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 . This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on NAKAMURA. In view of this communication, claims 1-7 are now pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-7 is 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.
Claim 6 recites a "magnetic sensor " comprising an electric power generating element of claim 1, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric power generating element. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites an "encoder " comprising an electric power generating element of claim 1, but does not recite any additional limitations of said electric power generating element. Thus, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
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
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 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated NAKAMURA (US 20230068474 A1).
Regarding claim 1, NAKAMURA teaches:
An electric power generating element (Fig 14; 100) comprising:
a magnetic body (Fig 14; 1)that exhibits a large Barkhausen effect[abstract];
a coil (Fig 14; 2)wound around the magnetic body(Fig 14; 1);
a first soft magnetic body (Fig 2/14; 3)positioned outside the coil (Fig 2/14; 2)in a winding axis line direction in which a winding axis line of the coil (Fig 2/14; 2)extends, the first soft magnetic body (Fig 2/14; 3) being positioned outside the magnetic body (Fig 2/14; 1) in a radial direction around the winding axis line; and
a filling member (Fig 2; 16)that includes a second soft magnetic body(Fig 2; 3), the filling member (Fig 2; 16) filling a gap between the magnetic body (Fig 2; 3)and the first soft magnetic body(Fig 2; 3) (the second soft member is broadly defined by the claim language, therefore the first and second soft magnet are taught by element 3, and adhered with filling member 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
302
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
185
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
461
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Applicant should note, that if the second soft magnetic body were more narrowly defined in the claim to be a powdery second soft magnetic body or a powdery ferrite, mixed into the filling member than the amendment would overcome the current grounds of rejection.
Regarding claim 2, NAKAMURA teaches the electric power generating element according to Claim 1:
wherein the filling member(Fig 2; 16) is an adhesive[0078-0079], and
the magnetic body (Fig 2; 1)is fixed to the first soft magnetic body(Fig 2; 3) via the filling member(Fig 2; 16).
Regarding claim 4, NAKAMURA teaches the electric power generating element according to Claim 1:
Regarding claim 4, NAKAMURA teaches the electric power generating element according to Claim 1:
wherein the first soft magnetic body (Fig 2; 3) presses the magnetic body (Fig 2; 1)in the radial direction(shown in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, NAKAMURA teaches the electric power generating element according to Claim 1:
wherein the first soft magnetic body (Fig 2; 3)comes into contact with the magnetic body(Fig 2; 1) (shown in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, NAKAMURA teaches:
A magnetic sensor (Fig 15; 50) comprising:
the electric power generating element(Fig 15; 100) according to Claim 1; and
a detection element (Fig 15; 23)that is driven based on an electric power generated (Fig 15; 100)by the electric power generating element and detects magnetism[0091].
PNG
media_image4.png
391
431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, NAKAMURA teaches:
An encoder (Fig 16; 200)comprising:
a magnet(Fig 16; 59) that rotates[0094-0098]; and
the electric power generating element (Fig 16; 50) (Fig 15; 100)according to Claim 1 that generates an electric power by a change in a magnetic field due to the magnet that rotates[0098].
PNG
media_image5.png
362
290
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAMURA (US 20230068474 A1).
Regarding claim 3, NAKAMURA teaches the electric power generating element according to Claim 1:
wherein a permeability of the second soft magnetic body(Fig 2; 3) is larger than a permeability of the first soft magnetic body(Fig 2; 3)[0052].
NAKAMURA discloses the claimed invention except for the permeability of the second soft magnet being higher than the first soft magnet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the material of the soft magnet so the second soft magnet has a higher permeability than the first soft magnet, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 . Additionally, NAKAMURA already demonstrates an understanding and benefit of permeability in [0052, 0076]; making the modification even more obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm 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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights