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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4 and 6-20 of copending Application No. 18219026 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the aforementioned claims of the present application are broader than those of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2015/0323349 in view of Steinich et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/0080162.
Regarding Claim 1, Has teaches a position sensor (figure 1, sensor arrangement 1) comprising:
a substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (figure 1, circuit board 60, first surface 62, and second surface 64);
a first initial shaft positioned above the first surface of the substrate, and disposed perpendicular to the substrate (figure 1 and [0035], rotating component 10);
a first initial gear mounted to the first initial shaft and positioned above the first surface of the substrate (figure 1 and [0037], second toothing 18.2, which interacts with gearwheel 22 above circuit board 60);
a first initial rotor mounted to the first initial shaft and positioned above the first surface of the substrate (figures 1 and 4 and [0038], in which metal region 26 is arranged with gearwheel 22);
a first sensing coil disposed on the first surface of the substrate (figure 1 and [0040], in which detection coil 66 is arranged on the first surface);
a first sub-gear mounted to the sub-shaft and positioned above the first surface of the substrate, and rotatably engaged with the first initial gear (figure 1, gearwheel 22 which is mounted to stud bolt 2A, above circuit board 60 and rotatably engaged with second toothing 18.2);
a second sub-gear mounted to the sub-shaft and positioned below the second surface of the substrate (figure 1 and [0037], second toothing 18.2);
a second initial shaft separated from the first initial shaft, positioned below the second surface of the substrate, and disposed perpendicular to the substrate and parallel to the sub-shaft (figure 1, portion of stud bolt 2A below circuit board 60);
a second initial gear mounted to the second initial shaft, positioned below the second surface of the substrate, and rotatably engaged with the second sub-gear (figure 1, gearwheel 42 is mounted to stud bolt 2A, below circuit board 60 and rotatably engaged with first toothing 18.1);
a second initial rotor mounted to the second initial shaft and positioned below the second surface of the substrate (figures 1 and 4 and [0038], in which metal region 46 is arranged with gearwheel 42); and
a second sensing coil disposed on the second surface of the substrate (figure 1 and [0040], in which another detection coil 66 is arranged on the second surface).
Has fails to teach a sub-shaft passing through the first and second surfaces of the substrate in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and parallel to the first initial shaft. However, Steinich teaches a sub-shaft passing through the first and second surfaces of the substrate in a direction perpendicular to the substrate and parallel to the first initial shaft (Steinich figure 6, intermediary shaft 27). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Has with the sensor arrangement as described by Steinich for the purpose of measuring sensor outputs that have a common axis of rotation to reduce offset measurements from impacting the sensor (as discussed in Steinich [0107], as well as [0057]-[0058]).
Regarding Claim 2, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, wherein a first gear ratio between the first initial gear and the first sub-gear is different from a second gear ratio between the second initial gear and the second sub-gear (see Has figure 1 and [0037], in which first and second toothing 18.1 and 18.2 may be divided from each other with different number of teeth and are connected with their respective gearwheels 22 and 42).
Regarding Claim 3, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of the first initial gear is different from a diameter of the second initial gear (Has [0037] and figure 1, different diameters may be given to the two toothings 18.1 and 18.2).
Regarding Claim 4, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of the first sub- gear is different from a diameter of the second sub-gear (Has [0037], different diameters may be given to the two toothings 18.1 and 18.2 which results in adjusting the diameter of gearwheels 22 and 42 to match with the two toothings).
Regarding Claim 5, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, wherein: a diameter of the first initial gear is identical to a diameter of the first sub-gear, and a diameter of the second initial gear is smaller than a diameter of the second sub-gear (Has figure 1, para [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, wherein: the first initial gear and the first initial rotor are coaxial with the first initial shaft, and the second initial gear and the second initial rotor are coaxial with the second initial shaft (Has figures 1 and 4, gearwheels 22 and 42 are coaxial with their respective metal regions 26 and 46).
Regarding Claim 7, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, wherein: the first initial rotor is coaxial with the first sensing coil, and the second initial rotor is coaxial with the second sensing coil (Has figures 1, 3 and 4, in which metal regions 26 and 46 are coaxial with the detection coils 66).
Regarding Claim 8, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, wherein: a plurality of first rotor teeth are formed on a circumference of the first initial rotor (Has figure 1, teeth of second gear rim 24), and a plurality of second rotor teeth are formed on a circumference of the second initial rotor (Has figure 1, teeth of second gear rim 44).
Regarding Claim 9, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 8, wherein: the first sensing coil is in a zigzag pattern, and the second sensing coil is in a zigzag pattern (Has figure 3, the pattern of detection coils 66 are considered a zigzag pattern).
Regarding Claim 10, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 9, wherein: a radial width of at least one of the plurality of first rotor teeth of the first initial rotor is equal to a radial width of the zigzag pattern of the first sensing coil (Has figures 1 and 3, the radial width of the metal region 26 is equal to the radial width of detection coils 66), and a radial width of at least one of the plurality of second rotor teeth of the second initial rotor is equal to a radial width of the zigzag pattern of the second sensing coil (Has figures 1 and 3, the radial width of the metal region 26 is equal to the radial width of detection coils 66).
Regarding Claim 11, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 8, wherein: a circumferential width of at least one of the plurality of first rotor teeth of the first initial rotor is equal to a distance between adjacent two of the plurality of first rotor teeth (Has figures 1 and 2, the circumferential width of a tooth of first gear rim 24 is equal to the distance between two adjacent teeth of the first gear rim 24), and a circumferential width of each of the plurality of second rotor teeth of the second initial rotor is equal to a distance between adjacent two of the plurality of second rotor teeth (Has figures 1 and 2, the circumferential width of a tooth of second gear rim 44 is equal to the distance between two adjacent teeth of the first gear rim 44).
Regarding Claim 12, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a processor electrically connected to the first sensing coil and the second sensing coil (Has [0038], teaching a control unit).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2015/0323349 in view of Steinich et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/0080162 in view of Frese USPG Pub. No.: US 2017/0160101.
Regarding Claim 13, Has and Steinich teach the steering apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the position sensor further includes a processor electrically connected to the first sensing coil and the second sensing coil, and the processor is configured to: identify impedance or reluctance of the first sensing coil (Has [0038] discussing the control unit).
Has and Steinich are silent in teaching: determine a rotation angle of the first initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the first sensing coil; identify impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil; and determine a rotation angle of the second initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil. However, Frese teaches determine a rotation angle of the first initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the first sensing coil (see Frese [0007]-[0008]; measuring inductance using impedance); identify impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil (see Frese [0007]-[0008]; measuring inductance using impedance); and determine a rotation angle of the second initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil (see Frese [0007]-[0008]; measuring inductance using impedance in order to determine a rotor angle). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Has and Steinich with the inductance measurement as described by Frese for the purpose of improving the accuracy of measurements over a plurality of revolutions to determine a steering angle of a motor vehicle (Frese [0004]).
Regarding Claim 14, Has, Steinich, and Frese teach the position sensor according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to determine a rotation angle of the first initial shaft based on the rotation angle of the first initial rotor and the rotation angle of the second initial rotor (Frese figure 1 and [0039] and [0041]).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2015/0323349 in view of Steinich et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/0080162 in view of Hwang et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2019/0002015.
Regarding Claim 15, Has and Steinich teach the position sensor according to claim 1, but are silent in sufficiently teaching wherein the first initial shaft is connected to a rack bar assembly of a vehicle. However, Hwang teaches wherein the first initial shaft is connected to a rack bar assembly of a vehicle (Hwang figure 1 and [0016]-[0017], [0032], and [0051], showing the rotation shaft of steering motor 10 and rack bar 30). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Has and Steinich with the steering system as described by Hwang for the purpose of using a rotation angle sensor of a steering motor to calculate a displacement of a steering rack bar connected to wheels of a vehicle (Hwang [0002]).
Regarding Claim 16, Has, Steinich, and Hwang teach a steering apparatus (see Hwang, figure 1) comprising:
a rack bar assembly connected to wheels of a vehicle (see Hwang figure 1, rack bar 30 connected to wheels discussed in [0032]);
a steering motor configured to generate torque for linearly moving the rack bar assembly (Hwang figure 1, motors 10 and 20 discussed in [0031] for providing linear torque);
an angle sensor configured to sense a rotation angle of a steering column connected to a steering wheel of the vehicle (Hwang figure 1, [0051] and pinion angle detector 13);
a first initial shaft connected to the rack bar assembly (Hwang [0016]-[0017] and [0051] which teach );
the position sensor of claim 1 (Has and Steinich teach the position sensor of Claim 1 as discussed in claim 1); and
a controller configured to control the steering motor based on the rotation angle of the steering column sensed by the angle sensor and the rotation angle of the first initial shaft sensed by the position sensor (Hwang figure 1 and [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding Claim 17, Has, Steinich, and Hwang teach the steering apparatus according to claim 16, wherein a first gear ratio between the first initial gear and the first sub-gear is different from a second gear ratio between the second initial gear and the second sub-gear (Hwang figure 1 and [0037], in which the first and second toothing 18.1 and 18.2 may be divided from each other with different number of teeth and are connected with their respective gearwheels 22 and 42).
Regarding Claim 18, Has, Steinich, and Hwang teach the steering apparatus according to claim 16, wherein: a diameter of the first initial gear is different from a diameter of the second initial gear, and a diameter of the first sub-gear is different from a diameter of the second sub-gear (Hwang [0037], in which different diameters may be given to the two toothings 18.1 and 18.2 which results in adjusting the diameter of gearwheels 22 and 42 to match with the two toothings).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Has et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2015/0323349 in view of Steinich et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2011/0080162 in view of Hwang et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2019/0002015 in further view of Frese USPG Pub. No.: US 2017/0160101.
Regarding Claim 19, Has, Steinich, and Hwang teach the steering apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the position sensor further includes a processor electrically connected to the first sensing coil and the second sensing coil, and the processor is configured to: identify impedance or reluctance of the first sensing coil (Has [0038] discussing the control unit).
Has, Steinich, and Hwang are silent in teaching: determine a rotation angle of the first initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the first sensing coil; identify impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil; and determine a rotation angle of the second initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil. However, Frese teaches determine a rotation angle of the first initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the first sensing coil (see Frese [0007]-[0008]; measuring inductance using impedance); identify impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil (see Frese [0007]-[0008]; measuring inductance using impedance); and determine a rotation angle of the second initial rotor based on the impedance or reluctance of the second sensing coil (see Frese [0007]-[0008]; measuring inductance using impedance in order to determine a rotor angle). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Has, Steinich and Hwang with the inductance measurement as described by Frese for the purpose of improving the accuracy of measurements over a plurality of revolutions to determine a steering angle of a motor vehicle (Frese [0004]).
Regarding Claim 20, Has, Steinich, Hwang, and Frese teach the steering apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the processor is configured to: identify a rotation angle of the first initial shaft based on the rotation angle of the first initial rotor and the rotation angle of the second initial rotor (Frese figure 1 and [0039] and [0041]); and provide an output signal associated with the rotation angle of the first initial shaft to the controller (Frese [0039] and [0041]; control unit to process the angles a1 and a2 to calculate the rotation angle).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852