DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the Species of Figure 20 and Sub-species of Figure 11 in the reply filed on 11/15/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species of Figure 19 and Figure 20 are not patentably distinct. The applicant states that “whether processing units are connected to “less than all” or “every” magnetoresistive unit module, is a mater of design choice that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In setting forth the requirement for restriction, the examiner considered variations in the separate embodiments presented that would have posed an undue burden because of the mutually exclusive characteristics in the separate embodiments. The applicant doesn’t appear to argue that the identified Species aren’t mutually exclusive, but rather states that the differences in the connection between the modules and processing units would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The examiner notes that it’s not simply how the modules are connected, but how the connection between the modules themselves affect the operation of the modules. The connections create paths for current flow that alter the manner in which the different embodiments operate. Thus, the search required to find prior art relevant to the species of Figure 19 would not necessarily be applicable to the species of Figure 20.
Similarly, the applicant traverses the restriction requirement among sub-species of Figures 11 and 13. The applicant argues that “The differences between Figure 11 and 13 lie primarily in the physical arrangement of the coil segments around the sensing elements, which does not render them patentably distinct sub-species requiring separate examination.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant argument appears to be that the different arrangement of coil segments around the sensing elements doesn’t render the sub-species patentably distinct. The applicant however offers no evidence to support that conclusion. The sub-species are directed to mutually exclusive arrangements in structure and function. The search needed to find prior art relevant to the sub-species of Figure 11 would not necessarily yield results applicable to the sub-species of Figure 13. Search and consideration of the multiple variations possible when the sub-species are applied to the Species of Figure 11 or 13 pose an undue burden. The applicant is invited to contact the examiner at the contact info at the end of this Office Action if a discussion would help clarify the examiner’s position.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-12 and 24-28 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species and/or Subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/15/2024.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-23 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites in part:
“where a first current direction at the first magnetoresistor and a second current direction at the second magnetoresistor are set at an angle”
It’s not clear what the applicant means by a current “direction” being “set at an angle”. A current flow as understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, follows the path of less resistance within the conductor it flows through. In this context, it’s not clear how one would set a current “at an angle”. It’s not clear if the applicant intends to describe a direction of current flow through each of the magnetoresistors, or a direction of a current near the magnetoresistors (for example, the current flow on an adjacent coil). The recitation “are set at an angle” inserts ambiguity to the claim because the claim itself doesn’t clearly define the source of current and its relationship with the magnetic field sensing module. It’s not clear what exactly it means to set a current “at” the magnetoresistors “at an angle.” Moreover, the claim doesn’t specify what the angle is measure from.
The Specification shows that the magnetoresistors are oriented at differing angles with respect to one another. For example, Figure 1 shows a magnetoresistor (301) oriented such that the magnetoresistive components’ length extends along the x-axis, while a second magnetoresistor (302) is oriented such that the magnetoresistive components’ length extends along the y-axis. Therefore, it appears that the applicant intended to describe the magnetoresistors are positioned along directions set at an angle (90 degrees in the example of Figure 1), thereby allowing the current flowing through them to flow in different directions.
Therefore, and for the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the recitation:
“where a first current flowing through the first magnetoresistor and a second current flowing through the second magnetoresistor flow in different directions, and the directions are set at an angle with respect to one another”
Equivalent recitations are presented in other claims such as claim 13 (lines 3-5 and 8-9) claim 19 (lines 4-6 and 9-10) and will be interpreted in the manner presented above. Correction is required in the next response.
Claims 2-9, 13-23 and 29-30 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and/or 13 above.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the seventh current direction" and “the eight current direction” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, the claim recites a “seventh” and “eight” current direction, but no preceding introduction of a third, fourth, fifth or sixth current direction. The examiner suggest that for clarity, the currents should be labeled in numerical order so as to avoid ambiguity on whether there exists a third, fourth, fifth or sixth current directions.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers the claim as reciting: "a seventh current direction" and “an eight current direction”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, 19-23 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the German Patent Publication by Ausserlechner et al., identifier DE 10 2016 104 306 A1, published 09/14/2017, hereafter referred to as Ausserlechner. Please refer to the copy and translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, a magnetic field sensing module, comprising:
a first magnetoresistor (101) and a second magnetoresistor (102) coupled in series, forming an output node between the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor (terminal providing Vamr), where a first current flowing through the first magnetoresistor and a second current flowing through the second magnetoresistor flow in different directions, and the directions are set at an angle with respect to one another (as shown in Figure 1, the current flow through magnetoresistor 101 flows in a direction 90 degrees with respect to the current flowing through the magnetoresistor 102. *See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and claim interpretation above).
Regarding the recitation:
“in a first state, the first magnetoresistor is applied with a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, and the second magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a second excitation magnetic field; in a second state, the first magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a third excitation magnetic field, and the second magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a fourth excitation magnetic field; a direction of the first excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the third excitation magnetic field, and/or a direction of the second excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the fourth excitation magnetic field.”
The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to comprise a source providing a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the claim only recites that the first magnetoresistor is “applied with” the signal. Similarly, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to include a source of third excitation magnetic field or a fourth excitation magnetic field. The claim only recites an intended manner of use of the claimed module, where the module is exposed to the magnetic fields in the manner recited. The module as claimed, including the recited magnetoresistors, has no control over the type of signals that the module is exposed to. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Similarly, claims 2, 4, 5 and 6, recite characteristics of signals that are intended to be applied to the module but do not recite a structural component within the module generating the signals. The claims recite the manner of intended use of the claimed module, as it’s exposed to the signals generated form a source external, or not recited as part of the claimed module. As explained in regards to claim 1 above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing magnetic fields, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Ausserlechner teaches the magnetic field sensing module forms a first output node signal in the first state and a second output node signal in the second state (output node providing sensing voltage Vamr). The examiner interprets the recited first and second “state” as the state of operation when the sensor is adjacent to a first source of magnetic field (first state) and the state of operation when the sensor is adjacent to a second source of magnetic field (second state) at a different time.
Please see the comments at the bottom of the rejection of claim 1 above, regarding the intended use recitations including: “a difference signal between the first output node signal and the second output node signal includes several zero crossings, configured to match the sensing direction information of the angle sensor to the first numerical interval; the first numerical interval includes a numerical interval from 0 degrees to 360 degrees.” The recitations are directed to the nature of signal or fields the magnetic field sensing module are intended to be used with. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing magnetic fields, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Ausserlechner teaches, the magnetic field sensing module according to claim 1, wherein the first current direction is perpendicular to the second current direction (the direction of current flow through the first magnetoresistor follows the x-direction, while the direction of current flow through the second magnetoresistor follows the y-axis direction, perpendicular to the first direction).
Please see the comments at the bottom of the rejection of claim 1 above, regarding the intended use recitations including: “a direction of the first excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the third excitation magnetic field, and a direction of the second excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the fourth excitation magnetic field.” The recitations are directed to the nature of signal or fields the magnetic field sensing module are intended to be used with. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing magnetic fields, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, the magnetic field sensing module comprises a seventh magnetoresistor (103) and an eighth magnetoresistor (104) coupled in series, where the seventh magnetoresistor and the eighth magnetoresistor (series connected 103 + 104) are coupled in parallel with the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor (in parallel with the series connected 101+12); a seventh current direction at the seventh magnetoresistor and an eighth current direction at the eighth magnetoresistor are set at an angle (the direction of current flowing through 103 and 104 flow at different directions, orthogonal to each other);
a first output node is set between the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor (node providing voltage -Vamr), and a fourth output node is set between the seventh magnetoresistor and the eighth magnetoresistor (node providing voltage +Vamr).
Regarding claim 13, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, a magnetic field sensing module, comprising:
a first magnetoresistor (101) and a second magnetoresistor (102) coupled in series, forming a first output node between the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor (node providing voltage -Vamr), where a first current flowing through the first magnetoresistor and a second current flowing through the second magnetoresistor flow in different directions, and the directions are set at an angle with respect to one another (as shown in Figure 1, the current flow through magnetoresistor 101 flows in a direction 90 degrees with respect to the current flowing through the magnetoresistor 102. *See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and claim interpretation above),
a third magnetoresistor (104) and a fourth magnetoresistor (103) coupled in series, forming a second output node between the third magnetoresistor and the fourth magnetoresistor (node providing voltage +Vamr), where a third current flowing through the first magnetoresistor and a fourth current flowing through the second magnetoresistor flow in different directions, and the directions are set at an angle with respect to one another (as shown in Figure 1, the current flow through magnetoresistor 103 flows in a direction 90 degrees with respect to the current flowing through the magnetoresistor 104. *See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and claim interpretation above);
the third magnetoresistor and the fourth magnetoresistor (104+103) are coupled in parallel with the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor (101+102);
Regarding the recitation:
“the first magnetoresistor is applied with a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the second magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a second excitation magnetic field;
the third magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a third excitation magnetic field, the fourth magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a fourth excitation magnetic field; a direction of the first excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the third excitation magnetic field, and/or a direction of the second excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the fourth excitation magnetic field.”
The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to comprise a source providing a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the claim only recites that the first magnetoresistor is “applied with” the signal. Similarly, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to include a source of third excitation magnetic field or a fourth excitation magnetic field. The claim only recites an intended manner of use of the claimed module, where the module is exposed to the magnetic fields in the manner recited. The module as claimed, including the recited magnetoresistors, has no control over the type of signals that the module is exposed to. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites characteristics of signals that are intended to be applied to the module but do not recite a structural component within the module generating the signals. The claims recite the manner of intended use of the claimed module, as it’s exposed to the signals generated form a source external to the claimed module. As explained in regards to claim 13 above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing magnetic fields, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor are configured to form a first output node signal (node providing potential -Vamr), and the third magnetoresistor and the fourth magnetoresistor are configured to form a second output node signal (Vamr).
The recitation: “a difference signal between the first output node signal and the second output node signal includes several zero crossings, configured to match the sensing direction information of the angle sensor to the first numerical interval; the first numerical interval includes a numerical interval from 0 degrees to 360 degrees.” describe characteristics of signals that are intended to be applied to the module but do not recite a structural component within the module generating the signals. The claims recite the manner of intended use of the claimed module, as it’s exposed to the signals generated form a source external to the claimed module. As explained in regards to claims 1 and 13 above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing magnetic fields, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation: “a direction of the first excitation magnetic field is parallel to the first current direction, a direction of the second excitation magnetic field is perpendicular to the second current direction, a direction of the third excitation magnetic field is parallel to the third current direction, and a direction of the fourth excitation magnetic field is perpendicular to the fourth current direction.” describe features of signals that are intended to be applied to the module but do not recite a structural component within the module generating the signals. The claims recite the manner of intended use of the claimed module, as it’s exposed to the signals generated form a source external to the claimed module. As explained in regards to claims 1 and 13 above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing magnetic fields, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, the first current direction is perpendicular to the second current direction (the direction of current through magnetoresistor 101 flows in the x-axis perpendicular to the direction of current through the magnetoresistor 102).
The recitation: “a direction of the first excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the third excitation magnetic field, and a direction of the second excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the fourth excitation magnetic field.”
describe features of signals that are intended to be applied to the module but do not recite a structural component within the module generating the signals. The claims recite the manner of intended use of the claimed module, as it’s exposed to the signals generated form a source external to the claimed module. As explained in regards to claims 1 and 13 above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing magnetic fields, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 5, a magnetic field sensing module, comprising:
a first magnetoresistor (501) and a second magnetoresistor (502) coupled in series, forming a first output node between the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor (node providing voltage -Vamr), where a first current flowing through the first magnetoresistor and a second current flowing through the second magnetoresistor flow in different directions, and the directions are set at an angle with respect to one another (as shown in Figure 5, the current flow through magnetoresistor 501 flows in a direction 90 degrees with respect to the current flowing through the magnetoresistor 502. *See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and claim interpretation above),
a third magnetoresistor (504) and a fourth magnetoresistor (503) coupled in series, forming a second output node between the third magnetoresistor and the fourth magnetoresistor (node providing voltage +Vamr), where a third current flowing through the first magnetoresistor and a fourth current flowing through the second magnetoresistor flow in different directions, and the directions are set at an angle with respect to one another (as shown in Figure 1, the current flow through magnetoresistor 503 flows in a direction 90 degrees with respect to the current flowing through the magnetoresistor 504. *See rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and claim interpretation above);
the third magnetoresistor and the fourth magnetoresistor (503+504) are coupled in parallel with the first magnetoresistor and the second magnetoresistor (501+502);
Regarding the recitation: “the first magnetoresistor is applied with a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the second magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a second excitation magnetic field;
the third magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a third excitation magnetic field, the fourth magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a fourth excitation magnetic field; a direction of the first excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the third excitation magnetic field, and/or a direction of the second excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the fourth excitation magnetic field.”
The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to comprise a source providing a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the claim only recites that the first magnetoresistor is “applied with” the signal. Similarly, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to include a source of third excitation magnetic field or a fourth excitation magnetic field. The claim only recites an intended manner of use of the claimed module, where the module is exposed to the magnetic fields in the manner recited. The module as claimed, including the recited magnetoresistors, has no control over the type of signals that the module is exposed to. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Ausserlechner shows in Figure 5, the magnetic field sensing module according to claim 13, wherein the magnetic field sensing module comprises:
a fifth magnetoresistor (505) and a sixth magnetoresistor (506) coupled in series, forming a third output node between the fifth magnetoresistor and the sixth magnetoresistor (node providing voltage -Vstrain), where a fifth current direction at the fifth magnetoresistor and a sixth current direction at the sixth magnetoresistor are set at an angle (currents flowing through 505 flows in a different directions compared to the current flowing through 506);
a seventh magnetoresistor (508) and an eighth magnetoresistor (507) coupled in series, forming a fourth output node between the seventh magnetoresistor and the eighth magnetoresistor (node providing voltage +Vstrain), where a seventh current direction at the seventh magnetoresistor and an eighth current direction at the eighth magnetoresistor are set at an angle (currents flowing through 507 flows in a different directions compared to the current flowing through 508);
the seventh magnetoresistor and the eighth magnetoresistor are coupled in parallel with the fifth magnetoresistor and the sixth magnetoresistor (as shown in Fig. 1);
Regarding the recitation: “the fifth magnetoresistor is applied with a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a fifth excitation magnetic field, the sixth magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a sixth excitation magnetic field; the seventh magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and a seventh excitation magnetic field, the eighth magnetoresistor is applied with the signal magnetic field and an eighth excitation magnetic field; a direction of the fifth excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the seventh excitation magnetic field, and/or a direction of the sixth excitation magnetic field is opposite to a direction of the eighth excitation magnetic field.”
The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to comprise a source providing a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the claim only recites that the first magnetoresistor is “applied with” the signal. Similarly, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to include a source of third excitation magnetic field or a fourth excitation magnetic field. The claim only recites an intended manner of use of the claimed module, where the module is exposed to the magnetic fields in the manner recited. The module as claimed, including the recited magnetoresistors, has no control over the type of signals that the module is exposed to. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, the first magnetoresistor (501) and the second magnetoresistor (502) are configured to form a first output node signal (-Vamr), the third magnetoresistor (504) and the fourth magnetoresistor (503) are configured to form a second output node signal (+Vamr);
the fifth magnetoresistor (505) and the sixth magnetoresistor (506) are configured to form a third output node signal (-Vstrain), the seventh magnetoresistor (508) and the eighth magnetoresistor (507) are configured to form a fourth output node signal (+Vstrain);
Regarding the recitation: “a first difference signal between the first output node signal and the second output node signal, and a second difference signal between the third output node signal and the fourth output node signal are configured to match the sensing direction information of an angle sensor cooperating with the magnetic field sensing module to the first numerical interval; the first numerical interval includes a numerical interval from 0 degrees to 360 degrees.”
The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to comprise a source providing a signal magnetic field carrying direction information, a first excitation magnetic field or an angle sensor. The claim only recites that the first magnetoresistor is “applied with” the signal. Similarly, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to include a source of third excitation magnetic field or a fourth excitation magnetic field. The claim only recites an intended manner of use of the claimed module, where the module is exposed to the magnetic fields in the manner recited. The module as claimed, including the recited magnetoresistors, has no control over the type of signals that the module is exposed to. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation: “the direction of the fifth excitation magnetic field is perpendicular to the fifth current direction, the direction of the sixth excitation magnetic field is parallel to the sixth current direction, the direction of the seventh excitation magnetic field is perpendicular to the seventh current direction, and the direction of the eighth excitation magnetic field is parallel to the eighth current direction.” describes characteristics of a magnetic field the claimed module is intended to be used with. The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to comprise a source providing a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the claim only recites that the first magnetoresistor is “applied with” the signal. Similarly, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to include a source of third excitation magnetic field or a fourth excitation magnetic field. The claim only recites an intended manner of use of the claimed module, where the module is exposed to the magnetic fields in the manner recited. The module as claimed, including the recited magnetoresistors, has no control over the type of signals that the module is exposed to. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 5, the fifth current direction (direction of current flow through 505) is parallel to the first current direction (direction of current flow through 501), the fifth current direction is perpendicular to the sixth current direction, and the seventh current direction (direction of current flow through 508) is perpendicular to the eighth current direction (direction of current flow through 505).
Regarding the recitation: “the direction of the fifth excitation magnetic field is opposite to the direction of the seventh excitation magnetic field, and the direction of the sixth excitation magnetic field is opposite to the direction of the eighth excitation magnetic field.”
The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the recitation: “wherein the direction of the first excitation magnetic field is the same as the direction of the second excitation magnetic field, the direction of the third excitation magnetic field is the same as the direction of the fourth excitation magnetic field, the direction of the fifth excitation magnetic field is the same as the direction of the sixth excitation magnetic field, and the direction of the seventh excitation magnetic field is the same as the direction of the eighth excitation magnetic field.” describes characteristics of a magnetic field the claimed module is intended to be used with. The claim appears to describe the manner of intended use of the claimed apparatus. For example, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to comprise a source providing a signal magnetic field carrying direction information and a first excitation magnetic field, the claim only recites that the first magnetoresistor is “applied with” the signal. Similarly, the claim doesn’t require the claimed module to include a source of third excitation magnetic field or a fourth excitation magnetic field. The claim only recites an intended manner of use of the claimed module, where the module is exposed to the magnetic fields in the manner recited. The module as claimed, including the recited magnetoresistors, has no control over the type of signals that the module is exposed to. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Because Ausserlechner teaches all structural elements as recited, and because the assembly may be readily used in a process of sensing the presence magnetic flux, Ausserlechner anticipates the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausserlechner in view of the the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2003/0057938 by Goetz (Goetz hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, the first and second magnetoresistor comprises several magnetoresistive portions. That is, the first magnetoresistor (101) comprises a first magnetoresistive portion (A), a second magnetoresistive portion (B), and a third magnetoresistive portion (C), coupled in series and extending in a first direction (x-axis), and the second magnetoresistor (102) comprises a fourth magnetoresistive portion (D), a fifth magnetoresistive portion (E), and a sixth magnetoresistive portion (F), coupled in series and extending in a second direction (y-axis). See annotated Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
919
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ausserlechner substantially teaches all of the claimed elements as discussed above, except that, Ausserlechner uses a magnetoresistor including portions integrally connected in series to form the magnetoresistor, rather than using magnetoresistive elements coupled in series.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to design the magnetoresistor as one piece (single unit including portions integrally connected to each other). For example, Goetz shows in Figure 3A, a magnetoresistor (29a) that is made up of individual magnetoresistive elements (76) connected in series. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to design the magnetoristor as one integrated piece, in order to simplify the process of manufacturing and alignment when positioning magnetoresistive elements with respect to one another.
Moreover, it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of separate pieces as disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, In reLarson:
In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Regarding claim 18, Ausserlechner teaches in Figure 1, the first magnetoresistor (101) comprises a first magnetoresistive portion (A), a second magnetoresistive portion (B), and a third magnetoresistive portion (C) coupled in series and extending in a first direction (x-axis), the second magnetoresistor (102) comprises a fourth magnetoresistive portion (D), a fifth magnetoresistive portion (E) and a sixth magnetoresistive portion (F) coupled in series and extending in a second direction (y-axis);
the third magnetoresistor (104) comprises a seventh magnetoresistive portion (J), an eighth magnetoresistive portion (K), and a ninth magnetoresistive portion (L), coupled in series and extending in the first direction (x-axis), the fourth magnetoresistor (103) comprises a tenth magnetoresistive portion (G), an eleventh magnetoresistive portion (H), and a twelfth magnetoresistive portion (I), coupled in series and extending in the second direction (y-axis). See Figure below:
PNG
media_image2.png
919
1015
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ausserlechner substantially teaches all of the claimed elements as discussed above, except that, Ausserlechner uses a magnetoresistor including portions integrally connected in series to form the magnetoresistor, rather than using magnetoresistive elements coupled in series.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to design the magnetoresistor as one piece (single unit including portions integrally connected to each other). For example, Goetz shows in Figure 3A, a magnetoresistor (29a) that is made up of individual magnetoresistive elements (76) connected in series. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to design the magnetoristor as one integrated piece, in order to simplify the process of manufacturing and alignment when positioning magnetoresistive elements with respect to one another.
Moreover, it has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of separate pieces as disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, In reLarson:
In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art doesn’t teach alone or in combination a magnetic sensor comprising an angle sensor, which obtains sensing direction information for a signal magnetic field distributed in a second numerical interval, and actual direction information of the signal magnetic field is distributed in a first numerical interval, where a range of the first numerical interval is greater than a range of the second numerical interval; a magnetic field sensing module according to claim 1, configured to form a difference signal containing several zero crossings;
a signal processing circuit coupled to an output node of the magnetic field sensing module, configured at least to generate a square wave signal based on the difference signal; and
an output processing circuit coupled to the signal processing circuit, configured to match the sensing direction information to the first numerical interval based on the square wave signal, so that the sensing direction information is consistent with the actual direction information, in combination with all other elements recited.
Claim 30 would be allowable as it depends from claim 29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 12,204,003 by Takano et al.
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2014/0138346 by Whig et al.
- The US Patent US 9,910,106 by Mather et al.
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2013/0300402 by Liu et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 September 23, 2026
