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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/2026 has been entered.
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 10-11, 13-15, 17, 19-20 are 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 10 recites “wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections.”
There is no support in the original specification for the concept that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections. Accordingly, claim 10 contains new matter.
Claim 17 recites “wherein each the at least one magnetic field sensors assigned to the respective axial partial sections is arranged axially centrally with respect to the respective axial partial section.” However, this contradicts claim 10, which recites “wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections,” which means that the sensors are away from the centers of the axial partial portions. Accordingly, there is no support in the original specification for the combination of above-cited limitations in claims 10 and 17.
Claims 11, 13-15, and 19 contain new matter for depending from claim 10.
Claim 20 contains new matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 10.
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 17 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 17 recites “wherein each the at least one magnetic field sensors assigned to the respective axial partial sections is arranged axially centrally with respect to the respective axial partial section.” However, this contradicts claim 10, which recites “wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections.” Lines 10-15 of pg. 8 state that this spatial arrangement is such that the sensors are “essentially at the shared boundary between the two axial partial sections 4a, 4b.”
Accordingly, in light of the specification, it is unclear how the sensors can be arranged axially centrally with respect to the axial partial sections, while also being arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections (i.e., NOT axially centrally arranged with respect to the axial partial sections).
For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the sensors are located in the vicinity of the partial axial sections.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites “wherein each the at least one magnetic field sensors assigned to the respective axial partial sections is arranged axially centrally with respect to the respective axial partial section.” However, this contradicts claim 10, which recites “wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections.”
Accordingly, the relative locations of the sensors in claim 17 are different than in claim 10, meaning that claim 17 does not contain all the limitations of claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 10-11, 13-15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raths Ponce et al. (US 20180231425 A1, hereinafter ‘425) in view of Garshelis (US 5520059 A).
As to claim 10, ‘425 teaches (see ¶33-34 and ¶36-38, as well as fig. 1) a system for torque measurement at a drive of an e-bike (the drive of the e-bike is directed to an intended use of the system and the prior art system is capable of being used for the drive of an e-bike), comprising:
at least one shaft 10, which is rotatable about an axis, magnetized in at least one axial partial section 20-21, and onto which a torque to be measured can be applied (¶36-37);
at least one magnetic field sensor 30-31 arranged outside the shaft, and configured to measure, at least two-dimensionally (¶33 and 36-37), a magnetic field and which is arranged in relation to the magnetized at least one axial partial section in such a way that, when the shaft rotates about the axis, the at least one magnetic field sensor measures a change of the magnetic field due to the magnetostrictive effect in the magnetized at least on axial partial section when the torque acts on the shaft (¶33-34 and ¶36-37); and
an evaluation unit 40 (see at least ¶38 and claims 7 and 10 of ‘425) connected to the at least one magnetic field sensor, and configured to determine (¶38) a torque acting on the shaft based on measured values of the magnetic field,
wherein the shaft includes at least two axial partial sections 20-21, which are magnetized (¶36-37).
‘425 does not explicitly teach wherein the at least two axial partial sections 20-21 are arranged directly adjacent to each other,
wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections.
Garshelis teaches a system for torque measurement (title; fig. 25) at a drive of an e-bike (the drive of the e-bike is directed to an intended use of the system and the prior art system is capable of being used for the drive of an e-bike), comprising:
at least one shaft 108, which is rotatable about an axis onto which a torque to be measured can be applied;
at least one magnetic field sensor (two magnetic field sensors 106, 106) arranged outside the shaft, and configured to measure, at least two-dimensionally (sensors 106, 106 are magnetic field vector sensors – see col. 22 lines 30-31; also see the discussion of magnetic field vector sensors in col. 7 lines 8-14 and col. 10 lines 37-42), a magnetic field and which is arranged in relation to the magnetized at least one axial partial section 104-105 in such a way that, when the shaft rotates about the axis (see the abstract; alternatively, the prior art shaft is capable of being rotated as a torque is applied), the at least one magnetic field sensor measures a change of the magnetic field due to the magnetostrictive effect in the magnetized at least on (i.e., “one”) axial partial section when the torque acts on the shaft (see col. 22 lines 22-53); and
wherein the at least two axial partial sections 104-105 are arranged directly adjacent to each other,
wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections 104-105 are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections (see fig. 25 and col. 22 lines 43-53).
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 ‘425 wherein the at least two axial partial sections are arranged directly adjacent to each other, wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections, as taught by Garshelis, so as to strengthen the magnetic field (and/or detection thereof) that is used to indicate the torque (in Garshelis, see col. 22 lines 43-53).
As to claim 11, ‘425 teaches wherein the magnetic field sensor is configured to measure the magnetic field three-dimensionally (¶33 and 36-37).
As to claim 13, ‘425 teaches wherein the at least two axial partial sections have different magnetizations (¶36-37).
As to claim 14, ‘425 teaches wherein the at least two axial partial sections have opposite magnetizations (¶36-37).
As to claim 15, ‘425 as modified teaches wherein the at least one magnetic field sensor includes multiple magnetic field sensors 30-31 (‘425), at least one of the magnetic field sensors being assigned to each respective partial section of the at least two axial partial sections 20-21 (‘425; the prior art magnetic field sensors are capable of being conceptually assigned to each respective partial section of the at least two axial partial sections; for example, elements 20, 30 and 21, 31 of ‘425 can be considered pairs of structures).
As to claim 17, ‘425 teaches wherein each the at least one magnetic field sensors assigned to the respective axial partial sections is arranged axially centrally with respect to the respective axial partial section (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim).
As to claim 20, ‘425 teaches a method for torque measurement at a drive of an e-bike (¶40 teaches that the torque sensor is implemented at the “bottom bracket” of an e-bike, which is well-known as being at the drive of the e-bike), comprising the following steps:
magnetizing at least one axial partial section 20-21 (¶36-37 teaches that the shaft has been magnetized as claimed) of at least one shaft 10 which is rotatable about an axis (¶17);
rotating the shaft about the axis (¶17);
at least two-dimensionally measuring a change of a magnetic field in the magnetized at least one axial partial section using at least one magnetic field sensor 30-31 (¶33 and ¶36-37), the change of the magnetic field being due to a magnetostrictive effect during the rotation of the shaft about the axis (¶33-34 and ¶36-37);
evaluating measured values of the at least one sensor using an evaluation unit 40 (¶38 and claims 7 and 10 of ‘425); and
determining a torque acting on the shaft based on the evaluated measured values (¶38 and claims 7 and 10 of ‘425),
wherein the shaft includes at least two axial partial sections 20-21, which are magnetized (¶36-37),
wherein the at least two axial partial sections 20-21 are arranged adjacent to each other (fig. 1).
‘425 does not explicitly teach wherein sensors of the multiple magnetic field sensors assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections.
Garshelis teaches a system for torque measurement (title; fig. 25) at a drive of an e-bike (the drive of the e-bike is directed to an intended use of the system and the prior art system is capable of being used for the drive of an e-bike), comprising:
at least one shaft 108, which is rotatable about an axis onto which a torque to be measured can be applied;
at least one magnetic field sensor (two magnetic field sensors 106, 106) arranged outside the shaft, and configured to measure, at least two-dimensionally (sensors 106, 106 are magnetic field vector sensors – see col. 22 lines 30-31; also see the discussion of magnetic field vector sensors in col. 7 lines 8-14 and col. 10 lines 37-42), a magnetic field and which is arranged in relation to the magnetized at least one axial partial section 104-105 in such a way that, when the shaft rotates about the axis (see the abstract; alternatively, the prior art shaft is capable of being rotated as a torque is applied), the at least one magnetic field sensor measures a change of the magnetic field due to the magnetostrictive effect in the magnetized at least on (i.e., “one”) axial partial section when the torque acts on the shaft (see col. 22 lines 22-53); and
wherein the at least two axial partial sections 104-105 are arranged directly adjacent to each other,
wherein sensors of the at least one magnetic field sensor assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections 104-105 are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections (see fig. 25 and col. 22 lines 43-53).
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 ‘425 wherein sensors of the multiple magnetic field sensors assigned to at least two adjacent partial sections are arranged closer to one another in an axial direction than a sum of the halves of axial extensions of the at least two adjacent partial sections such that each of the sensors detects magnetic field components originating from both adjacent magnetized axial partial sections, as taught by Garshelis, so as to strengthen the magnetic field (and/or detection thereof) that is used to indicate the torque (in Garshelis, see col. 22 lines 43-53).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘425 in view of Garshelis as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 108226824 A, hereinafter Zhao).
As to claim 19, ‘425 as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the at least one magnetic field sensor is an ASIC.
Zhao teaches the concept of at least one magnetic field sensor that is an ASIC (abstract, ¶45 and fig. 6).
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 ‘425 as modified such that each magnetic field sensor is an ASIC as taught by Zhao since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of providing magnetic field sensors for another to minimize design complexity and/or cost (in Zhao, see ¶12 and ¶28).
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
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