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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-10 pertaining to Section I,
As to Section A,
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase “one tooth” is unreasonably broad, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant expressly uses the term “comprising” in the preamble of the claim, and thus is demonstrating an express intent to not limit the claim to any particular number of claim features. The term “one,” in this context, is merely a descriptor identifying a particular item, in this case a tooth. For example, as seen in applicant’s Figure 1, applicant has many teeth as part of the stator. If applicant claims two teeth, then such a feature is supported by this figure, but where merely claiming that there are two teeth would not limit the number of teeth that can be present in the claim. The same is true of claiming three teeth, four teeth, or in the instant case, one tooth. Having “one tooth” does not preclude having more than one tooth. If applicant desires the claim to limit the number of teeth with respect to the winding set, then applicant can use clearly terms what would capture such a concept, for example reciting “only one tooth” as it pertains to the windings.
Applicant now claims, as argued, that the first and second sense winding are not wrapped around any other tooth of the plurality of teeth, and argues that such a feature is supported because the phrase “a tooth 416” demonstrates that all windings are exclusively wrapped around a single tooth 416. The Examiner respectfully notes that such an interpretation is reasonable, only to the extent that each individual winding around each individual tooth is interpreted in this manner.
First, the phrase “a tooth” is not reasonably capturing the concept of “a single tooth,” in that it is merely an example of the windings being wound around one tooth, but does not reasonably exclude other teeth. Should applicant disagree, applicant is respectfully requested to demonstrate a definition where the use of the term “a” limits a feature to just that associated element, and where such an interpretation was originally intended from the disclosure. The Examiner respectfully notes that the term “a” does not reasonably include such a feature, in the same way that stating that a person has “a car” does not limit that person to having only one car. Such a person could have more than one car and still have “a car.”
Applicant clearly shows plural teeth 106 in Figure 1, and expressly shows that the windings 108 are wound around each tooth as seen in this figure. The intent of this invention is to have a main excitation set (e.g. the first winding set) and a redundant backup (e.g. the second winding set) should the first fail for some reason. As such, anywhere there is a first winding set, there is reasonably a second winding set. To that extent, each tooth has its own combination of first and second winding sets, such as that shown in Figure 4, but where each set is reasonably wrapped around each tooth of the stator as expressly seen in Figure 1. Nowhere in the original disclosure is it stated or shown that the windings as argued are exclusively wrapped around just one tooth. While paragraphs like [0022] state that the windings are wrapped around at least some of the teeth of the plurality of teeth, it is clear from the figures that the intent is for each tooth to have its windings wrapped around each respective tooth, or else why would those teeth be present.
To that extent, the Examiner notes that when each set of windings is treated as seen in Figure 4, such that winding a portion of a wire around a tooth can be considered a winding, but where that same wire can be wound around a different tooth which therefore would have its own distinct winding, even though it is serially connected to the other winding, then the disclosure would support such an interpretation. Meaning, in short, that a single wire can form plural sets of windings, with each set of the plural windings wound around each respective tooth as seen in Figure 1 but all respectively interconnected as they are all formed from the same wire. The prior art is interpreted in the same manner, and as explained below, the prior art reasonably discloses this same claim feature.
As to Section B,
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “set” is unreasonably broad, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees as applicant does not provide any special definition for this term. A set is well-known to in general be a collection of elements, but where a set can also be empty (an empty set) or even merely equal one. The term “set” does not require any particular number of objects, and is merely used to differentiate one group from another. This is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, which is consistent with applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant argues that the new claim features prevent such an interpretation, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claiming that the first sense winding set collectively generates a single first output signal representing a position of the stator does not preclude such an interpretation. This is because each output provided by the winding is a single output. Applicant does not claim that the winding set collectively only provides one output, but instead is claiming that the set generates a single “first” output, thereby reasonably implying and including that a single “second” output can also be provided. Additionally, the turns of each winding are themselves “windings” and thus each turn can be considered a winding, and collectively the coil would provide a single output.
As to Section C,
The Examiner respectfully notes that Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) (US 2018/0351437 A1) discloses the new claim features, because the coils are wound in layers as now claimed As expressly seen in the figure below, the coils 21-25 are found in radial layers such that one layer is wound around the next layer.
Ikeda discloses the layered structure argued, because coil 21 which individually can be considered to include first and second sense windings with each turn being a winding, or the combination of coils 21 and 22, are in either case in between the excitation coils 24,25 and the outer coil 23, thus forming a middle layer as claimed. All windings 21-25 are wound around a single tooth in the same manner as applicant. Whether these windings are serially connected to other windings on other teeth does not prevent them from being their own distinct winding wound around their own distinct teeth, which is again the same as disclosed by applicant. As seen in the marked up figure below, these windings are concentric, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Section D,
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s designation of windings as sets is impermissible, because it relies upon hindsight. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant is doing is naming various components of the invention, and the Examiner is merely doing the same thing in light of the disclosure. What applicant considers to be hindsight is actually the Examiner following the requirements for broadest reasonable interpretation, which is to read claim features in light of the disclosure, and then interpret the prior art in the same manner as applicant, if reasonably possible. Here, applicant is selecting various windings and designating them as sets, and the Examiner is interpreting similar structure of the prior art using the same interpretation and naming convention as applicant.
Hindsight as to do with reconstruction of prior art references, in the combination, but where the features being argued by applicant are actually being rejected under an anticipation analysis, such that hindsight cannot exist as it does not exist under 35 U.S.C. 102. Meaning, the prior art either does or does not disclose a claim feature, regardless of any naming convention, in a 102 analysis, and thus no hindsight can exist with the rejections being argued.
For example, if a prior art reference disclosed the exact same four tires, chassis, and engine and was expressly claimed as a car, the prior art would be interpreted in the same manner, and if it disclosed the exact same features, it would also reasonably be a “car,” even if the prior art failed to use that exact term to describe the claim features. It is a structure to structure comparison that is made, regardless of naming convention, that necessarily determines whether a prior art reference does or does not disclose a claim feature.
Here, the prior art discloses a substantially similar winding arrangement as applicant, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the manner in which applicant is “naming” the various windings is being applied to the prior art to demonstrate when it discloses the claim features. Because the prior art reasonably discloses the claim features using this broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Section E,
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s response does not address the failure independence feature, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a feature was not previously claimed. That stated, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior art does not disclose such a feature, because applicant’s claim does not limit the failure, which can therefore be any type of failure. As seen in Figure 2, each output winding provides its own distinct output, and thus a failure of the first output winding would not prevent the second or third output winding from generating a signal.
With regard to the arguments on pages 13-21 directed towards the previous 102 rejections in view of Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) (US 2018/0351437 A1),
As to the arguments the Ikeda discloses a fundamentally different distributed architecture,
Applicant acknowledges that each tooth of Ikeda carrier five windings but then argues that in Claims 1 and 13, the first winding set has two windings that are both wrapped around the one tooth and not wrapped around other tooth. As already acknowledged by applicant, each tooth has five windings, and thus any two windings, such as 21 and 22, can be said to be the windings of the first set. As seen in the above marked up figure, these two windings are concentric and wound around one tooth, and are in fact no found around any other teeth. Applicant then argues that no single tooth in Ikeda carries two windings from the same output phase, but the Examiner respectfully notes that such a feature is not claimed. In fact, the term “phase” is not claimed in any claim. The prior art reasonably discloses two windings that are concentric and wound around one tooth as claimed.
Applicant then argues that windings 21 and 22 of Ikeda are not a first sense winding set that collectively generates a single output signal, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not claim that all windings of the first set of windings are connected or otherwise limited in some manner such that only one output is provided by the entirety of the set. Instead, applicant claims that the first sense winding set collectively generates “a single first output signal.” While the term “single” can, but not necessarily, limit a feature to only one, the manner that applicant has claimed the feature does not reasonably make such a limitation. By expressly claiming “a single first output signal,” applicant is reasonably implying that a single second output signal can also exist. As worded, the claim does not reasonably capture what applicant is arguing. Furthermore, the term “collectively” does not reasonably require that all turns or windings of a set provide some portion of the output, but instead it requires that the group, as a whole, provides an output. The first winding set does “collectively” provide an output, such as output Sa, as the group is providing this output. Should applicant desire that the outputs of the entirety of the set be “combined” to provide a single output, then such a feature would need to be claimed. That stated, it is well-known in the art that any number of loops or turns can themselves be considered a winding, as the terms loop, turn, winding, and coil are all synonymous with each other. To that extent, each of the windings has a plural number of turns, and these individual turns can be themselves be considered windings, which “collectively” provide a single output as claimed.
Applicant then argues that the claim interpretation is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the specification, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim limitations must be read in light of the disclosure, but they are not limited by the disclosure in that limitations from the disclosure are not read into the claims. As such, when applicant designates a group of windings as a set, then an interpretation based on this concept, but to the broadest reasonable extent that is still consistent with this concept, is relied upon As such, a set is not limited to any number of windings, and it is not limited to where the set is located in the disclosure. Instead, the broadest reasonable interpretation would be to identify what can reasonably be considered a coil, and be able to designate it as a set. A “set” is not limited to any specific number of windings, in that if applicant only disclosed 2 windings as a set, a prior art reference would still disclose a set of windings even if it disclosed 5 windings as part of a set. The Examiner’s interpretation of a set is consistent with the disclosure, in that the term set is being interpreted, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, to be any specific number of windings. That is precisely what applicant is doing, but where applicant has a specific number for that set. But, importing the specific limitation of a number of windings for a set from the disclosure into the claims would not be proper. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). What applicant argues here is what the number of windings must be and where it must be located, but making such an interpretation would require the importation of these features from the disclosure into the claims when they are not expressly claimed. As explained above, this would not be proper. Claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. While this interpretation must be consistent with the disclosure, it is not limited by the disclosure and can be broader. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a set of windings is any number of windings, regardless of number, and such an interpretations is consistent with the disclosure, but where applicant has a specific number.
While applicant now claims various layers for the windings, the Examiner respectfully notes that the prior art discloses such a feature, because, like applicant, Ikeda also organizes the windings into layers as expressly seen in the marked up figure above. These windings, like applicant, are all located on a same and singular tooth, and provide the argued collective output for the reasons stated above.
Applicant then argues that Ikeda does not disclose distinct radial layers formed by function winding sets, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant acknowledges that Ikeda discloses five windings per tooth, and the Examiner has explained above why Ikeda does disclose these features in the above explanation, including how Ikeda uses similar layered coils as applicant. A middle layer does exist as formed by the first sense winding set, as windings 21 and/or 21,22 are in the middle and sandwiched between windings 24,25 and 23. The identified first winding set does, as a group, generate a single “first” output signal as claimed, because part of the group (or all of it when the winding is formed from individual winding turns) generates an output.
Applicant then argues that Ikeda does not disclose the failure feature, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that output windings 21, 22, and 23 are not independent redundant sets, and are instead three phases of a single sensing system. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, first because the claim does not require them to be redundant, and second because they are redundant sets. Paragraph [0046] expressly describes the use of the system for redundancy. That stated, there is no requirement that the windings as argued are redundant, as this feature is not claimed. As explained above, each winding generates its own respective output, and thus if one fails, the others will function. Should applicant desire the windings to be implemented in a redundancy manner, applicant must claim such a feature, as such a concept is not imported into the claims from the disclosure.
With regard to Section B on pages 18-20,
Applicant initially argues that connecting wires between terminals are not reasonably control circuits, and then points to the disclosure for a description of applicant’s control circuits. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that a circuit can be a wire, as a wire is a circuit component, and that, in combination with the signals placed on the wire, these circuits/wires do function as control circuits. While applicant may have a more specific implementation for the control circuits, limitations from the disclosure are not imported in the claims. As such, applicant must claim enough of the specific implementation from the disclosure to remove the interpretation made by the Examiner.
Furthermore, the circuits/wires do operate independently, in that if one fails the others continue to function. While all circuits may converge on the same angle calculator as argued, this does not mean that the wires are not independent of each other and operate independent of each other. Meaning, if the wire for Sa+ failed, this would not prevent any signal for being transmitted on any Sb or Sc circuit.
Applicant then again notes the redundancy feature from the disclosure, but the Examiner respectfully note that Ikeda does disclose redundancy as noted above, and furthermore, no such redundancy is claimed. Even if the windings are used for a redundant purpose in the disclosure, unless such a feature is expressly claimed, this concept is not imported into the claims.
Applicant then provides a conclusion regarding claims 1 and 13, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the above response.
With regard to the arguments on pages 21-27 in Section IV,
In Section A,
As to Claim 2,
Applicant argues that the Ikeda references, including Ikeda et al. (Ikeda2) (US 2023/0125647), only include one winding per phrase per tooth, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not preclude such a feature. In fact, the term “phase” does not appear in the claims. Applicant then argues that the third and fourth sense windings are located on different teeth and that Claim 1 requires them to be on the same tooth, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Claim 1 does state that the first and second windings of the “first” sense winding set are not wrapped around another tooth, it does not state this for the second winding set. The second winding set, instead, is required to be wrapped around the one tooth, but it is not limited to that particular tooth. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Claims 3 and 14,
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s sole basis for combining the references to arrive at the specific layering order is a generic statement that the ordering of the windings may be changed, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner respectfully notes that it is Ikeda2 that explicitly makes that disclosure, and thus it is the reference itself, and not the Examiner, that is demonstrating what is known in the art. It is not hindsight to rely upon express disclosures from a reference in the relevant art, as such disclosure demonstrate what was known in the art, which cannot be hindsight. That stated, the Examiner provides a detailed and reasoned explanation, grounded in duplication of parts, along with a proper motivation to duplicate the parts, to arrive at the claimed features. Applicant, respectfully, does not address the actual rejection provided by the Examiner.
Applicant then argues that the explanation from the Examiner of how the ordering would be demonstrates that the Examiner is working backward from applicant’s disclosure, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The explanation provided by the Examiner merely explains what “must” be true after duplicating the windings in the manner done in the rejection. Providing an explanation of what the end result must be is not hindsight, but instead is merely explaining what the final combination would look like. However, the reason for the rejection is grounded in duplication, and no argument is provided with regard to this concept.
Applicant then argues that a proper motivation to combine the references has not been provided, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees as such a motivation is expressly provided. Applicant argues that modifying Ikeda to concentrate multiple windings from the same function set on a single tooth in the claimed order would require abandoning the architecture that Ikeda presents as its solution, and thus teaches away. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner is not teaching in any fundamental change from Ikeda2 into Ikeda. Instead, the Examiner in the rejection of Claims 3 and 14, for example, is only demonstrating that it would have been obvious to duplicate the windings, and mere duplication would not prevent Ikeda from functioning as intended, as in fact no change other than adding more windings is being made. The rejections of Claims 2, 3, and 14 merely add windings, and the mere adding of windings would not fundamentally change in the manner in which Ikeda operates or prevent it from operating. In fact, as noted by both Ikeda and Ikeda2 operate in the same fundamental manner has they have similar winding architectures. As such, no teaching away would reasonably exist. Second, applicant does not reasonably that the combination would require Ikeda to abandon any of its teachings or that the combination would not work as intended. No specific argument is provided as to why the combination would not function, and a mere assertion that Ikeda would have to abandon its distributed architecture, which is unsupported by evidence, does not reasonably demonstrate why the combination would not function. As best understood, applicant is presented attorney argument that would require evidence, as applicant is arguing what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know (see MPEP 2145(I)). However, no evidence exists that the prior art combination would not function as intended, especially given that no fundamental change is being made to Ikeda, and as applicant notes, the two references operate using a similar systems, which must reasonable mean they operate in a similar manner.
Lastly, applicant argues that the Examiner’s motivation is conclusory, but the Examiner respectfully notes that stating the adding of additional windings, such as in the case of duplication, is not conclusory. Redundant systems are often added in many instances for the purpose of having a backup, as having these redundant layers of protection ensure that the overall device is able to continue to operate. This is not concept invented by applicant, and is a valid reason for the same basic reason that such redundant systems have been added to any device in years past. The Examiner is not proposing that Ikeda abandon any distributed architecture, and the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably explain why the proposed combination would cause any architecture to be abandoned, nor explain what specific architecture applicant is referring to that would be abandoned. The mere adding of windings does not cause the base reference or combination to abandon the fundamental manner in which it is operating, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, and a proper motivation and teaching have been provided as explained above and in the rejections found below.
Lastly, applicant argues that the combination fails to teach the specific single-tooth, concentric winding architecture, but no single tooth is claimed. As to the remaining arguments, any specific arguments have been responded to above, and applicant’s attention is directed to the above response.
In Section B,
As to Claims 9 and 18,
On first note, applicant argues that a split stator feature is claimed, but the Examiner respectfully notes that no such feature is claimed. Instead, applicant claims first and second “stator portions,” but where a portion is merely a section or “portion” of the stator. Should applicant desire the claims to require a split stator, then applicant must claim as such.
Applicant argues that Claims 9 and 18 are patentable because of their dependence on the independent claims, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the above response to the arguments directed towards the independent claims.
Applicant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of a separate segment is unreasonable, because an interpretation that a single, continuous, unitary stator can be conceptually divided into two separate portions that are distinguished from another, which physical separation, renders the feature “physically separated by an air gap” meaningless. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is using broad claim language that does not reasonably capture the specific interpretation that applicant appears to desire. Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of a portion, any two sections of the stator can be selected as a portion, as the definition of a “portion” is “A section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=portion. This definition is consistent with applicant’s disclosure, because, whether physically connected or separated, two sections of a whole (overall stator) are being called portions. Once two portions are designated, they are, by definition, distinct or distinguished from each other, because they are distinct. These portions are not conceptual, as instead they always exist regardless of whether they are or are not recognized specifically by being referenced in the prior art. Lastly, these portions are physically separated by an air gap, because they literally physically spaced apart from each other by an airgap as was previously explained. Whether the stator is unitary does not preclude such an interpretation, because no claim language is presented that prevents the stator from being unitary.
Applicant then argues that the claimed split stator is consistently and unambiguously described as two physical distinct components, but the Examiner respectfully notes that a split stator is not claimed. As such, the manner in which such a feature is disclosed does not preclude the interpretation presented by the Examiner, because such a feature is not in the claim. A stator having two portions is, respectfully, not the same thing as claiming a split stator, including the argued divided halves.
Applicant then argues that Ikeda ‘172 does not cure the deficiencies argued by applicant, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the this reference is not required to each in the features that Ikeda is already stated to disclose. Applicant again references a single-tooth feature, but the Examiner notes that such a feature is not claimed. The prior art combination discloses the claim feature for the reasons stated below and explained above, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then argues that the motivation to combine is a legitimate design consideration but does not properly motivate the combination. The Examiner respectfully notes that if the motivation is a legitimate design consideration, then it is a motivation when such a feature is considered beneficial. This motivation directly comes from the prior art itself, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably make the combination for this reason. Applicant’s arguments, as best understood, are arguing the motivation would not arrive at the very features already taught by Ikeda, but the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no requirement that the motivation motivate the entirety of what is claimed or even argued. A motivation is only required to demonstrate why a particular feature would be obvious to add or why a particular medication would have been obvious. No other feature need be addressed by the motivation. Here, the only teaching is why a split core system would have been obvious, and merely splitting up the cores of the stator in the manner proposed is addressed by the motivation. When making such a combination, nothing would preclude the combination from functioning as intended, and Ikeda already discloses the features being argued by applicant.
The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant.
As to applicant’s request for an interview, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has filed an amendment with the Office, which therefore requires a response. Should applicant desire an interview, applicant is invited to contact 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 13, 14, and 18-20 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 13,
The phrase “a first sense winding set comprising the first sense winding and a second winding, each comprising wire, both wrapped around the one tooth and over the first excitation winding, forming a middle winding layer radially outward from the first excitation winding” on lines 11-13 is indefinite.
From the above wording, it is unclear what forms a middle winding layer as claimed. It is unclear if the entire first winding set, just the first sense winding, or just the second sensing winding form the middle layer from the claim. The wording reasonably includes any of these three interpretations, which renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the first sense winding set is what applicant intends to form the middle layer.
The phrase “a second winding set” on line 17 is indefinite. Applicant has added a second winding set earlier in the claim, and as best understood, both winding sets refer to the same winding set of the disclosure but are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between the winding sets are therefore unclear. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that both sets are the same set.
The phrase “a second winding set wrapped around the one tooth and over the first winding set forming an outermost winding layer radially outward from the first sense winding set” on lines 17-18 is indefinite. As currently worded, it is unclear if the second winding set is what is intended form the outermost winding layer, or if the first winding set is intended to form the outermost winding layer. Applicant does not use a term like “and” prior to the term forming, and thus grammatically either interpretation is reasonable, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that it is the second winding set that is intended to form the outermost winding layer.
The phrase “the second winding set” on line 18 is indefinite. More than one second winding set was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear which second winding set this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 14 and 18-20,
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 § 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) 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]), wherein the first sense winding set collectively generates a single first output signal representing a relative position of the stator (Paragraph [0060] / note the group as a whole provides such a signal), and wherein the first sense winding and the second sense winding are not wrapped around any other tooth of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3), a second sense winding set (23 or 22,23) wrapped around the one tooth and over the first sense winding set (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0043]), wherein the excitation winding, the first sense winding set, and the second sense winding set are concentrically arranged as distinct radial layers around the one tooth (see above figure), (Figure 3), with the excitation winding forming an innermost layer adjacent to the one tooth (see above figure), (Figure 3), the first sensing winding set forming a middle layer radially outward from the excitation winding (see above figure), (Figure 3), and the second sense winding set forming an outermost layer radially outward from the first sense winding set (see above figure), (Figure 3);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]), wherein a failure of the first sense winding set does not prevent the second sense winding set from generating the second output signal (Figure 2 / note the individual winding sets are directly connected to the angle calculator, and thus a failure of the first winding set, such as with winding 21, would not prevent 23 or the combination of 22,23 from providing an output).
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), wherein the first control circuit and the second control circuit operate independently such that failure of the first sense winding set or the first control circuit does not prevent the second control circuit from generating the second output signal (Figure 2 / note failure of the first control circuit or sense winding set would not prevent the second control circuit from functioning as they are distinctly and separately connected to the angle calculator).
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) wrapped around one tooth of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3),(see above figure), and not wrapped around any other tooth of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3 / note each tooth has its own specific winding set that is distinct from each other winding set), with a second winding set (23,25 or 22,23,25) wrapped around the first winding set (Figure 3), wherein the first winding set and the second winding set are concentrically layered as distinct radial layers around the one tooth (Figure 3), the first winding set comprising: a first excitation winding (24) wrapped around the one tooth forming an innermost winding layer adjacent to 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]), forming a middle winding layer radially outward from the first excitation winding (Figure 3), wherein the first sense winding set collectively generates a single first output signal representing a relative position of the stator (Paragraph [0060] / note the group as a whole provides such a signal), and wherein the first sense winding and the second sense winding are not wrapped around any other tooth of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3), a second winding set (23,25 or 22,23,25) wrapped around the one tooth and over the first winding set forming an outermost winding layer radially outward from the first sense winding set (Figure 3), the second winding set comprising: at least one of a second sense winding set (23 or 22,23) wrapped around the one tooth (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]), the second sense winding set including a plurality of sense coils configured to collectively generate a second output signal representing a relative position of the stator independently of the first sense winding set, and a second excitation winding (25) wrapped around the one tooth (Figure 3), (Paragraph [0039]), (Paragraph [0060] / note the group as a whole provides such a signal).
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), wherein the first control circuit and the second control circuit operate independently such that failure of the first sense winding set or the first control circuit does not prevent the second control circuit from generating the second output signal (Figure 2 / note failure of the first control circuit or sense winding set would not prevent the second control circuit from functioning as they are distinctly and separately connected to the angle calculator).
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. (Ikeda3) (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, Ikeda3 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 Ikeda3 in order to advantageously allow for an easier winding operation and to increase manufacturability (Paragraph [0105]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights