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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Specie I (Figure 2) in the reply filed on 02/18/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant indicates the claims 1-5 and 9 are readable on the elected Specie I (Figure 2). However, upon further consideration, Claim 3 is not readable on the elected Specie I (Figure 2) because claim 3 requires “two sets of the first elements and the second elements which form a full-bridge circuit, two sets of the operational amplifiers, and two sets of the feedback resistances” which Figure 1 does not have (it is note that Figure 1 shows a circuit with one set for each). Thus, only claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9 are readable on the elected Specie I (Figure 2), and claim 3 is also withdrawn from consideration in addition to withdrawn claims 6-8 and 10.
Claims 3, 6-8 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/18/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: throughout the specification, “feedback resistance” should be changed to “feedback resistor” because “resistance” is not a physical component (element).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, the recitation “feedback resistance” should be changed to “feedback resistor” because “resistance” is not a physical component (element).
Claims 2, 4-5 and 9 are objected to because they depend on claim 1.
Also, in claim 2, line 4-5, the recitation “feedback resistance” should be changed to “feedback resistor” or “feedback resistance element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Bicking (US 2003/0117208).
For claims 1 and 9, Figure 1 of Bicking teaches a signal processing circuit (80) comprising: a first element (88 MR1) and a second element (90 MR2) connected in series to each other between a first DC power supply (Vs 91) and ground (ground 92), with respective resistance values (values of magnetoresistors MR1 and MR2) thereof varying in response to a change in a physical amount of an observation target; an operational amplifier (82) having an inverting input terminal (- terminal) connected to a midpoint (100) between the first element (MR1 88) and the second element (MR2 90), a non-inverting input terminal (+ terminal) connected to a second DC power supply (98 which is output of voltage divider R1-R2), and an output terminal (Vo); and a feedback resistor (R4 94) connected between the output terminal (Vo) and the inverting input terminal (- terminal). Note, for claim 9, Figure 1 of Bicking teaches a sensor unit (80) comprising the signal processing circuit according to claim 1 (see [0026]).
For claim 4, Figure 1 of Bicking teaches wherein each of the first element (88 MR1) and the second element (90 MR2) is a magnetic sensor (magnetoresistors MR1 and MR2).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bicking (US 2003/0117208).
For claim 2, Figure 1 of Bicking teaches all the limitations of this claim (as discussed in claim 1 above) except for wherein a minimum value of an input resistance value to the inverting input terminal determined by the respective resistance values of the first element and the second element is greater than a resistance value of the feedback resistor. However, it is seen that the specific values of the input resistance value to the inverting input terminal determined by the respective resistance values of the first element and the second element of the operational amplifier and the resistance value of the feedback resistor are merely a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to modify the circuitry in Figure 1 of Bicking so that the resistance values of the elements in the circuit so that a minimum value of an input resistance value to the inverting input terminal determined by the respective resistance values of the first element and the second element is greater than a resistance value of the feedback resistor to achieve a specific gain of the circuitry, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bicking (US 2003/0117208) in view of Harada et al. (US 2018/0102768).
For claim 5, Figure 1 of Bicking teaches all the limitations of this claim (as discussed in claim 1 above) except for wherein the operational amplifier (82) is a telescopic operational amplifier. However, Harada et al. teaches that telescopic amplifier provides high gain and low power consumption (see pars. [0045] and [0048], and Figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to modify the circuitry in Figure 1 of Bicking to replace the broad operational amplifier (82) with a specific telescopic operational amplifier as taught by Harada et al. for the purpose of improving the gain of the circuitry and reducing the power consumption of the circuitry (see Harada et al., pars. [0045] and [0048], and Figure 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directly to Examiner Long Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1753. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lincoln Donovan, can be reached at (571) 272-1988. The fax number for this group is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/Long Nguyen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2842