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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/02/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 17 and 31 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 17-21 and 23-36 are presently pending in this application, with claims 21, 23, 29-30, and 34-36 being withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17 and 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 17-21, 24-28, and 31-33 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “comb-like” in line 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “comb-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprise of the scope of an electrode structure that is “comb-like.” Examiner is interpreting the comb-like electrode structure as a structure that has more than one projection that resembles a comb.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “wherein free ends of the comb-like electrode structures face towards each other and are arranged in an intersecting non-contacting relation to each other in a common plane” in lines 13-15 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. It is unclear, firstly, how the free ends of the comb-like electrode structures face towards each other with reference to the disclosure’s Fig. 7. For example, the free end of electrode portion 233 of the first electrode and the free end of electrode portion 234 of the second electrode do not face towards each other as illustrated in Fig. 7. Rather the free end of electrode portion 233 of the first electrode faces towards the connecting portion 242 of the second electrode, and so on. Thus, it is unclear how the free ends face towards each other. Secondly, it is unclear using the ordinary meaning of the terms “intersecting” and “non-contacting” how the first electrode 231 and second electrode 232 in Fig. 7 are intersecting and non-contacting. The ordinary definition of “intersecting” is to cut across, cut through, or overlap with something. Thus, if the first and second electrode are cutting across, cutting through, or overlapping with one another it is unclear how they would also be non-contacting. Further, Fig. 7 does not illustrate any intersection of the electrodes given the ordinary meaning discussed above. Examiner is interpreting this limitation as each electrode structure has a structure that has more than one projection that resembles a comb, wherein the free ends of the projections of each first and second electrode being oriented to extend in the direction of the opposite free end such that they are arranged with least a portion of the length of the first electrode overlaps with at least a portion of the length of the second electrode but in a non-contacting manner.
Regarding claim 31, the phrase “comb-like” in line 19 and the phrase “wherein free ends of the comb-like electrode structures face towards each other and are arranged in an intersecting non-contacting relation to each other in a common plane” in lines 19-21 render the claim indefinite for aforementioned reasons discussed above with respect the claim 17.
Regarding claims 18-20, 24-28, and 32-33, are rejected due to their dependency upon an indefinite base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20, 26-28, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utermoehlen et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20190091411 A1, “Utermoehlen”) in view of Rosswurm (U.S Patent No. 5012237) and as evidenced by Bauer et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20200114087 A1, “Bauer”).
Regarding claim 17, Utermoehlen discloses the limitations of (Claim 17) a rotation sensing arrangement (100) for an injection device (102, see at least Fig. 1-8 and para. 0041 and 0048 – determination device 100 is a part of a dose metering device or injection device 102 for setting and determining a dose for a medication dispensing device), the rotation sensing arrangement (100) comprising:
a first member (204) and a second member (104), wherein the first member (204) is rotatable relative to the second member (104) with regard to an axis of rotation (see Fig. 2 and annotated Utermoehlen drawing 1 below and para. 0057-0058 – dose metering device 102 comprises a dosing knob 104 and part 204 on which the dosing knob 104 is rotatable with regard to the axis illustrated in the annotated figure below);
at least one signal generator (118) arranged on the first member (204, see Fig. 2 and para. 0056 – the determination device 100 of Fig. 2 substantially corresponds to the determination device 100 of Fig. 1 and thus the latter embodiment will be referenced, 0058 – interference surface unit 118 is connected to part 204, see para. 0044 – interference surface unit 118 has at least one electrically conductive interference surface which generates a signal when it influences the electromagnetic alternating field 124 of the coil unit 116 such that the interference surface unit 118 is being interpreted as the signal generator);
at least one sensor (116) arranged on the second member (104, see Fig.2 and para. 0057 – coil unit 116 is arranged in a cavity of the dosing knob 104, see para. 0044-0046 – a voltage 122 is applied to the coil unit 116 to produce an electromagnetic alternating field 124 which is influenced by the interference surface unit 118 to change an inductance 126 of the coil unit 116 such that the coil unit 116 is able to sense the change in its inductance 126), wherein the at least one sensor (116) comprises an electrode structure configured to generate an electrical signal in response to a movement of the at least one signal generator (118) relative to the at least one sensor (116, examiner notes the disclosure of Utermoehlen with regards to Fig. 2 and 5-7 references the interference unit 118 as targets and examiner will be interpreting the interference unit 118 as being comprised of the targets 118, examiner further notes with regards to Fig. 2 and 5-7 that the coil unit and the targets are both referenced as “118,” but examiner will be referencing only the interference unit/targets as 118 and the coil unit as 116, see Fig. 7-8 and para. 0073 – coil unit 116 may comprise 6 coils 500, 502, 504, 700, 702, and 704 that are spaced in a circular ring, examiner is interpreting each of the 6 coils as individual sensors that are each comprised of an electrically conductive material that forms the electrode structure of the coil, examiner notes an electrode is being interpreted as any conductor structure through which electricity enter or leaves and as such that each coil in the coil unit 116 can conduct the voltage 122, the interference unit 118 may comprise four targets 118 disposed circumferentially around the base 204 such that each target 118 is being interpreted as a signal generator, see para. 0044-0046 – the coil unit 116 generates an electrical signal in the form of a change in inductance 126 in response to movement of the interference surface unit 118 which influences the change);
a processor (“microcontroller” in para. 0060) connected to the at least one sensor (116) and operable to calculate an angle of rotation of the first member (204) relative to the second member (104) based on the electrical signal (see para. 0053 and 0060 – the circuit board 200 of the embodiment of Fig. 2 may comprise a microcontroller for measuring the resonance frequencies that are produced by the changes in inductance 126 of the coil unit 116 to determine a rotational angle signal 114 and thus the dose).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Utermoehlen fails to disclose the limitation of (Claim 17) wherein the at least one sensor comprises an interdigital electrode structure, wherein the interdigital electrode structure comprises a first electrode and a second electrode on a common substrate, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode each comprise a comb-like electrode structure, wherein free ends of the comb-like electrode structures face towards each other and are arranged in an intersecting non-contacting relation to each other in a common plane.
Rosswurm teaches a rotation sensing arrangement in the form of an angle resolver (10 in Fig. 4-6) for determining the angular position of a rotor (60 in Fig. 4) relative to a stator (64 in Fig. 4), wherein the angle resolver uses capacitance to determine angular position (see Col.3, lines 20-66). Rosswurm teaches the limitations (Claim 17) a rotation sensing arrangement (10 in Fig. 4-6) for an injection device (examiner notes the rotating sensing arrangement must only be functionally capable for use in an injection device, see Col.1, lines 6-10 – the electrostatic angle resolver is capable for use in an injection device to measure angular position of a rotor relative to a stator), the rotation sensing arrangement (10) comprising:
a first member (60 in Fig. 4) and a second member (64 in Fig. 5), wherein the first member (60) is rotatable relative to the second member (64) with regard to an axis of rotation (see Col.3, lines 18-22 and lines 39-66– rotor 60 rotates relative to stator 64 with regard to an axis of rotation through the center of each circle in Fig. 4-5);
at least one signal generator (62 in Fig. 4) arranged on the first member (60, see Col.3, lines 20-22 and lines 39-54 – rotor 60 comprises vanes 62 that operate as signal generators to generate a change in the electrostatic field of the stator 64 which can be measured by the angle resolver);
at least one sensor (68, 72 in Fig. 5) arranged on the second member (64, see Col.3, lines 21-66 – the positive interdigitations 68 and negative interdigitations 72 together form a sensor as they receive the signal generated by the vanes 62 of rotor 60 in the form of the change in their generated electrostatic field and responds with current flow to the interdigitations), wherein the at least one sensor (68, 72) comprises an interdigital electrode structure configured to generate an electrical signal in response to a movement of the at least one signal generator (62) relative to the at least one sensor (68, 72, see Col.3, lines 22-66 – the positive interdigitations 68 and negative interdigitations 72 are interdigitated electrical conductors thus form the interdigital electrode structure which is configured to generate an electrical signal in the form of current flow in response to movement of the vanes 62 on the rotor 60 relative to the stator 64);
wherein the interdigital electrode structure comprises a first electrode (68) and a second electrode (72) on a common substrate (67, see Fig. 5 and Col.6, lines 11-34 – interdigitations 68 together form a first electrode and interdigitations 72 together form a second electrode form on a common surface area 67 interpreted as the substrate as it provides an insulator between the two electrodes), wherein the first electrode (68) and the second electrode (72) each comprise a comb-like electrode structure (examiner notes a comb-like electrode structure is being interpreted as a structure that has more than one projection that resembles a comb, see Fig. 5 – each of the interdigitations 68 forming the first electrode and the interdigitations 72 forming the second electrode have a plurality of radially oriented projections that resemble a comb oriented radially), wherein free ends of the comb-like electrode structures face towards each other and are arranged in an intersecting non-contacting relation to each other in a common plane (examiner is interpreting this limitation as the free ends of the projections of each first and second electrode are oriented to extend in the direction of the opposite free end such that they are arranged with least a portion of the length of the first electrode overlaps with at least a portion of the length of the second electrode but in a non-contacting manner, see Fig. 5 – the free ends of the interdigitations 68 forming the first electrode are oriented to extend in the direction of the opposite free ends of the interdigitations 72 forming the second electrode and are arranged with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 68 overlapping with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 72 in a non-contacting manner).
Since Utermoehlen discloses an inductance rotational sensor for determining angular position of a first member that rotates relative to a second member, and Rosswurm discloses a capacitive rotational sensor for determining angular position of a first member that rotates relative to a second member, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the inductive rotational sensor taught by Utermoehlen with the capacitive rotational sensor of Rosswurm. Both inductive and capacitive rotational sensors are types of rotational sensors that are known in the art, and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the known inductive rotational sensor for the known capacitive rotational sensor. The results of said substitution would have been predictable. Examiner notes Bauer discloses a rotation sensor (86 in Fig. 5) for use in determining angular position of a first member that rotates relative to a second member in an injection pen (10, see Fig. 1, and para. 0085). As evidenced by Bauer, an inductive rotational sensor and capacitive rotational sensor are both known, alternative rotational sensors in the art for measuring changes in fields (see para. 0078). In combination, the first member (204) of Utermoehlen comprising the at least one signal generator in the form of interference unit (118) will be substituted with the circuit board (61) of Rosswurm containing the rotor vanes (62), the second member (104) of Utermoehlen comprising the at least one sensor in the form of coil unit (116) will be substituted with the circuit board (65) containing interdigitations (68, 72), and the electronic circuitry of the microcontroller of Utermoehlen using inductance to determine angular position will be substituted with the electronic circuitry (81) in Fig. 6 using capacitance to determine angular position.
Regarding claim 18, modified Utermoehlen discloses the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 18) wherein the substrate (67) is a planar substrate (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 – Fig. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of the rotor and stator which having disc-like structures, thus the substrate 67 in Fig. 5 is planar), and wherein the at least one sensor (68, 72) is arranged on the planar substrate (see Fig. 5 and Col.6, lines 11-34 – interdigitations 68 and interdigitations 72 which together form the sensors are arranged on planar substrate 67).
Regarding claim 19, modified Utermoehlen discloses the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 18, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 19) wherein the interdigital electrode structure is printed or coated on the planar substrate (examiner notes the limitation printed is being interpreted under BRI as impressing something in or on as defined by Merriam-Webster, see Col.6, lines 11-34 – the interdigitations 68 and 72 are etched onto the planar substrate 67 such that they are impressed into the planar substrate 67 and thus printed).
Regarding claim 20, modified Utermoehlen discloses the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 20) further comprising a printed circuit board (65) and wherein the interdigital electrode structure of the at least one sensor (68, 72) is arranged on the printed circuit board (65, see Col.6, lines 11-34 – interdigitations 68 and 72 are printed on circuit board 65 thus making it a printed circuit board).
Utermoehlen discloses the processor (“microcontroller” in para. 0060) which is arranged on printed circuit board (200) which also bears the at least one sensor in the form of coil unit (116, see para. 0060). Thus, in combination, the circuit board (200) of Utermoehlen is being substituted with the circuit board (65) of Rosswurm while maintaining the processor on the circuit board of Rosswurm.
Regarding claim 26, modified Utermoehlen discloses the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 26) wherein the at least one sensor (68, 72 in Fig. 5) is arranged at a predefined radial sensor distance from the axis of rotation and wherein the at least one signal generator (62 in Fig. 4) is arranged at a predefined radial signal generator distance from the axis of rotation and wherein a difference between the predefined radial sensor distance and the predefined radial signal generator distance is smaller than or equal to a difference between a radial extent of the at least one sensor (68, 72) and a radial extent of the at least one signal generator (62, examiner is interpreting the predefined radial distance as the distance from the center point of the sensor/signal generator to the axis of rotation and the radial extent as the distance from the outer end of the sensor/signal generator to the inner end of the sensor/signal generator such that the difference between the predefined radial distances and the difference between the radial extents yields an amount of radial overlap between the sensor and signal generator, thus examiner is interpreting this limitation as the sensor and generator are radially located to cause at least some or full radial overlap between the two structures, see Fig. 1 and 4-5 and Col. 3, lines 20-66 – Fig. 1 shows the rotor 60 facing the stator 64 such that the vanes 62 would radially overlap with the interdigitations 68 and 72 during rotation of the rotor 60 indicating that the difference between the predefined radial distance of the vanes 62 and interdigitations 68 and 72 must be smaller or equal to the different between the radial extent of the vanes 62 and interdigitations 68 and 72).
Regarding claim 27, modified Utermoehlen teaches the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 27) wherein a plurality of signal generators (62 in Fig. 4) of the at least one signal generator (62 in Fig. 4) are distributed across one side of the rotor (60) facing towards the stator (64 in Fig. 5, see Fig. 1).
In combination, the first member (204) of Utermoehlen comprising the at least one signal generator in the form of interference unit (118) will be substituted with the circuit board (61) of Rosswurm containing the rotor vanes (62) such that the rotor vanes (62) of Rosswurm will be distributed across one side of the first member (204) of Utermoehlen and facing towards the second member (104, see Fig.1-2 of Utermoehlen for facing limitation).
Regarding claim 28, modified Utermoehlen teaches the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 28) wherein the at least one sensor (68, 72) and the at least one signal generator (62) are permanently arranged out of mechanical contact (see Fig. 1 and Col.3, lines 20-66 – the rotor 60 and stator 64 are permanently out of mechanical contact as seen in exemplary embodiment of Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Utermoehlen discloses the limitations of (Claim 31) an injection device (102) for setting and expelling of a dose of a medicament (see Fig. 1 and para. 0056 – Fig. 2 shows an embodiment of the determination device 100 for use in the injection device 102 shown in Fig. 1, see para. 0041 and 0053 – injection device 102 is capable of setting a dose to be dispensed), the injection device (102) comprising: a housing (106, see Fig. 1 and para. 0041-0042– examiner is interpreting the housing as the handle 106), a trigger to initiate and/or to control expelling of the dose (see para. 0042 – dosing knob 104 may comprise a trigger mechanism upon being axially depressed to expel the dose), a dial member (104) rotatable relative to the housing (106) for setting of the dose (see para. 0041-0042 and 0057 – dosing knob 104 is rotatable relative to handle 106 to set a dose), a rotation sensing arrangement (100) comprising: a first member and a second member (see Fig. 1 and para. 0044 – the first member is interpreted as the portion of dosing knob 104 in Fig. 1 comprising the interference surface unit 118, the second member is interpreted as the portion of the handle 106 comprising the coil unit 116), wherein the first member is rotatable relative to the second member with regard to an axis of rotation (see Fig. 1 and annotated Utermoehlen drawing 2 below for axis and para. 0044), wherein the first member is rotationally locked to one of the dial member (104) and the housing and wherein the second member is rotationally locked to the other one of the dial member and the housing (106, see para. 0044-0045 – the portion of the dosing knob 104 comprising the interference unit 118 is integral with the knob 104 and thus is rotationally locked thereto, the portion of the handle 106 comprising the coil unit 116 is integral with the handle 106 and is thus rotationally locked thereto), at least one signal generator (118) arranged on the first member (see Fig. 1 and para. 0044 – interference surface unit 118 is arranged on a portion of dosing knob 104 and has at least one electrically conductive interference surface which generates a signal when it influences the electromagnetic alternating field 124 of the coil unit 116 such that the interference surface unit 118 is being interpreted as the signal generator); at least one sensor (116) arranged on the second member (see Fig.1 and para. 0044-0046 – coil unit 116 is arranged on a portion of the handle 116, a voltage 122 is applied to the coil unit 116 to produce an electromagnetic alternating field 124 which is influenced by the interference surface unit 118 to change an inductance 126 of the coil unit 116 such that the coil unit 116 is able to sense the change in its inductance 126), wherein the at least one sensor (116) comprises an electrode structure configured to generate an electrical signal in response to a movement of the at least one signal generator (118) relative to the at least one sensor (116, examiner notes the disclosure of Utermoehlen with regards to Fig. 1 and 5-7 references the interference unit 118 as targets and examiner will be interpreting the interference unit 118 as being comprised of the targets 118, examiner further notes with regards to Fig. 1 and 5-7 that the coil unit and the targets are both referenced as “118,” but examiner will be referencing only the interference unit/targets as 118 and the coil unit as 116, see Fig. 7-8 and para. 0073 – coil unit 116 may comprise 6 coils 500, 502, 504, 700, 702, and 704 that are spaced in a circular ring, examiner is interpreting each of the 6 coils as individual sensors that are each comprised of an electrically conductive material that forms the electrode structure of the coil, examiner notes an electrode is being interpreted as any conductor structure through which electricity enter or leaves and as such that each coil in the coil unit 116 can conduct the voltage 122, the interference unit 118 may comprise four targets 118 disposed circumferentially around the base 204 such that each target 118 is being interpreted as a signal generator, see para. 0044-0046 – the coil unit 116 generates an electrical signal in the form of a change in inductance 126 in response to movement of the interference surface unit 118 which influences the change); and a processor (“microcontroller” in para. 0060) connected to the at least one sensor (116) and operable to calculate an angle of rotation of the first member relative to the second member on based on the electrical signal (see para. 0053 and para. 0060 – the determination device 100 comprises a microcontroller 110 which operably connected to the coil unit 116 – the circuit board 200 of the embodiment of Fig. 1 may comprise a microcontroller for measuring the resonance frequencies that are produced by the changes in inductance 126 of the coil unit 116 as it reads the rotational angle signal 112 and calculates an angle of rotation and thus the dose).
PNG
media_image2.png
593
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Utermoehlen fails to disclose the limitation of (Claim 31) wherein the at least one sensor comprises an interdigital electrode structure, wherein the interdigital electrode structure comprises a first electrode and a second electrode on a common substrate, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode each comprise a comb-like electrode structure, wherein free ends of the comb-like electrode structures face towards each other and are arranged in an intersecting non-contacting relation to each other in a common plane.
Rosswurm teaches a rotation sensing arrangement in the form of an angle resolver (10 in Fig. 4-6) for determining the angular position of a rotor (60 in Fig. 4) relative to a stator (64 in Fig. 4), wherein the angle resolver uses capacitance to determine angular position (see Col.3, lines 20-66). Rosswurm teaches the limitations (Claim 31) a rotation sensing arrangement (10 in Fig. 4-6) comprising:
a first member (60 in Fig. 4) and a second member (64 in Fig. 5), wherein the first member (60) is rotatable relative to the second member (64) with regard to an axis of rotation (see Col.3, lines 18-22 and lines 39-66– rotor 60 rotates relative to stator 64 with regard to an axis of rotation through the center of each circle in Fig. 4-5);
at least one signal generator (62 in Fig. 4) arranged on the first member (60, see Col.3, lines 20-22 and lines 39-54 – rotor 60 comprises vanes 62 that operate as signal generators to generate a change in the electrostatic field of the stator 64 which can be measured by the angle resolver);
at least one sensor (68, 72 in Fig. 5) arranged on the second member (64, see Col.3, lines 21-66 – the positive interdigitations 68 and negative interdigitations 72 together form a sensor as they receive the signal generated by the vanes 62 of rotor 60 in the form of the change in their generated electrostatic field and responds with current flow to the interdigitations), wherein the at least one sensor (68, 72) comprises an interdigital electrode structure configured to generate an electrical signal in response to a movement of the at least one signal generator (62) relative to the at least one sensor (68, 72, see Col.3, lines 22-66 – the positive interdigitations 68 and negative interdigitations 72 are interdigitated electrical conductors thus form the interdigital electrode structure which is configured to generate an electrical signal in the form of current flow in response to movement of the vanes 62 on the rotor 60 relative to the stator 64);
wherein the interdigital electrode structure comprises a first electrode (68) and a second electrode (72) on a common substrate (67, see Fig. 5 and Col.6, lines 11-34 – interdigitations 68 together form a first electrode and interdigitations 72 together form a second electrode form on a common surface area 67 interpreted as the substrate as it provides an insulator between the two electrodes), wherein the first electrode (68) and the second electrode (72) each comprise a comb-like electrode structure (examiner notes a comb-like electrode structure is being interpreted as a structure that has more than one projection that resembles a comb, see Fig. 5 – each of the interdigitations 68 forming the first electrode and the interdigitations 72 forming the second electrode have a plurality of radially oriented projections that resemble a comb oriented radially), wherein free ends of the comb-like electrode structures face towards each other and are arranged in an intersecting non-contacting relation to each other in a common plane (examiner is interpreting this limitation as the free ends of the projections of each first and second electrode are oriented to extend in the direction of the opposite free end such that they are arranged with least a portion of the length of the first electrode overlaps with at least a portion of the length of the second electrode but in a non-contacting manner, see Fig. 5 – the free ends of the interdigitations 68 forming the first electrode are oriented to extend in the direction of the opposite free ends of the interdigitations 72 forming the second electrode and are arranged with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 68 overlapping with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 72 in a non-contacting manner).
Since Utermoehlen discloses an inductance rotational sensor for determining angular position of a first member that rotates relative to a second member, and Rosswurm discloses a capacitive rotational sensor for determining angular position of a first member that rotates relative to a second member, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the inductive rotational sensor taught by Utermoehlen with the capacitive rotational sensor of Rosswurm. Both inductive and capacitive rotational sensors are types of rotational sensors that are known in the art, and one of ordinary skill could have substituted the known inductive rotational sensor for the known capacitive rotational sensor. The results of said substitution would have been predictable. Examiner notes Bauer discloses a rotation sensor (86 in Fig. 5) for use in determining angular position of a first member that rotates relative to a second member in an injection pen (10, see Fig. 1, and para. 0085). As evidenced by Bauer, an inductive rotational sensor and capacitive rotational sensor are both known, alternative rotational sensors in the art for measuring changes in fields for drug delivery devices (see para. 0078). In combination, the first member (204) of Utermoehlen comprising the at least one signal generator in the form of interference unit (118) will be substituted with the circuit board (61) of Rosswurm containing the rotor vanes (62), the second member (104) of Utermoehlen comprising the at least one sensor in the form of coil unit (116) will be substituted with the circuit board (65) containing interdigitations (68, 72), and the electronic circuitry of the microcontroller of Utermoehlen using inductance to determine angular position will be substituted with the electronic circuitry (81) in Fig. 6 using capacitance to determine angular position.
Regarding claim 32, modified Utermoehlen discloses injection device of claim 31 as discussed above, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 32) wherein the substrate (67) is a planar substrate (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 – Fig. 1 shows an exemplary embodiment of the rotor and stator which having disc-like structures, thus the substrate 67 in Fig. 5 is planar), and wherein the at least one sensor (68, 72) is arranged on the planar substrate and the interdigital electrode structure is printed or coated on the planar substrate (see Fig. 5, examiner notes the limitation printed is being interpreted under BRI as impressing something in or on as defined by Merriam-Webster, see Col.6, lines 11-34 – the interdigitations 68 and 72 are etched onto the planar substrate 67 such that they are impressed into the planar substrate 67 and thus printed).
Regarding claim 33, modified Utermoehlen discloses the injection device of claim 31, as discussed above. In modified Utermoehlen, Rosswurm discloses (Claim 33) further comprising a printed circuit board (65) and wherein the interdigital electrode structure of the at least one sensor (68, 72) is arranged on the printed circuit board (65, see Col.6, lines 11-34 – interdigitations 68 and 72 are printed on circuit board 65 thus making it a printed circuit board).
Utermoehlen discloses the processor (“microcontroller” in para. 0060) which is arranged on printed circuit board (200) which also bears the at least one sensor in the form of coil unit (116, see para. 0060). Thus, in combination, the circuit board (200) of Utermoehlen is being substituted with the circuit board (65) of Rosswurm while maintaining the processor on the circuit board of Rosswurm.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utermoehlen in Rosswurm and as evidenced by Bauer as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Nyfors (U.S Patent Pub. No. 2010/0145636 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Utermoehlen teaches the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17, as discussed above.
However, modified Utermoehlen fails to disclose (Claim 24) wherein the at least one signal generator comprises a signal generating portion made of a material having a relative permittivity larger than 3. Examiner notes Rosswurm discloses the signal generator as the rotor vanes (62) which are conductive vanes etched into the surface of circuit board (63, see Col.5, lines 58-61).
The invention of Nyfors discloses a dielectric resonator sensor which uses a dielectric material to cause a measurable change in an electromagnetic field; however, the sensor system would have been reasonably pertinent and one in the art would have consulted such art and applied its teaching when faced with solving the problem of sensing systems using dielectric materials. Nyfors teaches (Claim 24) wherein the at least one signal generator (4) comprises a signal generating portion made of a material having a relative permittivity larger than 3 (see Fig. 1-4, Abstract, and – 0031-0035 and the surface 4 of the dielectric resonate sensor 3 is being interpreted as the signal generator with its material being the signal generator portion, the electromagnetic field in the form of the fringing field 5 is produced by and extends from surface 4 and is affected by the permittivity of the material of the surface 4, the electrodes 18 and 19 of sensor 3 would be interpreted as the sensor as they measure the resulting resonance frequency from the fringing field, see para. 0043 – the end surface 4 may be made from a dielectric material such as various ceramics like alumina with a permittivity of 10, zirconia with a permittivity of 35, barium titanate or titanium dioxide with a permittivity of ~100, PEEK with a permittivity of 3.25, or any suitable material with a permittivity that gives a desired resonant frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor vanes taught by modified Utermoehlen to incorporate the dielectric material as taught by Nyfors. Nyfors teaches a sensing arrangement that uses a dielectric material which can be chosen to produce a desired resonant frequency based on the permittivity of the material such that ceramics or various plastic materials may be mechanically robust enough, chemically resistant, and provide the desired permittivity (see para. 0043). When applied to the capacitive rotational sensor of Rosswurm, a dielectric material having a desired permittivity allows for direct control of capacitance and energy storage capability of the capacitor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Rosswurm (U.S Patent No. 5012237) and Okumura et al. (W.O Patent Pub. No. 2016190040 A1, “Okumura”).
Rosswurm discloses an angle resolver for a rotor and stator device (see Abstract). The angle resolver (10 in Fig. 4-6) comprises a rotor (60 in Fig. 4) and stator (64 in Fig. 5), wherein both the rotor (60) and stator (64) are formed as circuit boards with electrodes having etched conductive interdigitations (interdigitations 62 on rotor 60 in Fig. 4 and positive interdigitations 68 and negative interdigitations 72 on stator 64 in Fig. 5). The interdigitations (68, 72) on the stator (64) are interpreted as the sensor and the vanes (62) on the rotor (60) are interpreted as the signal generators (see Col.3, lines 20-66). The interdigitations (68, 72) of the sensor form an interdigital electrode structure wherein the interdigitations (68) form a first comb-like electrode which is a structure that has more than one projection that resembles a comb, and the interdigitations (72) form a second comb-like electrode as interpreted above. Wherein, the free ends of the interdigitations 68 forming the first electrode are oriented to extend in the direction of the opposite free ends of the interdigitations 72 forming the second electrode and are arranged with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 68 overlapping with at least a portion of the length of interdigitations 72 in a non-contacting manner. While modified Rosswurm discloses the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17 as discussed above, the arrangement of Rosswurm is not disclosed as generating magnetic field that is modified. Rather, Rosswurm relies on electrostatic fields and capacitance and modifying Rosswurm to use magnetic principles would render it inoperable for its intended use.
Okumura discloses a rotation detector that can calculate a rotation angle of a rotating body based on a magnetic signal (see Abstract). Okumura comprises the rotation detector (1 in Fig. 2) comprising a first member (20 in Fig. 2) comprising the magnetic elements (31a in Fig. 3-4) which is rotatable relative to a second member (10) in the form of a magnet. While the magnetic elements (31a) would be equivalent to the at least one sensor having a meandering electrode structure as seen in Fig. 4a and 4b, Okumura fails to disclose that these magnetic elements (31a) are disposed on the stationary second member and rather has it opposite. Further, the magnetic elements (31a) are meandering, single electrodes rather than the interdigital electrode structure of claim 17. Thus, Okumura fails to disclose the interdigital electrode structure of claim 17.
Thus, there is no reference that discloses or teaches the rotation sensing arrangement of claim 17 having the claimed interdigital electrode structure which is configured to generate a magnetic field for the signal generator to modify as claimed in claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA MARIE TURKOWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-4680. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Thurs, 7:00 AM – 4:00 PM 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/KAYLA M. TURKOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/COURTNEY B FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783