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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “… the control and evaluation unit being configured to obtain a switching signal when a target approaches …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “the control and evaluation unit” coupled with functional language “… the control and evaluation unit being configured to obtain a switching signal when a target approaches …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “the control and evaluation unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “… the control and evaluation unit being configured to obtain a switching signal when a target approaches …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “the control and evaluation unit”
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of "… the control and evaluation unit being configured to obtain a switching signal when a target approaches …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Note: Paragraph 30 and figure 5 of the specification discloses structure.
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, 5 and 7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 16 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether it is referring to the longitudinal axis of the proximity switch in lines 13-14 or another longitudinal axis. If it is referring to the longitudinal axis of the proximity switch in lines 13-14, then it is recommended to amend to recite “… the longitudinal axis of the proximity switch …”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "optionally in" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "optionally in" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
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(s) 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FABER MICHAEL (German Patent Application #DE 102015117075 A1; hereinafter Faber; translation provided by the examiner) in view of MUELLER JENS (German patent application # DE 102006053222 A1; hereinafter Mueller; translation provided by the examiner).
Regarding clam 1, Faber teaches
A proximity switch (fig.9 #6 and #7, #9, #8.1-8.3), comprising:
- a coil arrangement including at least two receiving coils (fig.9 #8.1 and #8.3) and at least one transmitting coil (fig.9 #8.2), and
- a control and evaluation unit arranged downstream of the coil arrangement (fig.9 shows #9 arranged downstream), the control and evaluation unit being configured to obtain a switching signal when a target approaches a predefined response distance of the proximity switch (par.29),
- wherein the at least two receiving coils and the at least one transmitting coil are planar coils (fig.9 shows all coils being planar coils) and are arranged in a common coil plane being arranged completely within one single copper layer,
- wherein the common coil plane is oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the proximity switch (fig.9 shows the common coil plane being oriented perpendicularly to a longitudinal axis of the proximity switch),
- wherein coil axes of the at least two receiving coils and the at least one transmitting coil are each arranged in parallel to the longitudinal axis (fig.9 shows coil axes arranged in parallel to the longitudinal axis), and
- wherein the at least two receiving coils and the at least one transmitting coil do not overlap one another in a direction of the longitudinal axis and do not enclose one another circumferentially (fig.9 shows coils not overlapping one another and not enclosing one another circumferentially).
Faber fails to teach the at least two receiving coils and the at least one transmitting coil arranged in a common coil plane being arranged completely within one single copper layer.
Mueller does teach the at least two receiving coils and the at least one transmitting coil arranged in a common coil plane being arranged completely within one single copper layer (fig.1 and par.21 teach coils in a common coil plane being arranged completely within one single copper layer).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faber to include the teachings of Mueller; which would provide a more robust and temperature stable proximity switch as disclosed by Mueller(par.8-10).
Regarding claim 2, Faber in view of Mueller teaches the proximity switch according to claim 1, Faber further teaches wherein the coil axis of the at least one transmitting coil is located radially on an inside in the common coil plane (fig.9), and the coil axes of the at least two receiving coils are located radially on an outside of the common coil plane (fig.9).
Regarding claim 3, Faber in view of Mueller teaches the proximity switch according to claim 1, Faber further teaches wherein exactly one transmitting coil is provided, the coil axis of which extends in alignment with the longitudinal axis (fig.9 shows one transmitting coil wound up and extending in alignment with the longitudinal axis), and wherein the coil axes of the at least two receiving coils have an identical spacing from the coil axis of the transmitting coil (fig.9).
Regarding claim 4, Faber in view of Mueller teaches the proximity switch according to claim 3, Faber further teaches wherein three to six receiving coils are provided (fig.9 shows a set of four receiving coils 8.1 and 8.3), the coil axes of which are arranged concentrically around the coil axis of the transmitting coil (fig.9).
Regarding claim 8, Faber in view of Mueller teaches a method, Faber further teaches comprising:
detecting a target using the proximity switch according to claim 1 (par.4 “This proximity switch can detect the approach of a metallic object”).
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(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faber in view of Mueller further in view of Kuhn; Thomas (US 20080204118 A1; hereinafter Kuhn).
Regarding claim 5, Faber in view of Mueller teaches the proximity switch according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein each receiving coil has a number S of windings, and each transmitting coil has a number E of windings, wherein a ratio ΣS/ΣE lies in a range from 0.46 to 0.30, optionally in a range from 0.43 to 0.32.
Kuhn does teach wherein each receiving coil has a number S of windings (par.6 “specific number of windings”), and each transmitting coil has a number E of windings (par.6 “specific number of windings”), wherein a ratio ΣS/ΣE lies in a range from 0.46 to 0.30, optionally in a range from 0.43 to 0.32 (par.71 inherently teaches the winding ratio lying in range from .43-.32; the sum of coil S to coils E lies around .32).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faber in view of Mueller to include the teachings of Kuhn; which would open up the possibility of evaluating their signals separately or of linking them, allowing, for example, a linear combination or the formation of ratios of the two signals or of several signals as disclosed by Kuhn (par.17).
Regarding claim 6, Faber in view of Mueller teaches the proximity switch according to claim 1, but fails to wherein a ratio of a coil base surface of one of the at least two receiving coils to a coil base surface of the at least one transmitting coil is 1 plus/minus 0.2.
Kuhn does teach wherein a ratio of a coil base surface (fig.2 shows coil base surface) of one of the at least two receiving coils to a coil base surface (fig.2 shows coil base surface) of the at least one transmitting coil is 1 plus/minus 0.2 (par.71-72 inherently teaches ratio of receiving coils to transmitting coil with tolerance with +- .25 tolerance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Faber in view of Mueller to include the teachings of Kuhn; which would open up the possibility of evaluating their signals separately or of linking them, allowing, for example, a linear combination or the formation of ratios of the two signals or of several signals as disclosed by Kuhn (par.17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 20180375516 A1; Nagel; Joachim et al. is a sensor apparatus for detecting a target object and a method for operating a sensor apparatus for detecting a target object.
US 20180331684 A1; KOIZUMI; Masayuki et al. is a proximity sensor and method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights