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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole.”
The term “when” suggests that there is a time when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are NOT the same as the first angle of the first pole, meaning that the second and third angles are variable with respect to the first angle. There is no support in the original specification for the second and third angles being variable over time with respect to the first angle. Accordingly, claim 16 contains new matter.
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending claim 16 to recite “wherein the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value due to the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth being the same as the first angle of the first pole.”
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole.”
The term “when” suggests that there is a time when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are NOT the same as the first angle of the first pole, meaning that the second and third angles are variable with respect to the first angle. As best understood by the Examiner, the instant disclosure does not disclose that the apparatus has structures capable of varying the first through third angles with respect to time, and the instant disclosure discloses that the elements forming the first through third angles have dimensionally fixed structures. Accordingly, the term “when,” cited above, renders claim 16 unclear because it is unclear how the second and third angles would be able to change relative to the first angle with respect to time.
For the purpose of examination, claim 16 will be considered to include an interpretation wherein the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value due to the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth being the same as the first angle of the first pole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (WO 2018055806 A1, hereinafter Murakami) in view of Reichert (US 20080258715 A1) and Ikeda et al. (JP 2018109571 A, hereinafter Ikeda).
As to claim 1, Murakami teaches a sensing device comprising:
a stator (comprising at least yoke member 21);
a rotor (comprising at least magnet 20) including a magnet 20; and
a sensor 23-24
wherein:
the stator includes a first stator tooth 211 (i.e. a yoke), a second stator tooth 212 (i.e. a second yoke), and a collector 22 (figs. 2 and 3) disposed between the first stator tooth and the second stator tooth (as shown in fig. 2);
[AltContent: textbox (AA1)][AltContent: textbox (AA2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FS4)][AltContent: textbox (FS3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (FS1)][AltContent: textbox (FS2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (222A4, 222CS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (221SA, 221CS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (222TA,
222FS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (221FA,
221FS)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]the collector includes a first collector 221 and a second collector 222;
PNG
media_image1.png
461
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first collector 221 includes a first area 221FA (fig. 3 above) including a flat surface 221FS (fig. 3 above; note that the flat surface 221FS corresponds to the surface of the whole first area 221FA) and a second area 221SA (fig. 3 above) including a curved surface 221CS (fig. 3 above);
the second collector 222 includes a third area 222TA (fig. 3 above) including a flat surface 222FS (fig. 3 above; note that the flat surface 222FS corresponds to the surface of the whole third area 222TA) and a fourth area 222A4 (fig. 3 above) including a curved surface 222CS (fig. 3 above); and
the first area 221FA and the third area 222TA are disposed to correspond to each other (one is nested in the other, and they are close to each other – fig. 3),
the flat surface 221FS of the first area includes a first flat surface FS1 (fig. 3 above) and a second flat surface FS2 (fig. 3 above),
the flat surface of the third area includes a third flat surface FS3 (fig. 3 above) and a fourth flat surface FS4 (fig. 3 above),
the first flat surface and the second flat surface are disposed to form an angle AA1 (fig. 3 above),
the third flat surface and the fourth flat surface are disposed to form another angle AA2 (fig. 3 above), and
the sensor 23-24 is disposed between the first flat surface and the second flat surface and is disposed between the third flat surface and the fourth flat surface (fig. 3),
wherein a radius of the first collector is greater than a radius of the second collector (see fig. 3; the Examiner notes that the collectors are semicircular and semicircles have radii).
Murakami does not teach wherein
wherein the second area and the fourth area each includes protrusions, and wherein the protrusions are disposed to extend downward from a lower end of the second area and a lower end of the fourth area, respectively,
wherein the first collector and the second collector each has a closed ring structure, and
when viewed in the axial direction, the protrusion formed in the second area is positioned opposite the sensor and the first area, and the protrusion formed in the fourth area is positioned opposite the sensor and the third area.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
652
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Pr)]
Reichert teaches wherein each of first and second collectors 22’, 24’ include at least one protrusion Pr (fig. 9 above) on the bottom of at least one end thereof, and wherein the protrusions are disposed to extend downward from a lower end of the curved part of the first collector and a lower end a curved part of the second collector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Murakami such that the ends of the first and second collectors are configured such that each of first and second collectors include at least one protrusion on the bottom of at least one end thereof, and wherein the protrusions are disposed to extend downward from a lower end of the curved part of the first collector (corresponding with the second area) and a lower end a curved part (corresponding with the fourth area) of the second collector, as taught by Reichert, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing ends of the collectors for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected (additionally or alternatively, such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the ends of the collectors for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected).
[AltContent: textbox (GR)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (E2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (E1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
706
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ikeda teaches a collector comprising a first collector 51 and second collector 52 (fig. 6), wherein the collector is formed so that one end portion E1 (fig. 6 above) and an other end portion E2 (fig. 6 above) of the collector are connected in contact with each other; and
the one end portion and the other end portion are disposed to overlap each other in a first direction (of width W in fig. 6),
wherein the first collector has a closed ring structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus so that the first and second collectors are formed with ends that overlap in the width direction, wherein the first collector has a closed ring structure and the second collector has a closed ring structure, as taught by Ikeda since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of forming collectors for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Murakami as modified teaches when viewed in the axial direction, the protrusion Pr (Reichert) formed in the second area (at one of the ends of the first collector) is positioned opposite the sensor and the first area (in light of the teachings of Reichert and Ikeda, wherein Ikeda teaches that the ends of the collectors are opposite to portions 513, 523 near at least one sensor 6, and the ends of the collectors have protrusions Pr in light of Reichert), and the protrusion Pr (Reichert) formed in the fourth area is positioned opposite the sensor and the third area (in light of the teachings of Reichert and Ikeda, wherein Ikeda teaches that the ends of the collectors are opposite to portions 513, 523 near at least one sensor 6, and the ends of the collectors have protrusions Pr in light of Reichert).
As to claim 2, Murakami as modified teaches a housing 28 (Murakami) in which the collector is disposed (in Murakami , see fig. 4 and ¶14),
wherein the housing includes grooves (being the branched-out portions of overall groove 285 holding the collector as taught in ¶14 of Murakami) into which the protrusions and the collector are inserted (¶14 and figs. 3-4 of Murakami; fig. 4 of Murakami illustrates the collectors inserted into the grooves, as explained by ¶14; accordingly, in the modified Murakami, the protrusions and collector are inserted into the grooves).
As to claim 3, Murakami teaches wherein the flat surfaces of the first area are disposed within (i.e. substantially within) an angle between two ends of the flat surfaces of the third area with respect to a center of the collector (see annotated fig. 3 above, which shows a substantial overlap in angular position between the first and second flat surfaces).
[AltContent: textbox (Instant fig. 28)][AltContent: textbox (Instant fig. 1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sensor 500 location)]
PNG
media_image4.png
818
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
612
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Instant fig. 27)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Hole 701)]
PNG
media_image6.png
646
702
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Murakami teaches a housing 28 in which the collector is disposed (¶14 and fig. 4), wherein the housing includes a hole 282 through which the sensor passes (instant ¶209 discloses “The sensor 500 may pass through the hole 701 of the housing 700 to be disposed on an upper surface of the housing 700.”; as shown in figs. 1, 27 and 28 of the instant specification, the sensor 500 is installed inside the housing between the collectors 810, 820, not in the hole 701; accordingly, as best understood by the Examiner, the sensor is passed through the hole 701 during production of the sensor, before being installed in the annular portion of the housing near the collectors; therefore, it can be interpreted that Murakami’s sensing device is able to have been made by passing the sensor 23-24 through the hole 282 prior to installing the sensor where it will be located for detecting a magnetic field).
As to claim 16, Murakami teaches wherein the magnet comprises a first pole and a second pole alternately disposed in a circumferential direction (i.e., the magnet has alternating north and south poles - ¶9),
wherein the first stator tooth 211 comprises a first body 211a, a first tooth (a first one of teeth 211b - ¶10), and a third tooth (another of teeth 212b), and the second stator tooth 212 comprises a second body 212a and a second tooth 212b,
wherein a first angle is formed by two ends of the first pole with respect to a center of the stator (magnet 20 is annular and has 16 poles in the circumferential direction - ¶9; accordingly, a first angle is formed by two ends of the first pole with respect to a center of the stator, with one of the poles serving as the claimed first pole),
wherein a second angle is formed by two ends of the first tooth with respect to the center of the stator (see ¶10, which teaches that the interval between the teeth of the first stator tooth, which are set at equal intervals in the circumferential direction, are substantially the same as the circumferential width of teeth 211b),
wherein a third angle is formed by two ends of the second tooth with respect to the center of the stator (see ¶10, which teaches “Eight second claws 212b are provided at equal intervals in the circumferential direction. The interval between adjacent second claw portions 212b is formed to be approximately the same as or slightly wider than the circumferential width of the second claw portions 212b”), and
wherein the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole (¶10 teaches that the first and second stator teeth collectively comprise 16 claw portions 211a, 212b that have at least substantially the same circumferential width, meaning that the second and third angles are the same or substantially the same, and also meaning that the number of claw portions 211b, 212b matches the number of poles of the magnet; accordingly, the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are substantially the same as the first angle of the first pole; accordingly, a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth substantially reaches a maximum value as claimed, due the at least substantial matching of the claimed angles; alternatively, as a result of an applied torque, the amount of each tooth facing a respective magnet pole changes, which changes an amount of flux in the respective stator teeth, resulting in a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaching a maximum value while the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole; alternatively, instant ¶164 discloses that setting the second and third angles to be the same as the first angles maximizes the flux in the first and second stator teeth 130, 140 relative to alternative embodiments in which the second and third angles are not the same as the first angle; accordingly, in the modified Murakami, it can be considered that the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value, compared with alternative unrecited embodiments in which the second and third angles are not the same as the first angle and which are designed not to have the maximum value, when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole - see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 17, Murakami teaches wherein the first stator tooth 211 includes a first body 211a and a plurality of first teeth (i.e., two or more of teeth 211b) protruding from the first body and the second stator tooth 212 includes a second body 212a and a plurality of second teeth (two or more of teeth 212b) protruding from the second body,
wherein, the first teeth and the second teeth are positioned to overlap in the radial direction (since the first teeth and second teeth are alternately arranged in a circumferential direction in at least substantially equal intervales, as taught by ¶10, multiple ones of the first teeth 211b overlap multiple ones of the second teeth 212b along a direction that can be considered the axial direction, which can be an axial direction of a structure that is not recited), and
wherein the first body and the second body each has a closed ring shape (¶10 teaches that the first and second bodies have annular shapes, and ¶11 teaches that the first and second bodies circular ring portions), and the first collector and the second collector each has a closed ring shape (as established in the rejection of claim 1 above), such that an external magnetic field directed radially toward the sensor is guided along the first body, and an external magnetic field penetrating the first body is guided along the first collector (an external magnetic field directed radially toward the sensor is capable of being guided along the first body, and an external magnetic field penetrating the first body is capable of being guided along the first collector).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Reichert and Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lee (US 20160332665 A1).
As to claim 4, Murakami teaches wherein:
the first stator tooth 211 (i.e. yoke 211) and the second stator tooth 212 (i.e. second yoke 212) are disposed to overlap in a radial direction from a center of the stator (fig. 2);
[AltContent: textbox (EP)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2)]
PNG
media_image7.png
110
302
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Ax)]
PNG
media_image7.png
110
302
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the first stator tooth includes a first body 211a (being a ring-shaped part - ¶12 and fig. 2), a plurality of first teeth 211b (note that the plurality of first teeth is interpreted to include only 7 of the 8 claw portions 211b - ¶10) protruding from the first body (¶10-11 and ¶24), and a plurality of first extension portions EP (fig. 2 above; these are portions of the first teeth 211b that are “bent inwardly from a first annular portion 211a” as described in ¶10) extending from the first body;
the second stator tooth 212 includes a plurality of second teeth 212b (¶10 and fig. 2); and
the first extension portion is disposed to overlap the magnet in an axial direction Ax (fig. 2 above; the claimed axial direction is not defined by a part of the claimed sensing device; accordingly, the direction Ax of overlap is capable of being an axial direction of a structure that is not part of the claimed sensing device).
Murakami does not teach wherein one of the plurality of first teeth 211b is disposed to overlap one of the plurality of second teeth 212b in the radial direction.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (P)][AltContent: textbox (FP2)][AltContent: textbox (FP1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image8.png
820
474
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches a torque sensor (title) comprising a first stator tooth 20a and a second stator tooth 20b, wherein stator teeth comprise radially flared portions FP1-FP2 that include small projections P,
wherein the projections P of one of the stator teeth overlap the large teeth 24 (¶39) of the other of the stator teeth along the radial direction (i.e. substantially the radial direction - see figs. 3-4; alternatively, it can be considered that they overlap along the radial direction, when the device is viewed along the axial direction passing through the central axis of the stator holder 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to augment at least the first stator tooth of Murakami to have a flared portion with small projections as taught by Lee so as to increase the rigidity and strength of at least the first stator tooth.
Murakami as modified teaches wherein the small projections P (Lee) are included in the plurality of first teeth of the first stator tooth, and
one P (Lee) of the plurality of first teeth 211b (Murakami), P (Lee) is disposed to overlap one of the plurality of second teeth 212b (Murakami) in the radial direction (i.e. substantially the radial direction - see figs. 3-4 of Lee; alternatively, it can be considered that they overlap along the radial direction, when the device is viewed along the radial direction passing through the axis of the torque sensor).
As to claim 5, Murakami teaches wherein:
the first stator tooth includes a third tooth (being the 8th of the 8 claw portions 211b - ¶10); and
the third tooth protrudes from the first extension portion EP and is disposed to overlap the magnet in the radial direction (¶11 and fig. 2).
Claim 16 is rejected a second time below in case Applicant argues that Murakami does not teach that the first angle is equal to the second and third angles.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Reichert and Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Maehara (US 20110167928 A1).
As to claim 16, Murakami teaches wherein the magnet comprises a first pole and a second pole alternately disposed in a circumferential direction (i.e., the magnet has alternating north and south poles - ¶9),
wherein the first stator tooth 211 comprises a first body 211a, a first tooth (a first one of teeth 211b - ¶10), and a third tooth (another of teeth 212b), and the second stator tooth 212 comprises a second body 212a and a second tooth 212b,
wherein a first angle is formed by two ends of the first pole with respect to a center of the stator (magnet 20 is annular and has 16 poles in the circumferential direction - ¶9; accordingly, a first angle is formed by two ends of the first pole with respect to a center of the stator, with one of the poles serving as the claimed first pole),
wherein a second angle is formed by two ends of the first tooth with respect to the center of the stator (see ¶10, which teaches that the interval between the teeth of the first stator tooth, which are set at equal intervals in the circumferential direction, are substantially the same as the circumferential width of teeth 211b),
wherein a third angle is formed by two ends of the second tooth with respect to the center of the stator (see ¶10, which teaches “Eight second claws 212b are provided at equal intervals in the circumferential direction. The interval between adjacent second claw portions 212b is formed to be approximately the same as or slightly wider than the circumferential width of the second claw portions 212b”), and
wherein the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole (¶10 teaches that the first and second stator teeth collectively comprise 16 claw portions 211a, 212b that have at least substantially the same circumferential width, meaning that the second and third angles are the same or substantially the same, and also meaning that the number of claw portions 211b, 212b matches the number of poles of the magnet; accordingly, the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are substantially the same as the first angle of the first pole; accordingly, a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth substantially reaches a maximum value as claimed, due the at least substantial matching of the claimed angles; alternatively, as a result of an applied torque, the amount of each tooth facing a respective magnet pole changes, which changes an amount of flux in the respective stator teeth, resulting in a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaching a maximum value while the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole; alternatively, instant ¶164 discloses that setting the second and third angles to be the same as the first angles maximizes the flux in the first and second stator teeth 130, 140 relative to alternative embodiments in which the second and third angles are not the same as the first angle; accordingly, in the modified Murakami, it can be considered that the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value, compared with alternative unrecited embodiments in which the second and third angles are not the same as the first angle and which are designed not to have the maximum value, when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole - see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
If Applicant argues that Murakami does not teach that the first angle is equal to the second and third angles,
Maehara teaches a magnet with poles formed at equal angular intervals (¶fig. 2B and ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Murakami such that the magnetic poles are formed at equal angular intervals as taught by Maehara so as to simplify the design of the device, in comparison with a scenario in which the poles are potentially formed at a plurality of different angular intervals.
Murakami as modified teaches wherein the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole (¶10 of Murakami teaches that the first and second stator teeth collectively comprise 16 claw portions 211a, 212b that have at least substantially the same circumferential width, meaning that the second and third angles are the same or substantially the same, and also meaning that the number of claw portions 211b, 212b matches the number of poles of the magnet; accordingly, the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are a least substantially the same as the first angle of the first pole; accordingly, a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth substantially reaches a maximum value as claimed, due the at least substantial matching of the claimed angles; alternatively, as a result of an applied torque, the amount of each tooth facing a respective magnet pole changes, which changes an amount of flux in the respective stator teeth, resulting in a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaching a maximum value while the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole; alternatively, instant ¶164 discloses that setting the second and third angles to be the same as the first angles maximizes the flux in the first and second stator teeth 130, 140 relative to alternative embodiments in which the second and third angles are not the same as the first angle; accordingly, in the modified Murakami, it can be considered that the first tooth and the second tooth are configured such that a magnitude of a flux of the first and second stator teeth reaches a maximum value, compared with alternative unrecited embodiments in which the second and third angles are not the same as the first angle and which are designed not to have the maximum value, when the second angle of the first tooth and the third angle of the second tooth are same as the first angle of the first pole - see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
Claim 17 is rejected a second time below in case Applicant argues that Murakami as modified does not teach wherein the first body and the second body each has a closed ring shape.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Reichert and Ikeda as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ohnishi et al. (US 20190195709 A1, hereinafter Ohnishi).
As to claim 17, Murakami teaches wherein the first stator tooth 211 includes a first body 211a and a plurality of first teeth (i.e., two or more of teeth 211b) protruding from the first body and the second stator tooth 212 includes a second body 212a and a plurality of second teeth (two or more of teeth 212b) protruding from the second body,
wherein, the first teeth and the second teeth are positioned to overlap in the radial direction (since the first teeth and second teeth are alternately arranged in a circumferential direction in at least substantially equal intervales, as taught by ¶10, multiple ones of the first teeth 211b overlap multiple ones of the second teeth 212b along a direction that can be considered the axial direction, which can be an axial direction of a structure that is not recited), and
wherein the first body and the second body each has a closed ring shape (¶10 teaches that the first and second bodies have annular shapes, and ¶11 teaches that the first and second bodies circular ring portions), and the first collector and the second collector each has a closed ring shape (as established in the rejection of claim 1 above), such that an external magnetic field directed radially toward the sensor is guided along the first body, and an external magnetic field penetrating the first body is guided along the first collector (an external magnetic field directed radially toward the sensor is capable of being guided along the first body, and an external magnetic field penetrating the first body is capable of being guided along the first collector).
If Applicant argues that Murakami as modified does not teach wherein the first body and the second body each has a closed ring shape,
Ohnishi teaches first and second stator teeth 42a-42b comprising first and second bodies 42a1, 42b1, respectively, that have closed ring shapes (fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Murakami as modified such that the first and second bodies have closed ring shapes as taught by Ohnishi, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing first and second bodies for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) for rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102005011196 A1 teaches, in figs. 12a-b, all the teeth of a first yoke overlapping all the teeth, respectively, of a second yoke in radial directions
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853