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, 2, 8-10, 14-21, and 23 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14-21, and 23 are rejected herein. This is a Non-Final Rejection after the Request for Continued Examination dated 17 Aug 2026 to enter the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 27 July 2026.
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, 2, 8, 9, and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOGDANOV (US 6467360) in view of HIPKISS et al (US 5629489) and 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 claims 1: 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).
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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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 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.). The fact that the torque is of an active roll stabilizer of a vehicle is obvious based on DORRFUSS as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
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 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).
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 claims 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 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 run 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.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOGDANOV in view of HIPKISS.
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).
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).
Claim(s) 10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOGDANOV, HIPKISS, and DORFUSS 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), the evaluation unit including an analog-to-digital converter (A/D 152 in ); supplying an analog signal (signals 126 and 142 in FIG. 4) via the torque sensor (100), wherein the analog signal is obtained via an inverse magnetostrictive principle (Magnetoelasticity as discussed in col. 1 lines 12-25 results from a magnetostrictive material.); 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).
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.
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).
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/Arguments
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The cancelation of claim 12 is acknowledged and the rejection thereto under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (Section A of the Response) that the combination of BAGDANOV and HIPKISS does not teach the sampling interval of 100-300 µs or the interval for the forwarded data of 1-3 ms. The Examiner agrees with these statements as set forth in the rejections above. The Examiner maintains that these ranges are obvious as further discussed below.
The Applicant has argued (Section B of the Response) that HIPKISS addresses a materially different problem in a materially different system and is therefore not analogous art. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. HIPKISS is from the same field of endeavor because it is from the field of processing and filtering sensor signals for subsequent utilization. Furthermore, force and torque sensors and measuring similar phenomena. HIPKISS is also reasonably pertinent to the particular problem of eliminating unwanted components of a sensor signal. Such a problem is present in the output of any analog sensing apparatus and is present is many other endeavors where noise needs to be eliminated from some type of signal.
The Applicant has argued (Section C of the Response) that the “routine optimization” rationale used by the Examiner does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. This argument has been fully considered and is not persuasive. The Applicant has requested evidentiary support or an articulated rationale that “the skilled artisan would know” the claimed ranges and coordinated timing relationship. The rationale is set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, namely, that it is known to average values together to “remove transient errors from the signal” (col. 7 lines 54-67 of HIPKISS), but that the particular number of values averaged together is a matter of routine optimization because it does not affect the overall operation of what is being done. Averaging removes transient (high-frequency) components of the signal, and that is true no matter how many consecutive values are averaged together. The Applicant further argues (page 10 of the Response) that “The averaging introduces a low-pass characteristic into the signal chain and improves robustness against high-frequency interference while preserving real-time control responsiveness. Thus, the claimed values are not arbitrary selections divorced from the disclosed architecture.” However, this functionality is explicitly taught in HOPKISS which states, “a software implemented linear averager 45a which averages several successive values of the filtered tension frequency signal fT to further remove transient errors from the signal and obtain a first sensed value which is a filtered and averaged digital representation” (col. 7 lines 54-67). Therefore this functionality is not dependent on a specific range of data sampling intervals, and the Examiner maintains that no criticality is annexed to the specific data sampling interval of 100-300 µs or the specific data transmission interval of 1-3 ms.
Conclusion
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