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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 12/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-17,
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.
With regard to the arguments directed towards the prior art on pages 18-21,
As to Claim 1,
Applicant argues that Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) (US 2018/0351437 A1) does not disclose two distinct sense-winding sets on the same tooth, where a first sense set comprises two sense windings wrapped over the excitation windings and a second sense set is then wrapped over the first sense set. Applicant argues that Ikeda discloses three output windings that are not organized into sets. Applicant also argues that the prior art does not disclose the specific single-tooth, concentric layering of the two sense-winding sets. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no requirement in the claim that any organization of sets is required, and the number of outputs does not prevent the prior art from the disclosing the claim feature as the claim only requires that the control circuitry be configured to receive signals from the winding sets with no further limitation. What applicant is doing is designating specific windings of the disclosure and categorizing them into sets. The broadest reasonable interpretation therefore is to do the same, even if such an organization or categorization is different than the specific manner that applicant performs this in the disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen, above, Ikeda discloses three sense windings and two excitation windings. There is no limit in the claim as to how the windings must be designated or categorized, and thus a set can reasonably be any combination of these windings. This interpretation is consistent with the manner that applicant interprets a set.
A first sense winding set can be defined as (21,22 or 21,22,24), a second sense winding set can be defined as (23 or 22,23 or 23,25), and an excitation winding is (24 or 24,25). Both sense winding sets are wound around one tooth, and both sense winding sets are wound around the excitation coil. The second sense winding set is wound over the first sense winding set because it at least includes coil 23, which is the outermost coil that winds around all other coils.
The Examiner respectfully notes that there is no limitation on how a set must be defined other than that it must include the coils as claimed in the manner claimed. There is no requirement that the prior art expressly recognize any set or organization into a set, as the reference inherently/implicitly discloses such a feature when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a set utilized by applicant is applied. If applicant claimed a set of teeth, and the prior art merely disclosed teeth that were otherwise identical or substantially identical, the claim would not reasonably overcome the prior art merely because applicant called them a set of teeth. A set of windings, as claimed, does not require any form of organization, and instead only requires those elements actually exist in the prior art.
Furthermore, there is no requirement of “a single tooth” as argued. Applicant does claim “one tooth,” but “one tooth” is synonymous with “a tooth,” and does not reasonably limit the number of teeth or how the coils must be wound with respect to a single tooth. The coils must be wound around one tooth, but can be wound around other teeth. That stated, the coils are wound around each tooth in the manner seen above, with all coils be concentric, though the term “concentric” is not found in the claims and is therefore also not required to be met by the prior art.
The prior art reasonably discloses the claim features for the reasons explained above, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
As to Claim 13,
The Examiner notes that the above response addresses the arguments in this section. Adding to that, the Examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not recite a separate second winding set, in that it only claims a second winding set. A second winding set can reasonably be any combination of windings, with the only requirement that the set be distinct in some manner to the first winding set. Applicant argues that the claims require “exactly two sensing windings,” but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a feature is not claimed. When applicant claims two sense windings, what applicant is claiming is that at least two sense windings must be present, but where more are permitted because applicant is using the open-ended transitional term “comprising” in the claim. In order to limit the number of windings to exactly two, applicant must claim such a feature using terminology such as claiming “only two sense windings” However, the claim does not reasonably require such a feature. The prior art reasonably discloses the argued claim feature, as two sets of windings reasonably exist, a first set including two windings formed from wire as claimed, a second set that is over at least a portion of the first set, and the claimed relationship relative to the excitation winding.
As to the remaining arguments,
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites control circuitry that receives signals from each set and generates first and second output signals based on excitation by the same excitation winding. As explained below, the control circuit of the prior art does receive the signals from the windings based excitation from the excitation winding and provides the claimed outputs.
Applicant argues two separate winding sets, but the Examiner does not use the term or claim separate sets. Instead, the claims recites two sets, but with no further restrictions. The sets can therefore be interpretated in the manner below to meet the claim features.
Applicant argues that Ikeda does not disclose two distinct sense-winding sets concentrically cover a single excitation winding on the same tooth and generating respective outputs from those two sets based on excitation by that single excitation winding. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that a “single” excitation winding is not claimed. The two winding sets as defined below (a noted above) are all wound around at least the same tooth, are reasonably distinct as they have different combinations of windings, and are all wound around the excitation winding as seen above.
Applicant then argues various benefits, but such benefits, respectfully, are not germane to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. As to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Examiner respectfully notes that benefits do not reasonably overcome the applied rejections, as these rejections reasonably establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that Ikeda seeks to solve a similar problem as applicant, in that both seek to address the need for a redundant resolver.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) (US 2018/0351437 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Ikeda discloses A device for position sensing comprising: a stator (40) including a plurality of teeth (T1-T12) (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0043]); an excitation winding (24 or 24,25) wrapped around one tooth of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]); a first sense winding set ( 21,22 or 21,22,24) comprising a first sense winding (21) and a second sense winding (22), each comprising wire, both wrapped around the one tooth and over the excitation winding (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0043]), a second sense winding set (23 or 22,23 or 23,25) wrapped around the one tooth and over the first sense winding set (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0043]); and control circuitry (10, terminals Sa,Sb,Sc, the wires connecting the resolver 20 to the angle calculator, and 81,82 plus related wiring) configured to receive signals from the first sense winding set and the second sense winding set to generate a first output signal (for example the signal at terminals Sa+,Sa-) representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the first sense winding set by the excitation winding and a second output signal (for example the signal at terminals Sc+,Sc-) representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the second sense winding set by the excitation winding (Paragraphs [0039],[0040]).
As to Claim 5,
Ikeda discloses the excitation winding is wrapped around at least some of the teeth of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3),the first sense winding set is wrapped over the excitation winding (Figure 3), and the second sense winding set is wrapped over the first sense winding set (Figure 3).
As to Claim 9,
Ikeda discloses the stator comprises a first stator portion forming a segment of the stator and a second stator portion forming a separate segment of the stator, wherein the first stator portion and the second stator portion are physically separated by an air gap (Figure 3 / note that while applicant may disclose two distinct stator components, the term “portion” is broader, and half of the stator can be said to be a first portion forming a first segment, and a second half of the stator can be said to be a second portion forming a distinct separate segment. Note that while applicant may desire the term separate to be mean “to keep apart,” such a term also means “to make a distinction between : DISCRIMINATE, DISTINGUISH,” which is reasonable in light of the disclosure. Two distinct portions forming segments are distinguished and therefore separate sections of the overall stator. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate.)
As to Claim 10,
Ikeda discloses the excitation winding comprises a single excitation wire for exciting both the first and the second sense winding sets (Paragraph [0039] / note just winding 24 can be the single excitation wire).
As to Claim 11,
Ikeda discloses the control circuitry comprises a first control circuit (wiring between terminals Sa and the angle calculator) to generate the first output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the first sense winding set by the excitation winding (Figure 2 / note this is a property of the system as any output on these wires is a representation of the claimed relative position), and a second control circuit (wiring between terminals Sc and the angle calculator) to generate the second output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the second sense winding set by the excitation winding (Figure 2 / note this is a property of the system as any output on these wires is a representation of the claimed relative position),
As to Claim 12,
Ikeda discloses the control circuitry comprises: a first control circuit (81 plus related wiring) to excite the first excitation wire and generate the first output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the first sense winding set by the first excitation wire (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0041]); and a second control circuit (82 plus related wiring) to excite the second excitation wire and to generate the second output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the second sense winding set by the second excitation wire (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0041]);
As to Claim 13,
Ikeda discloses A device for rotary position sensing comprising: a rotor (30); a stator (40) magnetically coupled to the rotor for relative movement between the rotor and the stator (Paragraphs [0038]-[0040]), (Figure 3), the stator including a plurality of teeth (T1-T12) (Figure 3); a first winding set (21,22,24 or 21,24) wrapped around one tooth of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3),(see above figure), the first winding set comprising: a first excitation winding (24) wrapped around the one tooth (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]); a first sense winding set (21,22) comprising the first sense winding (21) and a second winding (22), each comprising wire, both wrapped around the one tooth and over the first excitation winding (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]), a second winding set (22,23,25) wrapped around the one tooth and over the first winding set, the second winding set comprising: at least one of a second sense winding set (22,23) wrapped around the one tooth (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]), and a second excitation winding (25) wrapped around the one tooth (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]).
As to Claim 18,
Ikeda discloses the stator comprises a first stator portion forming a segment of the stator and a second stator portion forming a separate segment of the stator, wherein the first stator portion and the second stator portion are physically separated by an air gap (Figure 3 / note that while applicant may disclose two distinct stator components, the term “portion” is broader, and half of the stator can be said to be a first portion forming a first segment, and a second half of the stator can be said to be a second portion forming a distinct separate segment. Note that while applicant may desire the term separate to be mean “to keep apart,” such a term also means “to make a distinction between : DISCRIMINATE, DISTINGUISH,” which is reasonable in light of the disclosure. Two distinct portions forming segments are distinguished and therefore separate
As to Claim 19,
Ikeda discloses a first control circuit (wiring between terminals Sa and the angle calculator) to generate the first output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the first sense winding set by the first excitation winding (Figure 2 / note this is a property of the system as any output on these wires is a representation of the claimed relative position), and a second control circuit (wiring between terminals Sc and the angle calculator) to generate the second output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the second sense winding set by the second excitation winding (Figure 2 / note this is a property of the system as any output on these wires is a representation of the claimed relative position),
As to Claim 20,
Ikeda discloses a first control circuit (81 plus related wiring) to excite the first excitation wire and generate the first output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the first sense winding set by the first excitation wire (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0041]); and a second control circuit (82 plus related wiring) to excite the second excitation wire and to generate the second output signal representing a relative position of the stator based on excitation of the second sense winding set by the second excitation wire (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0041]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) (US 2018/0351437 A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (Ikeda2) (US 2023/0125647).
As to Claim 2,
Ikeda discloses the excitation winding comprises a first excitation wire (24) and a second excitation wire (24) (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]); and the second sense winding set comprises a third sense wire (23) (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]).
Ikeda does not disclose the second sense winding set comprises a third sense wire and a fourth sense wire.
Ikeda2 discloses the second sense winding set comprises a third sense wire (Sb1) and a fourth sense wire (Sb2) (Figure 5), (Paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ikeda to include the second sense winding set comprises a third sense wire and a fourth sense wire as taught by Ikeda2 in order to advantageously add another sense winding to ensure redundancy (Paragraph [0042]), and to advantageously provide a redundant resolver having a high accuracy of angle detection in a main system without being upsized (Paragraph [0009]).
As to Claims 3 and 14,
Ikeda discloses the first sense winding set is wrapped around the first excitation wire (Figure 3).
Ikeda does not disclose the second excitation wire is wrapped around the first sense winding set; and the second sense winding set is wrapped around the second excitation wire.
However, Ikeda2 explains that the ordering of the windings may be changed (Paragraph [0052]), and Ikeda2 explains that the purpose of the device is, like applicant, to provide a redundant resolver (see paragraph [0001]). The primary difference between the elected invention and Ikeda is the number of windings around any particular tooth. However, no unexpected results have been presented with regard to forming two sets of sense windings and to sets of excitation windings around any given tooth in the claimed order.
In light of this, the primary difference, therefore, is the number of excitation and sense winding sets that are wound around any given tooth. Mere duplication of the windings around any particular tooth in Ikeda would provide the above claim feature, because, using the winding order already disclosed in Ikeda, the order would be, from the tooth, a first excitation winding, a first sense winding, a second sense winding, a second excitation winding, another first excitation winding, and another second sense winding.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ikeda to disclose duplicating the winding patterns already disclosed around the teeth to therefore disclose the second excitation wire is wrapped around the first sense winding set; and the second sense winding set is wrapped around the second excitation wire given the above explanation and teaching of Ikeda2 in order to advantageously provide an additional layer of redundancy thereby ensuring that the resolver continues to be able to detect the rotation of the rotor and shaft of the motor even if some of the windings fail to function properly (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) (US 2023/0125647) in view of Ikeda et al. (Ikeda2) (US 2022/0224172).
The Examiner notes that Claims 9 and 18 were rejected above under 102(a)(2). However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, and solely to the extent that Ikeda is determined to not disclose the features of these claims, a 103 rejection is also presented below.
As to Claims 9 and 18,
PNG
media_image2.png
634
680
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ikeda discloses the stator comprises a first stator portion forming a segment of the stator and a second stator portion forming a separate segment of the stator, wherein the first stator portion and the second stator portion are physically separated by an air gap (Figure 3 / note that while applicant may disclose two distinct stator components, the term “portion” is broader, and half of the stator can be said to be a first portion forming a first segment, and a second half of the stator can be said to be a second portion forming a distinct separate segment. Note that while applicant may desire the term separate to be mean “to keep apart,” such a term also means “to make a distinction between : DISCRIMINATE, DISTINGUISH,” which is reasonable in light of the disclosure. Two distinct portions forming segments are distinguished and therefore separate sections of the overall stator. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/separate.)
Ikeda is said to disclose the first and second stator portions forming separate segments of the stator because a portion or segment can reasonably be, in light of the disclosure, portions of a single physical object that are divided up such that one half of the stator or object is one portion/segment, and the second half is another portion/segment. The term “separate” does not require a physical distance between the portions/segments, as this term can be to merely have two portions that are distinguished.
That stated, should the term “separate” be determined to only mean that the above segments must be spaced apart, then Ikeda would not disclose the stator comprises a first stator portion forming a segment of the stator and a second stator portion forming a separate segment of the stator, wherein the first stator portion and the second stator portion are physically separated by an air gap.
However, Ikeda2 discloses a first stator portion forming a segment of the stator and a second stator portion forming a separate segment of the stator, wherein the first stator portion and the second stator portion are physically separated by an air gap (Figures 16,17), (Paragraph [0104] / note the stator core is divided into four arc-shaped cores, and any two of these that are not in direct contact, and thus fully spaced apart and separated from each other, can be selected as the first and second stator portions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ikeda to include a first stator portion forming a segment of the stator and a second stator portion forming a separate segment of the stator, wherein the first stator portion and the second stator portion are physically separated by an air gap as taught by Ikeda2 in order to advantageously allow for an easier winding operation and to increase manufacturability (Paragraph [0105]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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