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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a cut across a direction around an axis of the electric shield” is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
For claim 11, to expedite the process of the prosecution, it is assumed that the limitation “a cut across a direction around an axis of the electric shield” where the cut is a reference numeral 82 or 83 of the Application as described.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 2, 4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 11, 13, 14, 9, 13 respectively of copending Application No. 19/015,892. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the copending application. That is, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 19/015,892 in view of Gong et al. (US 2010/0060270 A1) hereafter Gong. Application claim 14 is silent about wherein the electric shield has a sheet metal configuration. Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor of claim 11, wherein the electric shield has a sheet metal configuration [implicit to metallic 8 of Gong]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date use conductive sheet metal plate with the sensor of claim 14 for electrical shielding and advantages that Gong offers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 1, 1, 1, 12, 14, 9, 13 respectively of a copending Application No. 19/015,903. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claim 1 of the copending Application. That is, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the copending Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/015,903 in view of Nashiki (US 2008/0197739 A1). For Application claim 12, Copending Application 19/015,903 at claim 1 discloses all the limitations but the cut is formed in the detection surface portion. Nashiki at fig. 98 and ¶0316 discloses a cut [407b/408b] across a direction around an axis of the electromagnetic steel plates 407S and 408R respectively. This limitation is old and well known in the art to reduce noise and eddy current and the effects. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electric shield of claim 1 of Copending Application 19/015,903 with a cut portion as taught by Nashiki to reduce noise and eddy current and the effects. Regarding claim 13, Nashiki discloses the cut is formed in the peripheral portion [obvious modification per teaching of 407b/108b from Nashiki].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 –
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazumi et al. (US 2018/0331684) hereafter Kazumi.
Regarding claim 1, Kazumi at fig. 3-6 and ¶0057 discloses a proximity sensor comprising: a coil [11, 12] that generates a magnetic field by an excitation current; a transmission circuit 17 that periodically applies a pulsed excitation current to the coil [¶0059]; and a ferrite core 15 that guides the magnetic field generated from the coil [0057], wherein the coil includes: a first coil 11; and a second coil 12 disposed concentrically [as shown, ¶0058] with the first coil, the transmission circuit applies an excitation current [¶0060-0061, fig. 4] to one of the first coil 11 and the second coil, and the proximity sensor further comprises: a reception circuit that detects a voltage or a current generated in each of the first coil and the second coil by the magnetic field which is changed by a detection object [42, 700, ¶0068-0072]; and a control circuit that detects the detection object on a basis of a change in the voltage or the current generated in each of the first coil and the second coil detected by the reception circuit [50, ¶0079].
Regarding claim 2, Kazumi at fig. 3-6 and ¶0057 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the second coil 12 is disposed outside the first coil 11 in a radial direction [as an example, Z direction as shown] , and the first coil generates the magnetic field M1 by causing the pulsed excitation current to periodically flow from the transmission circuit.
Regarding claim 3, Kazumi at fig. 3-6 and ¶0057 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a substrate [implicit to 17] on which the transmission circuit, the reception circuit, and the control circuit are provided.
Regarding claim 4, Kazumi at fig. 3-6 and ¶0057 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 1, wherein the reception circuit includes: a first reception circuit 421/42 that detects a voltage or a current generated in the first coil; and a second reception circuit 422/42 that detects a voltage or a current generated in the second coil [see fig. 6].
Regarding claim 5, Kazumi at fig. 3-6 and ¶0057 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 4, wherein the control circuit detects the detection object on a basis of a difference between the voltage or the current detected by the first reception circuit and the voltage or the current detected by the second reception circuit [fig. 25, ¶0171-0172].
Regarding claim 9, Kazumi at fig. 3-6 and ¶0057 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a magnetic shield 19 that is disposed outside the second coil 12 in a radial direction.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al. (US 2010/0060270 A1) hereafter Gong.
Regarding claims 6-7, Gong in different embodiment, particularly at fig. 3A, 3C discloses a proximity sensor comprising: a coil [12, 14] that generates a magnetic field by an excitation current; a transmission circuit 6 that periodically applies a pulsed excitation current to the coil [signal as disclosed can be a pulse signal, ¶0024]; and a ferrite core [10, ¶0019] that guides the magnetic field generated from the coil [¶0020], wherein the coil includes: a first coil 12; and a second coil 14 disposed concentrically [as shown, because both coils have sane center, see fig. 3A-3C] with the first coil, the transmission circuit [6, ¶0024] applies an excitation current [from 6] to one of the first coil 12 and the second coil 14, and the proximity sensor further comprises: a reception circuit 6 that detects a voltage or a current generated in each of the first coil and the second coil by the magnetic field which is changed by a detection object [24, ¶0024]; and a control circuit 6 that detects the detection object on a basis of a change in the voltage or the current generated in each of the first coil and the second coil detected by the reception circuit [¶0024]. Gong discloses wherein the second coil [14 is shorter than 12] is shorter [height in vertical direction] than the first coil [height in vertical direction of 12] in a direction orthogonal to a radial direction of the second coil. For claim 7, Gong also at fig. 3A discloses the second coil is located closer to a side where the detection object is detected than the first coil [distance between 24 and 14/12 at 3A].
Regarding claims 8, Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a core holder 27 that holds the ferrite core 10, wherein the core holder positions the second coil.
Claim(s) 11-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazumi or Gong as applied to claim 1, 6 above, and further in view of Nashiki (US 2008/0197739 A1).
Regarding claims 11, Kazumi or Gong discloses the proximity sensor of claim 1, further comprising an electric shield [19 of Kazumi, metallic 8 of Gong] that is disposed outside the second coil [12 of Kazumi, 14 of Gong] in a radial direction,
Kazumi or Gong is silent about wherein the electric shield is formed with a cut across a direction around an axis of the electric shield. Nashiki at fig. 98 and ¶0316 discloses a cut [407b/408b] across a direction around an axis of the electromagnetic steel plates 407S and 408R respectively. This limitation is old and well known in the art to reduce noise and eddy current and the effects. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electric shield of Kazumi or Gong with cut portion as taught by Nashiki to reduce noise and eddy current and the effects.
Regarding claims 12, Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 11, wherein the electric shield includes: a peripheral portion [19 of Kazumi, 8a of Gong] covering the second coil from an outside of the second coil in the radial direction [fig. 3C of Gong]; and a detection surface portion [portion of 8b towards the target 24 of Gong] located on a side where the detection object is detected, and the cut is formed in the detection surface portion [407b/108b of Nashiki].
Regarding claims 13, modified Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 12, wherein the cut is formed in the peripheral portion [obvious modification per 407b/108b of Nashiki].
Regarding claims 14, Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor of claim 11, wherein the electric shield has a sheet metal configuration [implicit to metallic 8 of Gong].
Regarding claims 15, Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor of claim 14, wherein the electric shield is a press-molded product of a punched thin metal plate [implicit to metallic 8 of Gong].
Regarding claims 16, Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 12, wherein the ferrite core 10 has a shaft body [width of 10a] passing through a hollow portion of the first coil 12, and a ratio of a width of the shaft body to an entire width of the ferrite core [width of 10] in a radial direction of the first coil is 30% or less [entire width of 10 to width of 10A as shown appears more than 5 times that of width of 10A, also see than width comparison (radius are shown].
Regarding claims 17, Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 16, wherein a ratio of a width of the shaft body to an entire width of the ferrite core in a radial direction of the first coil is 15% or more [entire width of 10 to width of 10A as shown appears more than 5 times that of width of 10A, also see than width comparison (radius are shown].
Regarding claims 19, as stated at rejected claim 16 above Gong at fig. 1-3 discloses all the elements of a proximity sensor including the proximity sensor comprising: a coil that generates a magnetic field by an excitation current; a transmission circuit that periodically applies a pulsed excitation current to the coil; and a ferrite core that guides the magnetic field generated from the coil, wherein the coil includes: a first coil; and a second coil disposed outside the first coil in a radial direction, the proximity sensor further comprises: a reception circuit that detects a voltage or a current generated in at least one of the first coil and the second coil by the magnetic field which is changed by a detection object; and a control circuit that detects the detection object on a basis of a change in the voltage or the current detected by the reception circuit, the ferrite core has a shaft body passing through a hollow portion of the first coil, and a ratio of a width of the shaft body to an entire width of the ferrite core in a radial direction of the first coil is 30% or less.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazumi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Murakami (US 5,450,009) and Inaba et al. (US 5,139,865) hereafter Inaba.
Regarding claim 10, Kazumi discloses the proximity sensor according to claim 9, wherein the magnetic shield 19 includes a sheet member [¶0149] kneaded with ferromagnetic powder. Use of ferromagnetic powder for sheet is old and well known. Murakami also discloses “on at least one of the periphery and the front surface of the magnetic sensor, so-called weak ferromagnetic material where ferromagnetic powders are dispersed in, for example, resin or rubber, whereby the weak ferromagnetic material serves as the magnetic shield to avoid the magnetic disturbance. Further, the use of the weak ferromagnetic material reduces any magnetic influences in the MR element due to the magnetic shield “ therefore discloses the magnetic shield includes a sheet member 34 with ferromagnetic powder and Inaba discloses the sheet member kneaded with ferromagnetic powder [kneading is a known process, see Inaba). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use sheet member as taught by Murakami and Inaba for the sensor of Kazumi to obtain claim invention and to reduce any magnetic influences.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Murakami (US 5,450,009) and Inaba et al. (US 5,139,865) hereafter Inaba.
Regarding claim 18, as stated above at rejection of claim 6, Gong in different embodiment, particularly at fig. 3A, 3C discloses a proximity sensor comprising: a coil that generates a magnetic field by an excitation current; a transmission circuit that periodically applies a pulsed excitation current to the coil; and a ferrite core that guides the magnetic field generated from the coil, wherein the coil includes: a first coil; and a second coil disposed outside the first coil in a radial direction, the proximity sensor further comprises: a reception circuit that detects a voltage or a current generated in at least one of the first coil and the second coil by the magnetic field which is changed by a detection object; a control circuit that detects the detection object on a basis of a change in the voltage or the current detected by the reception circuit. Rather, at ¶0007 suggest use of shielding rings (magnetic shields) to reduce mounting effects and to suppress the mounting effect by reducing the magnetic field leakage between the sensor and the supporting structure.
Gong is silent about said the magnetic shield includes a sheet member kneaded with ferromagnetic powder.
Murakami discloses “on at least one of the periphery and the front surface of the magnetic sensor, so-called weak ferromagnetic material where ferromagnetic powders are dispersed in, for example, resin or rubber, whereby the weak ferromagnetic material serves as the magnetic shield to avoid the magnetic disturbance. Further, the use of the weak ferromagnetic material reduces any magnetic influences in the MR element due to the magnetic shield “ therefore discloses the magnetic shield includes a sheet member 34 with ferromagnetic powder and Inaba discloses the sheet member kneaded with ferromagnetic powder [for the process, see Inaba). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use sheet member as taught by Murakami for the sensor of Gong to obtain claim invention and to reduce any magnetic influences.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights