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 “the first component group has a domain-wall memory comprising a domain-wall conductor running in a face” on lines 6-7 is indefinite. It is unclear what applicant means by claiming that the conductor is “running in a face.” It is unclear what the “face” is in the context of the disclosure, or how the conductor runs “in a face.” This phrase is therefore indefinite as it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this feature to mean that the conductor has facing portion that faces the magnets.
The phrase “first and second magnets are: arranged end to end in the measurement direction” on lines 9-10 is indefinite. The only disclosure that reasonably shows what applicant means by such a phrase is found in paragraph [0065], where applicant explains “In the second embodiment example, too, the magnets 2.1′, 2.2′ are arranged end to end in the measurement direction x.”
PNG
media_image1.png
454
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, these magnets are not reasonably “end to end” because they are not in contact with each other. The definition of “end to end” is “with ends touching each other” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/end%20to%20end. However, as seen above, the ends of the magnets do not touch each other, and instead are merely adjacent each other. As such, it is unclear how to interpret such a feature in light of the disclosure. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that magnets are that are adjacent each other can be considered end to end.
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 “end to end” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “adjacent,” while the accepted meaning is “with ends touching each other.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The phrase “the magnets are arranged and configured such that a distance in the measurement direction between the first magnet and the second magnet varies in size along a second direction that is oriented orthogonally to the measurement direction” in the last paragraph is indefinite.
PNG
media_image2.png
386
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the magnets are spaced in the X direction (measurement direction), and thus any gap or changing gap between the magnets is solely in this direction. However, applicant claims “a distance in the measurement direction between the first magnet and the second magnet varies in size along a second direction that is oriented orthogonally to the measurement direction,” thus claiming that the distance in the X direction varies in size along the up/down direction which is parallel to the shaft axis. However, this distance does not exist in the up/down direction, and thus it cannot vary in the up/down direction or in any other direction.
The Examiner acknowledges that, as best understood, applicant is referring to the manner in which each magnet has a tapered portion such that each magnet individually has thickness, perpendicular to the X direction, that varies along the X direction. However, this thickness is different than the distance between the magnets which the above phrase references.
The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because the distance between the magnets as claimed does not vary in a direction perpendicular to the measurement direction, because the distance solely exists in the X direction, and it is therefore unclear how this phrase should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that the distance between the magnets varies in the X direction.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “at least one of the first and second magnets is configured to be asymmetric with respect to a line extending in parallel with the measurement direction” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
As best understood, the measurement direction is the rotational direction, and thus is curved. A curved line does not reasonably have any line that is “parallel” to such a line because it is a circle. It is therefore unclear what applicant means by the above line extending parallel with the measurement direction. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean that at least one magnet has to be asymmetric with respect to any arcuate path in the measurement direction.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the first and second magnets are arranged end to end in the measurement direction such that the first and second magnets do not touch” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
As explained above, the definition of “end to end” requires that the magnets do touch. As such, this phrase is indefinite because it is unclear how the magnets can be end to end but not touch.
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 “end to end” in claim 7 is used by the claim to mean “adjacent but not in contact,” while the accepted meaning is “with ends touching each other.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 2023/0349685 A1) in view of Komasaki et al. (Komasaki) (US 2021/0288557 A1).
As to Claims 1 and 9,
Mase discloses A position measuring device comprising:
a first component group (50) (Figures 3-5,7), (Paragraph [0034]) ; and
a second component group (44) (Figures 3-5,7), wherein the first and second component groups are arranged so as to be movable relative to one another in a measurement direction (Figures 3-5), (Abstract), (Paragraph [0048] note the measurement direction is the rotational direction),
wherein the second component group comprises a first magnet (44A) and a second magnet (44B), wherein the first and second magnets are:
arranged end to end in the measurement direction (Figures 3,7),
magnetized such that their magnetization directions run with an orthogonal directional component with respect to the face (Figures 4,7),
and arranged such that the first and second magnets have opposite magnetization directions (Figure 4),
wherein the magnets are arranged and configured such that a distance in the measurement direction between the first magnet and the second magnet varies in size along a second direction that is oriented orthogonally to the measurement direction (Paragraph [0037],(Figures 3-5,7 / note the gap between the magnets in Figure 7 varies due to the arc shape of each magnet in direction D).
Mase does not disclose that the sensor is a domain-wall memory and thus does not disclose wherein the first component group has a domain-wall memory comprising a domain-wall conductor running in a face, the domain-wall conductor has a non-closed shape.
Komasaki discloses the first component group has a domain-wall memory comprising a domain-wall conductor running in a face (Figure 3A), (Paragraph [0044] / note the sensor is a domain-wall device/memory using the same type of domain wall sensing as disclosed by applicant), the domain-wall conductor has a non-closed shape (Figure 3A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mase to include the first component group has a domain-wall memory comprising a domain-wall conductor running in a face, the domain-wall conductor has a non-closed shape as taught by Komasaki in order to advantageously use a sensor that can provide for rotation detection even under situations where power is lost (Paragraph [0075]).
As to Claim 2,
Mase in view of Komasaki discloses wherein, in relation to the second direction, the domain-wall conductor is positioned such that the first and second magnets travel past the domain-wall conductor in a region of a first distance in the measurement direction between the first magnet and the second magnet that is less than a greatest distance in the measurement direction between the first magnet and the second magnet (Figures 3-5,7 of Mase / note that in the combination the sensor is in a region that can be defined to include the above first distance directly below the sensor in Figure 4 which smaller than the greatest distance as seen in Figure 7 in the measurement direction).
As to Claim 3,
Mase discloses wherein at least one of the first and second magnets is configured at its end such that a contour thereof extends in a curved manner (Figure 7).
As to Claim 4,
Mase discloses at least one of the first and second magnets is configured to be asymmetric with respect to a line extending in parallel with the measurement direction (Figure 7 / note that neither magnet is respectively symmetric with respect to any line going into the page, which is parallel to the measurement direction).
As to Claim 5,
Mase discloses the distance in the measurement direction between the first magnet and the second magnet varies continuously along the second direction (Figure 7).
As to Claim 6,
Mase in view of Komasaki discloses an air gap having an extent that extends orthogonally to the face is arranged between the domain-wall conductor and the first and second magnets, and wherein a minimum distance in the measurement direction between the first magnet and the second magnet is less than half the extent of the air gap (Figures 3-5,7 of Mase / note that no minimum distance is defined in the claim, and one can be selected that is less than half the extend of the air gap between the magnets).
As to Claim 7,
Mase discloses the first and second magnets are arranged end to end in the measurement direction such that the first and second magnets do not touch (Figures 3-5, 7).
As to Claim 10,
Mase in view of Komasaki discloses in the measurement direction the domain-wall conductor has a maximum extent which is less than a length, extending in the measurement direction, of one of the first and second magnets (Figures 3-5,7).
As to Claim 11,
Mase in view of Komasaki discloses in the second direction the domain-wall conductor has a maximum extent which is less than a width, extending in the second direction, of one of the first and second magnets (Figures 3-5,7).
As to Claim 13,
Mase discloses contours of mutually facing ends of the first and second magnets are configured in mirror symmetry with respect to an axis of symmetry that is oriented in parallel with the second direction (Figures 3-5,7 / note the magnets are mirror symmetric).
As to Claim 14,
Mase discloses the first and second magnets are configured to be identical (Figures 3-5,7).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 2023/0349685 A1) in view of Komasaki et al. (Komasaki) (US 2021/0288557 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of Schneider et al. (Schneider) (US 2021/0156662 A1).
As to Claim 8,
Mase discloses the first and second component groups are configured to rotate relative to one another about an axis (Figures 3-5, 7).
Mase in view of Komasaki does not disclose the face in which the domain-wall conductor runs is not intersected by the axis.
Schneider discloses the face (face of (2) in which the domain-wall conductor runs is not intersected by the axis (Figure 7), (Paragraphs [0075],[0076]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mase in view of Komasaki to include the face in which the domain-wall conductor runs is not intersected by the axis as taught by Schneider in order to advantageously move the sensor so that it is not symmetrically located with respect to the magnets and thus increase the sensitivity of the device by allowing it to better differentiate between each rotation or movement as each angle of rotation has its own unique output due to the asymmetry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mase (US 2023/0349685 A1) in view of Komasaki et al. (Komasaki) (US 2021/0288557 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of BIDAUX et al. (BIDAUX) (US 2021/0088603 A1).
As to Claim 12,
Mase in view of Komasaki does not disclose a material of at least one of the first and second magnets comprises plastics material having a magnetizable filler.
BIDAUX discloses a material of at least one of the first and second magnets comprises plastics material having a magnetizable filler (Paragraphs [0207],[0300]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mase in view of Komasaki to include a material of at least one of the first and second magnets comprises plastics material having a magnetizable filler as taught by BIDAUX in order to advantageously form magnets that have a relatively high mechanical strength (Paragraph [0207]), thus minimizing the chance the magnets may become damaged during use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 10,959,406 to Richard et al. which discloses a domain wall sensor used for multiturn sensing of a rotating body including a non-closed spiral configuration, and 2) Ausserlechner (KR 2017-0103979) which discloses two rotating magnets having a tapered shape relative to each other for off-axis magnetic sensing.
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
