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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on May 5, 2025 and April 21, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Steffensky et al. (DE 102009020582 A1).
Steffensky et al. teaches a device for detecting metallic particles in a fluid comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
616
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
644
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 1, a debris sensor apparatus (FIG. 2, device 1) comprising: a head portion (FIG. 2, tensioning element 40); a male-threaded portion (FIG. 2, tensioning element 34 having an external thread on its lateral surface); and a shaft (FIG. 2, housing element 36 with longitudinal axis 24) comprising a debris sensor assembly (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12 and the gap between the circuit board 54 and the bottom part 38), the debris sensor assembly (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12 and the gap between the circuit board 54 and the bottom part 38) comprising: one or more permanent magnets (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12) comprising a cavity (FIG. 2, the region of the gap between the circuit board 54 and the bottom part 38) on a first end (FIG. 2, right end of permanent magnet 12); a Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 18) configured within the cavity (FIG. 2, the region of the gap between the circuit board 54 and the bottom part 38); a first pole piece (FIG. 2, magnetic flux guide 28) configured adjacent to a second end (FIG. 2, left end of permanent magnet 12) of the one or more permanent magnets (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12); and, a second pole piece (FIG. 2, magnetic flux guide 26) configured adjacent to the first end (FIG. 2, right end of permanent magnet 12) (For more details, please read: Abstract; paragraphs: [0006]-[0008], [0026]-[0037], [0042]-[0045], [0063]- [0068], [0077]-[0080]; and claim 1).
With regard to claim 2, a printed circuit board assembly (FIG. 2, circuit board 54) coupled to the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 18).
With regard to claim 3, the printed circuit board (FIG. 2, circuit board 54) comprises one or more processors (FIG. 5 in view of FIG. 2, microcontroller control 76 of the evaluation and control device 70) and a communication interface (FIG. 5 in view of FIG. 2, bottom box connected microcontroller control 76 and data bus 88) configured to transmit signal output (FIG. 5 in view of FIG. 2, warning output 82, alarm output 84, and analog output sensor signal 86) associated with the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 18) to a data analysis computing entity (FIG. 5 in view of FIG. 2, evaluation and control device 70) (Paragraph: [0049]).
With regard to claim 4, the signal output (FIG. 5 in view of FIG. 2, warning output 82, alarm output 84, and analog output sensor signal 86) is representative of debris measurement data (amount of accumulated contamination or impurities in the fluid, such as metallic particles) comprising one or more values of magnetic flux density (change in the magnetic flux) (Paragraph: [0048]).
With regard to claim 5, the data analysis computing entity (FIG. 5 in view of FIG. 2, evaluation and control device 70) is configured to generate one or more actions (warning output 82 and alarm output 84) responsive to the debris measurement data (amount of accumulated contamination or impurities in the fluid, such as metallic particles) exceeding a debris threshold (upon reaching a definable percentage of a maximum permissible accumulated contamination value and upon reaching the predetermined maximum value for the accumulated contamination) (Paragraph: [0055]).
With regard to claim 6, the debris threshold is associated with a maximum rate of change (upon reaching a definable percentage of a maximum permissible accumulated contamination value) associated with debris deposition on the shaft (FIG. 2, housing element 36 with longitudinal axis 24) (amount of accumulated contamination or impurities in the fluid, such as metallic particles) or a maximum amount (upon reaching the predetermined maximum value for the accumulated contamination) of debris deposition on the shaft (FIG. 2, housing element 36 with longitudinal axis 24) (amount of accumulated contamination or impurities in the fluid, such as metallic particles) (Paragraph: [0055]).
With regard to claim 7, the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 18) is configured to detect magnetic flux density (change in the magnetic flux) (Paragraph: [0048]).
With regard to claim 8, the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 18) is configured to detect an increase to the magnetic flux density (change in the magnetic flux) in proportion to an amount of ferrous debris deposition on the shaft (FIG. 2, housing element 36 with longitudinal axis 24) (amount of accumulated contamination or impurities in the fluid, such as metallic particles) (Paragraph: [0016]).
With regard to claim 9, the one or more permanent magnets (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12) comprise an array of a plurality of magnet elements (several permanent magnets) and one or more non-magnetic spacers (FIG. 2, electrically insulating material 30) configured therebetween the plurality of magnet elements (several permanent magnets) (Paragraph: [0014]).
With regard to claim 10, the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 6 in view of FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 318) is configured along a central axis of the one or more permanent magnets (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12) (Paragraph: [0059]).
With regard to claim 11, the top piece and the bottom pole piece comprise flux concentrators (FIG. 8 in view of FIG. 2, concentration element 494) that concentrate magnetic flux associated with the one or more permanent magnets (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12) through the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 18) and through a length of a periphery of shaft (FIG. 2, housing element 36 with longitudinal axis 24) (Paragraph: [0064]).
With regard to claim 12, the debris sensor assembly (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12 and the gap between the circuit board 54 and the bottom part 38) is encapsulated and/or sealed within the shaft (FIG. 2, housing element 36 with longitudinal axis 24) (FIG. 5 in view of FIG. 2).
With regard to claim 13, the shaft (FIG. 2, housing element 36 with longitudinal axis 24) comprises a non-ferrous housing (the housing element 36 and/or the clamping element 40 are made of a material that conducts magnetic flux poorly, for example brass) (Paragraph: [0049]).
With regard to claim 14, wherein the Hall-effect sensor (FIGS. 2 or 6, Hall sensor elements 18 or 318) is oriented in the cavity (FIG. 2, the region of the gap between the circuit board 54 and the bottom part 38) at a given angle (central arrangement, i.e. an angle of 0°, and a perpendicular arrangement, i.e. 90°) with respect to an axis of the one or more permanent magnets (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12).
With regard to claim 16, the debris sensor assembly (FIG. 2, permanent magnet 12 and the gap between the circuit board 54 and the bottom part 38) further comprises a gap (FIG. 6 in view of FIG. 2, circuit board 396) between the bottom pole piece (FIG. 6 in view of FIG. 2, pole element 326) and the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 6 in view of FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 318).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steffensky et al. in view of Luetzow (US 5,321,355 A).
Steffensky et al. teaches all that is claimed as discussed in the above rejection of claims 1-14 and 16 including the second pole piece (FIG. 2, magnetic flux guide 26) and the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 2, Hall sensor element 18), but it does not specifically teach a pole piece comprising a funnel shape towards the Hall-effect sensor.
Luetzow teaches a hall effect position sensor with flux limiter and magnetic dispersion means comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
592
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 15, a pole piece (FIG. 12, pole piece 114) comprises a funnel shape towards the Hall-effect sensor (FIG. 12, Hall sensor 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device for detecting metallic particles in a fluid of Steffensky et al. to use a funnel shape towards the Hall-effect sensor as taught by Luetzow since Luetzow teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide desirable and exemplary choices for a detection circuit. Such an implementation can significantly increase the magnetic flux density, which is also useful for detecting debris, to improve effectiveness of the detection circuit with desirable levels of accuracy, resolution, stability and reliability in the measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants’ attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Waid-Jones et al. (CN 121057535 A) teaches a vacuum cleaner.
Fan et al. (CN 113163730 A) teaches a garbage collecting device.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights