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 .
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 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6 and 8 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,228,621. 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 patent. That is, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent. Similarly claims 2, 5, 6 ,7 and 9 are obvious over claims 2, 3, 6, 6, and 8 of the patent.
Regarding claim 8, Patent claim 6 discloses all the limitations. Patent claim 8 is silent about the plurality of signal terminals and the at least one first terminal of the first sensor main body and the plurality of signal terminals and the at least one first terminal of the second sensor main body are physically arranged in a row; and the plurality of second terminals of the first sensor main body and the plurality of second terminals of the second sensor main body are physically arranged in a row. Patent claim 6 discloses plurality of signal terminals, plurality of first terminals and plurality of second terminals in two different rows. Rearrangement of parts are not patentable because they are obvious modification to obtain the same results that patent claim 6 obtains. Here, particular placement of terminals in the magnetic sensor are obvious modification which is matter of a design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dates to arrange terminals as claimed to obtain the claim invention, is an obvious design choice and for advantages that Patent claim 6 have to offer.
Claims 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 1 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,228,621 in view of Suruki et al (US 2011/0031965 A1), hereafter Suruki.
Regarding claim 3, Patent claim 2 discloses all the limitations. Patent claim 2 is silent about the at least one first terminal is electrically connected to the detection circuit. Suruki in similar environment at fig. 3 discloses the at least one first terminal is electrically connected to the detection circuit 14/11 to detect for detecting an angle that the direction of an external magnetic field forms with respect to a reference direction (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary art before the effective filing date to add the detection circuit to the patent claim 1 for advantages that Suruki have to offer.
Regarding claim 4, Patent claim 1 discloses all the limitations. Patent claim 4 is silent about a sum of the number of the plurality of signal terminals and the number of the at least one first terminal is equal to the number of the plurality of second terminals. Suruki at fig. 3 discloses a sum of the number of the plurality of signal terminals [E11, E12, E21, E22] and the number of the at least one first terminal [G1 as an example] is equal to the number [five] of the plurality of second terminals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary art before the effective filing date to have equal terminals because it is a design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suruki et al (US 2011/0031965 A1), hereafter Suruki.
Regarding claim 1, Suruki at fig. 3 discloses a magnetic sensor 1 comprising: at least one sensor main body 10; a detection circuit 14,16 provided on the at least one sensor main body, the detection circuit including a magnetic detection element 14,16; and a plurality of sensor terminals [V1, G1, E11, E12, V2, G2, E21, E22] provided on the at least one sensor main body 10, wherein: the plurality of sensor terminals include a plurality of signal terminals [E11, E12, E21, E22] and a plurality of power supply terminals [V1, G1, V2, G2]; in a plan view of a physical layout of the magnetic sensor [see fig. 4 as an example]: the plurality of signal terminals are all disposed on a side of one end [right side end of 10 as shown] of the at least one sensor main body; and the plurality of power supply terminals include at least one first terminal [G1 or G2 as an example] physically disposed on the side of the one end [right side end of 10 as shown] of the at least one sensor main body, and a plurality of second terminals [V1, V2] physically disposed on a side of another end [left side end of 10 as shown] of the at least one sensor main body 10.
Regarding claim 2, Suruki at fig. 3 discloses the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first terminal is connected to a ground [G1 or G2].
Regarding claim 3, Suruki at fig. 3 discloses the magnetic sensor according to claim 2, wherein the at least one first terminal is electrically connected to the detection circuit 14.
Regarding claim 4, Suruki at fig. 3 discloses the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein a sum of the number of the plurality of signal terminals [E11, E12, E21, E22] and the number of the at least one first terminal [G1 as an example] is equal to the number [five] of the plurality of second terminals.
Regarding claim 6, Suruki at fig. 3 discloses the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor main body 10 includes a first sensor main body 11 and a second sensor main body 12.
Regarding claim 7, Suruki at fig. 3 discloses the magnetic sensor according to claim 6, wherein the first sensor main body and the second sensor main body are disposed such that the at least one first terminal G1 of the first sensor main body and the at least one first terminal G2 of the second sensor main body adjoin each other [because of ground as shown].
Regarding claim 9, Suruki at fig. 3 and at Abstract discloses the magnetic sensor according to claim 6, wherein: the detection circuit 14 of the first sensor main body is configured to detect a component of a target magnetic field in a first direction [as shown]; and the detection circuit 16 of the second sensor main body is configured to detect a component of the target magnetic field in a second direction [as shown] and a component of the target magnetic field in a third direction [same as second direction].
Regarding claim 10, Suruki at fig. 3-4 discloses the signal processing circuit for a magnetic sensor, comprising: a circuit main body [substrate 41]; a first block [block of 11] provided on the circuit main body, the first block being configured to process [using 15] a detection signal [output of 14] of the magnetic sensor; and a plurality of circuit terminals [see fig. 4 for ports V2, V1, E11, E12….] provided on the circuit main body, wherein: the plurality of circuit terminals include a plurality of signal terminals [E11, E12, E21, E22] and a plurality of power supply terminals [V1, V2, G1, G2]; the plurality of signal terminals are all disposed on a side of one end [E12, E22 at bottom side end as an example] of the circuit main body; and the plurality of power supply terminals [G1, G2] include at least one first terminal disposed on the side of the one end of the circuit main body, and a plurality of second terminals [V1, V2] disposed on a side of another end [top side end as shown] of the circuit main body.
Regarding claim 11, Suruki at fig. 3-4 discloses the signal processing circuit according to claim 10, wherein the at least one first terminal is connected to a ground [G1 or G2].
Regarding claim 13, Suruki at fig. 3-4 discloses the signal processing circuit according to claim 10, further comprising a second block [block of 12] provided on the circuit main body, the second block being configured to supply power [as shown] to the magnetic sensor, wherein: at least a part of the first block [V2, G2 portion as shown] is electrically connected to the plurality of signal terminals [E21, E22]; and at least a part of the second block is electrically connected to the plurality of power supply terminals [V2, G2].
Regarding claim 14, Suruki at fig. 3-4 discloses the signal processing circuit according to claim 10, further comprising a second block [block for 22] provided on the circuit main body, the second block being configured to supply power [as shown] to the magnetic sensor, wherein: the first block 11 is disposed at a position closer to the one end of the circuit main body than the other end of the circuit main body [11 and 22 as shown]; and the second block is disposed at a position closer to the other end of the circuit main body than the one end of the circuit main body [see 11 and 22 as shown at fig. 3].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suruki as applied to claims 6 and 10 above.
Regarding claim 8, Suruki discloses all the elements including plurality of signal terminals, plurality of first terminals and plurality of second terminals in two different rows. (see fig. 4). Suruki is silent about the plurality of signal terminals and the at least one first terminal of the first sensor main body and the plurality of signal terminals and the at least one first terminal of the second sensor main body are physically arranged in a row; and the plurality of second terminals of the first sensor main body and the plurality of second terminals of the second sensor main body are physically arranged in a row. Rearrangement of parts are not patentable because they are obvious modification to obtain the same results that Suruki obtains. Here, particular placement of terminals in the magnetic sensor are obvious modification which is matter of a design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dates to arrange terminals as claimed to obtain the claim invention, is an obvious design choice and for advantages that Suruki have to offer.
Regarding claim 12, Suruki discloses all the elements including plurality of signal terminals, plurality of first terminals and plurality of second terminals in two different rows. (see fig. 4). Suruki particularly discloses the plurality of signal terminals [E12, E22, E41] and the at least one first terminal G1, G2 are a plurality of terminals arranged physically in a row [bottom row]. Suruki is silent about the plurality of signal terminals include a terminal physically located at one end of the row of the plurality of terminals, and a terminal physically located at another end of the row of the plurality of terminals. Rearrangement of parts are not patentable because they are obvious modification to obtain the same results that Suruki obtains. Here, particular placement of terminals in the signal processing circuit are obvious modification which is matter of a design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dates to arrange terminals as claimed to obtain the claim invention, is an obvious design choice and for advantages that Suruki have to offer.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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
July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights