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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 4: “allowing calculating the difference between” should be corrected to “allowing calculating [[the]]a difference between”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-15 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.
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 recite the limitation “Nppi” and ”Nppe”. When reciting acronyms in the claims it is preferable when possible to define the acronym in the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited limitations shall be interpreted as requiring a number of pole pairs. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify the definition of the recited limitations in the claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “fastening the rings respectively on one bushing” in line 2. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited limitation requires that the rings be fastened to two different bushings or to a single bushing. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as requiring fastening the rings to either one bushing or to two different bushings. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify how the rings are fastened to the bushings.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a sensor comprising a first – respectively a second – pattern of sensitive elements" in line 3. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the limitation regarding “respectively a second” is required by the claim or is intended as an alternative limitation. The claims are indefinite because, it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as requiring either a first pattern of sensitive elements or a second pattern of sensitive elements. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify the number of patterns of sensitive elements are required by the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “disposed at a reading distance from the internal track - respectively from the external track” in line 5. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the limitation regarding “respectively from the external track” is required by the claim or is intended as an alternative limitation. The claims are indefinite because, it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as requiring a pattern of sensitive elements disposed a reading distance from either the internal track or the external track. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify which of the recited elements are required by the claim.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (JP 2017223528 A) in view of Ohira et al. (US 20180154926 A1).
Regarding Claim 1. Koike teaches:
A test body for a system for determining a torque applied between two members rotating about a geometric axis of rotation (R) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Fig. 13, Page 1, and Page 5: A torque detection device used for detecting torque applied to a shaft. As shown in FIG. 13, the elastic member unit 36 includes an outer diameter ring 34 fixed to the end face of the housing 30 (FIG. 12), an inner diameter ring 35 fixed to the end portion of the shaft 32 (FIG. 12), It comprises a plurality of elastic members 4 that connect the outer diameter ring 34 and the inner diameter ring 35.),
said test body having an internal bushing secured in rotation with means for mounting said test body on one member (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 12, Fig. 13, Abstract and Page 5: Inner ring. the shaft 32 is press-fitted and fixed in the inner diameter hole 18 a of the inner ring 18.), and
an external bushing extending around the internal bushing while having means for mounting said test body on the other member (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 12, Fig. 13, Abstract and Page 5: Outer ring. The elastic member unit 36 includes an outer diameter ring 34 fixed to the end face of the housing 30 (FIG. 12).),
said bushings being connected by a deformable structure which is arranged so as to transmit the torque between the members while enabling an angular displacement between said bushings according to the torque applied between said members (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, Abstract, and Page 2: An elastic member 4 is provided, which directly or indirectly couples the outer ring 2 and the inner ring 3, and deforms according to the rotation displacement of the outer ring 2 and the inner ring 3.).
Koike is silent as to the language of:
said test body being equipped with two rings each carrying a magnetic track which is able to emit a signal representative of the rotational movement of said ring,
the rings (5, 6) being fastened respectively on one bushing and the magnetic tracks being magnetized concentrically so that they have a common axis of revolution (P) so as to respectively form an internal magnetic track and an external magnetic track of an encoder.
Nevertheless Ohira teaches:
said test body being equipped with two rings each carrying a magnetic track which is able to emit a signal representative of the rotational movement of said ring (See Figs. 14 – 17, para[0190] – para[0191], and para[0207]: the fifth relative angle detection device includes the first stator 53 concentrically arranged with the first rotor 52 at the outside of the first rotor 52, having a plurality of poles equally distributed in the inner circumference, and including armature windings obtained by winding coils around each pole; and the second stator 55 concentrically arranged with the second rotor 54 at the outside of the second rotor 54, having a plurality of poles equally distributed in the inner circumference.),
the rings (5, 6) being fastened respectively on one bushing and the magnetic tracks being magnetized concentrically so that they have a common axis of revolution (P) so as to respectively form an internal magnetic track and an external magnetic track of an encoder (See Figs. 14 – 17, para[0190] – para[0191], and para[0207]: the fifth relative angle detection device includes the first stator 53 concentrically arranged with the first rotor 52 at the outside of the first rotor 52, having a plurality of poles equally distributed in the inner circumference, and including armature windings obtained by winding coils around each pole; and the second stator 55 concentrically arranged with the second rotor 54 at the outside of the second rotor 54, having a plurality of poles equally distributed in the inner circumference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koike with said test body being equipped with two rings each carrying a magnetic track which is able to emit a signal representative of the rotational movement of said ring, the rings (5, 6) being fastened respectively on one bushing and the magnetic tracks being magnetized concentrically so that they have a common axis of revolution (P) so as to respectively form an internal magnetic track and an external magnetic track of an encoder such as that of Ohira. Ohira teaches, “With this configuration, it is possible to calculate both sin Δθ and cos Δθ, divide the calculated sin Δθ by cos Δθ, and calculate the arctangent of the division value to calculate the relative angle Δθ. This allows the calculation of the torque even at the helix angle region exceeding the linear portion of sin Δθ. As a result, it is possible to handle the wider torque detection range. Even at the same torque detection range, since the whole information on sin Δθcan be used, the resolution of the detected torque value can be enhanced” (See para[0208]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Koike, because using rings with magnetic tracks would have helped the torque sensor to handle a winder torque detection range, as recognized by Ohira.
Regarding Claim 2. Koike teaches:
The test body according to claim 1,
the rings having a common axis of revolution with the geometric axis of rotation (R) (See Fig. 7, Fig. 9, Page 4: FIG. 7 is a cross-sectional view taken along a plane passing through the axis of the mechanism of the torque detector.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claim 3. Koike teaches:
The test body according to claim 1,
the rings being fastened on the body so that their tracks are disposed in a plane (L) (See Fig. 7, Fig. 9, Page 4: FIG. 9 shows magnetization patterns of the magnetic encoder tracks 8a and 8b of the magnetic encoder 8 as seen from the IX-IX cross section of FIG.
PNG
media_image2.png
230
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.).
Regarding Claim 5. Koike teaches:
The test body according to claim 1,
the deformable structure comprising at least one radial arm which connects the bushings (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, Abstract, and Page 2: In the illustrated example, four elastic members 4 are arranged at equal intervals in the circumferential direction.).
Regarding Claim 6. Koike teaches:
The test body according to claim 1,
the internal and external tracks respectively comprise Npp.sub.i and Npp.sub.e pairs of North and South poles to form the multipolar magnetic tracks (See Fig. 7, Fig. 9, Page 4: FIG. 9 shows magnetization patterns of the magnetic encoder tracks 8a and 8b of the magnetic encoder 8 as seen from the IX-IX cross section of FIG.
PNG
media_image2.png
230
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.).
Regarding Claim 7. Koike is silent as to the language of:
The test body according to claim 6,
the numbers Npp.sub.i and Npp.sub.e of pairs of poles are such that the poles of the tracks have a polar width that is identical.
Nevertheless Ohira teaches:
the numbers Npp.sub.i and Npp.sub.e of pairs of poles are such that the poles of the tracks have a polar width that is identical (See Figs. 14 – 17 and para[0207]: a plurality of poles equally distributed in the inner circumference, and including armature windings obtained by winding coils around each pole; and the second stator 55 concentrically arranged with the second rotor 54 at the outside of the second rotor 54, having a plurality of poles equally distributed in the inner circumference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koike with the numbers Npp.sub.i and Npp.sub.e of pairs of poles are such that the poles of the tracks have a polar width that is identical such as that of Ohira. Ohira teaches, “Further, the relative angle Δθ can be calculated by the one time calculation, i.e., the calculation of arctan(sin Δθ/cos Δθ), and thus, the more highly accurate torque value can be calculated” (See para[0208]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Koike, because using poles with identical polar widths would have helped to calculate an accurate torque value using a one time calculation, as recognized by Ohira.
Regarding Claim 8. Koike teaches:
A method for making a test body according to claim 1,
said method providing for:
fastening the rings respectively on one bushing (See Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Abstract, and Page 3: A magnetic encoder 8 is provided in a recess 3d formed on the outer diameter surface 3a of the inner ring 3.);
then magnetizing each of the magnetic tracks concentrically so that they have a common axis of revolution (P) (See Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, Abstract, and Page 3: The torque detector 15 is an axial type in which the magnetic encoder 8 faces the magnetic sensor 6 in the axial direction. FIG. 9 shows magnetization patterns of the magnetic encoder tracks 8a and 8b of the magnetic encoder 8 as seen from the IX-IX cross section of FIG.).
Regarding Claim 12. Koike teaches:
A system for determining a torque applied between two rotating members about a geometric axis of rotation (R) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 7, Fig. 10, Fig. 12, Fig. 13, Page 1, and Page 5: A torque detection device used for detecting torque applied to a shaft. As shown in FIG. 13, the elastic member unit 36 includes an outer diameter ring 34 fixed to the end face of the housing 30 (FIG. 12), an inner diameter ring 35 fixed to the end portion of the shaft 32 (FIG. 12), It comprises a plurality of elastic members 4 that connect the outer diameter ring 34 and the inner diameter ring 35.),
said system comprising a test body according to claim 1 and
a sensor comprising a first—respectively a second—pattern of sensitive elements disposed at a reading distance from the internal track—respectively from the external track—to form a signal representative of the angular position of the corresponding ring (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, Page 3: The magnetic field of the first magnetic encoder track 8a is detected by the detection unit 6a of the magnetic sensor 6, and the magnetic field of the second magnetic encoder track 8b is detected by the detection unit 6b of the magnetic sensor 6.
PNG
media_image3.png
262
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
),
said system further comprising a device for comparing the signals delivered by the sensor (See Fig. 4 and page 3: When relatively rotated, a phase difference corresponding to one magnetic pole pair per rotation (see FIG. 5C) occurs. This phase difference is detected by the phase difference detector 51.),
said device being able to determine an angle between the rings which depends on the applied torque (See Fig. 4 and page 3: the absolute angle calculator 52 calculates the absolute angle of the rotational displacement based on the phase difference.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Ohira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duret et al. (US 20190277659 A1).
Regarding Claim 4. Koike is silent as to the language of:
The test body according to claim 1,
the two rings comprising an annular matrix in which magnetic particles are dispersed, said particles being magnetized so as to form the magnetic tracks.
Nevertheless Duret teaches:
the two rings comprising an annular matrix in which magnetic particles are dispersed, said particles being magnetized so as to form the magnetic tracks (See para[0033]: the encoder 1 is formed of a magnet whereon the multipolar magnetic track 2 is produced. In particular, the magnet may be formed of an annular matrix, for example, made of a plastic or elastomeric material, wherein are dispersed magnetic particles, including ferrite particles or rare earths such as NdFeB.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koike such as that of Duret. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Koike, because including the annular matrix of Duret into Koike for the purpose of producing a magnetic track would have helped to form a magnetic track into a desired shape.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Ohira as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Takahashi et la. (US 20150243427 A1).
Regarding Claim 9. Koike is silent as to the language of:
The method according to claim 8,
the tracks being magnetized simultaneously.
Nevertheless Takahashi teaches:
the tracks being magnetized simultaneously (See Fig. 1B and page[0041] – para[0042]: In this case, it is possible to simultaneously magnetize the plural rows of magnetic encoder tracks.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koike with the tracks being magnetized simultaneously such as that of Takahashi. Takahashi teaches, “The plural rows of un-magnetized magnetic encoder tracks may be simultaneously magnetized. In this case, it is possible to form a plurality of magnetic encoder tracks in a time taken for a single magnetization, and thus it is possible to make the magnetization time shorter than that when magnetization is performed per each row” (See para[0042]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Koike, because simultaneously magnetizing the tracks would have helped to magnetize the encoder in a shorter time, as recognized by Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 10. Koike is silent as to the language of:
The method according to claim 8,
the tracks being magnetized by a tool, the test body and said tool being mounted in a relative rotatable manner according to the common axis of revolution (P).
Nevertheless Takahashi teaches:
the tracks being magnetized by a tool (See Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, para[0018]: a magnetization device for a magnetic encoder which magnetization device allows each of plural rows of magnetic encoder tracks arranged adjacent to each other to be accurately magnetized without influencing the adjacent magnetic encoder track.),
the test body and said tool being mounted in a relative rotatable manner according to the common axis of revolution (P) (See Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, para[0079]: As shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, in a magnetization device 1, while an annular magnetic body 2, which is a magnetization target, is rotated about a rotation axis L1 thereof, magnetic poles are magnetized one by one.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koike with the tracks being magnetized by a tool, the test body and said tool being mounted in a relative rotatable manner according to the common axis of revolution (P) such as that of Takahashi. Takahashi teaches, “the present invention relates to a magnetization device for a magnetic encoder used for detecting rotation and rotation angles of various devices” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Koike, because using a tool to magnetize the tracks would have helped to allow the encoder to detect the rotation angle, as recognized by Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 11. Koike is silent as to the language of:
The method according to claim 10,
a tool for magnetizing one of a group including a pole, a pair of adjacent poles, and an angular succession of poles, said tool and respectively one ring being moved relative to one another so as to be radially opposite one another to successively magnetize the poles of a track by successive relative rotations of said tool relative to said ring.
Nevertheless Takahashi teaches:
a tool for magnetizing one of a group including a pole, a pair of adjacent poles, and an angular succession of poles (See Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, para[0079]: As shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, in a magnetization device 1, while an annular magnetic body 2, which is a magnetization target, is rotated about a rotation axis L1 thereof, magnetic poles are magnetized one by one.),
said tool and respectively one ring being moved relative to one another so as to be radially opposite one another to successively magnetize the poles of a track by successive relative rotations of said tool relative to said ring (See Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, para[0079]: As shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, in a magnetization device 1, while an annular magnetic body 2, which is a magnetization target, is rotated about a rotation axis L1 thereof, magnetic poles are magnetized one by one.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koike with a tool for magnetizing one of a group including a pole, a pair of adjacent poles, and an angular succession of poles, said tool and respectively one ring being moved relative to one another so as to be radially opposite one another to successively magnetize the poles of a track by successive relative rotations of said tool relative to said ring such as that of Takahashi. Takahashi teaches, “the present invention relates to a magnetization device for a magnetic encoder used for detecting rotation and rotation angles of various devices” (See para[0003]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Koike, because using a tool to magnetize the tracks would have helped to allow the encoder to detect the rotation angle, as recognized by Takahashi.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Ohira as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ausserlechner (US 20100176799 A1).
Regarding Claim 13. Koike teaches:
The determination system according to claim 12,
the sensors delivering incremental square signals (See Page 4: digital signal.),
the comparison device comprising counting means indicating the angular position of each of the rings and subtraction means allowing calculating the difference between said angular positions (See Fig. 4 and page 3: When relatively rotated, a phase difference corresponding to one magnetic pole pair per rotation (see FIG. 5C) occurs. This phase difference is detected by the phase difference detector 51. This phase difference is detected by the phase difference detector 51, and the absolute angle calculator 52 calculates the absolute angle of the rotational displacement based on the phase difference.).
Koike is silent as to the language of:
quadrature phase.
Nevertheless Ausserlechner teaches:
quadrature phase (See Fig. 10 and para[0075]: Signals S.sub.12 and S.sub.34 are phase shifted by 90.degree. since they are in-phase and quadrature components.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koike with signals in quadrature phase such as that of Ausserlechner. Ausserlechner teaches, “Signals S.sub.12 and S.sub.34 are phase shifted by 90.degree. since they are in-phase and quadrature components” (See para[0075]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Koike, because using signals with quadrature phase would have helped to keep the magnetic tracks 90 degrees phase shifted from each other, as recognized by Ausserlechner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 would be allowable for disclosing:
the sensor comprising means for applying an interpolation factor fi, and fe to the signal delivered respectively by the first and second pattern of sensitive elements, the counting means measuring a number of fronts ni and ne in each of said interpolated signals,
the subtraction means performing the operation Nppe*fe*ni – NPPi*fi*ne to calculate the difference between the angular positions of the rings.
The prior art Koike et al. (JP 2017223528 A) teaches a torque detecting device with an outer ring and an inner ring attached using elastic members (See Abstract and Fig. 2). However, Koike either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “the subtraction means performing the operation Nppe*fe*ni – NPPi*fi*ne to calculate the difference between the angular positions of the rings” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The prior art Desbiolles et al. (US 20050103125 A1) teaches a torque sensor that interpolates signals from magnetic encoders to count the edges of signals (See para[0055] and para[0066]). However, Desbiolles either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “the subtraction means performing the operation Nppe*fe*ni – NPPi*fi*ne to calculate the difference between the angular positions of the rings” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
The prior art Piva et al. (US 20220299343 A1) teaches an encoder that interpolates signals to increase encoder resolution (See para[0136] and para[0144]). However, Piva either singularly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious “the subtraction means performing the operation Nppe*fe*ni – NPPi*fi*ne to calculate the difference between the angular positions of the rings” in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Thus, these limitations, in combination with the other elements of the claims, are neither anticipated by nor obvious in view of the prior art of record and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 would be allowable for depending from claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shibuya et al. (US 20200292400 A1) disclose a torque detector with rings connected using elastic members (See Abstract).
Christmann (US 8984963 B2) discloses a torque measuring device with tubular structures connected using ribs (See Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Lisa Caputo can be reached at (571)272-2388. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/LISA M CAPUTO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2863