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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15, 18, 20, 21, and 31-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected subcombinations, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 16, 17, 19, 22-30, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 3-16, each sub-elements should be further indented away from the indentation position of line 2 (the parent element). See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i) (“Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”).
In claim 1, line 14-15, “the first angle and the second angle” should be --the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle-- to be consistent with their antecedent bases.
In claim 3, line 5, “where s is the signal” should be --where s is a signal-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 3, lines 6-7, “ak is the k-th order harmonic amplitude, and φk is the k-th order harmonic phase” should be --“ak is a k-th order harmonic amplitude, and φk is a k-th order harmonic phase-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 16, lines 4-21, each sub-elements should be further indented away from the indentation position of line 3 (the parent element). See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i) (“Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”).
In claim 22, line 13-14, “the first angle and the second angle” should be --the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle-- to be consistent with their antecedent bases.
In claim 24, line 6, “where s is the signal” should be --where s is a signal-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 24, lines 6-7, “ak is the k-th order harmonic amplitude, and φk is the k-th order harmonic phase” should be --“ak is a k-th order harmonic amplitude, and φk is a k-th order harmonic phase-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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 3, 5, 17, 19, 24, and 26 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.
Regarding claim 3, the symbol “n” is not defined. For examination purpose, --where n is a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 5, the symbol “k” is not defined. For examination purpose, --where k is a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 17, it recites “the first process” in line 1. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purpose, Claim 17 is assumed to depend on claim 16 (not claim 15).
Regarding claim 19, it recites “the configuration setting” in line 1. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purpose, Claim 19 is assumed to depend on claim 16 (not claim 15).
Regarding claim 24, the symbol “n” is not defined. For examination purpose, --where n is a positive integer-- is assumed.
Regarding claim 26, the symbol “k” is not defined. For examination purpose, --where k is a positive integer-- is assumed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-9, 16, 17, 19, 22-30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes).
The claim recites:
1. A system, comprising:
a processing circuitry that is configured to:
receive a signal S1 and a signal S2, the signal S1 being generated by a first receiving coil in response to a first magnetic field, the signal S2 being generated by a second receiving coil in response to the first magnetic field, the signal S2 being approximately 90-degrees off-phase from the signal S1;
receive a signal S3 and a signal S4, the signal S3 being generated by a third receiving coil in response to a second magnetic field, the signal S4 being generated by a fourth receiving coil in response to the second magnetic field, the signal S4 being approximately 90-degrees off-phase from the signal S3;
calculate a first electrical angle based on signals S1 and S2;
calculate a second electrical angle based on signals S3 and S4;
calculate a difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle;
subtract a zero-error coefficient from the difference between the first angle and the second angle to produce a corrected difference; and
output an output signal that is generated at least in part based on the corrected difference.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations as bold-faced above. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as the underlined in the claim above. The receiving steps are to collect the data for the abstract idea, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The processing circuitry is to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities, and to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Also, it is routine and conventional to invoke a computer for data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 16 and 22 are similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9, 17, 19, 23-30 and 36 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 22, 23, 27-30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nicholl et al. (US 20190242764 A1; hereinafter “Nicholl”).
Regarding claim 1, Nicholl teaches a system (i.e., “magnetic sensor system”; see Abstract), comprising:
a processing circuitry (i.e., “a processing circuit”; see [0006]) that is configured to:
receive a signal S1 and a signal S2 (i.e., measuring sine and cosine in 216; see FIG. 2B), the signal S1 being generated by a first receiving coil in response to a first magnetic field, the signal S2 being generated by a second receiving coil in response to the first magnetic field (i.e., “The magnetic sensor 720 can generate a differential magnetic field measurement using the magnetoreisstive strips… One area can be for a sine signal and the other area can be for a cosine signal”; see [0099]; magnetic field from target 3; see FIG. 2B), the signal S2 being approximately 90-degrees off-phase from the signal S1 (i.e., “the sensors may provide Sine and Cosine outputs”; see [0048]);
receive a signal S3 and a signal S4 (i.e., measuring sine and cosine in 214; see FIG. 2A), the signal S3 being generated by a third receiving coil in response to a second magnetic field, the signal S4 being generated by a fourth receiving coil in response to the second magnetic field (i.e., “The magnetic sensor 720 can generate a differential magnetic field measurement using the magnetoreisstive strips… One area can be for a sine signal and the other area can be for a cosine signal”; see [0099]; magnetic field from target 2; see FIG. 2B), the signal S4 being approximately 90-degrees off-phase from the signal S3 (i.e., “the sensors may provide Sine and Cosine outputs”; see [0048]);
calculate a first electrical angle based on signals S1 and S2 (i.e., calculating ArcTan 3; see FIG. 2B);
calculate a second electrical angle based on signals S3 and S4 (i.e., calculating ArcTan 2; see FIG. 2B);
calculate a difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle (i.e., “In operation 228, a difference between the arctan values determined in operations 222 and 224 may be determined”; see [0063] and FIG. 2B);
subtract a zero-error coefficient from the difference between the first angle and the second angle to produce a corrected difference (i.e., “the system may associate the zero torque condition with some particular phase difference in the magnetic fields passing through sensors 5 and 6 (caused by offset gears 2 and 3) and may measure torques by measuring differences from that baseline phase difference”; see [0064]); and
output an output signal that is generated at least in part based on the corrected difference (i.e., “Thus, determining the difference between the arctan values, as part of operation 228, enables determination of the torque applied to the shaft 8 (or 9) in operation 234”; see [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Nicholl further teaches:
wherein the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle are calculated in accordance with the equations of:θ1=atan(S1/S2)θ2=atan(S3/S4)where θ1 is the first electrical angle and θ2 is the second electrical angle (i.e., “the sensors may be determined from the sine and cosine signals of the rotation of the magnetic field measured in operations 210-216. In particular, calculation 218 may involve finding the arctangent or “arctan” (i.e., the sine value divided by the cosine value) of the measurements taken by sensor 11 and associated with target 12. Similarly, calculations 220, 222, and 224 may involve finding the artans of the respective measurements taken by sensors 4, 5, and 6 and associated with respective targets 1, 2, and 3”; see [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Nicholl further teaches: wherein:
the first magnetic field is generated by a first target (i.e., target 3; see FIG. 1B);
the second magnetic field is generated by a second target (i.e., target 2; see FIG. 1B);
the first target is coupled to a first part of a mechanical system or element (i.e., portion 9 at FIG. 1B);
the second target is coupled to a second part of the mechanical system or element (i.e., portion 8 at FIG. 1B); and
the zero-error coefficient is approximately equal to a value of the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle when no torque is being applied to the mechanical system or element (i.e., “identify a zero rotation angle (which may be associated with a straight-line steering direction”; see [0062]; “associate the zero torque condition with some particular phase difference in the magnetic fields passing through sensors 5 and 6 (caused by offset gears 2 and 3)”; see [0064]).
Regarding claim 7, Nicholl further teaches:
wherein the first part and the second part are integral with each other (i.e., “first and second shaft portions 8 and 9 coupled together via torsion element 10”; see [0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Nicholl further teaches:
wherein the mechanical system or element includes a steering column (i.e., see FIG. 1C), the first part includes a lower shaft of the steering column, and the second part includes an upper shaft of steering column (i.e., “shaft portions 8 and 9”; see [0054] and FIG. 1C).
Regarding claim 9, Nicholl further teaches: wherein:
the first magnetic field is generated by a first set of magnetic features (i.e., “the magnetic target 710 may include a number of structures 712”; see [0094] and FIG. 7A) that are part of a first target (i.e., target/gear 3; see FIG. 2B);
the second magnetic field is generated by a second set of magnetic features (i.e., “the magnetic target 710 may include a number of structures 712”; see [0094] and FIG. 7A) that are part of a second target (i.e., target/gear 2; see FIG. 2B); and
the output signal is indicative of a relative displacement between the first target and the second target (i.e., “operation 234 may involve determining the magnitude of the movement of gear 2 relative to gear 3”; see [0065]).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 6 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 7 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 8 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 9 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 36, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
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.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholl.
Regarding claim 16, Nicholl teaches a system (i.e., “magnetic sensor system”; see Abstract), comprising:
a memory (i.e., this is implied in “a computer”; see [0075]); and
a processing circuitry (i.e., “a processing circuit”; see [0006]) that is configured to:
receive a signal S1 and a signal S2 (i.e., measuring sine and cosine in 212, 214, or 216; see FIG. 2A), the signal S1 being generated by a first receiving coil in response to a first magnetic field (i.e., “The magnetic sensor 720 can generate a differential magnetic field measurement using the magnetoreisstive strips… One area can be for a sine signal and the other area can be for a cosine signal”; see [0099]), the first magnetic field being generated by a first set of conductive features (i.e., “the magnetic target 710 may include a number of structures 712”; see [0094] and FIG. 7A; see, also, targets 1, 2, 3 in FIG. 2A), the signal S2 being generated by a second receiving coil in response to the first magnetic field (i.e., “The magnetic sensor 720 can generate a differential magnetic field measurement using the magnetoreisstive strips… One area can be for a sine signal and the other area can be for a cosine signal”; see [0099]), the signal S2 being approximately 90-degrees off-phase from the signal S1 (i.e., “the sensors may provide Sine and Cosine outputs”; see [0048]);
receive a signal S3 and a signal S4 (i.e., measuring sine and cosine in 212, 214, or 216; see FIG. 2A), the signal S3 being generated by a third receiving coil in response to a second magnetic field (i.e., “The magnetic sensor 720 can generate a differential magnetic field measurement using the magnetoreisstive strips… One area can be for a sine signal and the other area can be for a cosine signal”; see [0099]), the second magnetic field being generated by a second set of conductive features (i.e., “the magnetic target 710 may include a number of structures 712”; see [0094] and FIG. 7A; see, also, targets 1, 2, 3 in FIG. 2A), the signal S4 being generated by a fourth receiving coil in response to the second magnetic field (i.e., “One area can be for a sine signal and the other area can be for a cosine signal”; see [0099]), the signal S4 being approximately 90-degrees off-phase from the signal S3 (i.e., “the sensors may provide Sine and Cosine outputs”; see [0048]);
calculate a first electrical angle based on signals S1 and S2 (i.e., calculating ArcTan 1, ArcTan 2, or ArcTan 3; see FIG. 2A);
calculate a second electrical angle based on signals S3 and S4 (i.e., calculating ArcTan 1, ArcTan 2, or ArcTan 3; see FIG. 2A);
(i.e., targets 2 and 3) that are associated with the first set of conductive features and the second set of conductive features, respectively (i.e., “operation 234 may involve determining the magnitude of the movement of gear 2 relative to gear 3”; see [0065]); and
(i.e., targets 1 and 2, or shaft portion 8; see FIG. 1A) associated with both the first set of conductive features and the second set conductive features (i.e., “determining the difference between the arctan values, as part of operation 226, enables determination of the shaft rotation angle in operation 232”; see [0061]).
Nicholl does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
retrieve a configuration setting from a memory;
when the configuration setting has a first value, execute a first process for calculating relative displacement between two different targets that are associated with the first set of conductive features and the second set of conductive features, respectively; and
when the configuration setting has a second value, execute a second process for calculating an angular position of a target associated with both the first set of conductive features and the second set conductive features.
However, it is well-known to use stored settings to configure or change operation behaviors of a system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the processing circuitry to retrieve a configuration setting from a memory; when the configuration setting has a first value, execute a first process for calculating relative displacement between two different targets that are associated with the first set of conductive features and the second set of conductive features, respectively; and when the configuration setting has a second value, execute a second process for calculating an angular position of a target associated with both the first set of conductive features and the second set conductive features, as claimed. The rationale would be to help flexibly controlling the operations of the sensor system.
Regarding claim 17, Nicholl further teaches: wherein the first process includes the steps of:
calculating a difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle (i.e., “In operation 228, a difference between the arctan values determined in operations 222 and 224 may be determined”; see [0063] and FIG. 2B);
subtracting a zero-error coefficient from the difference between the first angle and the second angle to produce a corrected difference (i.e., “the system may associate the zero torque condition with some particular phase difference in the magnetic fields passing through sensors 5 and 6 (caused by offset gears 2 and 3) and may measure torques by measuring differences from that baseline phase difference”; see [0064]); and
outputting an output signal that is generated at least in part based on the corrected difference (i.e., “Thus, determining the difference between the arctan values, as part of operation 228, enables determination of the torque applied to the shaft 8 (or 9) in operation 234”; see [0065]).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Nicholl does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the configuration setting includes a factory-programmed configuration setting that restricts the processing circuitry to executing only one of a plurality of processes that are supported by the processing circuitry.
However, Nicholl indicates that one or more of torque, rotation angle, and the number of completed turns measuring may be performed (see [0070] and [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Nicholl such that the configuration setting includes a factory-programmed configuration setting that restricts the processing circuitry to executing only one of a plurality of processes that are supported by the processing circuitry, as claimed. The rationale would be to flexibly configure the sensor system operation (i.e., process) when only one type of measurements (e.g. torque; see [0070]) is needed.
Claims 3, 4, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholl in view of Casu et al. (US 20220187387 A1; hereinafter “Casu”).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Nicholl does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform harmonic compensation on each of the signals S1, S2, S3, and S4, the harmonic compensation being performed in accordance with the equation of:
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
=
s
+
∑
k
=
1
n
a
k
s
i
n
(
k
*
a
n
g
l
e
+
φ
k
)
where s is the signal that is being corrected, the signal being corrected being one of signals S1, S2, S3, and S4, ak is the k-th order harmonic amplitude, and φk is the k-th order harmonic phase, and angle is an electrical angle that is calculated based on the signal that is being corrected, the electrical angle being one of the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle, wherein the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle are re-calculated based on the values of signals S1, S2, S3, and S4 after harmonic compensation is performed on signals S1, S2, S3, and S4, and the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle is determined based on the re-calculated vales of the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle.
But Casu teaches:
performing harmonic compensation on each of sine and cosine signals with the equations:
PNG
media_image3.png
104
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see 0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicholl in view of Casu by mathematically manipulating the equations in Casu, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to perform harmonic compensation on each of the signals S1, S2, S3, and S4, the harmonic compensation being performed in accordance with the equation of:
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
=
s
+
∑
k
=
1
n
a
k
s
i
n
(
k
*
a
n
g
l
e
+
φ
k
)
where s is the signal that is being corrected, the signal being corrected being one of signals S1, S2, S3, and S4, ak is the k-th order harmonic amplitude, and φk is the k-th order harmonic phase, and angle is an electrical angle that is calculated based on the signal that is being corrected, the electrical angle being one of the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle, wherein the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle are re-calculated based on the values of signals S1, S2, S3, and S4 after harmonic compensation is performed on signals S1, S2, S3, and S4, and the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle is determined based on the re-calculated vales of the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle, as claimed. The rationale would be to help removing error caused by the harmonics (see Casu [0037]). Note that the difference in + and - signs is a result of the mathematical manipulation, such as redefining the sign of the amplitude.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Nicholl does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to perform harmonic correction on the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle before the zero-error coefficient is subtracted from the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle.
But Casu teaches:
performing harmonic correction on the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle (see [0037]; note that harmonic compensation on the sine and cosine signals will result in compensation in the difference between the electrical angles because the difference of electrical angles are calculated from the compensated sine and cosine signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nicholl in view of Casu, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to perform harmonic correction on the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle before the zero-error coefficient is subtracted from the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle, as claimed. The rationale would be to help removing error caused by the harmonics (see Casu [0037]).
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 3 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 4 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Notes
Claims 5 and 26 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding clams 5 and 26, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature: “wherein the harmonic correction of the difference between the first electrical angle and the second electrical angle is performed in accordance with the equation of:
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
=
D
-
∑
i
=
1
K
A
i
*
sin
(
i
*
D
+
p
i
)
,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Although Casu teaches performing harmonic compensation of the sine and cosine signals, it does not teach or suggest harmonic compensation of the difference between the electrical angles. None of the prior art of record, singly or in combination, teaches or suggests the claimed features at issue.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHOU (WO 2021170169 A1) teaches a method for determining an angular position of a shaft, involving detecting a signal representing an angular position of the shaft based on an XMR-sensor; and compensating an angle error of the signal caused by a constantly acting interfering field takes place, based on a stored first amplitude curve of multiple signals detected in a calibration process without an interfering field, and a stored second amplitude curve of multiple signals detected in a calibration process with an interfering field.
FURUKAWA et al. (US 20180252511 A1) teaches a rotation angle sensor, involving generating a magnetic field for angle detection; detecting magnetic field by a first sensor and a second sensor each of which arranged opposite to a sensor magnet at a position separated in angle by 90 degrees on the circumference centered on a rotating shaft; outputting a signal corresponding to the magnetic field for angle detection; and calculating the rotation angle by using the signals from the first sensor and the second sensor.
Tomizawa et al. (US 20130312540 A1) teaches a system for detecting a torque applied to a first shaft based on a relative rotational displacement between the first shaft and a second shaft caused by torsion in a coupling shaft. An electrical angle is calculated from an arctan function of sine and cosine signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights