DETAILED ACTION
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 2/28/2025 and 2/9/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Please amend claim 11 to recite, “wherein the magnetic field generation unit includes a pair of magnets that [[is]]are magnetized parallel to the rotational axis and in opposite directions and [[is]]are arranged symmetrically about the rotational axis.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed toward “A rotary sensor device (3) that detects a rotational state of a magnetic field generation unit (2)…” with numbers (2) and (3) corresponding to the numbers of corresponding elements in Fig. 1. The scope of the claim is unclear as the claim is directed toward the rotary sensor device with the rotary sensor device 3 and the magnetic field generation unit 2 corresponding to different components. As best understood by the examiner, the magnetic field generation unit is not part of the rotary sensor device and merely corresponds to a material or article worked upon and is not positively recited. See MPEP 2115.
Further, the magnetic field generation unit is characterized in the body of claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether the limitations are intended to be given patentable weight.
Further still, the limitations “the rotary sensor device includes a functional film containing a magnetic detection element that detects the magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generation unit, … and the second distance is same as or slightly larger than the first distance, and the guide portion is arranged to face at least the partial cylindrical surface.”
It is unclear what patentable weight should be given to the magnetic field generation unit and whether a rotary sensor device which reads on the limitations of claim 1 in the presence of the magnetic field generation unit would still read on claim 1 in the absence of a magnetic field generation unit or in the presence of a magnetic field generation unit wherein the second distance is much larger than the first distance. Therefore, the scope of the limitation is unclear. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as directed toward a rotary sensor device without requiring the limitations of the magnetic field generation unit.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 16, in the limitation “the second distance is same as or slightly larger than the first distance,” the limitation “slightly larger” is a relative terminology the specification does not provide a clear standard for measuring the term of degree intended. Furthermore, the comparison is performed on a limitation which is not positively recited. See MPEP 2173.05(b). For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted wherein the second distance is larger or equal to the first difference.
Claims 2-12 and 14-5, are rejected through a dependence on one of claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites, “wherein each of the plurality of guide portions is provided on a guide member that is an integral structure.” Claim 9 depends on claims 1 and 4, however, claims 1 and 4 do not provide an antecedent basis for a plurality of guide portions. For the purpose of examination, any reference which reads on claim 4 will be interpreted as reading on claim 9.
NOTE: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest all limitations of claims 6-8 and 13-16 at the time of examination. Claims 6-8 and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 5148418 (D1, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a rotary sensor device that detects a rotational state of a magnetic field generation unit that rotates about a rotational axis (magnetic rotation detection device 10 detects location of a magnet 20; see Fig. 1-2), wherein
the magnetic field generation unit has at least a partial cylindrical surface, which is a part or all of a cylindrical surface that generates a magnetic field symmetrical with respect to the rotational axis and is located at a first distance from the rotational axis (magnet 20 comprises permanent magnet 25 and holder 21 forming a cylindrical surface at a distance from the rotational center axis L; see Fig. 1),
the rotary sensor device includes a functional film containing a magnetic detection element that detects the magnetic field generated by the magnetic field generation unit (magnetic rotation detection device 10 comprises a magnetic sensing element 42 in the form of a magnetoresistive film 421; see Figs. 1-2; see [0018] of translation), and
a guide portion provided at a second distance from a normal passing through a center of the functional film (annular 15 is provided at a second distance from the rotational center L; see Fig. 2),
the second distance is same as or slightly larger than the first distance (the inner diameter of the ring 15 is slightly larger than the outer diameter of the magnetic body 20; see Fig. 2; see [0025] of machine translation), and
the guide portion is arranged to face at least the partial cylindrical surface (the annular ring 15 faces the cylindrical surface of magnet 20; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, D1 teaches wherein the guide portion is provided at a plurality of locations (annular ring 15 surrounds the magnet and would reasonably be interpreted as being in a plurality of locations; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, D1 teaches wherein each of the plurality of guide portions is provided on a guide member that is an integral structure (the annular ring 15 is formed as an integral ring which surrounds the magnet 20; see Fig. 2; see rejection of claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) provided above.).
Regarding claim 10, D1 teaches wherein the magnetic field generation unit is magnetized in a direction orthogonal to the rotational axis, and includes a magnet that is arranged on the rotational axis (the limitation of claim 10 is directed toward the magnetic field generation and does not limit the rotary sensor device as recited in claim 1, however, D1 teaches the limitations as claimed; see magnet 25 in Figs. 1(b) and 2(b)).
Regarding claim 11. The rotary sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic field generation unit includes a pair of magnets that is magnetized parallel to the rotational axis and in opposite directions and is arranged symmetrically about the rotational axis (the limitation of claim 11 is directed toward the magnetic field generation and does not limit the rotary sensor device as recited in claim 1; NOTE, the limitation as claimed is disclosed in Fig. 1 of 2020/0271479, but not relied on for the pending rejection.).
Regarding claim 12, D1 teaches wherein the rotational state refers to a rotation angle of the magnetic field generation unit (the magnetic rotation detecting device detects an angular position of the magnet body; see [0002]).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5148418 (D1) in view of US 2016/0169705 (Yamashita).
Regarding claim 2, D1 fails to teach wherein at least a part of the guide portion is in contact with the cylindrical surface.
Yamashita teaches wherein at least a part of the guide portion is in contact with the cylindrical surface (a case 1 comprises a cylindrical part 1A formed in contact with a flange 2A formed on a rotor 2; see [0004]; see Fig. 8; also see cylindrical part 21A in contact with shaft 22A of Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Yamashita into D1 in order to gain the advantage of a rotation angle sensor for determining an position of a pedal based on a rotation angle with the configuration ensuring the magnet and shaft remain centered with the case and magnetic sensor.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5148418 (D1).
Regarding claim 3, D1 teaches in [0025], wherein “the inner diameter of the ring 15 is slightly larger than the outer diameter of the magnet 20.” It would be an obvious matter of design choice to teach wherein a gap between the guide portion and the cylindrical surface is 0.2 mm or less without requiring any undue experimentation of providing any new or unexpected result as changes in sizes and proportions would be patentably distinct. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5148418 (D1) in view of US 5,889,400 (Nakazawa) and US 2016/0169705 (Yamashita).
Regarding claim 5, D1 teaches wherein the ring 15 is made of magnetic material. D1 fails to teach wherein the guide portion is made of polyacetal resin, polyamide resin, or polybutylene terephthalate resin.
Nakazawa teaches wherein the guide portion is made of polyacetal resin, polyamide resin, or polybutylene terephthalate resin (a magnetic pole piece 5 is formed as part of a cylindrical casing 1 made of magnetic resin; see Fig. 1; see col. 4, lines 29-40).
Yamashita teaches (a case 21 is made from polybutylene terephthalate; see [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Nakazawa and Yamashita into D1 in order to gain the advantage of a resin layer formed over the ring 15 made of magnetic material, wherein polybutylene terephthalate is a resin material known in the art for making casings to seal and protect components of the sensor. Covering the ring 15 with a polybutylene terephthalate resin would not require any undue experimentation or provide any new or unexpected result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights