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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant presents several arguments against Examiners various 103 rejection.
Applicant first argues that Examiner has improperly combined the prior art, that such combination would not be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”), and that the combination would destroy the fundamental operation of the primary reference when making Examiner’s 103 rejection of independent claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument due to the fact Applicant has presented an argument for a modification of the primary reference with teachings of the secondary reference. However, as discussed in the Non-Final Rejection, Examiner did not rely on modifying Linder with the teachings of Liu, but discussed substituting the sensor system of Linder with that of Liu (as acknowledge in Applicant’s remarks but not argued about). As such the sensor of Liu would be present in Linder and therefore the fundamental workings of the sensor system of Linder being destroyed by the modification of Liu are not persuasive.
Applicant second argues that claim 7 is more than a design choice. Examiner is not persuaded. Examiner points to Applicant’s own admission in the remarks: “ . “although the specification does not describe a specific reason for the claimed spacing and ratio” that such language is a design choice. Applicant proceeds in that quote to state that the specific ratios are provided from the specification and such argument would be great if the rejection were for a lack of written description, however said rejection is not for lack of support, but for a lack of Applicant’s specification providing a specific advantage of said ratios claimed. As such, given the lack of a specific advantage provided in the specification, Examiner maintains that such spacing and ratio would be obvious to a PHOSITA when designing said apparatus and has maintained his rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder, British Patent Publication GB 2509100A (hereinafter "Linder") in view of Sui et al., Chinese Patent Publication CN 116811828 (hereinafter “Sui”).
In Reference to Claim 1:
Linder discloses A swivel angle measuring device configured for indirectly sensing a swivel angle of a swashplate (1) or a cylinder drum of a hydrostatic axial piston machine (Figure 1), the swivel angle is adjustable by an adjustment piston (2) guided in an adjustment cylinder, the swivel angle measuring device comprising: a movable encoder (3) ; and a transducer (5) affixed to a housing of the hydrostatic axial piston machine (See, Figure 2),wherein the swivel angle measuring device is translational,
Linder fails to disclose wherein the movable encoder is formed by two permanent magnets carried in a linear and translational manner by the adjustment piston along a direction of movement of the adjustment piston, and wherein the two permanent magnets have a distance to each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor, displacement sensors, Sui discloses a displacement sensor structure featuring two permanent magnets carried in a linear and translational manner by a piston along a direction of movement and wherein the two magnets are distanced from each other. See, Figure 1.
Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the displacement sensor of Linder with the displacement sensor system as taught by Sui because such a modification is a simple substitution of one known sensor for another providing the same predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to simply modify Linder with the teachings of Sui, namely two magnets separated, instead of substituting because as discussed in Linder such a modification provides for more accurate and precise results from the system of Linder.
In Reference to Claim 2:
Linder as modified further discloses wherein: each permanent magnet of the two permanent magnets has a corresponding north pole and a corresponding south pole, andt he two north poles and the two south poles of the two permanent magnets are arranged along the direction of movement of the adjustment piston but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the poles are in alternating order. Examiner notes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the orientation of the magnets as it is merely a design choice providing the same predictable results of measuring the displacement of the piston.
In Reference to Claim 3:
Linder as modified further discloses wherein: each permanent magnet of the two permanent magnets has a corresponding north pole and a corresponding south pole, and either the two north poles or the two south poles of the two permanent magnets are assigned to each other along the direction of movement of the adjustment piston. See, Sui Figure 2.
In Reference to Claim 4:
Linder as modified further discloses 4 wherein: each permanent magnet of the two permanent magnets has a corresponding north pole and a corresponding south pole, each permanent magnet has a major axis extending through the south pole and through the north pole ,the two major axes of the two permanent magnets are arranged perpendicular to the direction of movement of the adjustment piston (See, Sui Figure 2) and(I) the north pole of a first permanent magnet of the two permanent magnets and the south pole of a second permanent magnet of the two permanent magnets face the transducer, and the south pole of the first permanent magnet and the north pole of the second permanent magnet face away from the transducer, or (ii) the south pole of the first permanent magnet and the north pole of the second permanent magnet face the transducer, and the north pole of the first permanent magnet and the south pole of the second permanent magnet face away from the transducer. Sui, contains same orientation as applicants.
In Reference to Claim 5:
Linder as modified further discloses wherein the transducer is configured to sense all possible directions of movement of the two permanent magnets in a plane of motion.
In Reference to Claim 6:
Linder as modified further discloses: the transducer has an electronic sensor component having a longitudinal axis defining a major axis of the transducer, and the major axis of the transducer is disposed transversely or longitudinally to the direction of movement of the adjustment piston. See Figures in Linder and also Sui which both illustrate this configuration.
In Reference to Claim 7:
Linder as modified further discloses an air gap but fails to disclose wherein the ratio of the air gap to the distance of the two permanent magnets is between 0.295 and 0.558. See Figures of Linder and Sui as both contain air gaps.
Examiner notes upon review of Applicant’s specification, that the air gap distance disclosed appears to have no discussion of purpose or criticality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Linder such that the air gap ratio is between .295 and .558 as disclosed as such distance appears to merely be a design choice.
In Reference to Claim 8:
Linder further discloses an adjustment piston guided in an adjustment cylinder and configured to adjust a swivel angle of a swashplate or cylinder drum; and a swivel angle measuring device according to claim 1.
In Reference to Claim 9:
Linder further discloses wherein the adjustment cylinder is a differential cylinder, the adjustment piston has a piston rod, a transverse pin is attached to the piston rod, and the two permanent magnets are indirectly or directly attached to an end section of the piston rod. See, Linder Figure 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to disclose wherein the two permanent magnets are indirectly attached via a carrier component to the end section of the piston rod extending along the direction of movement as recited in claim 10. Claims 11-12 would be allowed based off their dependency of claim 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S. COLLINS whose telephone number is (313)446-6535. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-4648. 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.
/DANIEL S COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights