DETAILED ACTIONAcknowledgment is made of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 3/20/25.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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A sensing device capable of avoiding magnetic field interference”.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (KR2016081135) in view of Mason et al. (JP2009522569, hereinafter Mason).
Regarding claim 1, Woo discloses an method and apparatus comprising a stator 20 including a stator tooth (protruding pieces, See Fig. 6); and a rotor 100 including a magnet 120, wherein the stator tooth includes a first stator tooth and a second stator tooth extending in a radial direction from a center of the stator, and the magnet includes a ring-shaped body and at least one protrusion P1, P2, P3 protruding from one side of the body (See Figs. 1 and 6, See Pg. 5, Paras. 1 – 5). Woo fails to disclose the stator tooth includes a first stator tooth and a second stator tooth disposed to overlap the first stator tooth in a radial direction from a center of the stator. However, Mason discloses an apparatus comprising a stator part 20 having stators 21, 22 each composed of overlapping teeth 25, 26 (See Fig. 4, See Pg. 10, Paras. 1 - 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo according to the teachings of Mason for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device is easy to assemble, has a smaller overall size, optimum sensitivity, and minimizes the size and weight of parts (See Mason, See Pg. 3, Para. 8).
Regarding claim 2, in Woo, at least a portion of an inner surface of the at least one protrusion is positioned within an inner surface of the body in the radial direction of the magnet 120 (See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, in Woo, an outer surface of the at least one protrusion is positioned within an outer surface of the body in the radial direction of the magnet 120 (See Fig. 1). 6. Claims 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo and Mason, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mikami et al. (9,893,576, hereinafter Mikami).
Regarding claim 4, Woo and Mason fail to disclose that the protrusion includes a first part protruding from one axial surface of the body, and a second part protruding from the first part in the radial direction of the magnet. However, Mikami discloses an apparatus comprising a magnet 240 having a protrusion 222 that extends therefrom in axial and radial directions (See Figs. 30 and 31, See Col. 26, lines 42 – 59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo and Mason according to the teachings of Mikami for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows for the reduction of magnets and reduces the brake torque taking into consideration that the motor may become inoperable (See Mikami, Col. 1, lines 66 – 67 and Col. 2, lines 1 - 3).
Regarding claim 5, Woo and Mason fail to disclose that the second part protrudes from an inner surface of the body in the radial direction of the magnet. However, in Mikami, the second part protrudes from an inner surface of the body in the radial direction of the magnet (See Figs. 30 and 31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo and Mason according to the teachings of Mikami for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows for the reduction of magnets and reduces the brake torque taking into consideration that the motor may become inoperable (See Mikami, Col. 1, lines 66 – 67 and Col. 2, lines 1 - 3).
Regarding claim 6, Woo and Mason fail to disclose that an outer surface of the first part is positioned within an outer surface of the body, and an inner surface of the second part is positioned within an inner surface of the body in the radial direction of the magnet. However, in Mikami, an outer surface of the first part is positioned within an outer surface of the body, and an inner surface of the second part is positioned within an inner surface of the body in the radial direction of the magnet to include an L-shaped configuration (See Figs. 30 and 31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Woo and Mason according to the teachings of Mikami for the purpose of, advantageously providing an improved device since this type of device allows for the reduction of magnets and reduces the brake torque taking into consideration that the motor may become inoperable (See Mikami, Col. 1, lines 66 – 67 and Col. 2, lines 1 - 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 10 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.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter is that the prior art does not anticipate or make obvious the provisions of “the first stator tooth includes a first tooth and a third tooth disposed on different circumferences, and wherein the body is positioned opposite the first tooth and the third tooth” (referring to claim 7), “the protrusion is positioned axially above the first tooth and the second tooth” (referring to claim 8), “the second stator tooth includes a second tooth disposed on the same circumference as the third tooth, and wherein the body is positioned opposite the second tooth” (referring to claim 9) and “the protrusion is positioned axially above the second tooth” (referring to claim 10) in combination with the other limitations presented in claim 1. Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. 10. Choi (2026/0217312) discloses a sensor device. Byun (12,203,821) discloses a sensing device. Byun (12,044,589) discloses a sensing device for avoiding magnetic field interference. Smith et al. (CN103053095) disclose an axial magnetic flux motor and method of assembling the axial magnetic flux motor.11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 5712724107. 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.
/OCTAVIA HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 9/18/26
Prosecution Insights