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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 9, recite that both magnets are magnetized in a first and second direction yet also requires the magnets to have mutually different magnetization directions. It is unclear whether each magnet possesses dual perpendicular magnetization vectors or whether each magnet is magnetized in a single, distinct direction. The internal contradiction prevents determination of the metes and bounds of the claims. Additionally, the phrase “coupled to each other in a third direction” is ambiguous because it does not specify if the third direction refers to a spatial axis of arrangement or a vector of coupling forces. It is also unclear how this third direction relates to the other two directions. Clarification is required.
Claim 2, the phrase “generate a bias magnetic field with respect to the magnetic sensor” makes it unclear if the claims requires the sensor as part of the claimed structure or its only stating its indented use.
Clams 3-8 are rejected as having the same deficiencies as Claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vig et al. [US 5781005].
Claim 1, Vig et al. teaches a magnet module for use in a magnetic sensor, the magnetic sensor being configured to output a signal representing a detected magnetic field [col 1, lines 10-20], the magnet module comprising a first magnet and a second magnet, both of the first magnet and the second magnet being magnetized in a first direction and a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction [col. 3, line 5-15 and col. 7, line 1-10],the first magnet and the second magnet being provided separately and coupled to each other [col 7, lines 1-10] in a third direction to have mutually different magnetization directions [col 3, lines 5-15], the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction [coll 7, lines 20-25].
Claim 2, Vig et al. teaches the magnet module of claim 1, wherein when viewed in plan in the second direction, a width of a neutral zone between the first magnet and the second magnet is narrower than a width of a neutral zone in each of the first and second magnets [see col. 13, lines 1-10 and Fig 10, col 9, lines 1-20].
Claim 3. Vig et al. teaches the magnet module of claim 1, wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are configured to generate a bias magnetic field with respect to the magnetic sensor [col 8, lines 35-45, col. 9, lines 1-20].
Claim 4, Vig et al. teaches the magnet module of claim 1, further comprising a bonding member bonding the first magnet and the second magnet together [col 7, line 1-20].
Claim 5, Vig et al. teaches the magnet module of claim 4, wherein the bonding member includes either an epoxy resin or a silicone resin [col 7, line 1-20; wherein bonding of magnets to pole pieces is conventional].
Claim 6, Vig et al. teaches the magnet module of claim 1, further comprising a magnet-covering resin member covering the first magnet and the second magnet [Fig. 42, col. 14, lines 1-10].
Claim 7, Vig et al. teaches the magnet module of claim 1 , wherein the magnet module has a dimension equal to or less than 5 mm as measured in the first direction and a dimension equal to or less than 5 mm as measured in the third direction [col 10, line 1-10, col. 11, line 1-10].
Claim 8, Vig et al. teaches the sensor module comprising the magnet module of claim 1, the magnetic sensor; and a sensor-covering resin member covering the magnet module and the magnetic sensor [col. 7, line 1-10; Fig. 20 and Fig. 42, col 14, lines 1-10].
Claim 9 is rejected using the same rationale as Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights