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 .
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 1-14 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein the first detection unit detects a change in magnetism from the magnet occurring when a first projection row, which is constituted by at least one projecting portion provided on a moving body, passes between the first detection unit and the magnet as the moving body moves, and the second detection unit detects a change in the magnetism from the magnet occurring when a second projection row, which is constituted by at least one projecting portion provided on the moving body, passes between the magnet and the second detection unit as the moving body moves” in the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
1) Apparatus claims are directed towards what the device is and not the manner of using the device. As such, reciting “the first detection unit detects a change in magnetism,” for example, is indefinite, because such a recitation is directed towards a use of the first detection unit, which is the same as a method step, here the method step being a method of detecting a change in magnetism with the first detection unit. This is explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), explaining “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” Claiming that any detection unit “detects,” any projection row that “passes,” any moving body that “moves,” are all likewise indefinite because they are all directed towards a use of the apparatus, which are, are method steps as method steps are steps of using an apparatus.
2) The second issue here is that as currently worded, it is unclear what features of the claim are and are not positively recited. Applicant clearly introduces a first detection unit, magnet, and second detection unit. The next feature pertaining to the first projection row, however is not clearly positively recited, and it is unclear what, if any, of these features are required. Applicant expressly claims “when a first projection row, which is constituted by at least one projecting portion provided on a moving body, passes between the first detection unit and the magnet as the moving body moves,” but where such a feature is 1) conditional, and 2) directly linked to an express use of the first detection unit as part of its use in detecting the first projection row. The claim does not positively introduce the first projecting row initially, and instead only introduces it as part of the conditional feature and use of the first detection unit. As such, it is unclear how such a feature should be treated. Because the first projection row and any related feature are introduced as conditional, and as best understood, as part of a use of the first detection unit, these features are being interpreted to not be required in the claim. Instead, a first direction unit is required, but the entirety of the first projection row is not required, because, at the least, the entirety of this feature and the manner in which it is claimed to be used is conditional. The same issue exists with the second projection row, which is likewise interpreted in the same manner.
3) The third issue is that the claim is directed towards the magnetic detection device itself, which, as best understood, does not include the object being detected. As such, it does not include, in light of the disclosure, a moving body or first and second projection rows. It is therefore unclear how such features should be treated. Consistent with the above explanation, these features are being treated as features that are not required or positively recited in the claim.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the first detection unit includes at least two magnetic sensors arranged along a movement direction of the moving body” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
The above phrase is indefinite because as explained above, the moving body is not part of the magnetic detection device but where the claim is expressly directed towards what the magnetic detection device comprises. Additionally, the moving body is not required in the claim, because it is expressly part of a conditional feature that is not required. It is therefore unclear how the above feature should be treated, because it is unclear how the at least two magnetic sensors can be arranged along a feature that is 1) not part of the magnetic detection device, and 2) not positively recited as it is conditional. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the above phrase is being interpreted to mean that the two magnetic sensors are able to be arranged along the movement direction of a movement body, but do not have to be.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the number of projecting portions constituting the second projection row is smaller than the number of projecting portions constituting the first projection row, the first detection unit outputs change in the magnetism from the magnet as an analog signal, and the second detection unit outputs change in the magnetism from the magnet as a digital signal” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) No prior “number of projecting protrusions” was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what number of projecting protrusions these phrases are referencing.
2) The phrase “the number of projecting portions constituting the second projection row is smaller than the number of projecting portions constituting the first projection row” is indefinite, because it is directed toward a feature that is not part of the magnetic detection device, because it is directed towards a conditional claim feature, and because it is directed towards a use of a portion of the magnetic detection device, all raising an issue of whether these features are positively recited and required in the claim. Consistent with the above explanation, the Examiner is interpreting that these features are not required in the claim, because the claim is directed towards what the magnetic detection device comprises and not objects of detection that it is used with, and because the entire claim 1 feature that the above phrase references is conditional, and thus not required in the claim.
3) The above claimed “outputs change” recitation is indefinite, because similar to the above “detects” limitation from Claim 1, the above phrase is directed towards a method of using the detection units which is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Furthermore, the actual detection units themselves are not different, and it is the actual object they are detected that causes their outputs to be analog or digital. Meaning, if the second detection unit and first detection units were swapped, then the first detection unit would output a digital signal and the second detection unit would output an analog signal. These detection units are therefore not themselves configured to provide the above outputs, and it is therefore unclear how these feature should be treated. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the detection units need of only being used with an object that would cause such a feature.
As to Claims 2-14,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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, 2, 6-10, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Markert et al. (Markert) (US 2025/0389551).
As to Claim 1,
Markert discloses A magnetic detection device comprising a first detection unit (64A) (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0086]), a magnet (bias magnet) (Paragraph [0035] / note the bias magnet is mounted on the detector 68 as seen in Figure 3, and the relied upon embodiment of Figure 12 uses the same sensors 64 designated as 64), and a second detection unit (64E) (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0086]) which are arranged in order along one direction (Figure 12 / note left/right direction), wherein the first detection unit detects a change in magnetism from the magnet occurring when a first projection row, which is constituted by at least one projecting portion (tooth) provided on a moving body, passes between the first detection unit and the magnet as the moving body moves, and the second detection unit detects a change in the magnetism from the magnet occurring when a second projection row, which is constituted by at least one projecting portion provided on the moving body, passes between the magnet and the second detection unit as the moving body moves (Figure 12 / note that as explained above, the entirety of the first and second projection row features are conditional and not positively recited, and thus the prior art meets the claim features “when” this condition is not invoked such that it does not pass between the claimed detection units and the moving body).
As to Claim 2,
Markert discloses the first detection unit includes at least two magnetic sensors arranged along a movement direction of the moving body (Paragraph [0038] / the first detection unit has plural sensor elements, and as explained above, these elements can be arranged along the movement direction as claimed).
As to Claim 6,
Markert discloses the number of projecting portions constituting the second projection row is smaller than the number of projecting portions constituting the first projection row (Figure 12), the first detection unit outputs change in the magnetism from the magnet as an analog signal, and the second detection unit outputs change in the magnetism from the magnet as a digital signal (Figure 12 / note that this is a property of the system), (Paragraph [0087] / note pulse signal and note that single tooth/projection will create the same binary pulse as disclosed by applicant).
As to Claim 7,
Markert discloses A magnetic detection module comprising: the magnetic detection device according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1),; and a base material portion on which the first detection unit, the magnet, and the second detection unit are positioned (Paragraphs [0067],[0068] / note that similar to the fixing members in these paragraphs, an object or collection of objects must support both the detection units and magnet, and collectively, the entirety of this can be considered a base material portion).
As to Claim 8,
Markert discloses A magnetic detection system comprising: the magnetic detection device according to claim 1; and the moving body (Figure 12 / note the moving body is the teeth/rotating object that the teeth are on, and that only the moving body is required in this claim and not the manner in which the projection rows are implemented or otherwise used with the detecting device).
As to Claim 9,
Markert discloses wherein a ratio of the width of the projecting portion constituting the first projection row to an interval between two adjacent projecting portions constituting the first projection row in the movement direction of the moving body is no less than 8% and no more than 40% (Figure 12 / note that the width of a tooth is clearly greater than the space between teeth, and the figure reasonably discloses these features).
As to Claim 10,
Markert discloses the moving body is a rotating body having a center of rotation on a straight line extending in the one direction, and the magnetic detection device detects the rotation angle of the rotating body (Figures 5,12), (Paragraph [0039]).
As to Claim 12,
Markert discloses A gear driving detection device comprising the magnetic detection system according to claim 8.
As to Claim 13,
Markert discloses A motor driving detection device comprising the magnetic detection system according to claim 8 (Paragraphs [0022]-[0024]), (see above rejection of Claim 8).
As to Claim 14,
Markert discloses An encoder comprising the magnetic detection system according to claim 8 (Paragraph [0043]), (see above rejection of Claim 8).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markert et al. (Markert) (US 2025/0389551) in view of Luetzow et al. (Luetzow) (US 5,115,194).
As to Claims 3 and 4,
Markert does not disclose wherein the magnet includes a yoke on either a first surface side opposing the first detection unit or a second surface side opposing the second detection unit, wherein the yoke includes an opening portion through which the magnetism of the magnet passes.
Luetzow discloses the magnet includes a yoke (92) on either a first surface side opposing the first detection unit (16) or a second surface side opposing the second detection unit (Figure 5), (Column 5, Lines 53 – Column 6, Lines 1-17), wherein the yoke includes an opening portion through which the magnetism of the magnet passes (Figure 5), (Column 5, Lines 53 – Column 6, Lines 1-17 / note that it is a property of the system that magnetism passes through the opening in the same manner as applicant).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Markert to include the magnet includes a yoke on either a first surface side opposing the first detection unit or a second surface side opposing the second detection unit, wherein the yoke includes an opening portion through which the magnetism of the magnet passes as taught by Luetzow in order to advantageously allow the magnetic efficiency of the sensor to be controllable to a desired level (Column 6, Lines 1-17).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markert et al. (Markert) (US 2025/0389551) in view of Lassalle-Balier et al. (Lassalle-Balier) (US 2021/0011096).
As to Claim 5,
Markert is silent on the magnetization direction, and therefore does not disclose a magnetization direction of the magnet is a direction parallel to the one direction.
Lassalle-Balier discloses a magnetization direction of the magnet (108) is a direction parallel to the one direction (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0053]-[0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Markert to include a magnetization direction of the magnet is a direction parallel to the one direction as taught by Lassalle-Balier in order to advantageously be able to maximize the sensitivity of the magnetoresistive sensors used by biasing them along their maximum angle of sensitivity, thereby allowing any angle change of the magnetic field due to the influence of a passing tooth to be more easily detected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markert et al. (Markert) (US 2025/0389551) in view of Hinz et al. (Hinz) (US 2008/0218159).
As to Claim 11,
Markert does not disclose the moving body is a linear motion body that moves along a straight line orthogonal to the one direction, and the magnetic detection device detects the position of the linear motion body.
Hinz discloses that it is known to use similar systems for linear or rotation detection (Paragraphs [0050],[0079]), and discloses the moving body(1105) is a linear motion body that moves along a straight line orthogonal to the one direction, and the magnetic detection device (1101) detects the position of the linear motion body (Paragraphs [0048],[0071]),(Figure 11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Markert to include the moving body is a linear motion body that moves along a straight line orthogonal to the one direction, and the magnetic detection device detects the position of the linear motion body as taught by Hinz in order to advantageously be able to detect linear position instead of rotational position, as both concepts are art recognized equivalent uses of a comparable device as evidenced by Hinz (MPEP 2144.06), and in order to advantageously be able to detect linear position with improved resolution (Paragraph [0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 5,714,883 to Schroeder et al. and US 2005/0285592 to Taniguichi et al. which both use two tracks of projections as part of a rotating object, the two tracks having different numbers of projections for detection purposes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights