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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 1/29/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of species 1 and subspecies 1A, A1-2, and I, and claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-14 and 16 in the reply filed on 7/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement states that claims 17-20 and 25-27 are generic to species 1-2. Applicant alleges that this means that no species election is required if group I is elected, since none of the claims of group I are indicated as generic.
This is not found persuasive because Applicant did not consider subspecies i-vi on pgs. 9-10 of the restriction requirement. Since claim 1 in group I is directed to a torque detector, group I is directed automatically to subspecies I, wherein the measurement system is configured to detect torque. Accordingly, none of the claims in group I were included in the species election heading, because claim 1 is only generic to some of the identified species and/or subspecies. Claims 17-20 and 25-27 were included in the species election heading since they are generic to all of the identified species and/or subspecies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Upon further consideration, the restriction requirements between subspecies 1A-1B and between subspecies 1a-1b have been withdrawn.
Although Applicant did not elect claims 6-7, claims 6-7 are not directed to a non-elected invention. Accordingly, claims 6-7 will not be withdrawn.
Claims 12 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention (subspecies II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/10/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because figure 3A show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. Specifically, figure 3A illustrates the embodiment comprising a transceiver 314 together with the alternative embodiment comprising a separate transmitter 314a and receiver 314b (see ¶67 and ¶70). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hammerschmidt et al. (US 20210102853 A1, hereinafter ‘853).
As to claim 1, ‘853 teaches a torque measurement system, comprising:
a first pair of metamaterial arrays 45a, 46a (fig. 4B) arranged at least partially around a rotational axis 43 of a rotational shaft 44, wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays are coupled to the rotational shaft and are configured to rotate about the rotational axis (¶100), wherein metamaterial arrays of the first pair of metamaterial arrays are mutually coupled to each other by a first torque-dependent coupling, thereby forming a first mutually coupled structure (¶99-101, ¶103, and ¶105-106); and
a second pair of metamaterial arrays 45b, 46b arranged at least partially around the rotational axis of the rotational shaft, wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays are coupled to the rotational shaft and are configured to rotate about the rotational axis (¶100), wherein metamaterial arrays of the second pair of metamaterial arrays are mutually coupled to each other by a second torque-dependent coupling, thereby forming a second mutually coupled structure (¶99-101, ¶103, and ¶105-106),
wherein, in response to a torque applied to the rotational shaft, the metamaterial arrays of the first pair of metamaterial arrays are configured to undergo a first rotational shift relative to each other, and the metamaterial arrays of the second pair of metamaterial arrays are configured to undergo a second rotational shift relative to each other (¶99-101, ¶103, and ¶105-106), and
wherein a change in the first torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque is different than a change in the second torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque (¶99-101, ¶103, and ¶105-106).
As to claim 2, ‘853 teaches wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays includes a first metamaterial array 45a of first elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B) and a second metamaterial array 46a of second elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B), wherein the second metamaterial array is spaced apart from the first metamaterial array in an axial direction of the rotational shaft,
wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays includes a third metamaterial array 45b of third elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B) and a fourth metamaterial array 46b of fourth elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B), wherein the fourth metamaterial array is spaced apart from the third metamaterial array in the axial direction of the rotational shaft, and
wherein, in response to the torque applied to the rotational shaft, the first metamaterial array is configured to undergo the first rotational shift relative to the second metamaterial array, and the third metamaterial array is configured to undergo the second rotational shift relative to the fourth metamaterial array (see ¶105; the different rotational shifts are due to the difference in radial positions from the shaft’s rotational axis).
As to claim 3, ‘853 teaches wherein, in response to the torque applied to the rotational shaft, the first metamaterial array and the second metamaterial array are configured to rotate about the rotational axis by differing amounts of rotation, causing the first rotational shift and resulting in a first torque-dependent change to the first torque-dependent coupling (¶99 and ¶105), and
wherein, in response to the torque applied to the rotational shaft, the third metamaterial array and the fourth metamaterial array are configured to rotate about the rotational axis by differing amounts of rotation, causing the second rotational shift and resulting in a second torque-dependent change to the second torque-dependent coupling (¶99, ¶103 and ¶105-106).
As to claim 6, ‘853 teaches wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a first radial distance from the rotational shaft (fig. 4B), and
wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a second radial distance from the rotational shaft that is less than the first radial distance (fig. 4B).
As to claim 7, ‘853 teaches wherein the first elementary structures, the second elementary structures, the third elementary structures, and the fourth elementary structures have a same structure size (see fig. 4B and ¶105).
As to claim 9, ‘853 teaches wherein the first torque-dependent coupling has first torque sensitivity, and wherein the second torque-dependent coupling has second torque sensitivity that is lower than the first torque sensitivity (¶105).
As to claim 16, ‘853 teaches wherein the first torque-dependent coupling affects a first millimeter (mm)-wave property of the first mutually coupled structure such that the first mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft, and
wherein the second torque-dependent coupling affects a second mm-wave property of the second mutually coupled structure such that the second mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft (¶105).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘853.
As to claim 4, ‘853 teaches the limitations of the claim except wherein the first metamaterial array and the third metamaterial array are interleaved or intermixed, and
wherein the second metamaterial array and the fourth metamaterial array are interleaved or intermixed.
‘853 teaches, in an alternate embodiment (fig. 3D and ¶67-68), wherein a metamaterial array is configured with interleaved or intermixed elements (fig. 3D and ¶67-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘853 such that each of the metamaterial arrays is a metamaterial array that is configured with interleaved or intermixed elements as taught by fig. 3D of ‘853 since such modifications would be simple substitutions of one metamaterial array for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to claim 5, ‘853 teaches wherein the first elementary structures and second elementary structures have a first structure size (i.e. the first and second elementary structures have multiple structure sizes comprising a first structure size as shown in fig. 3D), and the third elementary structures and the fourth elementary structures have a second structure size (i.e. the third and fourth elementary structures have multiple structure sizes comprising a second structure size different from the first structure size as shown in fig. 3D) that is different from the first structure size.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over ‘853.
As to claim 8, ‘853 teaches wherein the first mutually coupled structure has a first resonance frequency (¶62) and the second mutually coupled structure has a second resonance frequency (¶62; the resonance frequencies are inherently either the same or different from each other),
wherein the change in the first torque-dependent coupling causes the first resonance frequency to change by a first amount (¶62), and
wherein the change in the second torque-dependent coupling causes the second resonance frequency to change by a second amount that is different from the first amount (¶62 teaches that the rotational shift between coupled metamaterial arrays results corresponds with a shift in phase or amplitude, and ¶105 teaches that the rotational shifts between the pairs of arrays are different from each other; accordingly, the first and second amounts in ‘853 are different from each other).
If Applicant argues that the metamaterial arrays taught by fig. 4B do not result in the claimed first and second amounts,
‘853 teaches, in an alternative embodiment (see fig. 3A and ¶61-62, which area associated with fig. 3A), wherein the metamaterial array/pattern in fig. 3A results in “A 360° periodical pattern may be used to change the coupling capacitance of the split ring resonators along the rotation direction. For example, the coupling capacitance may be increased (or decreased) in the direction of rotation. Here, this is achieved by increasing (or decreasing) the length of the lines inside the opening of the split ring resonator, which results in a gradual and continuous increase (or decrease) in coupling capacitance in the rotation direction. This change in coupling capacitance along the rotation direction (i.e., along the perimeter of the metamaterial track) shifts the resonance frequency such that the change in the phase shift or the amplitude of a receive signal with respect to the transmit signal can be measured. Each phase shift value or amplitude value is specific to an absolute angular position (i.e., an angular value) of the rotatable target object.” (see ¶62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘853 such that the metamaterial arrays are configured as shown in fig. 3A of ‘853 since such modifications would be simple substitutions of one metamaterial array for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
‘853 as modified teaches wherein the first mutually coupled structure has a first resonance frequency (¶62) and the second mutually coupled structure has a second resonance frequency (¶62; the resonance frequencies are inherently either the same or different from each other),
wherein the change in the first torque-dependent coupling causes the first resonance frequency to change by a first amount (¶62), and
wherein the change in the second torque-dependent coupling causes the second resonance frequency to change by a second amount that is different from the first amount (¶62 teaches that the rotational shift between coupled metamaterial arrays results corresponds with a shift in phase or amplitude, and ¶105 teaches that the rotational shifts between the pairs of arrays are different from each other; accordingly, the first and second amounts in ‘853 are different from each other).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11435245 B2 (hereinafter ‘245). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
As to instant claim 1, ‘245 recites a torque measurement system, comprising:
a first pair of metamaterial arrays (the first metamaterial track and the third metamaterial track, which comprise respective arrays of elementary structures, as recited in claim 1 in ‘245) arranged at least partially around a rotational axis of a rotational shaft (claim 7 of ‘245), wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays are coupled to the rotational shaft (through the first and second rotatable carries coupled to the rotational shaft as recited in claim 1 of ‘245) and are configured to rotate about the rotational axis (as defined throughout claims 1 and 7-8 of ‘245), wherein metamaterial arrays of the first pair of metamaterial arrays are mutually coupled to each other by a first torque-dependent coupling, thereby forming a first mutually coupled structure (see the last 8 lines of claim 1 of ‘245); and
a second pair of metamaterial arrays arranged at least partially around the rotational axis of the rotational shaft (claim 7 of ‘245), wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays are coupled to the rotational shaft (through the first and second rotatable carries coupled to the rotational shaft as recited in claim 1 of ‘245) and are configured to rotate about the rotational axis (as defined throughout claims 1 and 7-8 of ‘245), wherein metamaterial arrays of the second pair of metamaterial arrays are mutually coupled to each other by a second torque-dependent coupling, thereby forming a second mutually coupled structure (see the last 8 lines of claim 1 of ‘245),
wherein, in response to a torque applied to the rotational shaft, the metamaterial arrays of the first pair of metamaterial arrays are configured to undergo a first rotational shift relative to each other, and the metamaterial arrays of the second pair of metamaterial arrays are configured to undergo a second rotational shift relative to each other (claim 8 of ‘245), and
wherein a change in the first torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque is different than a change in the second torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque (claim 8 of ‘245).
Claims 2-9 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over ‘245 in view of Hammerschmidt et al. (US 20210102853 A1, hereinafter ‘853).
As to instant claim 2, ‘245 recites wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays includes a first metamaterial array “first metamaterial track” of first elementary structures “first array of elementary structures” (claim 1 of ‘245) and a second metamaterial array “third metamaterial track” of second elementary structures “third array of elementary structures” (claim 1 of ‘245),
wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays includes a third metamaterial array “second metamaterial track” of third elementary structures “second array of elementary structures” (claim 1 of ‘245) and a fourth metamaterial array “fourth metamaterial track” of fourth elementary structures “fourth array of elementary structures” (claim 1 of ‘245), and
wherein, in response to the torque applied to the rotational shaft, the first metamaterial array is configured to undergo the first rotational shift relative to the second metamaterial array, and the third metamaterial array is configured to undergo the second rotational shift relative to the fourth metamaterial array (claim 8 of ‘245).
‘245 does not recite wherein the second metamaterial array is spaced apart from the first metamaterial array in an axial direction of the rotational shaft, and
wherein the fourth metamaterial array is spaced apart from the third metamaterial array in the axial direction of the rotational shaft.
‘853 teaches wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays includes a first metamaterial array 45a of first elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B) and a second metamaterial array 46a of second elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B), wherein the second metamaterial array is spaced apart from the first metamaterial array in an axial direction of the rotational shaft (fig. 4B, ¶75 and ¶100),
wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays includes a third metamaterial array 45b of third elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B) and a fourth metamaterial array 46b of fourth elementary structures (see ¶86-88, ¶100 and ¶105; also see the C-shaped elements representing the elementary structure in fig. 4B), wherein the fourth metamaterial array is spaced apart from the third metamaterial array in the axial direction of the rotational shaft (fig. 4B, ¶75 and ¶100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘245 such that the second metamaterial array is spaced apart from the first metamaterial array in an axial direction of the rotational shaft, and wherein the fourth metamaterial array is spaced apart from the third metamaterial array in the axial direction of the rotational shaft as taught by ‘853 so as to make the rotational differences between the paired metamaterial tracks more pronounced and easier to measure (compared with the tracks being right next to each other along the axial direction) and/or so that accuracy and/or sensitivity are improved since the first and second rotatable carrier structures in claim 1 of ‘245 would have less of a risk of rubbing against each other.
As to instant claim 3, ‘245 recites wherein, in response to the torque applied to the rotational shaft, the first metamaterial array and the second metamaterial array are configured to rotate about the rotational axis by differing amounts of rotation, causing the first rotational shift and resulting in a first torque-dependent change to the first torque-dependent coupling (claim 8 of ‘245), and
wherein, in response to the torque applied to the rotational shaft, the third metamaterial array and the fourth metamaterial array are configured to rotate about the rotational axis by differing amounts of rotation, causing the second rotational shift and resulting in a second torque-dependent change to the second torque-dependent coupling (claim 8 of ‘245).
As to instant claim 4, ‘245 recites the limitations of the claim except wherein the first metamaterial array and the third metamaterial array are interleaved or intermixed, and
wherein the second metamaterial array and the fourth metamaterial array are interleaved or intermixed.
‘853 teaches, in an alternate embodiment (fig. 3D and ¶67-68), wherein a metamaterial array is configured with interleaved or intermixed elements (fig. 3D and ¶67-68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘853 such that each of the metamaterial arrays is a metamaterial array that is configured with interleaved or intermixed elements as taught by fig. 3D of ‘853 since such modifications would be simple substitutions of one metamaterial array for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to instant claim 5, ‘245 as modified recites wherein the first elementary structures and second elementary structures have a first structure size (i.e. the first and second elementary structures have multiple structure sizes comprising a first structure size as shown in fig. 3D of ‘853), and the third elementary structures and the fourth elementary structures have a second structure size (i.e. the third and fourth elementary structures have multiple structure sizes comprising a second structure size different from the first structure size as shown in fig. 3D of ‘853) that is different from the first structure size.
As to instant claim 6, ‘245 as modified recites the limitations of the claim except wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a first radial distance from the rotational shaft, and
wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a second radial distance from the rotational shaft that is less than the first radial distance.
‘853 teaches wherein the first pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a first radial distance from the rotational shaft (fig. 4B), and
wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a second radial distance from the rotational shaft that is less than the first radial distance (fig. 4B), and
wherein a change in the first torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque is different than a change in the second torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque (¶99-101, ¶103, and ¶105-106; note that ¶105-106 teach that “the change of the mm-wave property is lower on the inner track than on the outer track” and that this is used for a differential measurement of the torque because it is “more robust against external factors such as the influence of distance changes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘245 such that torque is measured by configuring the metamaterial arrays such that the first pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a first radial distance from the rotational shaft, and
wherein the second pair of metamaterial arrays are arranged at a second radial distance from the rotational shaft that is less than the first radial distance, and
wherein a change in the first torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque is different than a change in the second torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque, and wherein the torque is measured differentially, as taught by ‘853, for the benefit of robustness against external factors (¶106 – ‘853).
As to instant claim 7, ‘245 as modified recites wherein the first elementary structures, the second elementary structures, the third elementary structures, and the fourth elementary structures have a same structure size (see fig. 4B and ¶105 of ‘853).
If Applicant argues that ‘245 as modified does not teach wherein the first elementary structures, the second elementary structures, the third elementary structures, and the fourth elementary structures have a same structure size,
‘853 teaches wherein the first elementary structures, the second elementary structures, the third elementary structures, and the fourth elementary structures have a same structure size (see fig. 4B and ¶105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ‘245 as modified such that the metamaterial tracks are the metamaterial tracks in fig. 4B of ‘853 since such modifications would be simple substitutions of one metamaterial array for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
As to instant claim 8, ‘245 recites wherein the first mutually coupled structure has a first resonance frequency (since the first mutually coupled structure is formed by coupled metamaterial tracks) and the second mutually coupled structure has a second resonance frequency (since the second mutually coupled structure is formed by coupled metamaterial tracks; inherently, the first and second frequencies are either the same or different from each other).
‘245 does not recite
wherein the change in the first torque-dependent coupling causes the first resonance frequency to change by a first amount, and
wherein the change in the second torque-dependent coupling causes the second resonance frequency to change by a second amount that is different from the first amount.
‘853 teaches (see fig. 3A and ¶61-62, which area associated with fig. 3A), wherein the metamaterial array/pattern in fig. 3A results in “A 360° periodical pattern may be used to change the coupling capacitance of the split ring resonators along the rotation direction. For example, the coupling capacitance may be increased (or decreased) in the direction of rotation. Here, this is achieved by increasing (or decreasing) the length of the lines inside the opening of the split ring resonator, which results in a gradual and continuous increase (or decrease) in coupling capacitance in the rotation direction. This change in coupling capacitance along the rotation direction (i.e., along the perimeter of the metamaterial track) shifts the resonance frequency such that the change in the phase shift or the amplitude of a receive signal with respect to the transmit signal can be measured. Each phase shift value or amplitude value is specific to an absolute angular position (i.e., an angular value) of the rotatable target object.” (see ¶62),
wherein the first mutually coupled structure has a first resonance frequency (¶62) and the second mutually coupled structure has a second resonance frequency (¶62; the resonance frequencies are inherently either the same or different from each other),
wherein the change in the first torque-dependent coupling causes the first resonance frequency to change by a first amount (¶62), and
wherein the change in the second torque-dependent coupling causes the second resonance frequency to change by a second amount that is different from the first amount (¶62 teaches that the rotational shift between coupled metamaterial arrays results corresponds with a shift in phase or amplitude, and ¶105 teaches that the rotational shifts between the pairs of arrays are different from each other; accordingly, the first and second amounts in ‘853 are different from each other), and
wherein a change in the first torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque is different than a change in the second torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque (¶99-101, ¶103, and ¶105-106; note that ¶106 teaches the use of differential detection because it is “robust against external factors”).
If Applicant argues that ‘245 does not teach wherein the first mutually coupled structure has a first resonance frequency and the second mutually coupled structure has a second resonance frequency,
‘853 teaches wherein the first mutually coupled structure has a first resonance frequency (¶62) and the second mutually coupled structure has a second resonance frequency (¶62; the resonance frequencies are inherently either the same or different from each other), as already noted above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘245 such that the metamaterial tracks are configured as shown in fig. 3D of ‘853 wherein the first mutually coupled structure has a first resonance frequency and the second mutually coupled structure has a second resonance frequency,
wherein the change in the first torque-dependent coupling causes the first resonance frequency to change by a first amount, and
wherein the change in the second torque-dependent coupling causes the second resonance frequency to change by a second amount that is different from the first amount, and
wherein a change in the first torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque is different than a change in the second torque-dependent coupling caused by the torque, and wherein torque is detected differentially, as taught by ‘853, for the benefit of robustness against external factors (¶106 – ‘853).
As to instant claim 9, ‘245 recites wherein the first torque-dependent coupling has first torque sensitivity (see claim 8 of ‘245).
‘245 does not recite wherein the second torque-dependent coupling has second torque sensitivity that is lower than the first torque sensitivity.
As to claim 9, ‘853 teaches (in the configuration of fig. 4B, with the rotor and metamaterial track configuration shown) wherein the first torque-dependent coupling has first torque sensitivity, and wherein the second torque-dependent coupling has second torque sensitivity that is lower than the first torque sensitivity (¶105; ¶106 teaches that torque is detected differentially, which provides robustness against external factors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘245 such to configure the metamaterial tracks as taught by ‘853 such that the second torque-dependent coupling has second torque sensitivity that is lower than the first torque sensitivity, and wherein torque is detected differentially, for the benefit of robustness against external factors (¶106 – ‘853).
As to instant claim 16, ‘245 recites the limitations of the claim except wherein the first torque-dependent coupling affects a first millimeter (mm)-wave property of the first mutually coupled structure such that the first mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft, and
wherein the second torque-dependent coupling affects a second mm-wave property of the second mutually coupled structure such that the second mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft.
‘853 teaches wherein the first torque-dependent coupling affects a first millimeter (mm)-wave property of the first mutually coupled structure such that the first mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft (¶105), and
wherein the second torque-dependent coupling affects a second mm-wave property of the second mutually coupled structure such that the second mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft (¶105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of ‘245 such that the metamaterial tracks and couplings are configured such that wherein the first torque-dependent coupling affects a first millimeter (mm)-wave property of the first mutually coupled structure such that the first mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft, and
wherein the second torque-dependent coupling affects a second mm-wave property of the second mutually coupled structure such that the second mm-wave property changes based on the torque applied to the rotational shaft, as taught by ‘853, since such a modification would be a simple substitution of one method of using metamaterials for torque sensing for another for the predictable result that torque is still successfully detected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of “wherein the first torque-dependent coupling has a first unambiguous measurement range of applied torque,
wherein the second torque-dependent coupling has a second unambiguous measurement range of applied torque that is different from the first unambiguous measurement range of applied torque” all in combination with the rest of the claimed apparatus.
US 20210102853 A1 and US 11435245 B2 are the closest prior art of record, but lack the features of claim 10. US 20120160029 A1 teaches the concept of detecting different unambiguous ranges of acceleration, but there would have been no motivation to combine this teaching with either of US 20210102853 A1 and US 11435245 B2 to meet the limitations of claim 10.
As to claim 11, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of “monitor a first measurement of the first electromagnetic receive wave, and compare the first measurement to a torque threshold,
wherein the at least one receiver is configured to, based on the first measurement not satisfying the torque threshold, determine the torque applied to the rotational shaft based on the first measurement, and
wherein the at least one receiver is configured to, based on the first measurement satisfying the torque threshold, determine the torque applied to the rotational shaft based on a second measurement of the second electromagnetic receive wave” all in combination with the rest of the claimed apparatus.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of “monitor a first measurement of the first electromagnetic receive wave, and compare the first measurement to a torque threshold,
wherein the at least one receiver is configured to, based on the first measurement not satisfying the torque threshold, determine the torque applied to the rotational shaft based on the first measurement, and
wherein the at least one receiver is configured to, based on the first measurement satisfying the torque threshold, determine the torque applied to the rotational shaft based on a second measurement of the second electromagnetic receive wave” all in combination with the rest of the claimed apparatus.
The Examiner notes that claims 11 and 14 are directed to elected subspecies I, and withdrawn claims 12 and 15 are directed to non-elected subspecies II. Accordingly, in order for claims 12 and 15 to be rejoined at the time of an allowance, the Examiner respectfully suggests incorporating the limitations of claim 10 into claim 1 and rewriting claims 11 and 14 in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120160029 A1 teaches the concept of detecting different unambiguous ranges of acceleration
US 11408977 B2 teaches a position sensor that uses metamaterial tracks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBEN C PARCO JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/R.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights