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 .
Summary
Claims 1-4 and 8-23 are pending. Claims 1-4 and 8-23 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 06 April 2026.
Claim Suggestions
Regarding claims 3 and 19: Claim 3 uses “µs” and claim 19 uses “microseconds.” Both of these are acceptable, but only one should be used for consistency.
Regarding claims 4 and 18: Similarly, claim 4 uses “ms” and claim 18 uses “milliseconds.” Only one should be used for consistency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 12, 14-20, 22, and 23 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 14: Claim 12 recites that the EMC software filter “eliminates interference signals having frequencies of more than 5 kHz.” This limitation is indefinite because it does not provide a procedural or structural limitation to the subject matter of claim 1. It only states the result of implementing some unknown method step. However there does not appear to be any method step disclosed in the specification besides what is already in claim 1. Para. 30 of the specification as published states that high-frequency interference above 5 kHz is eliminated by the software-based low-pass filter. The software-based low-pass filter is “achieved by continuously forming average values from several, in this case ten, signals which are supplied by the transmission module 19” (para. 29). Therefore, because claim 1 already recites averaging the consecutive digital values, it is unclear what limitation is annexed to the language of claim 12. This language also appears in claim 14, and it is unclear how this translates into a limitation on the method because it only states a result. If averaging a number of consecutive values is the only means disclosed by which interference above 5 kHz can be eliminated, then this should be claimed as the method step in claim 14, not the result.
Regarding claim 22: Claim 22 is indefinite because it appears to be in conflict with claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1 recites calculating the “arithmetic mean of between five and twenty consecutive digitized values.” This allows the data to be reduced by a factor of however many digitized values are used. As it explains in para. 29 of the specification as published, taking the average of every 10 values allows the data rate to be reduced by a factor of ten. Therefore it does not make sense for the data rate to be reduced as recited in claim 1, and for the average to be calculated for each new digitized value. If a new arithmetic mean is calculated for every value, then the data output rate is the same as the data input rate.
Regarding claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: installing the torque sensor on the chassis component of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 15-20: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 recites that the software filter eliminates interference signals having frequencies above 5 kHz. This appears to be the natural consequence of the invention of claim 1. There does not appear to be any limitation in the specification (see 112b rejection above) that pertains to this result besides just averaging values together. Therefore, because claim 12 does further limit the subject matter of its parent claim, it is in improper dependent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4, 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOGDANOV (US 6467360) in view of HIPKISS et al (US 5629489).
Regarding claims 1 and 12: BOGDANOV discloses: A method for measuring torque via a low-pass filter processing of a signal supplied by a torque sensor, the method comprising: supplying an analog signal via the torque sensor (signals 126 and 142 in FIG. 4); obtaining a digitized signal from the analog signal (at A/D 152).
BOGDANOV discloses digitally filtering the signal to remove undesired frequency components (col. 5 lines 53-63), but does not specify that this is done by taking the arithmetic mean of consecutive values, or that the output data rate is less than the input data rate.
HIPKISS however does teach using a software implemented linear average (col. 7 lines 54-61) which takes “m” consecutive values and averages them together (col. 7 lines 61-col. 8 line 6), which thereby reduces the data rate by a factor of m (col. 7 lines 61-col. 8 line 6). This averaging will eliminate interference signals having frequencies of more than 5 kHz, thus meeting the limitations of claim 12.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the linear averager of HIPKISS as part of the digital filtering of BOGDANOV because it “removes transient errors from the signal” (col. 7 lines 54-61 of HIPKISS).
HIPKISS does not explicitly teach using 5-20 consecutive values. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the number of values used would determine the output data rate and how much background interference is reduced. HIPKISS states that “the value for m will vary depending upon the application” and gives an example of m=256 (col. 8 lines 1-6).
The specific claimed range, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range disclosed by HIPKISS that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired level of interference removal, available computational resources, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the range is used, as already suggested by HIPKISS.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the number of values averaged and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of BOGDANOV as modified by HIPKISS.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2: BOGDANOV discloses: the reduced data rate at which the low-pass-filtered digital signal is forwarded is one-eighth or a smaller fraction of a data rate of the digitized signal before processing using the software-implemented digital low- pass filter (1/256th in col. 8 lines 1-6).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 18, and 19: BOGDANOV teaches most aspects of the instant invention. However, neither BOGDANOV nor HIPKISS explicitly teaches a sampling interval of 100-300 µs or an output data interval of 1-3 ms. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know that the sampling rate and output data rate determine how precise the sensor measurements are and how fast a processor is needed to process the analog data.
The specific claimed ranges, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” ranges disclosed by BOGDANOV that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired precision of the measurements, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the ranges are used, as already suggested by BOGDANOV.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the ranges stated and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of BOGDANOV.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8: BOGDANOV discloses: A device for measuring torque (abstract), comprising a torque sensor (top half of FIG. 4 above the A/D 152) and an evaluation unit (150) connected thereto, the device configured to carry out the method according to claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.).
Regarding claim 9: BOGDANOV discloses: the evaluation unit (150 in FIG. 4) is connected to the torque sensor via a cable (carrying outputs 126, 142); configured for transmitting an analog signal (col. 5 lines 34-52).
Regarding claim 11: BOGDANOV discloses: the analog signal supplied by the torque sensor is obtained via an inverse magnetostrictive principle (Magnetoelasticity as discussed in col. 1 lines 12-25 results from a magnetostrictive material.).
Regarding claim 13: BOGDANOV discloses: the device is configured to detect a torque applied to a chassis component of a vehicle when the device is installed on the chassis component (torsion bar 218 in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, BOGDANOV discloses: A method for measuring torque of a chassis component (torsion bar 218 in FIG. 5) of a vehicle (col. 7 lines 1-8), comprising: supplying an analog signal (signals 126 and 142 in FIG. 4) via a torque sensor (100); converting the analog signal to a digitized signal having a first data rate (at A/D 152); and processing the digitized signal via a software-implemented digital low-pass filter to obtain a low-pass-filtered digital signal (“The signals also should be filtered, suitably by appropriate digital or analog filters (not shown), to remove frequency components not desirable in determining the applied torque T.” col. 5 lines 53-63).
BOGDANOV discloses digitally filtering the signal to remove undesired frequency components (col. 5 lines 53-63), but does not disclose having a second data rate less than the first data rate, or that the processing eliminates interference signals having frequencies of more than 5 kHz. It is unknown (see 112b rejections above) what apparatus or method limitations can be annexed to this frequency limitation. However, the specification of the present application states that this is done by averaging over consecutive digitized values. Therefore that is the limitation that is presented in this rejection.
HIPKISS however does teach using a software implemented linear average (col. 7 lines 54-61) which takes “m” consecutive values and averages them together (col. 7 lines 61-col. 8 line 6), which thereby reduces the data rate by a factor of m (col. 7 lines 61-col. 8 line 6). As best understood, this averaging will eliminate interference signals having frequencies of more than 5 kHz.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the linear averager of HIPKISS as part of the digital filtering of BOGDANOV because it “removes transient errors from the signal” (col. 7 lines 54-61).
Regarding claim 16: BOGDANOV discloses: the analog signal supplied by the torque sensor is obtained via a torsion element arranged on the chassis component (The obviousness of measuring the torque on a chassis component is discussed in the rejection of claim 14), the torsion element having a magnetized region (106 and 108 in FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 17: BOGDANOV as modified by HIPKISS does not explicitly teach averaging 4-10 consecutive values. This range of values for “m” in col. 8 lines 1-6 of HIPKISS will divide the incoming data rate to 1/4th-1/10th of its initial value. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know that the number of consecutive values averaged would determine the output data rate and how much the background interference is reduced. HIPKISS states that “the value for m will vary depending upon the application” and gives an example of m=256 (col. 8 lines 1-6).
The specific claimed range, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range disclosed by HIPKISS that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired level of interference removal, available computational resources, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the range is used, as already suggested by HIPKISS.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the number of values averaged and since these ranges are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of BOGDANOV as modified by HIPKISS.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20: BOGDANOV discloses: the analog signal of the torque sensor ranges between 0 volts and 5 volts (The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known for sensor signals to range from 0-5V and a lot of basic electronics runs on this standard. Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art to use the 0-5V standard because it will be easy to obtain off-the-shelf components for the evaluation unit. This Official Notice, first taken in the office action dated 08 Jan 2026 has not been timely traversed by the Applicant and is therefore considered Applicant Admitted Prior Art.).
Regarding claim 21: BOGDANOV discloses: obtaining the digitized signal is performed by an analog-to-digital converter (152 in FIG. 4) arranged adjacent to the torque sensor (FIG. 4 shows that the A/D converter 152 is immediately downstream of the sensor in the circuit.).
Regarding claim 22: As best understood, recalculating the mean seems to contradict the limitation in claim 1 of a reduced data rate (see 112b rejection above), however HIPKISS does teach that different averaging routines can be used including a sliding average (col. 8 lines 1-6) which would calculate a new average on a sliding basis after each new value.
Claim(s) 10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOGDANOV and HIPKISS in view of PARK (US 20200264062).
Regarding claim 10: BOGDANOV does not disclose a structural unit containing both the torque sensor and the evaluation unit on the same circuit board.
PARK however does teach a torque sensor (abstract) as an integrated module (para. 2) that has an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) and the torque sensor integrated on the same circuit board (para. 2).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to have the torque sensor of BOGDANOV and its evaluation unit integrated onto the same circuit board as taught by PARK so that it can prevent an occurrence of torque sensing error because of interference from an external magnetic field (para. 2 of PARK).
Regarding claim 23: BOGDANOV discloses: A method for measuring torque (abstract) of a chassis component (torsion bar 218 in FIG. 5) of a vehicle (FIG. 5; col. 7 lines 1-8), comprising: providing a torque sensor (100 in FIG. 4) and an evaluation unit (150); supplying an analog signal (signals 126 and 142 in FIG. 4) via the torque sensor (100); transmitting the analog signal from the torque sensor to the evaluation unit (signals 126 and 142 from 100 to 150 in FIG. 4); converting the analog signal to a digitized signal (at A/D 152); processing the digitized signal via a software-implemented digital low-pass filter to obtain a low-pass-filtered digital signal (“The signals also should be filtered, suitably by appropriate digital or analog filters (not shown), to remove frequency components not desirable in determining the applied torque T.” col. 5 lines 53-63).
BOGDANOV does not disclose a structural unit containing both the torque sensor and the evaluation unit on the same circuit board.
PARK however does teach a torque sensor (abstract) as an integrated module (para. 2) that has an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) and the torque sensor integrated on the same circuit board (para. 2).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to have the torque sensor of BOGDANOV and its evaluation unit integrated onto the same circuit board as taught by PARK so that it can prevent an occurrence of torque sensing error because of interference from an external magnetic field (para. 2 of PARK).
BOGDANOV discloses digitally filtering the signal to remove undesired frequency components (col. 5 lines 53-63), but does not specify that the output data rate is less than the input data rate.
HIPKISS however does teach using a software implemented linear average (col. 7 lines 54-61) which takes “m” consecutive values and averages them together (col. 7 lines 61-col. 8 line 6), which thereby reduces the data rate by a factor of m (col. 7 lines 61-col. 8 line 6).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the linear averager of HIPKISS as part of the digital filtering of BOGDANOV because it “removes transient errors from the signal” (col. 7 lines 54-61 of HIPKISS).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOGDANOV and HIPKISS in view of DORRFUSS et al. (DE 102017121865). A machine translation of DORRFUSS was provided with the Non-Final Rejection dated 08 Jan 2026. All references to text in DORRFUSS are to that translation.
Regarding claim 15: BOGDANOV does not disclose an active roll stabilizer.
DORRFUSS however does teach determining torque in a chassis component of a vehicle (abstract), which is an active roll stabilizer (page 2 para. 6-7).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the torque sensor of BOGDANOV to determine the torque in a CHASSIS component of a vehicle as taught by DORRFUSS so that damage to the component can be determined (page 2 last para. of DORRFUSS).
Response to Amendment/Argument
The cancelation of claim 5 is acknowledged and the previous objection thereto is accordingly withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 1 to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is acknowledged and said rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 13 to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is acknowledged and said rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (page 7 of the Response) that BOGDANOV does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as amended. The Examiner agrees with this statement and HIPKISS has been introduced to address the added limitations.
The Applicant has argued that the analog sampling interval of 100-300 µs and the data output rate of 1-3 ms are not arbitrary optimum ranges, but are tied to specific system goals and constraints described in the application. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. This sampling interval is mentioned only twice in the specification (para. 17 and 28 of the specification as published) and no criticality is annexed to this rate. This is also true for the output data interval and the number of values averaged. The output data interval is simply m times the sampling interval where m is the number of values that are averaged together. No criticality is annexed to the claimed range of m=5-20, and because this value is implemented in software, choosing a particular value for m is simply changing a single number in the software code. Therefore one skilled in the art can very easily perform routine experimentation to find the optimum value for their particular setup. As stated by HIPKISS, “The value for m will vary depending upon the application” (col. 8 lines 1-6).
The rest of the arguments are directed against combinations of prior art that are no longer relied upon. Therefore the arguments are moot because new grounds of rejection are presented herein as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights