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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/641529, filed on 09/27/2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 06/05/2025 is noted 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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…the first sides each having a first length, the second sides being substantially orthogonal to the first sides and each having a second length… a plurality of pads provided on the circuit chip and arranged along each of the first sides… the third sides being substantially parallel to the first sides and each having a third length…” in lines 3-13 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the limitation in question refers to the same “pair of first sides” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to different “first sides”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the pair of first sides”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…the second sides being substantially orthogonal to the first sides and each having a second length; a plurality of sensors provided on the circuit chip and arranged on an axis, the axis being substantially parallel to the second sides and passing through a center position of the circuit chip… the fourth sides being substantially parallel to the second sides and each having a fourth length” in lines 3-13 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the limitation in question refers to the same “pair of second sides” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to different “second sides”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the pair of second sides”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…at least one of the plurality of sensors has a substantially rectangular shape including a pair of third sides and a pair of fourth sides, the third sides being substantially parallel to…” in lines 11-12 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the limitation in question refers to the same “pair of third sides” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to different “third sides”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the pair of third sides”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…the third sides being substantially parallel to the first sides and each having a third length, the fourth sides being substantially parallel …” in lines 11-13 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the limitation in question refers to the same “pair of fourth sides” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to different “fourth sides”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the pair of fourth sides”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…the first direction being substantially parallel to the first sides… and passing through a center position of the circuit chip; and a plurality of pads provided on the circuit chip and arranged along each of the first sides.” in lines 6-18 of Claim 6. It is not clear if the limitation in question refers to the same “pair of first sides” disclosed earlier in Claim 6 or if it refers to different “first sides”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the pair of first sides”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…the second direction being substantially parallel to the second sides, the sensor region having a substantially-rectangular shape… a plurality of sensors provided on the circuit chip and arranged on an axis, the axis being substantially parallel to the second sides and passing through a center position” in lines 3-13 of Claim 6. It is not clear if the limitation in question refers to the same “pair of second sides” disclosed earlier in Claim 6 or if it refers to different “second sides”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the pair of second sides”.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 6.
Please make the proper corrections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1,
“…a plurality of sensors provided on the circuit chip and arranged on an axis, the axis being substantially parallel to the second sides and passing through a center position of the circuit chip; and a plurality of pads provided on the circuit chip and arranged along each of the first sides, wherein at least one of the plurality of sensors has a substantially rectangular shape including a pair of third sides and a pair of fourth sides, the third sides being substantially parallel to the first sides and each having a third length, the fourth sides being substantially parallel to the second sides and each having a fourth length different from the third length, and a ratio of the second length to the first length in the circuit chip and a ratio of the fourth length to the third length in the at least one of the plurality of sensors are different from each other.”
Claims 2-5 is also allowed as it further limits objected claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 6,
“…a sensor region in which a ratio of a second size in a second direction to a first size in a first direction is less than n where n is an integer equal to or greater than 2, the first direction being substantially parallel to the first sides, the second direction being substantially parallel to the second sides, the sensor region having a substantially-rectangular shape and being provided on a second surface of the circuit chip opposite to a first surface of the circuit chip, the first surface facing the substrate; and a plurality of sensors provided on the circuit chip and arranged on an axis, the axis being substantially parallel to the second sides and passing through a center position of the circuit chip; and a plurality of pads provided on the circuit chip and arranged along each of the first sides.”
Claims 7-10 is also allowed as it further limits objected claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. US 2018/0372685 - Magnetoresistive (MR) sensors employing dual MR devices for differential MR sensing are provided. These MR sensors may be used as biosensors to detect the presence of biological materials as an example. An MR sensor includes dual MR sensor devices that may be tunnel magnetoresistive (TMR) devices or giant magnetoresistive (GMR) devices as examples. The MR devices are arranged such that a channel is formed between the MR devices for receiving magnetic nanoparticles. A magnetic stray field generated by the magnetic nanoparticles causes free layers in the MR devices to rotate in opposite directions, thus causing differential resistances between the MR devices for greater sensing sensitivity.
Gao et al. US 2011/0194343 - Spin-transfer torque memory having a compensation element is disclosed. A spin-transfer torque memory unit includes a free magnetic layer having a magnetic easy axis and a magnetization orientation that can change direction due to spin-torque transfer when a write current passes through the spin-transfer torque memory unit; a reference magnetic element having a magnetization orientation that is pinned in a reference direction; an electrically insulating and non-magnetic tunneling barrier layer separating the free magnetic layer from the magnetic reference element; and a compensation element adjacent to the free magnetic layer. The compensation element applies a bias field on the magnetization orientation of the free magnetic layer. The bias field is formed of a first vector component parallel to the easy axis of the free magnetic layer and a second vector component orthogonal to the easy axis of the free magnetic layer.
Ausserlechner US 2015/0309127 - Embodiments relate to coreless magnetic field current sensors, systems and methods, such as magnetoresistive sensors, systems and methods, to sense current flow in a conductor via a related magnetic field. In an embodiment, a current sensor system for sensing a current in a conductor from a magnetic field induced thereby, comprising a plurality N of magnetoresistive (MR) sensors arranged on a circle concentric to a center of the conductor and spaced apart from one another by 360 degrees/N, wherein each MR sensor has a sensitivity plane and is responsive to a projection of the magnetic field into the sensitivity plane, the sensitivity planes of the plurality of MR sensors being parallel, and wherein the plurality of MR sensors are arranged relative to the conductor such that the magnetic field has a non-vanishing component parallel to the sensitivity plane; at least one magnetic element arranged to provide a bias magnetic field on the plurality of MR sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights