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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Sang-Woong (KR 10046224 B1) in view of Toka et al. (US 2020/116526 A1) hereafter Toka.
Regarding claim 1, Lee at fig. 1 discloses a vehicle assembly [1, 8] comprising: a vehicle member [gear 1] configured to rotate around a rotation axis, at least occasionally, during operation of a vehicle [Abstract]; a speed measuring arrangement [1a, 1b] for measuring a rotational speed of the vehicle member [Abstract], wherein the speed measuring arrangement comprises: a set of elements [1, 1a] arranged at a portion of the vehicle member, wherein the set of elements is configured to rotate in a first plane upon rotation of the vehicle member around the rotation axis [axis of 1]; and [2] arranged at the end section of the speed sensor unit.
Lee discloses all the elements except for said speed sensor unit comprising: an end section facing the portion of the vehicle member from a first side of the first plane. Toka at fig. 1A discloses the speed sensor unit 4 comprising: an end section facing [fig. 1A] the portion of the vehicle member [1, 2, 3] from a first side of the first plane [fig. 1A]. Both references discloses speed sensor arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to relocate speed sensor unit of Lee as taught by Toka to obtain the claim invention. Modified Lee offers advantages that Toka have to offer i.e. an accurate, more robust and inexpensive detection.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Lee discloses the vehicle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the speed sensor unit comprises a magnet [2 is between magnet 3 and 1, fig. 1 of Lee and 4 is between magnet 6 and 1-2], and wherein the Hall sensor is arranged between the magnet and the portion of the vehicle member.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Lee discloses all the elements of the vehicle assembly according to claim 2. They are silent about wherein the magnet provides a magnetic flux density at the end section exceeding either one of: 35 Gauss or 40 Gauss. In an automotive industry, speed sensor having 10-1000 gauss is old and well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date can obtain the claim range for speed measurement.
Regarding claim 4, Modified Lee discloses all the elements of the vehicle assembly according to claim 2. They are silent about wherein an angle between a normal vector to the first plane and a magnetic axis of the magnet is less than either one of: 30 degrees or 10 degrees. Use of claimed angle is old and well known in the art to obtain less signal loss at the measurement. Less than 10 degree offers better results compared to less than 30 degrees. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the angle less than 10 degree or 30 degree, in order to obtain better output signal of measurement.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Lee discloses all the elements of the vehicle assembly according to claim 2. They are silent about a magnetic axis of the magnet extends through the Hall sensor and the portion of the vehicle member. Toka at fig. 2 discloses close arrangement. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to collect maximum flux as possible for accuracy of the final measurement.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Lee, particularly Toka discloses the vehicle assembly according to claim 2, wherein the magnet 6 is arranged at a distance 9 from the Hall sensor 4 measured along a direction perpendicular to the first plane.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Lee discloses all the elements of the vehicle assembly according to claim 6. They are silent about wherein the distance between the magnet and the Hall sensor is within the range of either one of: 1-7 mm, or 2.5-5.5 mm. Ideal distance range between magnet and hall sensor falls between 0.5 and 5mm is old and well known. Here, Claim includes this range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to use claim range for measurement (See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.)
Regarding claim 8, Modified Lee discloses all the elements of the vehicle assembly according to claim 6. They are silent about wherein the distance between the magnet and the Hall sensor is within the range of either one of: 10%-230% or 85%-165% of a distance between the Hall sensor and the portion of the vehicle member, measured along a direction perpendicular to the first plane. As stated at rejection of claim 7 above, changes to proportion of the distance with percentage is not patentable because prior art discloses the distance between hall sensor and magnet (See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.)
Regarding claim 9, Modified Lee discloses all the elements of the vehicle assembly according to claim 6, wherein the distance between the magnet and the Hall sensor is greater than a thickness of the portion of the vehicle member measured along a direction perpendicular to the first plane. Both reference implicitly discloses distance and thickness. Mere change in proportion is not patentable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to obtain claimed proportion for the same purpose and advantages that applied reference discloses (See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Lee, particularly Toka at ¶0047 and fig. 4 discloses the vehicle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the speed sensor unit 4 comprises an elongated sensor portion being elongated along a direction of elongation and comprising the end section, and wherein an angle between the direction of elongation of the elongated sensor portion and a normal vector to the first plane is less than 30 degrees or is less than 10 degrees.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Lee, particularly Toka at ¶0048 and fig. 5 discloses the vehicle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle assembly comprises a control unit 12 and an electric circuit connecting the control unit to the Hall sensor [“The sensor has a magnetic field sensor element 12, which is integrated in an ASIC together with the signal processing circuitry.”], and wherein the control unit is configured to provide data representative of the rotational speed of the vehicle member by monitoring a voltage of the Hall sensor [¶0042].
Regarding claim 12, Modified Lee, particularly Toka at ¶0048 and fig. 5 discloses the vehicle assembly according to claim 11, wherein each of the control unit and the electric circuit is arranged in the speed sensor unit.
Regarding claim 13, Modified Lee, particularly Toka at ¶0042 and fig. 4 discloses the vehicle assembly according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle member of the vehicle assembly is configured to be connected to at least one ground engaging wheel of a vehicle comprising the vehicle assembly [¶0026-0027] .
Regarding claim 14, Lee at fig. 1 discloses a transmission unit [see “As shown in FIG. 1, the active speed sensing device is rotatably installed in a vehicle transmission, not shown”] comprising: a shaft [implicit to gear and transmission] configured to transmit power from a power source to at least one ground engaging wheel of a vehicle [Abstract]; a vehicle member [1] connected to the shaft and configured to rotate around a rotation axis [axis of 1], at least occasionally, during operation of the vehicle; and a speed measuring arrangement 2 for measuring a rotational speed of the vehicle member [see “A pair of Hall elements (Hall) which are installed to be spaced apart from the tooth 1a of the gear 1 by a predetermined distance and have a phase difference to detect the rotational speed and direction of the gear 1 according to the distance difference generated at a certain distance IC) 2) (2 ')”], wherein the speed measuring arrangement comprises: a set of elements [1a, 1b] arranged at a portion of the vehicle member, wherein the set of elements is configured to rotate in a first plane [flat vertical as an example] upon rotation of the vehicle member around the rotation axis; and2 arranged at the end section of the speed sensor unit. Lee discloses all the elements except for said speed sensor unit comprising: an end section facing the portion of the vehicle member from a first side of the first plane. Toka at fig. 1A discloses the speed sensor unit 4 comprising: an end section facing [fig. 1A] the portion of the vehicle member [1, 2, 3] from a first side of the first plane [fig. 1A]. Both references discloses speed sensor arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to relocate speed sensor unit of Lee as taught by Toka to obtain the claim invention. Modified Lee offers advantages that Toka have to offer i.e. an accurate, more robust and inexpensive detection.
Regarding claim 15, Lee at fig. 1 discloses a vehicle [Abstract] comprising a vehicle assembly comprising: a vehicle member 1 connected to the shaft [implicit to transmission and gear of a vehicle] and configured to rotate around a rotation axis [rotation axis of 1], at least occasionally, during operation of the vehicle; and a speed measuring arrangement [such as 2] for measuring a rotational speed [Abstract] of the vehicle member, wherein the speed measuring arrangement comprises: a set of elements [1a, 1b] arranged at a portion of the vehicle member, wherein the set of elements is configured to rotate in a first plane [vertical flat plane] upon rotation of the vehicle member around the rotation axis; and4 comprising: an end section facing [fig. 1A] the portion of the vehicle member [1, 2, 3] from a first side of the first plane [fig. 1A]. Both references discloses speed sensor arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to relocate speed sensor unit of Lee as taught by Toka to obtain the claim invention. Modified Lee offers advantages that Toka have to offer i.e. an accurate, more robust and inexpensive detection.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 2 above, Modified Lee discloses the transmission unit according to claim 14, wherein the speed sensor unit comprises a magnet, and wherein the Hall sensor is arranged between the magnet and the portion of the vehicle member.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 3 above, Modified Lee discloses the transmission unit according to claim 16, wherein the magnet provides a magnetic flux density at the end section exceeding either one of: 35 Gauss or 40 Gauss.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection of claim 4 above, Modified Lee discloses the transmission unit according to claim 16, wherein an angle between a normal vector to the first plane and a magnetic axis of the magnet is less than either one of: 30 degrees or 10 degrees.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 5 above, Modified Lee discloses the transmission unit according to claim 16, wherein a magnetic axis of the magnet extends through the Hall sensor and the portion of the vehicle member.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 6 above, Modified Lee discloses the transmission unit according to claim 16, wherein the magnet is arranged at a distance from the Hall sensor measured along a direction perpendicular to the first plane.
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
September 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights