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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/22/24, 10/9/25, 5/22/26 and 7/2/26 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/22/24 are acceptable to the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8, 12-13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Acronyms (LED, RFID) set forth in the claims must be defined in the claims. Also, the wording “second can detect”, claim 8, line 3 should be changed to - - second sensor can detect - - to insure consistency between claimed elements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second sensor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 9 should be amended to depend upon claim 8 for this limitation to have proper antecedent basis. Examiner will consider claim 9 as if it depends on claim 8 when examining under art.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Each of claims 1-13 is directed to a “system according to claim 9” and includes features of the system. These system features do not further limit the device arrangement of claim 9/1. It appears that claims 11-13 should depend from claim 10 which provides the system arrangement needed for claims 11-13. Similarly, claims 14 and 16 is directed to “a method for operating the system according to claim 9” and include features of the system; however, claim 9 does not include any system features. It appears that claims 14 and 16 should depend from claim 10 which provides the system arrangement needed for claims 14 and 16. Claim 15 sets forth “Method according of claim 13”, however claim 13 is not directed to a method but instead a system. Therefor the method limitations of claim 15 do not further limit the system defined in claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knofe et al. (EP 2684652 A1).
Re claim 1: Knofe et al. teaches a device (1), figure 1, in particular a control device, for recognizing movements of a magnet carrier (2),
wherein the device comprises a control unit (3),
characterized in that the device comprises a first sensor (29), figure 3b,
wherein the first sensor can determine the direction of a magnetic field acting on the first sensor (29) relative to a preferred direction (note hall sensor (29) interacts with a magnet (25d) attached to the end of a joystick wherein directional movement of the joy stick relative to a preferred direction can be determined by the magnetic fields that are formed between the magnet and Hall sensor upon movement of the joy stick),
wherein the control unit is configured such that the control unit outputs an output signal and/or a control signal (paragraph [0073], output signal) based on the direction of a magnetic field acting on the first sensor relative to a preferred direction.
Re claim 2: note sensor (29) is defined as a Hall sensor (paragraph [0087])
Re claim 3: note either element (25b) or element (25c) can be considered as a support with a sensor (29) located below (figure 3b)
Re claim 4: note support (25b or 25c) is part of a hollow (hollow base (21), paragraph [0084])
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knofe et al. in view of Nomura et al. (US 2016/0116758 A1).
Re claim 5: the teaching of Knofe et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Knofe et al. appears to teach that the sensor in mounted on a surface of the support member and not in a recess as set forth. Nomura et al. teaches in a similar environment of sensor mounting that the sensor used is mounted in a recess, (see figure 19 and paragraph [0076]) as an alterative way of sensor mounting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Nomura et al. into the arrangement of Knofe et al. to mount the sensor used into a recess instead of a surface of a mounting structure to predictably provide an alternative way of mounting such sensor. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed device including in combination those features of claim 1 with a metal plate (10) is arranged below the support (8) as set forth in claim 6; in that the support (8) is enclosed by an LED ring as set forth in claim 7; in that the device comprises a second sensor, wherein the second can detect, within an area of its environment, a property or a change in a property of this environment, wherein the second sensor is a reader for communicating with a passive RFID transponder (31) and/or for communicating with an active RFID transponder, and wherein the control unit (62) is configured such that the control unit (62) outputs a further output signal and/or a further control signal if the second sensor detects, within the area of its environment, a specific property or a specific change in a property of this environment or if the control unit (62) detects a specific change in the property detected by the second sensor as set forth in claim 8 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 9, 11-16 depend upon those features of claim 8/1. The claimed system including the device having those features of claim 1 and a magnetic carrier disc, wherein the magnet carrier has a rotation axis (C) about which it can rotate and comprises a radially magnetized magnet (21), in which the magnetic axis (D) of the magnet (21) is perpendicular to the rotation axis (C) as set forth in claim 10 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 8/5/26
Prosecution Insights