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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A3 (wherein the magnet has exactly 6 poles) and Species B1 (wherein the smart shifter and method have only one magnet and that magnet is a spiral magnet) in the reply filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-12 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/30/2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/30/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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: “Non-Contact Smart Shifter With Spiral Magnet”.
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 2 and 14 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “plunger(s)” in claims 2 and 14 is used by the claim to refer to components associated with rotational movement of the components,” while the accepted meaning is a component that translates/slides/reciprocates. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purpose of further examination on the merits, the term “plunger”, in the context of the terms “indexing plunger” and “indexing plunger plate” will be understood as a generic term, and the indexing plunger and the indexing plunger plate are neither required to plunge/translate/slide/reciprocate nor rotate.
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) 1-6 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg (US2016/0378131) in view of Kaste (US2017/0292855).
Re claim 1
Battlogg discloses:
A smart shifter, comprising:
a magnet (207; para. [0258]);
a magneto-resistive sensor (208; [0258]); and
an outer housing (202, including 232),
wherein the magnet (207) and the magneto-resistive sensor (208) are spaced apart within the outer housing (202) such that there is no contact between the spiral magnet and the magneto-resistive sensor,
wherein the magnet (207) is configured to rotate with the outer housing (202) (See Fig. 1),
wherein the magneto-resistive sensor (208) is configured to determine a rotational position of the magnet (202; para. [0258]), and
wherein a first function (abstract) of the smart shifter is determined by the rotational position of the magnet (207).
Battlogg is silent to the magnet (207) being a spiral magnet (Note that the term “spiral magnet” is understood as a magnet that has pole layers arranged in a spiral pattern.).
Kaste teaches the magnet being a spiral magnet (120; para. [0057]), for the purpose of allowing the sensor to be off axis and still perform (para. [0057]. The Examiner notes that the ability to be off axis is advantageous even if the sensors is intended to be on axis, since it increases manufacturing tolerance.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Battlogg such that the magnet being a spiral magnet, as taught by Kaste, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of allowing the sensor to be off axis and still perform.
Re claim 13
Battlogg discloses:
A method, comprising:
determining, by a magneto-resistive sensor (208; para. [0258]), a rotational position of a magnet (207, [0258]), wherein the magnet (207) and the magneto-resistive sensor (208) are spaced apart within an outer housing (202, including 232) such that there is no contact between the magnet (207) and the magneto-resistive sensor (208), and wherein the magnet (207) is configured to rotate with the outer housing (202; see Fig. 1);
determining a first function (see abstract) of a smart shifter based on the rotational position of the magnet (see abstract); and
implementing the first function of the smart shifter (see abstract).
Battlogg is silent to the magnet (207) being a spiral magnet.
Kaste teaches the magnet being a spiral magnet (120; para. [0057]), for the purpose of allowing the sensor to be off axis and still perform (para. [0057]. The Examiner notes that the ability to be off axis is advantageous even if the sensors is intended to be on axis, since it increases manufacturing tolerance.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to modify the device of Battlogg such that the magnet being a spiral magnet, as taught by Kaste, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of allowing the sensor to be off axis and still perform.
Battlogg as modified above further suggests:
Re claims 2 and 14, as best understood. wherein the spiral magnet (magnet 207 in Battlogg) is fixed to the outer housing (202) via one or more indexing plungers (232) and an indexing plunger plate (230).
Re claim 3. The smart shifter of Claim 1, wherein the magneto-resistive sensor (208; para. [0258] in Battlogg - “electronics”; para. [0057] in Kaste - “Hall sensor 100” and “printed circuit board 150”) is part of a printed circuit board assembly configured to implement the first function of the smart shifter.
Re claims 4 and 16. The smart shifter of Claim 1, wherein the spiral magnet comprises (claim 16 - “at least”) two magnetized pole layers arranged in a spiral pattern (para. [0057] in Kaste).
Re claims 5 and 17. The smart shifter of Claim 4, wherein the spiral magnet (120 in Battlogg, 120 in Kaste) defines an opening (see opening in magnet in Fig. 9 of Kaste) at a center axis defined by the spiral magnet.
Re claims 6 and 18. The smart shifter of Claim 5, wherein the magneto-resistive sensor is positioned off-axis with respect to the center axis (para. [0057] in Kaste. See Fig. 9 of Kaste and sensor 100).
Re claim 15. The method of Claim 13, wherein the magneto-resistive sensor (208; para. [0258] in Battlogg - “electronics”; para. [0057] in Kaste - “Hall sensor 100” and “printed circuit board 150”) is positioned on a printed circuit board assembly configured to implement the first function of the smart shifter (see also rejection of claim 3 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY T PRATHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 AM - 5 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/GREGORY T PRATHER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/MINNAH L SEOH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights