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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,044. In particular, claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patent claims 3, and application claim 3-14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patent claim 4-15, respectively.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are broader versions of the corresponding claims of the patent.
Besides minor wording differences, there are no substantive differences between the present application and the U.S. Patent No. 12,174,044. The claims of the present application are broader than the patent and thus fully met. Therefore, the present claims are not patentably distinct from the copending claims.
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, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawara et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0140800.
Regarding Claim 1, Ishikawara teaches a linear position sensor configured to detect a position of a detection object in a stroke direction (figures 1 and 2, 3 constitutes a linear position sensor; 4-7 constitute the detection object as 4-6 are magnetically detected), the detection object being organized such that a plurality of magnets are spaced apart from each other along the stroke direction (see figure 1, in which 4, 5, and 6 are each spaced apart along the stroke direction X1), and such that adjacent magnetic pole surfaces of the plurality of magnets have opposite poles (seen clearly in figure 3, as the adjacent poles are of opposite orientation), the linear position sensor comprising:
a detector arranged with a gap in a gap direction against a magnetic pole surface of each of the plurality of magnets (figure 1, which shows a gap detector 3 and the magnets), the detector configured to acquire, as a detection signal of a phase corresponding to the position of the plurality of magnets, a sine signal representing a sine function and a cosine signal representing a cosine function, based on a change in a magnetic field received from the plurality of magnets according to movement of the detector relative to the detection object in the stroke direction (see [0125]-[0131] which detail the calculation of magnetic field vector components in the X and Z directions, respectively referred to as D3 and D4, in which the X component is determined by equations 1 and 2 for sine signal, and Z component is determined by equations (3) and (4) for cosine signal. Figure 3 shows the processor which S11 and S21 are the sine components in the D3 direction, and S12 and S22 are components in the cosine direction D4 as discussed in [0078]-[0080]); and
a signal processor (see figure 3, 30) configured to acquire the sine signal and the cosine signal from the detector, generate, based on the sine signal and the cosine signal, an arctangent signal that represents an arctangent function and corresponds to a stroke amount of the detection object relative to the detector, and acquire the arctangent signal as a position signal that indicates the position of the detection object (see [0086] and figure 3, 37 which teaches determining position, θ, based on an arctangent function of a ratio of Sa to Sb, which according to equations (5) and (6), seen in [0129]-[0131], are the sine (D3, X direction) and cosine (D4, Z direction) functions respectively. Note that processors 35 and 36 give the Sa and Sb functions respectively as seen in figure 3).
wherein the detection object includes a yoke that is magnetic and having one surface on which the plurality of magnets are arranged (see figures 1-2, 7 which is a yoke),
the plurality of magnets include a first magnet having a first magnetic pole surface, a second magnet having a second magnetic pole surface, and a third magnet having a third magnetic pole surface (see figure 2, magnets 4-6),
the second magnet is arranged at a position between the first magnet and the third magnet (see figure 2, magnet 5, which is between 4 and 6),
the first magnet has a part, which protrudes along the stroke direction from one end of the one surface of the yoke and has the first magnetic pole surface arranged perpendicular to the stroke direction (seen in figures 1 and 2), and
the third magnet has a part, which protrudes along the stroke direction from an other end of the one surface of the yoke opposite to the one end and has the third magnetic pole surface arranged perpendicular to the stroke direction (seen in figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Ishikawara teaches the linear position sensor according to claim 1, wherein the detection object includes a yoke that is magnetic and having one surface on which the plurality of magnets are arranged, the plurality of magnets include a first magnet (figures 1-2, 4) having a first magnetic pole surface, a second magnet having a second magnetic pole surface (figures 1-2, 6), and an auxiliary magnet (figures 1-2, 5) positioned between the first magnet and the second magnet, and the auxiliary magnet is arranged to repel the magnetic field corresponding to the first magnetic pole surface of the first magnet and to repel the magnetic field corresponding to the second magnetic pole surface of the second magnet (see figures 1-2 in which the magnets are arranged in such a way that meets the claims).
Regarding Claim 11, Ishikawara teaches the linear position sensor according to claim 1, wherein the detector includes a sensor chip having one surface in parallel with the gap direction and the stroke direction, one direction of surface directions of the one surface is set as a direction corresponding to the sine signal, and the sensor chip is fixed to the detector such that the one direction is inclined relative to the stroke direction (see figures 1-2 and 7-9, in which sensors 10 and 20 meet the structural limitations of the claimed language).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawara et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0140800 in view of Lackey USPG Pub No.: US 2014/0176131.
Regarding Claim 7, Ishikawara teaches the linear position sensor according to claim 1, wherein the detection object includes a yoke that is magnetic and having one surface on which the plurality of magnets are arranged (see figures 1-2, 7 which is a yoke), the plurality of magnets include a first magnet having a first magnetic pole surface and a second magnet having a second magnetic pole surface, and in the gap direction, with respect to the one surface of the yoke as a reference (see figures 1-2). Ishikawara is silent in explicitly teaching a first height of the first magnetic pole surface of the first magnet and a second height of the second magnetic pole surface of the second magnet are different from each other. However, Lackey teaches a first height of the first magnetic pole surface of the first magnet and a second height of the second magnetic pole surface of the second magnet are different from each other (see Lackey figure 1, magnets 104, 106, and 110 as well as [0020] which teaches the claimed heights of the first and second magnets, and their respective poles, being different). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ishikawara with those of Lackey because such a design would be cost effective and account for non-linear aspects in measuring the magnetic field creating higher accuracy (as discussed in Lackey [0014]-[0016]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ishikawara teaches the linear position sensor according to claim 1, wherein the detection object includes a yoke that is magnetic and having one surface on which the plurality of magnets are arranged, and in the stroke direction (see Ishikawara figures 1 and 2). Ishikawara is silent in teaching a first width of a first magnetic pole surface of a first magnet and a second width of a second magnetic pole surface of a second magnet are different from each other. However, Lackey teaches a first width of a first magnetic pole surface of a first magnet and a second width of a second magnetic pole surface of a second magnet are different from each other (see Lackey figure 1, magnets 104, 106, and 110 as well as [0020] which teaches the claimed widths of the first and second magnets, and their respective poles, being different). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ishikawara with those of Lackey because such a design would be cost effective and account for non-linear aspects in measuring the magnetic field creating higher accuracy (as discussed in Lackey [0014]-[0016]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawara et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0140800 in view of Jerance et al. USPG Pub No.: US 2010/0231205.
Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawara teaches the linear position sensor according to claim 1, but is silent in teaching wherein the plurality of magnets are provided as a plastic magnet that is magnetized. However, Jerance teaches wherein the plurality of magnets are provided as a plastic magnet that is magnetized (see Jerance [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ishikawara with those of Jerance in order to create a precise shape of the magnet in order to better direct field lines (see Jerance [0032]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawara et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0140800 in view of Godkin USPG Pub. No.: US 2007/0114990.
Regarding Claim 13, Ishikawara teaches the linear position sensor according to claim 1, but is silent in teaching wherein the detection object includes a yoke that is magnetic and having one surface and a shaft longer than the yoke in the stroke direction, and the yoke is fixed to an outer peripheral surface of the shaft. However, Godkin teaches wherein the detection object includes a yoke that is magnetic and having one surface and a shaft longer than the yoke in the stroke direction, and the yoke is fixed to an outer peripheral surface of the shaft (Godkin see [0027] and figure 5 which shows the yoke 62 mounted to shaft 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ishikawara with those of Godkin in order to use the sensor functionally in a motorized device (as discussed in Godkin [0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE Claim 15, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein the first magnet includes a first N pole portion and a first S pole portion arranged along a first arrangement direction, the third magnet includes a third N pole portion and a third S pole portion arranged along a third arrangement direction, the first magnetic pole surface is perpendicular to the first arrangement direction, and the third magnetic pole surface is perpendicular to the third arrangement direction,” in combination with the other claim limitations. Claim 16 depends from base Claim 15, and therefore this claim is also allowed. Ishikawara et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0140800, as referenced above, is the closest reference in the art to meeting the aforementioned limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights