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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/11/25 has been entered.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. See MPEP 2304.01(c).
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 1-16 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 1 has been amended to recite that the transmitter element is radially within the sensor chip. As shown in the figures, the transmitter element is completely outside of the sensor chip.
Accordingly, claim 1 contains new matter. The Examiner notes that this rejection can be overcome by instead reciting that the sensor chip and transmitter element are overlapped along the axial direction of the first steering shaft.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the magnet is formed with a circular shape.” As best understood by the Examiner, claim 11 is directed to one of figs. 5-6, in which the magnet has a curved shape. However, figs. 5-6 do not show the feature of “the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip,” which is now required by claim 1. In at least fig. 6, the transmitter element clearly extends beyond the sensor chip.
Accordingly, claim 11 contains new matter.
Claim 12 contains new matter for depending from claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2-10 and 13-16 contain new matter for depending from claim 1.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the transmitter element is radially within the sensor chip. As shown in the figures, the transmitter element is completely outside of the sensor chip.
Accordingly, it is unclear how the transmitter element is radially within the sensor chip. For the purpose of examination, it will be interpreted that the sensor chip and transmitter element are overlapped along the axial direction of the first steering shaft (see figs. 2-4).
Claims 2-16 are indefinite for depending from claim 1.
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) 1-4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peilloud et al. (US 5501110 A, hereinafter Peilloud) in view of Ohira et al. (US 20180154926 A1, hereinafter Ohira).
As to claim 1, Peilloud teaches a sensor for detecting a torque (fig. 1), the sensor comprising:
a first steering shaft 2,
a torsion element (a segment of shaft 2 with length L between shoulders 16, 24 – col. 3 lines 13-19), wherein the torsion element is configured to experience torque about an axis of rotation (col.3 lines 6-13),
a transmitter element 26a which can be mounted in a stationary manner relative to the first steering shaft (col. 2 lines 37-55 teach that the coder disk, on which the transmitter element 26a is fixed, as taught by col. 3 lines 23-27, is fixed with respect to the first steering shaft 2; also see the abstract) and configured to output a transmitting field (magnetic field – col. 3 lines 23-25) which can be varied in a peripheral direction aligned circumferentially around the axis of rotation (col. 3 lines 6-13 and col. 4 lines 13-29),
a sensor chip 27a configured to be mounted in a stationary manner (col. 3 lines 56-60 and col. 2 lines 46-55) and configured to output a measurement signal which is dependent on the transmitting field arriving at the sensor chip (col. 4 lines 13-29), and
wherein the sensor chip is arranged at a distance from the transmitter element, and wherein the transmitter element is radially within the sensor chip (i.e. the transmitter element and sensor chip are overlapped in the axial direction – see figs. 1 and 4; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim) such that a line parallel to the axis of rotation passes through the transmitter element and the sensor chip and such that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip (fig. 1 shows that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip in a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
Peilloud does not teach a second steering shaft,
a torsion element situated between the first steering shaft and the second steering shaft,
wherein the sensor chip 27a configured to be mounted in a stationary manner (col. 3 lines 56-60 and col. 2 lines 46-55) relative to the second steering shaft,
an evaluation device which is configured to output a sensor signal dependent on the torque on the basis of the measurement signal.
Ohira teaches a first steering shaft 22a (input shaft connected to a steering wheel - ¶50),
a second steering shaft 22b,
a torsion element 22c situated between the first steering shaft and the second steering shaft (fig. 2; also see ¶99 and ¶101),
a torque sensor 100, 19 (fig. 4) comprising an evaluation device 19 (¶118) which is configured to output a sensor signal dependent on the torque on the basis of a measurement signal (¶105).
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 Peilloud to use a steering shaft having a first shaft, a second shaft, and a torsion element between the shafts, as taught by Ohira since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of implementing a steering shaft enabling torque detection for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
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 Peilloud as modified have an evaluation device as taught by Ohira to provide a convenient way to derive torque from the sensor chip signal(s).
Peilloud as modified teaches wherein the sensor chip is configured to be mounted in a stationary manner relative to the second steering shaft (the sensor chip of the unmodified Peilloud is fixed to the output end of shaft 2; in the modified Peilloud, the sensor chip is fixed to the second shaft 22b, of Ohira, which is also at the output end).
If Applicant argues that Peilloud does not teach that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip, such an alleged difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious, as explained next.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the instant application, the paragraph bridging pgs. 4-5 states “In Fig. 2, the centres of these elements in the extension of the radial direction 23 were selected as the reference point for determining the radial ring distance 32 of the sensor chip 18 and the magnetic field transmitter element 16.” This means that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip in the radial direction of the steering shaft simply because the sensor chip is bigger along the radial direction, and there is no persuasive evidence that a claimed device having a sensor chip and transmitter element with such relative dimensions performs differently than the prior art device.
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 Peilloud as modified such that the sensor chip is relatively larger in the radial direction such that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip, since such a modification would have been an obvious change in dimension(s)/proportion(s) for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to claim 2, Peilloud teaches wherein the transmitter element is a magnet 26a which emits a magnetic field as the transmitting field, whereby the sensor chip is configured to output the measurement signal as a function of the magnetic field arriving at the sensor chip (fig. 5 and the paragraph bridging cols. 3-4).
As to claim 3, Peilloud teaches wherein the magnet is formed with a rectilinear shape (figs. 1-4 and the paragraph bridging cols. 3-4).
As to claim 4, Peilloud teaches that the magnet has a rectangular cross-section.
Peilloud as modified does not teach wherein the rectilinear shape of the magnet is the shape of a bar magnet.
Fig. 9 of Peilloud teaches a further embodiment in which the magnets are bar magnets.
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 Peilloud as modified such that the magnets are bar magnets as taught by fig. 9 of Peilloud since such modifications would be mere changes in the shapes of the magnets for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to claim 16, Peilloud as modified teaches wherein the torsion element 22c (Ohira) is elastic (¶101, Ohira).
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peilloud in view of Ohira as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Abele (US 20110252916 A1).
As to claim 5, Peilloud teaches wherein the sensor chip is movably arranged with respect to the bar magnet on a circular path leading around the axis of rotation (as described in the paragraph bridging cols. 3-4, the relative movement of the sensor chip with respect to the bar magnet is along tangential direction .theta.; since the relative motion is caused by twisting of the torsion element, this means the sensor chip moves along a circular path leading around the axis of rotation).
Pelloud as modified does not teach that the circular path, when viewed axially, intersects end edges of the bar magnet with a distance of intersection from an edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation, which is between 5% and 45% of a distance of the end edges (in Pelloud, the sensor chip is centered on the abutment of two separate magnets 126a, 127a; however, in the instant application, the sensor chip is centered with respect to the ends of a single magnet, resulting in the claimed proportions; accordingly, the modified Peilloud must be modified to use a single magnet, and then further modified so that the travel path of the sensor chip with respect to the single magnet meets the claimed limitations).
Abele teaches a torque sensor using a sensor chip 5 moving relative to a single magnet 3 (as opposed to a pair of magnets as taught in Peilloud).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Peilloud as modified such that in the place of each grouping, of a sensor chip and pair of magnets, there is a sensor chip that works with a single magnet, as taught by Abele, so as to reduce the number of parts in the apparatus.
Peilloud as modified still does not teach that the circular path, when viewed axially, intersects end edges of the bar magnet with a distance of intersection from an edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation, which is between 5% and 45% of a distance of the end edges
However, such a difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been an obvious change in dimensions/proportions of the prior art device, as explained next. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant application, line 37 of pg. 5 to line 32 of pg. 6 discloses that the claimed dimensions/proportions are for creating a linear relationship between the measurement signal 20 and the movement between the magnet and sensor chip. However, Pelloud already teaches a linear relationship between the measurement signal and the relative movement between the magnet and sensor chip. Specifically, Pelloud teaches, in figs. 4-5 and line 65 of col. 3 to line 21 of col. 4, that the relationship between the measurement signal and the relative movement of the sensor chip with respect to the magnet is linear within movement range 2I (shown in fig. 5). Accordingly, the claimed dimensions/proportions would not result in a device that performs differently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Peilloud as modified such that the circular path, when viewed axially, intersects end edges of the bar magnet with a distance of intersection from an edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation, which is between 5% and 45% of a distance of the end edges, since such a modification would have been an obvious change in the dimensions/proportions of the prior art device for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to claim 6, Peilloud as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the circular path, viewed axially in the region covering the bar magnet, has, from the point of view of an edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation, an extreme point which is spaced from the edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation by an extreme point distance of between 5% and 45%, of the distance between the edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation and the edge of the bar magnet directed away from the axis of rotation.
However, such a difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been an obvious change in dimensions/proportions of the prior art device, as explained next. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant application, line 37 of pg. 5 to line 32 of pg. 6 discloses that the claimed dimensions/proportions are for creating a linear relationship between the measurement signal 20 and the movement between the magnet and sensor chip. However, Pelloud already teaches a linear relationship between the measurement signal and the relative movement between the magnet and sensor chip. Specifically, Pelloud teaches, in figs. 4-5 and line 65 of col. 3 to line 21 of col. 4, that the relationship between the measurement signal and the relative movement of the sensor chip with respect to the magnet is linear within movement range 2I (shown in fig. 5). Accordingly, the claimed dimensions/proportions would not result in a device that performs differently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the dimensions/proportions of the apparatus of Peilloud as modified such that the circular path, viewed axially in the region covering the bar magnet, has, from the point of view of an edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation, an extreme point which is spaced from the edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation by an extreme point distance of between 5% and 45%, of the distance between the edge of the bar magnet directed towards the axis of rotation and the edge of the bar magnet directed away from the axis of rotation, since such a modification would have been an obvious change in the dimensions/proportions of the prior art device for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to claim 7, Peilloud teaches wherein a movement of the sensor chip on the circular path from the point of view of the bar magnet is limited between two movement limiting points (since the torsion element 22c from Ohira can be twisted in either direction).
Peilloud does not explicitly teach wherein each of the two movement limiting points has a face side distance from the face side edges of the bar magnet of between 5% and 45%, of a distance of the face side edges (e.g. the limiting points of Peilloud could be closer together than what is required by the claim).
However, the range of the limiting points is defined relative to the dimensions of the magnet, so such a difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been an obvious change in dimensions/proportions of the prior art device, as explained next. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant application, line 37 of pg. 5 to line 32 of pg. 6 discloses that the claimed dimensions/proportions are for creating a linear relationship between the measurement signal 20 and the movement between the magnet and sensor chip. However, Pelloud already teaches a linear relationship between the measurement signal and the relative movement between the magnet and sensor chip. Specifically, Pelloud teaches, in figs. 4-5 and line 65 of col. 3 to line 21 of col. 4, that the relationship between the measurement signal and the relative movement of the sensor chip with respect to the magnet is linear within movement range 2I (shown in fig. 5). Accordingly, the claimed dimensions/proportions would not result in a device that performs differently.
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 Peilloud as modified such that each of the two movement limiting points has a face side distance from the face side edges of the bar magnet of between 5% and 45%, of a distance of the face side edges, since such a modification would have been an obvious change in the dimensions/proportions of the prior art device for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Alternatively, if Applicant argues that Peilloud’s limiting points are farther apart than what is required by the claim, then the claimed limiting points can be considered an intended use of the apparatus, and Peilloud’s torque sensor is capable of being used with a limiting structure that limits the range of motion such that the modified Peilloud has movement limiting points wherein each of the two movement limiting points has a face side distance from the face side edges of the bar magnet of between 5% and 45%, of a distance of the face side edges.
As to claim 8, Peilloud teaches wherein a perpendicular foot point referred to the axis of rotation is arranged centrally on the bar magnet when the torque is zero (see fig. 1 of Abele and fig. 4 of Peilloud; also see, in Peilloud, col. 4 lines 14-15, which teach that the sensor chip is centered on the pair of magnets 126a, 127a when there is no torque; in the modified Peilloud, this means that a perpendicular foot point referred to the axis of rotation is arranged centrally on the bar magnet when the torque is zero).
As to claim 9, Peilloud as modified teaches wherein the circular path in the area of the bar magnet is symmetrical with respect to a straight line passing through the perpendicular foot point and the axis of rotation (see fig. 1 of Abele and fig. 4 of Peilloud; also see, in Peilloud, col. 4 lines 14-15, which teach that the sensor chip is centered on the pair of magnets 126a, 127a when there is no torque; in the modified Peilloud, this means that the circular path in the area of the bar magnet is symmetrical with respect to a straight line passing through the perpendicular foot point and the axis of rotation).
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abele (US 20110252916 A1) in view of Ohira et al. (US 20180154926 A1, hereinafter Ohira).
As to claim 1, Abele teaches a sensor for detecting a torque (title; the Examiner relies on the embodiment of fig. 4; ¶29 teaches “[i]n the embodiment according to FIGS. 3 and 4, the basic design is identical to that of FIGS. 1 and 2”), the sensor comprising:
a first steering shaft 2a (¶7 teaches that the sensor detects torque applied by a driver via a steering wheel),
a second steering shaft 2b (fig. 4 and ¶23; the Examiner notes that “2b” in the figures looks like the number “26,” but ¶23 teaches “[t]he torque to be measured acts between the input and output shafts 2a and 2b, which results in torsion in the torsion bar 2c,” which makes it clear that the “26” in the figures is actually “2b”),
a torsion element 2c situated between the first steering shaft and the second steering shaft, wherein the torsion element is configured to experience torque about an axis of rotation 10 (¶23),
a transmitter element 3 which can be mounted in a stationary manner relative to the first steering shaft (¶24 teach that the transmitter element 3 “is rigidly connected to the input shaft 2 by way of a magnet holder 4”) and configured to output a transmitting field (magnetic field - ¶24) which can be varied in a peripheral direction aligned circumferentially around the axis of rotation (¶24),
a sensor chip 5 (¶24 teaches that the sensor chip 5 is a hall sensor; the attached NPL evidentiary reference, “Hall Effect Sensor,” teaches that a Hall sensor consists of a thin piece of semiconductor material, which can be considered a chip) configured to be mounted in a stationary manner relative to the second steering shaft (see fig. 4 and ¶28, which teach “the magnetic field sensor 5, is held on a spiral spring housing 11, which is rigidly connected to the output shaft 2”) and configured to output a measurement signal which is dependent on the transmitting field arriving at the sensor chip (¶24), and
wherein the sensor chip is arranged at a distance from the transmitter element, and wherein the transmitter element is radially within (see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim) the sensor chip such that a line parallel to the axis of rotation passes through the transmitter element and the sensor chip.
Abele does not explicitly teach an evaluation device which is configured to output a sensor signal dependent on the torque on the basis of the measurement signal, and
wherein the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip.
Ohira teaches a torque sensor 100, 19 comprising an evaluation device 19 (¶118, fig. 4) which is configured to output a sensor signal dependent on the torque on the basis of a measurement signal (¶105).
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 Abele to have an evaluation device as taught by Ohira to provide a convenient way to derive torque from the sensor chip signal(s).
Abele as modified still does not teach wherein the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip.
However, such a difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious, as explained next. It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the instant application, the paragraph bridging pgs. 4-5 states “In Fig. 2, the centres of these elements in the extension of the radial direction 23 were selected as the reference point for determining the radial ring distance 32 of the sensor chip 18 and the magnetic field transmitter element 16.” This means that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip in the radial direction of the steering shaft simply because the sensor chip is bigger along the radial direction, and there is no persuasive evidence that a claimed device having a sensor chip and transmitter element with such relative dimensions performs differently than the prior art device.
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 Abele as modified such that the sensor chip is relatively larger in the radial direction such that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip, since such a modification would have been an obvious change in dimension(s)/proportion(s) for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to claim 2, Abele teaches wherein the transmitter element is a magnet 3 which emits a magnetic field as the transmitting field (¶24), whereby the sensor chip 5 is configured to output the measurement signal as a function of the magnetic field arriving at the sensor chip (¶24).
As to claim 10, Abele teaches a vehicle (¶7), comprising:
a chassis movable in a driving direction (the vehicle according to ¶7 inherently has such a chassis, which is moved or capable of being moved in a driving direction),
a steering wheel (¶7) for rotating a steering shaft 2 about an axis 10 of rotation,
a sensor as claimed in claim 1 for detecting a torque exerted on the steering shaft 2 with the steering wheel, and
a motor (electric drive motor - ¶7).
Abele does not explicitly teach that the vehicle comprises two front wheels supporting the chassis at the front as viewed in the driving direction,
two rear wheels supporting the chassis at the rear as viewed in the driving direction,
wherein the steering shaft is for turning the front wheels,
wherein the motor is for adjusting the turning of the front wheels in accordance with the detected torque.
Ohira teaches a vehicle 3 comprising:
a chassis movable in a driving direction (inherent to the vehicle),
two front wheels 3FL, 3FR supporting the chassis at the front as viewed in the driving direction,
two rear wheels 3FL, 3RR supporting the chassis at the rear as viewed in the driving direction,
a steering wheel 21 for rotating a steering shaft 22 about an axis of rotation for turning the front wheels (¶51),
a sensor 1 for detecting a torque exerted on the steering shaft with the steering wheel (¶60), and
a motor 33 for adjusting the turning of the front wheels in accordance with the detected torque (¶58 and ¶60).
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 Abele as modified to be applied to the vehicle of Ohira for the benefit that a vehicle with four wheels is very stable.
As to claim 11, Abele as modified teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the magnet is formed with a circular shape and extends or is arranged tangentially to the axis of rotation.
Ohira further teaches a torque sensor having a magnet 40 with segments of opposite polarity, wherein the segments are arcuately shaped (¶165, fig. 11), and wherein the magnet faces at least one sensor element 12 in the radial direction (in a similar manner to fig. 4 of Abele).
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 Abele as modified such that the portions of the magnet having opposite polarities are arcuately shaped as taught by Ohira, since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the magnet for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Abele as modified teaches wherein the magnet is formed with a circular shape and extends or is arranged tangentially to the axis of rotation (in view of Ohira).
As to claim 12, Abele as modified teaches wherein the circular shape of the magnet is the shape of a circular segment (see fig. 11 of Ohira), each with a rectangular cross-section (see figs. 3-4 of Abele).
As to claim 13, Abele teaches an auxiliary motor (electric drive motor - ¶7).
Abele as modified does not teach wherein the evaluation device is further configured to provide the sensor signal to the auxiliary motor via an interface.
Ohira teaches wherein the evaluation device is further configured to provide the sensor signal to the auxiliary motor 33-34 via an interface 34 for providing steering assistance (¶56-57, ¶105-106).
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 Abele as modified to be configured wherein the evaluation device is further configured to provide the sensor signal to the auxiliary motor via an interface for providing steering assistance as further taught by Ohira so as to provide a convenient way to control the electric drive motor (of Abele) based on the detected torque, for successfully providing steering assistance.
As to claim 14, Abele teaches wherein the sensor chip is further configured to receive the transmitting field from the transmitter element as a function of a relative angular position of the first steering shaft (¶24).
As to claim 15, Abele as modified teaches wherein the transmitter element includes a segment having a plurality of poles (e.g. north and south) arranged in a row.
Abele as modified does not teach wherein the segment is a ring segment.
Ohira further teaches a torque sensor having a magnet 40 with segments of opposite polarity, wherein the segments are arcuately shaped (¶165, fig. 11), and wherein the magnet faces at least one sensor element 12 in the radial direction (in a similar manner to fig. 4 of Abele).
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 Abele as modified such that the portions of the magnet having opposite polarities are arcuately shaped as taught by Ohira, since such a modification would be a mere change in the shape of the magnet for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Abele as modified teaches wherein the segment is a ring segment (in view of Ohira).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that the term overlap is not limited to one item being in front of another item along an axis of depth, based on the definition “to extend over so as to cover partly.”
PNG
media_image1.png
244
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The definition of “overlap” provided by Applicant is “to extend over so as to cover partly.” Www.merriam-webster.com defines “cover” as “to hide from sight or knowledge.” Accordingly, the direction of “coverage” is in the axial direction, because one looking along the axial direction would see one of the elements “covering” the other, meaning that one hides the other from sight in that viewing direction. In contrast, one looking in the radial direction can see both clearly and in an UNcovered manner. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the direction of overlap is indeed limited to the direction in which something is viewed.
Applicant argues on pg. 6 that reciting that the transmitter element is radially “within” the sensor chip overcomes the 112b rejection.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Dictionary.com defines “within” as “in or into the interior or inner part; inside.” The transmitter element is not in, or into the interior or inner part, or inside of the sensor chip at all, let alone radially. Instead, one is closer to the steering shaft than the other, and the Examiner suggests defining their relative distances to the steering shaft instead of trying to recite that one is inside of the other, which is unsupported.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-8 that Peilloud does not teach “wherein the sensor chip is arranged at a distance from the transmitter element, and wherein the transmitter element is radially within the sensor chip such that a line parallel to the axis of rotation passes through the transmitter element and the sensor chip and such that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip.”
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Peilloud teaches wherein the sensor chip is arranged at a distance from the transmitter element, and wherein the transmitter element is radially within the sensor chip (i.e. the transmitter element and sensor chip are overlapped in the axial direction – see figs. 1 and 4; see the 112b rejection(s) of this claim above for the Examiner’s interpretation of this portion of the claim) such that a line parallel to the axis of rotation passes through the transmitter element and the sensor chip and such that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip (fig. 1 shows that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip in a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
If Applicant argues that Peilloud does not teach that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip, such an alleged difference between the claimed invention and prior art would have been obvious, as explained next.
It has been held that a mere change in size does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the instant application, the paragraph bridging pgs. 4-5 states “In Fig. 2, the centres of these elements in the extension of the radial direction 23 were selected as the reference point for determining the radial ring distance 32 of the sensor chip 18 and the magnetic field transmitter element 16.” This means that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip in the radial direction of the steering shaft simply because the sensor chip is bigger along the radial direction, and there is no persuasive evidence that a claimed device having a sensor chip and transmitter element with such relative dimensions performs differently than the prior art device.
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 Peilloud as modified such that the sensor chip is relatively larger in the radial direction such that the transmitter element does not extend beyond the sensor chip, since such a modification would have been an obvious change in dimension(s)/proportion(s) for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 that Peilloud’s transmitter element is not radially within the sensor chip.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Per the 112b rejection of claim 1, the limitations cited by Applicant were interpreted to mean that the transmitter element and sensor chip are overlapped in the axial direction, which is taught by Peilloud.
Applicant argues on pg. 9 that Ohira fails to teach the “radially within” limitation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Peilloud teaches the limitations cited by Applicant.
Applicant argues on pg. 11 that claims 5-9 are allowable based on Applicant’s arguments with respect to Peilloud and Ohira.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because all the rejected claims are properly rejected. Additionally, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Abele, regarding claims 1 and 5-9 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