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 statements (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025 and 07/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 3-4, 7-8 and 12-13 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation wherein the first and second receptacles are arranged one behind the other along a longitudinal axis of the receiving body, and the claim also recites in particular substantially in a radial direction with respect to the pole wheel which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 4 recites the broad recitation wherein the at least one permanent magnet is attached to at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chips, and the claim also recites wherein the at least one permanent magnet is in particular integrated in at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chips which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 7 recites the broad recitation wherein the first permanent magnet is fixed to the first magnetic field sensor chip and the second permanent magnet is fixed to the second magnetic field sensor chip, and the claim also recites wherein the first permanent magnet is in particular integrated in the first magnetic field sensor chip and wherein the second permanent magnet is in particular integrated in the second magnetic field sensor chip which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 12 recites the broad recitation wherein the receptacles are formed as chambers in the receiving body, and the claim also recites in particular the first and the second receptacle which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; and claim 13 recites the broad recitation wherein the sensor comprises a sensor housing having a shape feature for aligning the sensor device, and the claim also recites in particular an alignment lug which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 8, lines 1-3 recite wherein the receiving body comprises a third and a fourth receptacle, wherein the first permanent magnet is received by the third receptacle and the second permanent magnet is received by the fourth receptacle. Claim 6, from which claim 8 depends recites wherein the at least one permanent magnet comprises a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet, wherein the first permanent magnet is arranged on the first receptacle and the second permanent magnet is arranged on the second receptacle. Since in claim 6 the first permanent magnet and the second permanent magnets are already arranged on the first receptacle and the second receptacle, it is unclear how in claim 8 the first permanent magnet and the second permanent magnet are received in the third receptacle and the fourth receptacle. Clarification is needed. For examination purposes, it is going to be assumed that the first receptacle and the second receptacle are the same as the third receptacle and the fourth receptacle.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 9, 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPASS (DE 102015202333 A1) in view of Tokuhara (US Pat. 7,253,613).
Regarding claim 1, TEPASS teaches a sensor device for detecting a rotational speed and/or direction of rotation of a wheel of a vehicle (as shown in fig. 1a-1c), comprising: a first magnetic field sensor chip (14), a second magnetic field sensor chip (16), wherein the first and second magnetic field sensor chips (14 and 16) are each independently configured to output a sensor signal under an influence of a rotating pole wheel coupled to the wheel of the vehicle (as shown in fig. 9, for example); a receiving body (10), wherein the receiving body includes: a first receptacle through which the first magnetic field sensor chip (14) is received (as shown in fig. 1c), and a second receptacle through which the second magnetic field sensor chip (16) is received (as shown in fig. 1c); and at least one magnet (34), wherein the at least one magnet (34) is arranged in the receiving body (10).
TEPASS fails to specifically teach output a sensor signal indicative of a change in a biased magnetic field; and at least one permanent magnet for generating the biased magnetic field, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is arranged in the receiving body on at least one of the first and second receptacles. However, Tokuhara teaches output (using 30) a sensor signal indicative of a change in a biased magnetic field (as disclosed in col. 4, lines 3-20); and at least one permanent magnet (40) for generating the biased magnetic field (as disclosed in col. 3, lines 60-67), wherein the at least one permanent magnet (40) is arranged in the receiving body on at least one of the first and second receptacles (as shown in fig. 2).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first and second magnetic field sensor chips each independently configured to output a sensor signal indicative of a change in a biased magnetic field; and at least one permanent magnet for generating the biased magnetic field, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is arranged in the receiving body on at least one of the first and second receptacles as taught by Tokuhara with the invention of TEPASS in order to ensure a more accurate inspection.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches wherein the first receptacle and the second receptacle are arranged next to one another transversely to a longitudinal axis of the receiving body (10), in a tangential direction with respect to the pole wheel (as shown in fig. 1a-1c).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches wherein the first magnetic field sensor chip (14) is a Hall sensor chip or a magnetoresistive sensor chip, and wherein the second magnetic field sensor chip (16) is a Hall sensor chip or a magnetoresistive sensor chip (from the description “It should be noted, however, that a formability of the first speed sensor 14 and / or the second speed sensor 16 is not limited to exploitation of the reverb effect. For example, too an anisotropic magnetic effect (AMR), a giant magnetoresistive (GMR) and / or a tunneling magnetic resistance (TMR) may be used instead of or in addition to the Hall effect for the speed sensors”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches wherein the first and second magnetic field sensor chips (14 and 16) are of different chip types (from the description “Advantageously, in this case, the first speed sensor 14 a first speed sensor type and the second speed sensor 16 a second speed sensor type other than the first speed sensor type, wherein the second speed sensor type is designed for a smaller (minimum) distance than the first speed sensor type”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches wherein the receptacles, in particular the first and the second receptacle, are formed as chambers in the receiving body (10) (from the description “In addition to the first speed sensor 14 is a second speed sensor 16 (Wheel speed sensor) in the sensor housing 10 arranged. The second speed sensor 16 For example, in the first receiving opening or a second receiving opening of the sensor housing 10 be used.”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches wherein the sensor comprises a sensor housing (10) having a shape feature (12) for aligning the sensor device (as shown in fig. 1a-1b), in particular an alignment lug.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches wherein the receiving body (10) comprises three electrical contacts (18) for electrically contacting the first and second magnetic field sensor chips (14 and 16) (from the description “Preferably, the plug component 18 a three-pole, four-pole or 2×2-pin connector component 18 , (This includes 2 cable outlets, each with a 2-pin connector or a cable outlet with a 4-pin connector.) ”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches wherein the sensor device comprises a busbar (24a-24d) or a punched grid or busbar as electrical signal connection (as shown in fig. 1a-1b).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TEPASS teaches a system comprising: the sensor device according to claim 1 for detecting a rotational speed and/or direction of rotation of a wheel of a vehicle (as shown in fig. 1a-1c and 9) (from the description “Due to the equipment of the wheel sensor device with the two speed sensors 14 and 16 for the (same) wheel equipped with the rotary encoder, the information and / or values relating to the rotational behavior of the wheel can be determined more reliably”); and a pole wheel that can be coupled to the wheel of the vehicle (from the description “The sensor housing 10 with the first rotation rate sensor used 14 and the second rotation rate sensor used 16 may be mountable on the vehicle adjacent to the (same) wheel and its associated rotary encoder in a (common) wheel bearing device/a (common) wheel bearing (not shown here). It should be noted that this arrangeability of the sensor housing 10 is not limited to a specific wheel bearing type”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 17, in addition, TEPASS teaches a vehicle comprising: the system according to claim 17 (from the description “In the 1a to 1c schematically illustrated wheel sensor device has a sensor housing 10 , which is mountable on a vehicle/motor vehicle such that the wheel sensor device can cooperate with a (directly or indirectly) attached to a wheel of the vehicle encoder in the manner described below”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPASS (DE 102015202333 A1) and Tokuhara (US Pat. 7,253,613) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Busch (US Pat. 5,596,272).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara fails to specifically teach wherein the first and second receptacles are arranged one behind the other along a longitudinal axis of the receiving body, in particular substantially in a radial direction with respect to the pole wheel. However, Busch teaches wherein the first and second receptacles (where 18 and 20 are located) are arranged one behind the other along a longitudinal axis of the receiving body (22) (as shown in fig. 5), in particular substantially in a radial direction with respect to the pole wheel.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first and second receptacles arranged one behind the other along a longitudinal axis of the receiving body, in particular substantially in a radial direction with respect to the pole wheel as taught by Busch with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to effectively extend the detection range in one measuring axis.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPASS (DE 102015202333 A1) and Tokuhara (US Pat. 7,253,613) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomita (US PGPUB 2022/0065659).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one permanent magnet is attached to at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chips, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is in particular integrated in at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chip. However, Tomita teaches wherein the at least one permanent magnet (40) is attached to at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chips (31 and 32) (as shown in fig. 4), wherein the at least one permanent magnet is in particular integrated in at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chip.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the at least one permanent magnet attached to at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chips, wherein the at least one permanent magnet is in particular integrated in at least one of the first and second magnetic field sensor chip as taught by Tomita with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to reduce the overall system size.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPASS (DE 102015202333 A1) and Tokuhara (US Pat. 7,253,613) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WEISS (DE 102012223593 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara fails to specifically teach wherein the receiving body comprises a third receptacle through which the at least one permanent magnet is received. However, WEISS teaches wherein the receiving body (10) comprises a third receptacle through which the at least one permanent magnet (14) is received (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the receiving body comprise a third receptacle through which the at least one permanent magnet is received as taught by WEISS with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to reduce interference.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPASS (DE 102015202333 A1) and Tokuhara (US Pat. 7,253,613) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US PGPUB 2008/0238417).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one permanent magnet comprises a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet; wherein the first permanent magnet is arranged on the first receptacle and the second permanent magnet is arranged on the second receptacle. However, Suzuki teaches wherein the at least one permanent magnet comprises a first permanent magnet (12) and a second permanent magnet (12) (as shown in fig. 18); wherein the first permanent magnet (12) is arranged on the first receptacle (as shown in fig. 18) and the second permanent magnet (12) is arranged on the second receptacle (as shown in fig. 18).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the at least one permanent magnet comprises a first permanent magnet and a second permanent magnet; wherein the first permanent magnet is arranged on the first receptacle and the second permanent magnet is arranged on the second receptacle as taught by Suzuki with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to reduce interference.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of TEPASS, Tokuhara and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 6; in addition, Suzuki teaches wherein the first permanent magnet (12) is fixed to the first magnetic field sensor chip (130) (as shown in fig. 18), wherein the first permanent magnet is in particular integrated in the first magnetic field sensor chip, and the second permanent magnet (12) is fixed to the second magnetic field sensor chip (130) (as shown in fig. 18), wherein the second permanent magnet is in particular integrated in the second magnetic field sensor chip.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first permanent magnet fixed to the first magnetic field sensor chip, wherein the first permanent magnet is in particular integrated in the first magnetic field sensor chip, and the second permanent magnet is fixed to the second magnetic field sensor chip, wherein the second permanent magnet is in particular integrated in the second magnetic field sensor chip as taught by Suzuki with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to reduce the overall system size.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of TEPASS, Tokuhara and Suzuki teaches the limitations of claim 6, in addition, Suzuki teaches wherein the receiving body comprises a third and fourth receptacle (as shown in fig. 18-19), wherein the first permanent magnet (12) is received by the third receptacle and the second permanent magnet (12) is received by the fourth receptacle (as shown in fig. 18-19).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the receiving body comprise a third and fourth receptacle, wherein the first permanent magnet is received by the third receptacle and the second permanent magnet is received by the fourth receptacle as taught by Suzuki with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to reduce interference.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPASS (DE 102015202333 A1) and Tokuhara (US Pat. 7,253,613) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HUBBER (WO 2022008265 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara fails to specifically teach wherein the first magnetic field sensor chip is a directional sensor chip and the second magnetic field sensor chip is a directional sensor chip; or wherein the first magnetic field sensor chip is a omnidirectional sensor chip and the second magnetic field sensor chip is an omnidirectional sensor chip. However, HUBBER teaches wherein the first magnetic field sensor chip is a directional sensor chip and the second magnetic field sensor chip is a directional sensor chip; or wherein the first magnetic field sensor chip (1) is a omnidirectional sensor chip (as disclosed in the description) and the second magnetic field sensor chip is an omnidirectional sensor chip (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first magnetic field sensor chip is a directional sensor chip and the second magnetic field sensor chip is a directional sensor chip; or wherein the first magnetic field sensor chip is a omnidirectional sensor chip and the second magnetic field sensor chip is an omnidirectional sensor chip as taught by WEISS with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to have 360 degrees environmental awareness.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TEPASS (DE 102015202333 A1) and Tokuhara (US Pat. 7,253,613) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lerchenmueller et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0366632).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara fails to specifically teach a temperature measuring cell. However, Lerchenmueller et al. teaches a temperature measuring cell (30) (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a temperature measuring cell as taught by Lerchenmueller et al. with the invention of the combination of TEPASS and Tokuhara in order to ensure process stability and safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights