DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 12/10/2025, is as follows:
- Claims 1-20 are pending.
- Claims 1, 7 and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 14 as amended have been considered but are not persuasive.
In the response, the applicant states:
“Applicant disagrees with the grounds of the rejection of claim 1 and has amended claim 1 to further prosecution and expedite issuance of a patent. Applicant submits that Ausserlechner’281 does not teach or suggest the combination of features recited in newly amended claim 1.” – page 7 of Response.
“Applicant disagrees with the grounds of the rejection of claim 14 and has amended claim 14 to further prosecution and expedite issuance of a patent. Applicant submits that Ausserlechner’319 does not teach or suggest the combination of features recited in newly amended claim 14 and its associated dependents claims and respectfully request the rejection be withdrawn.” – page 8 of Response.
It’s noted that the response does include any arguments highlighting the supposed error and/or the basis for disagreeing with the rejection of claims 1, 7 or 14 as presented in the Non-Final Office Action. Thus, the prior art presented in the Non-Final Action is considered proper and it’s relied upon in this Office Action.
In response to the argument that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the respective thicknesses of the two target coils, as required in amended claims 1, 7 and 14, the examiner disagrees.
The examiner notes that claim 1 as amended recites: “wherein a first thickness of the fine rotor is less than a second thickness of the metallic coarse rotor;”. Given the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, the recited “a first thickness of the fine motor” may be interpreted/equated to the thickness at any arbitrarily chosen point along the body of the fine rotor. Likewise, the recitation “a second thickness of the metallic coarse rotor”, may be interpreted/equated to the thickness at any arbitrarily chosen point along the body of the metallic coarse rotor. Consequently, Ausserlechner ‘281 anticipates the claim as amended, because it teaches a fine rotor (target coil 1014) and a metallic coarse rotor (target coil 1016) wherein a first thickness of the fine rotor (thickness of portion A as illustrated in Figures I and/or Figure II below), is less than a second thickness of the metallic coarse rotor (thickness of portion B as illustrated in Figures I and/or Figure II below).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
1193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure I
PNG
media_image2.png
589
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure II
Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 are considered to be anticipated by Ausserlechner ‘281. The new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Similarly, regarding the argument that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the respective thicknesses of the two target coils, as required in amended claim 14:
The examiner notes that claim 1 as amended recites: “wherein a first thickness of the fine coil is less than a second thickness of the coarse coil.” Given the claim language its broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, the recited “a first thickness of the fine coil” may be interpreted/equated to the thickness at any arbitrarily chosen point along the body of the fine coil. Likewise, the recitation “a second thickness of the coarse coil”, may be interpreted/equated to the thickness at any arbitrarily chosen point along the body of the coarse coil. Consequently, Ausserlechner ‘319 anticipates the claim as amended, because it teaches a fine coil (122) and a coarse coil (121) wherein a first thickness of the fine coil (thickness of portion C as illustrated in Figure III below), is less than a second thickness of coarse coil (thickness of portion D as illustrated in Figure III below).
PNG
media_image3.png
591
1616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure III
Accordingly, claim 14 are considered to be anticipated by Ausserlechner ‘319. The new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2022/0057281 by Ausserlechner (Ausserlechner ‘281 hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 1, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches in Figure(s) 10A, an apparatus, comprising:
a fine rotor (target coil 1014 – k1) located on a first printed circuit board (PCB2);
a metallic coarse rotor (target coil 1016 – k2) coupled to the first printed circuit board (mechanically coupled through 1003+1002); wherein a first thickness of the fine rotor (thickness A in Figures I and II below, provided in an effort to make the examiner’s position as clear as possible) is less than a second thickness of the metallic coarse rotor (thickness B in Figures I and II below. Also, see response to arguments for a detailed explanation of the basis for the examiner’s interpretations)
a fine sensor receiver (pick-up system 1008 – k1) configured to generate a plurality of fine sensor signals based on a first rotation of the fine rotor (see paragraph 0059 and paragraph 0078, last 8 lines), wherein the fine sensor receiver is located on a second printed circuit board (PCB1) separate from the first printed circuit board; and
a coarse sensor receiver (pick-up system 1010 – k2) configured to generate a plurality of coarse sensor signals based on a second rotation of the metallic coarse rotor (see paragraph 0059, and paragraph 0078, last 8 lines), wherein the coarse sensor receiver is located on the second printed circuit board.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
1193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure I
PNG
media_image2.png
589
905
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure II
As to claim(s) 5, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches in Figure(s) 10A, a first distance between the first printed circuit board (PCB2) and the second printed circuit board (PCB1) is less than a second distance between the metallic coarse rotor (1016) and the second printed circuit board (PCB1).
As to claim(s) 6, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches in Figure(s) 11B, an interface circuit (1106) configured to generate an output angle value (torsion angle delta) using the plurality of fine sensor signals and the plurality of coarse sensor signals (in the manner described for example, in paragraph 0086).
In terms of claim(s) 7, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches in Figure(s) 10A, a method, comprising:
generating, by a fine sensor receiver (pick-up system 1008 – k1), a plurality of fine sensor signals based on rotating a fine rotor (target coil 1014 – k1) included on a first printed circuit board (PCB2);
generating, by a coarse sensor receiver (pick-up system 1010 – k2), a plurality of coarse sensor signals based on rotating a metallic coarse rotor (target coil 1016 – k2) coupled to the first printed circuit board (mechanically coupled to PCB2 through 1003+1002); wherein a first thickness of the fine rotor (thickness A in Figures I and II above) is less than a second thickness of the metallic coarse rotor (thickness B in Figures I and II above); and
generating, by an interface circuit (1106 in Figure 1106), an output angle value (torsion angle delta) using the plurality of fine sensor signals and the plurality of coarse sensor signals (in the manner described for example, in paragraph 0086).
As to claim(s) 11, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches in Figure(s) 10A, the fine sensor receiver (1008) and the coarse sensor receiver (1010) are located on a second printed circuit board (PCB1) separate from the first printed circuit board.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 11,592,319 by Ausserlechner et al., (Ausserlechner '319 hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 14, Ausserlechner '319 teaches in Figure(s) 1, an apparatus, comprising:
a first printed circuit board (coils 111, 112 are placed on a PCB, see col. 16, lines 38-41) that includes a fine sensor receiver (112) and a coarse sensor receiver (1111); and
a second printed circuit board (coils 122 and 121 are placed on a PCB, see col. 17, lines 9-12) that includes:
a fine coil (122) configured to magnetically couple to the fine sensor receiver (through electromagnetic induction); and
a coarse coil (121) configured to magnetically couple to the coarse sensor receiver (through electromagnetic induction), wherein a first thickness of the fine coil (thickness of portion C as illustrated in Figure III annotated below in an effort to clarify the examiner’s position), is less than a second thickness of coarse coil (thickness of portion D as illustrated in Figure III below - Also, please see response to Arguments section above for the basis of the examiner’s interpretation).
PNG
media_image3.png
591
1616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure III
As to claim(s) 15, Ausserlechner '319 shows in Figure 1, a first count per revolution of the fine coil (121) is greater than a second count per revolution of the coarse coil (122).
As to claim(s) 16, Ausserlechner '319 teaches in col. 17, lines 9-25, the fine coil (122) is located on a first side of the second printed circuit board, and wherein the coarse coil (121) is located on a second side of the second printed circuit board opposite the first side (“it may be possible to use different layers of the PCB for each target 121, 122 (eg. coils), for example a first layer on top of the PCB and a second layer at the bottom side of the PCB.”).
As to claim(s) 17, Ausserlechner '319 shows in Figure 1, the fine sensor receiver (112) and the coarse sensor receiver (111) are located on a common side of the first printed circuit board.
As to claim(s) 20, Ausserlechner '319 shows in Figure 1, the fine sensor receiver is configured to generate a plurality of fine sensor signals based on a first rotation of the fine coil, wherein the coarse sensor receiver is configured to generate a plurality of coarse sensor signals based on a second rotation of the coarse coil, and wherein the apparatus further comprises an interface circuit (Si1, Si2, 140) configured to generate an output angle value using the plurality of fine sensor signals and the plurality of coarse sensor signals (in the manner described for example, in col. 14, lines 52-67).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausserlechner ‘281 in view of the US Patent US 7,036,205 by Fukushima et al., (Fukushima hereafter).
In terms of claims 3 and 9, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches the first printed circuit board (PCB2) is coupled to the metallic coarse rotor (1016). Ausserlechner ‘281 doesn’t mention the use of glue.
The use of adhesives (glue) to attach printed circuits boards to coils is well known in the art. For example, Fukushima teaches in col. 2, lines 24-28, the use of glue to attach a coil to a printed circuit board. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of glue as attachment means between a coil and a printed circuit board as taught by Fukushima, and attach the metallic coarse rotor (1016) to PCB3 in the device/system/method of Ausserlechner ‘281, thus ensuring the coils are safely secured to the printed circuit board during operation. It’s noted that by coupling 1016 to PCB3, 1016 is effectively coupled to 1002, 1004 as well as PCB2.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausserlechner ‘281 in view of the US Patent US 10,716,534 by McLane et al., (McLane hereafter).
In terms of claims 2, 4, 8 and 10, although Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches the first printed circuit board (PCB2) is coupled to the metallic coarse rotor (1016), Ausserlechner ‘281 doesn’t mention the use of screws or washers.
McLane teaches in Figure 1A, the use of a combination of screws (176) and washers (178) in an arrangement designed to fasten coils (166) to a PCB (164). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of screws and washers for coupling coils to a printed circuit board, as taught by McLane, to attach the metallic coarse rotor (1016) to PCB3 in the device/system/method of Ausserlechner ‘281, thus ensuring the coils are firmly secured to the PCB and shafts during operation. It’s noted that by coupling 1016 to PCB3, 1016 is effectively coupled to 1002, 1004 as well as PCB2.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausserlechner ‘281 in view of the US Patent US 12,031,817 by Shaga et al., (Shaga hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 12, Ausserlechner ‘281 substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the placement of the fine and coarse sensor receivers on a common side of the second printed circuit board. Instead, Ausserlechner ‘281 shows the sensors (1010 and 1008) are located on opposite sides of the printed circuit board (PCB1).
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to locate/relocate either of the sensor receivers to the upper or lower surface of the PCB. Shifting the position of either sensor would not have modified the functionality of the system and the claimed apparatus. The particular placement of the sensors with respect to a preferred surface of the PCB, as long as the sensor orientation with respect to rotor coils remains the same, would have been an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Moreover, Shaga teaches in Figures 2 and 3, equivalent arrangements of a sensing system where sensor coils are positioned in opposite sides of a support structure (202) and an equivalent alternative where coils are positioned on the same side of a support structure (302). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to position the sensors coils on the same side of the printed circuit board as taught by Shaga, in the apparatus of Ausserlechner ‘281, in order to gain space in the printed circuit board for other components that may be needed in the future.
As to claim(s) 13, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches in Figure(s) 10A, Ausserlechner ‘281 teaches in Figure(s) 10A, a first distance between the first printed circuit board (PCB2) and the second printed circuit board (PCB1) is less than a second distance between the metallic coarse rotor (1016) and the second printed circuit board (PCB1).
Claim(s) 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausserlechner '319.
In terms of claim(s) 16, 18-19, Ausserlechner '319 substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the how/where the coils and/or receivers are placed on their respective circuit boards and the “first” and “second” distance” as recited. However, Ausserlechner '319 mentions in col. 17, lines 9-25, “it may be possible to use different layers of the PCB for each target 121, 122 (eg. coils), for example a first layer on top of the PCB and a second layer at the bottom side of the PCB.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was effectively filed, to position the fine and coarse coils and/or the fine and coarse sensors on opposite sides of their respective printed circuit boards as suggested by Ausserlechner '319, in order to adhere to a preferred design choice. Doing so would not have altered the function of the receivers/coils and thus, would have amounted to an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
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 Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 February 17, 2026