the current supplied by the current source to the at least one coil based on the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element to maintain a substantially constant magnetic field strength at the first and the second sensor elements to stabilize the signal at node 136 over a range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses. (Note Polley et al. column 7, lines 28-32)
Regarding claim 16, Schmid does not teach wherein the current source configured to supply alternating current to the at least one coil to generate the magnetic flux.
Romero teach wherein the current source configured to supply alternating current to the at least one 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 current source configured to supply alternating current to the at least one 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)
Regarding claim 20, Schmid does not teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil by the current source is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element, such that the current supplied to the at least one coil is increased or decreased to maintain a substantially constant magnetic flux generated by the at least one coil.
Polley et al. teach wherein the current supplied to the at least one coil by the current source is adjustable based on feedback from the magnetic flux density detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element, such that the current supplied to the at least one coil is increased or decreased to maintain a substantially constant magnetic flux generated by the at least one 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 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 detected by the first sensor element and the second sensor element, such that the current supplied to the at least one coil is increased or decreased to maintain a substantially constant magnetic flux generated by the at least one coil to stabilize the signal at node over a range of operating temperatures, process variations, and package stresses. (Note Polley et al. column 7, lines 28-32)
Claim 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 Polley et al. (US 11307267) 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)
Claims 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US 20100060269) in view of Romero (US 20190312579) further in view of Polley et al. (US 11307267) further in view of Mitra et al. (US 20020196016).
Schmid teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Schmid does not teach wherein the alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz.
Mitra et al. teach wherein the alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between about 1 kHz and about 3 kHz. (Note par. 0016)
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 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 the alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between 1 kHz and 20 kHz.
Mitra et al. teach wherein the alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between 1 kHz and 20 kHz. (Note par. 0016)
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 alternating current supplied by the alternating current source is between 1 kHz and 20 kHz to power the device to function .
Claim 14 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 Polley et al. (US 11307267) further in view of Chass (US 6356072).
Schmid teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Schmid does not teach current source is a direct current source configured to supply a current to the at least one coil to generate the magnetic flux.
Chass teach current source is a direct current source configured to supply a current to the at least one coil to generate the magnetic flux. (Note abstract)
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 current source is a direct current source configured to supply a current to the at least one coil to generate the magnetic flux to provide a stable, predictable voltage, which is critical for sensitive electronics.
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 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
Prosecution Insights