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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 06/26/2026 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 1-3 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection applicant argued that “More specifically, the amendments to claim 1 clarify a characteristic feature of the present invention. More specifically, when the battery is assumed to be in a normal state and a measured magnetic field value differs from a reference value, the invention assumes that the difference is caused by displacement of the battery from a reference position. Based on this assumption, the invention calculates a relative position of the battery with respect to the magnetometer. The amended claims further clarify that, when the calculated relative position is a physically impossible position, or when the relative position cannot be calculated, it is determined that the cause of the abnormality lies in the battery”. Examine respectfully disagrees.
First Prong:
calculating information regarding a relative position of the magnetometer, based on the measurement value of the magnetic field of the battery and a reference value of the magnetic field of the battery, wherein the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer is calculated in a supposed case when the battery is in a normal state, and the reference value of the magnetic field of the battery is a measurement value of a magnetic field obtained by the magnetometer scanning the battery disposed at a reference position when the battery is known to be in the normal state; and determining that the battery is an anomalous state when the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer satisfies an anomaly determination condition, wherein the anomaly determination condition is that it cannot be identified how the battery deviates from the reference position (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(These limitations can be performed by using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “acquiring a measurement value of a magnetic field of a battery mounted on a device, the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer;” in the independent claim 1 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because relate to insignificant extra solution activity, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer; such features were conventional, as best understood, for example Pub NO. US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer; determining a state of the battery based on the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer in para [0070]-[0090] and US 2019/0089022 A1 discloses the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer; determining a state of the battery based on the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer in para [0012]. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
Therefore applicant’s arguments regarding 101 rejection are not persuasive.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Regarding 102 rejection applicant argued a page 6 that “Applicant submits that Nagano does not disclose or suggest the diagnostic logic clarified by the amendments. In particular, Nagano does not disclose determining that an abnormality is attributable to the battery based on the fact that a physically possible or identifiable relative position cannot be obtained under the assumption that the battery is normal. Accordingly, Nagano does not anticipate the amended claims”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nagano teaches all states A1-A4 are normal states and A5 is abnormal state. Therefore Nagano teaches physically possible or identifiable relative position being obtained under the assumption that the battery is normal.
Therefore applicant’s arguments regarding 102 rejection are not persuasive.
Therefore the rejection stands.
Regarding 103 rejection, applicant arguments for claim 3 has been fully considered but are moot because new ground(s) of rejection has been applied to amended limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention s directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 1 is directed to method which is a method and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
calculating information regarding a relative position of the magnetometer, based on the measurement value of the magnetic field of the battery and a reference value of the magnetic field of the battery, wherein the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer is calculated in a supposed case when the battery is in a normal state, and the reference value of the magnetic field of the battery is a measurement value of a magnetic field obtained by the magnetometer scanning the battery disposed at a reference position when the battery is known to be in the normal state; and determining that the battery is an anomalous state when the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer satisfies an anomaly determination condition, wherein the anomaly determination condition is that it cannot be identified how the battery deviates from the reference position (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(These limitations can be performed by using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “acquiring a measurement value of a magnetic field of a battery mounted on a device, the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer;” in the independent claim 1 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because relate to insignificant extra solution activity, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer; such features were conventional, as best understood, for example Pub NO. US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer; determining a state of the battery based on the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer in para [0070]-[0090] and US 2019/0089022 A1 discloses the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer; determining a state of the battery based on the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer in para [0012]. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
11. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “calculating a pattern representing a difference between a waveform of reference values and a waveform of measurement values as the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer, wherein the anomaly determination condition is that the pattern is different from a pattern when the battery is in the normal state”, which are/is simply no more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
12. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, claim 3 includes limitation “calculating, as the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer, a correction coefficient for the relative position of the magnetometer, wherein the anomaly determination condition is that the correction coefficient is equal to or more than a determination threshold” which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 4 includes additional elements “moving the magnetometer along one scan direction, to measure the magnetic field of the battery by the magnetometer” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses moving the magnetometer along one scan direction, to measure the magnetic field of the battery by the magnetometer in para [0071]-[0082].
14. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 5 includes additional elements “shifting the magnetometer to each of multiple positions that are aligned periodically or non-periodically in a direction intersecting the scan direction, and moving the magnetometer from each of the positions along the scan direction” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses shifting the magnetometer to each of multiple positions that are aligned periodically or non-periodically in a direction intersecting the scan direction, and moving the magnetometer from each of the positions along the scan direction in para [0071]-[0082].
15. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes additional elements “shifting the magnetometer to each position from which, when the reference value of the magnetic field of the battery has been measured, movement to the scan direction has been started, and moving the magnetometer from each position along the scan direction” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses shifting the magnetometer to each position from which, when the reference value of the magnetic field of the battery has been measured, movement to the scan direction has been started, and moving the magnetometer from each position along the scan direction in para [0071]-[0082].
16. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, claim 7 includes limitation “acquiring measurement values of the magnetic field of the battery by moving the magnetometer to multiple directions including at least first and second directions; and determining the scan direction based on a first measurement value and a second measurement value, the first measurement value being obtained by moving the magnetometer to the first direction, the second measurement value being obtained by moving the magnetometer to the second direction” which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 8 includes additional elements “moving the magnetometer in a scan range determined based on a type of the device on which the battery is mounted” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses moving the magnetometer in a scan range determined based on a type of the device on which the battery is mounted in para [0071]-[0082].
18. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 9 includes additional elements “moving the magnetometer in a scan range determined based on a type of the device on which the battery is mounted” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses moving the magnetometer in a scan range determined based on a type of the device on which the battery is mounted in para [0071]-[0082].
19. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 10 includes additional elements “a movement apparatus configured to move the magnetometer relative to the battery, wherein the movement apparatus is configured to move between a plane on which the device with the battery is disposed and the battery” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses a movement apparatus configured to move the magnetometer relative to the battery, wherein the movement apparatus is configured to move between a plane on which the device with the battery is disposed and the battery in para [0071]-[0082].
20. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 11 includes additional elements “a drive apparatus configured to move the device with the battery relative to the magnetometer” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0273335 A1 discloses a drive apparatus configured to move the device with the battery relative to the magnetometer in para [0049].
21. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 12 includes additional elements “wherein the magnetometer is configured to include one or more magnetic sensors to measure the magnetic field of the battery” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses wherein the magnetometer is configured to include one or more magnetic sensors to measure the magnetic field of the battery in para [0071]-[0082].
22. Claim13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 13 includes additional elements “wherein the magnetometer is configured to include a plurality of the magnetic sensors arranged in a line or array” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses wherein the magnetometer is configured to include a plurality of the magnetic sensors arranged in a line or array in para [0071]-[0082].
23. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on claim 12, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 14 includes additional elements “wherein the magnetometer is configured to include a plurality of the magnetic sensors arranged in a range of covering entirety of the battery” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2020/0365952 A1 discloses herein the magnetometer is configured to include a plurality of the magnetic sensors arranged in a range of covering entirety of the battery in para [0071]-[0082].
24. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 15 includes additional elements “wherein the control apparatus is configured to select part of the plurality of the magnetic sensors, and acquire measurement values from the selected magnetic sensors” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2022/0153536 A1 discloses wherein the control apparatus is configured to select part of the plurality of the magnetic sensors, and acquire measurement values from the selected magnetic sensors in para [0022]-[0025].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by NAGANO et al. (Pub NO. US 2020/0365952 A1; hereinafter Nagano).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagano teaches a battery state determination method (method in fig. 1; See [0004]-[0012]) comprising:
acquiring a measurement value of a magnetic field of a battery mounted on a device (Step A2 [0007]), the measurement value being measured by a magnetometer (magnetic sensor 12 is magnetometer; See [0004]);
calculating information regarding a relative position of the magnetometer (calculating current distribution represents different positions of magnetometer at Step A3 and Step A4 represents relative position with reference positions in fig. 1; See [0077]-[0088]), based on the measurement value of the magnetic field of the battery (See [0080]-[0082]) and a reference value of the magnetic field of the battery (See [0083]),
wherein the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer is calculated in a supposed case when the battery is in a normal state (relative position depends on current distribution because noise in current depends on position of battery to be tested and it is measured by magnetometer 12 in Fig. 4 and it is noted all steps are under normal step except abnormal state at A5 is identified in Fig. 1; See [0086]-[0090]), and
the reference value of the magnetic field of the battery is a measurement value of a magnetic field obtained by the magnetometer scanning the battery disposed at a reference position when the battery is known to be in the normal state (reference position is predetermined position/original position when 110 is attached to 100 in Fig. 2 and it is noted all steps are under normal step except abnormal state at A5 is identified in Fig. 1; See [0086]-[0096]); and
determining that the battery is an anomalous state when the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer satisfies an anomaly determination condition (step A5 is anomalous state when relative position of battery See [0090]), wherein the anomaly determination condition is that it cannot be identified how the battery deviates from the reference position (how battery deviated from reference/original position of 110; See [0086]-[0096]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nagano teaches the battery state determination method according to claim 1, comprising calculating a pattern representing a difference between a waveform of reference values and a waveform of measurement values as the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer (See [0086]-[0096]), wherein the anomaly determination condition is that the pattern is different from a pattern (abnormal state is Step A5 when difference between relative and reference position in Fig. 1; See [0092]) when the battery is in the normal state (reference position is predetermined position/original position when 110 is attached to 100 in Fig. 2 and it is noted all steps are under normal step except abnormal state at A5 is identified in Fig. 1; See [0086]-[0096]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nagano teaches the battery state determination method according to claim 1, comprising moving the magnetometer along one scan direction, to measure the magnetic field of the battery by the magnetometer (moving magnetometer 120 positions is move along scan direction; See [0071], [0076], [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 5, Nagano teaches the battery state determination method according to claim 4, comprising shifting the magnetometer to each of multiple positions that are aligned periodically or non-periodically in a direction intersecting the scan direction (moving magnetometer 120 positions is move along scan direction; See [0071], [0076], [0079]-[0080]), and moving the magnetometer from each of the positions along the scan direction (moving magnetometer 120 positions is move along scan direction; See [0071], [0076], [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nagano teaches the battery state determination method according to claim 5, comprising shifting the magnetometer to each position from which, when the reference value of the magnetic field of the battery has been measured (See [0018], [0034], [0037]), movement to the scan direction has been started, and moving the magnetometer from each position along the scan direction (moving magnetometer 120 positions is move along scan direction; See [0071], [0076], [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding Claim 7, Nagano teaches the battery state determination method according to claim 4, comprising: acquiring measurement values of the magnetic field of the battery by moving the magnetometer to multiple directions including at least first and second directions (moving magnetometer 120 positions in x and y axis are first and second direction; [0076]); and determining the scan direction based on a first measurement value and a second measurement value (shifting direction is determined based on x-direction and y-direction; See [0071], [0075]-[0076]), the first measurement value being obtained by moving the magnetometer to the first direction (first direction is x-direction), the second measurement value being obtained by moving the magnetometer to the second direction (second direction is y-direction; See [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 8, Nagano teaches the battery state determination method according to claim 4, comprising moving the magnetometer in a scan range determined based on a type of the device on which the battery is mounted (See [0071], [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 9, Nagano teaches a battery state determination system comprising: a magnetometer (magnetometer 12; See [0071]); and a control apparatus configured to perform the battery state determination method according to claim 1 (See [0071], [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 10, Nagano teaches the battery state determination system according to claim 9, further comprising: a movement apparatus configured to move the magnetometer relative to the battery (See [0071]), wherein the movement apparatus is configured to move between a plane on which the device with the battery is disposed and the battery (See [0071], [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 12, Nagano teaches the battery state determination system according to claim 9, wherein the magnetometer is configured to include one or more magnetic sensors (sensors 12; See [0071]) to measure the magnetic field of the battery (See [0071]).
Regarding Claim 13, Nagano teaches the battery state determination system according to claim 12, wherein the magnetometer is configured to include a plurality of the magnetic sensors arranged in a line or array (See [0071]).
Regarding Claim 14, Nagano teaches the battery state determination system according to claim 12, wherein the magnetometer is configured to include a plurality of the magnetic sensors arranged in a range of covering entirety of the battery (See [0071], [0075]-[0076]).
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of KLINTBERG et al. (Pub NO. US 2022/0305952 A1; hereinafter Klintberg).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagano teaches the battery state determination method according to claim 2, calculating, as the information regarding the relative position of the magnetometer (magnetometer 12 in Fig. 4).
Nagano is silent about a correction coefficient for the relative position of the magnetometer, wherein the anomaly determination condition is that the correction coefficient is equal to or more than a determination threshold,
Klintberg teaches a correction coefficient for the relative position of the magnetometer, wherein the anomaly determination condition is that the correction coefficient is equal to or more than a determination threshold, (correction coefficient is second observer gain; See [0021], [0058]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Nagano by using a correction coefficient for the relative position of the magnetometer, wherein the anomaly determination condition is that the correction coefficient is equal to or more than a determination threshold, as taught by Klintberg in order to detect SoC of battery (Klintberg; [0058]).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of MURAKAMI et al. (Pub NO. US 2020/0273335 A1; hereinafter Murakami).
Regarding Claim 11, Nagano teaches the battery state determination system according to claim 9. Nagano is silent about further comprising a drive apparatus configured to move the device with the battery relative to the magnetometer.
Murakami teaches further comprising a drive apparatus (vehicle 2 in Fig. 9) configured to move the device with the battery relative to the magnetometer (2 drives battery 23 relative to magnetometer 24; See [0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Nagano by using a drive apparatus configured to move the device with the battery relative to the magnetometer, as taught by Murakami in order to perform cooperative operation (Murakami; [0004]).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano in view of CHO et al. (Pub NO. US 2022/0153536 A1; hereinafter Cho).
Regarding Claim 15, Nagano teaches the battery state determination system according to claim 14.
Nagano teaches plurality of magnetic sensors (plurality of magnetic sensors 12; See [0071]),
However, Nagano is silent about wherein the control apparatus is configured to select part of the plurality of the magnetic sensors, and acquire measurement values from the selected magnetic sensors.
Cho teaches wherein the control apparatus is configured to select part of the plurality of the magnetic sensors, and acquire measurement values from the selected magnetic sensors (See [0022]-[0025]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Nagano by using wherein the control apparatus is configured to select part of the plurality of the magnetic sensors, and acquire measurement values from the selected magnetic sensors, as taught by Cho in order to achieve more controlled operation (Cho; [0025]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights