DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-27 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 independent claim 1, claim 1 recites “about” in lines 3 and 6, the term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about” to “along”.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “about” in line 3, the term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “about” in line 2, the term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “about” in last four lines, the term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claims 2-13, claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 2-13 depend on all claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 14, claim 14 recites “about” in lines 3 and 6, the term “about” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about” to “along”.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “about” in line 2, the term “about” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites “about” in line 1, the term “about” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claims 15-19, claims 15-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 15-19 depend on all claim limitations of claim 14.
Regarding independent claim 20, claim 20 recites “about” in lines 4 and 7, the term “about” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about” to “along”.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 recites “about” in line 2, the term “about” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 recites “about” in line 1, the term “about” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claims 21-24, claims 21-24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 21-24 depend on all claim limitations of claim 20.
Regarding independent claim 25, claim 25 recites “about” in lines 3 and 5, the term “about” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about” to “along”.
Regarding independent claim 25, claim 25 recites “about” in last two lines, the term “about” in claim 25 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites “about” in line 2, the term “about” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “about ” to “
Regarding claims 26-27, claims 26-27 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 26-27 depend on all claim limitations of claim 25.
Regarding independent claim 1, claim 1 recites “substantially” in lines 8-9, the term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “substantially” in last line, the term “substantially” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “substantially” in lines 5-6 and last two lines, the term “substantially” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “substantially” in lines 4, 6 and 8 and last two lines, the term “substantially” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claims 2-13, claims 2-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 2-13 depend on all claim limitations of claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 14, claim 14 recites “substantially” in lines 8-9, the term “substantially” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites “substantially” in line 3, the term “substantially” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites “substantially” in lines 2-3, the term “substantially” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claims 15-19, claims 15-19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 15-19 depend on all claim limitations of claim 14.
Regarding independent claim 20, claim 20 recites “substantially” in lines 9-10 and 15, the term “substantially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites “substantially” in lines 2-3, the term “substantially” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
Regarding claims 21-24, claims 21-24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claims 21-24 depend on all claim limitations of claim 20.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 recites “substantially” in line 6, the term “substantially” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
To resolve this issue, it is suggested to change “substantially ” to “
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 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 of this title, 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 1-5, 9-11, 14, 17-19 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaga et al. (US 2020/0271480) found in IDS, and further in view of Pichler (CN 113984093 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shaga teaches an apparatus (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0048]-[0049], position sensor 8 in fig. 1 or position sensor 60 in fig. 5) comprising:
a support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], a multilayer substrate 10);
a first sense coil comprising a sine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], sine sensing coil 16a and 16b) arranged about a longitudinal axis of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10),
the sine coil having opposing ends between opposing ends of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b have left and right ends between the left and right ends of the multilayer substrate 10),
the sine coil defining at least a first lobe and a second lobe (e.g. figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe and a right negative lobe);
a second sense coil comprising a cosine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b) arranged about the longitudinal axis of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10),
the cosine coil having opposing ends between the opposing ends of the support structure (e.g figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b have left and right ends between the left and right ends of the multilayer substrate 10),
the cosine coil defining first lobe portions (e.g. figs. 1, 3 and 5, left positive lobe and left half of negative lobe as shown in figs. 1 and 3) substantially coextensive with the first lobe of the sine coil (e.g. figs. 1-3 and 5, coextensive with left positive lobe of since coil 16a and 16b as shown in figs. 1-2) and second lobe portions (e.g. figs. 1, 3 and 5, right positive lob and right half of negative lobe as shown in figs. 1 and 3) substantially coextensive with the second lobe of the sine coil (e.g. figs. 1-3 and 5, coextensive with right positive lobe of since coil 16a and 16b as shown in figs. 1-2); and
one or more oscillator coils (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], oscillator coils 12 and 14) arranged around the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], oscillator coils 12 and 14 arranged around sine sensing coil 16a and 16b and cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b).
However, wherein a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil.
Pichler teaches a coil area of a first lobe of a sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a cosine coil (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil).
It would produce a predictive result of adding smaller since coil and cosine coil to the position sensor for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein a coil area of a first lobe of a sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a cosine coil, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
Regarding claim 2, Shaga is silent with regard to wherein the coil arca of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within a range of about 20 to 30 percent.
Pichler teaches a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within 40 percent (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%, and based on visual approximation the percentage difference is less than 40 percent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be within a range between 20 percent and 30 percent, the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a short lobe of the sine coil to reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the coil arca of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within a range of about 20 to 30 percent, for the purpose of reduce material and weight.
Regarding claim 3, Shaga is silent with regard to wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by about 25 percent.
Pichler teaches a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within 40 percent (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%, and based on visual approximation the percentage difference is less than 40 percent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be 25 percent, the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a short lobe of the sine coil to reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by about 25 percent, for the purpose of reduce material and weight.
Regarding claim 4, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim1, Shaga further teaches wherein the first lobe portions of the cosine coil comprise first half lobes (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1, 3, and 5, left positive lobe and left-half of negative lob of cosine coil 18a-18b are half lobes as shown in fig. 3) and the second lobe portions of the cosine coil comprise second half lobes (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1, 3, and 5, right-half of negative lob and right positive lobe of cosine coil 18a-18b are half lobes as shown in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim1, Shaga further teaches comprising: a target movably positionable along the longitudinal axis of the support structure between a start position and an end position (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0009] and [0049], movable conductive target 20 horizontal form left position to right end position),
wherein the first lobe is located at an end of the support structure at or towards the end position for the target (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe at left end of the multilayer substrate 10 towards the right end position for the target 20).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Shaga teaches wherein: the first lobe of the sine coil includes a first half lobe and a second half lobe (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-2 and 5, left positive lobe has a left half lobe and right half lobe as shown in fig. 2),
the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is defined by a first coil area of the first half lobe and a second coil area of the second half lobe (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-2 and 5, coil area of positive lobe of since coil is sum of coil area of left half lobe and coil area of right half lobe area as shown in fig. 2),
the first lobe portions of the cosine coil include a first half lobe substantially coextensive with the first half lobe of the sine coil (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-3 and 5, left positive lobe portion of cosine coil coextensive with the left half positive lobe of the sine coil) and a second half lobe substantially coextensive with the second half lobe of the sine coil (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-3 and 5, right half negative lobe portion of cosine coil coextensive with the right half positive lobe of the sine coil),
the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil is defined by a first coil area of the first half lobe and a second coil area of the second half lobe (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1, 3 and 5, coil area of left positive lobe portion and left half of negative lobe portion of cosine coil is the sum of coil area of left half of negative lobe and coil area of left half of negative lobe).
However, Shaga is silent with regard to the first coil area of the first half lobe of the sine coil is less than the first coil area of the first half lobe of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference between about 40 and 60 percent, and
the second coil area of the second half lobe of the sine coil is substantially the same as the second coil area of the second half lobe of the cosine coil.
Pichler further teaches a first coil area of the first half lobe of a sine coil is less than a first coil area of the first half lobe of a cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference between about 40 and 60 percent, (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%, and based on visual approximation the percentage difference is less than 40 percent).
a second coil area of the second half lobe of a sine coil is substantially the same as a second coil area of the second half lobe of a cosine coil (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, coil area of left lobe of bigger sine coil is the same as coil area of left lobe of bigger cosine coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have the first coil area of the first half lobe of the sine coil is less than the first coil area of the first half lobe of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference between about 40 and 60 percent, and the second coil area of the second half lobe of the sine coil is substantially the same as the second coil area of the second half lobe of the cosine coil, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Pichler further teaches wherein a width of one or more first coil winding portions of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a width of one or more second coil winding portions of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, width of the lobe of smaller sine coil is smaller than a width of the lobe of bigger cosine coil).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Pichler further teaches wherein a maximum height or size of the first lobe of the
sine coil is less than a maximum height or size of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil (e.g. fig. 11, Pichler, maximum size of the lobe of smaller sine coil is smaller than a maximum size of the lobe of bigger cosine coil).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Shaga further teaches comprising: a position sensor circuitry to determine first and second position signals (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0012] and [0050], sensor interface IC has sensing circuits 36b and 36c, and sensing circuit 36b determines sensing signal from since coil and sensing circuit 36c determines sensing signal from cosine coil) indicating a position of a target at least partially based on first and second sense signals from the sine coil and the cosine coil, respectively (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0013] and [0049], indicating position of target 20 based on sensing signals from respective sine coil and cosine coil),
However, Shaga is silent with regard to wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal.
Pichler teaches a coil area of a first lobe of a sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a cosine coil by a percentage difference(e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%), the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of a first position signal (e.g. last paragraph of “Contensts of the Invention”, output signals are used in error compensation, the smaller sine coil covers areas outside the bigger cosine coil and/or bigger sine coil which may be used to compensate for an offset of a first position signal).
It would produce a predictive result of adding smaller since coil and cosine coil to the position sensor for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
Regarding independent claim 14, Shaga teaches a method comprising:
providing an apparatus (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0048]-[0049], providing position sensor 8 in fig. 1 or position sensor 60 in fig. 5) comprising
a support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], a multilayer substrate 10),
one or more oscillator coils (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], oscillator coils 12 and 14),
a first sense coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], sine sensing coil 16a and 16b), and
a second sense coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b),
the first sense coil comprising a sine coil arranged about a longitudinal axis of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10),
the sine coil having opposing ends between opposing ends of the support structure (e.g figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b have left and right ends between the left and right ends of the multilayer substrate 10),
the sine coil defining at least a first lobe and a second lobe (e.g. figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe and a right negative lobe),
the second sense coil comprising a cosine coil arranged about the longitudinal axis of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10),
the cosine coil having opposing ends between the opposing ends of the support structure (e.g figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b have left and right ends between the left and right ends of the multilayer substrate 10),
the cosine coil defining first lobe portions portions (e.g. figs. 1, 3 and 5, left positive lobe and left half of negative lobe as shown in figs. 1 and 3) substantially coextensive with the first lobe of the sine coil (e.g. figs. 1-3 and 5, coextensive with left positive lobe of since coil 16a and 16b as shown in figs. 1-2) and second lobe portions (e.g. figs. 1, 3 and 5, right positive lob and right half of negative lobe as shown in figs. 1 and 3) substantially coextensive with the second lobe of the sine coil (e.g. figs. 1-3 and 5, coextensive with right positive lobe of since coil 16a and 16b as shown in figs. 1-2),
the one or more oscillator coils arranged around the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], oscillator coils 12 and 14 arranged around sine sensing coil 16a and 16b and cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b); and
determining first and second position signals (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0012] and [0050], sensing circuit 36b determines sensing signal from since coil and sensing circuit 36c determines sensing signal from cosine coil) indicating a position of a target at least partially based on first and second sense signals from the sine coil and the cosine coil, respectively (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0013] and [0049], indicating position of target 20 based on sensing signals from respective sine coil and cosine coil).
However, Shaga is silent with regard to wherein a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal.
Pichler teaches a coil area of a first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%), the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of a first position signal (e.g. last paragraph of “Contensts of the Invention”, output signals are used in error compensation, the smaller sine coil covers areas outside the bigger cosine coil and/or bigger sine coil which may be used to compensate for an offset of a first position signal).
It would produce a predictive result of adding smaller since coil and cosine coil to the position sensor for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
Regarding claim 17, Shaga is silent with regard to the method of claim 14, wherein the percentage difference within a range of about 20 to 30 percent.
Pichler teaches a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within 40 percent (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%, and based on visual approximation the percentage difference is less than 40 percent).
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be within a range between 20 percent and 30 percent, the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a short lobe of the sine coil to reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the coil arca of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within a range of about 20 to 30 percent, for the purpose of reduce material and weight.
Regarding claim 18, Shaga is silent with regard to the method of claim 14, wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by about 25 percent.
Pichler teaches a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within 40 percent (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%, and based on visual approximation the percentage difference is less than 40 percent).
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be 25 percent, the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a short lobe of the sine coil to reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by about 25 percent, for the purpose of reduce material and weight.
Regarding claim 19, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the method of claim 14, Shaga further teaches wherein the determining comprises: generating an excitation signal in the one or more oscillator coils to produce a varying magnetic field for inducing the first and the second sense signals in the sine coil and the cosine coil, respectively (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-3 and 5, abstract, [0012], signal generator section 36a generates opposing magnetic files by injection current through oscillating coils for inducing the sine coil 16a-16b and cosine coil 18a-18b),
the varying magnetic field disturbed in accordance with a linear position of the target for modulating the first and the second sense signals in the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-3 and 5, abstract, [0009], opposing magnetic files disturbed in according with a linear position of target 20 as the target 20 moves horizontally for modulating sensing signals in the sine coil 16a-16b and cosine coil 18a-18b);
receiving the modulated first and second sense signals from the sine coil and the cosine coil, respectively (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-3 and 5, [0012], sensing circuits 36b and 36c receives the modulated sensing signals in the sine coil 16a-16b and cosine coil 18a-18b, respectively); and
demodulating the modulated first and second sense signals to produce the first and the second position signals, respectively (e.g. Shaga, figs 4, [0022], demodulating sensing signals from sensing circuits 36b and 36c to produce sensing positions signals 50 and 52, respectively).
Regarding independent claim 25, Shaga teaches an apparatus (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0048]-[0049], position sensor 8 in fig. 1 or position sensor 60 in fig. 5) comprising:
a support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], a multilayer substrate 10);
a first sense coil comprising a sine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], sine sensing coil 16a and 16b) arranged about a longitudinal axis of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10),
the sine coil having opposing ends between opposing ends of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b have left and right ends between the left and right ends of the multilayer substrate 10);
a second sense coil comprising a cosine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b) arranged about the longitudinal axis of the support structure,
the cosine coil having opposing ends between the opposing ends of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10); and
one or more oscillator coils arranged around the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], oscillator coils 12 and 14 arranged around sine sensing coil 16a and 16b and cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b),
However, Shaga is silent with regard to wherein a coil area of a first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of a second lobe of the sine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within a range of about 20 to 30 percent.
Pichler teaches a coil area of a first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of a second lobe of the sine coil by a percentage difference (e.g. fig. 11, coil area of right half lobe of bigger sine coil 3 is less than coil area of left whole lobe of the bigger since coil 3), the percentage difference is about 40 percent (e.g. fig. 11, different of the coil area of right half lobe of bigger sine coil 3 and the coil area of left whole lobe of the bigger since coil 3 is about 40 percent).
However, Pichler is silent with regard to the percentage difference within a range of about 20 to 30 percent.
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be between 20 percent and 30 percent because the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a short lobe of the sine coil to reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein a coil area of a first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of a second lobe of the sine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within a range of about 20 to 30 percent, for the purpose of reducing material and weight.
Regarding claim 26, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim 25, Pichler teaches wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the second lobe of the sine coil by about 40 percent (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, coil area of right half lobe of bigger sine coil 3 is less than coil area of left whole lobe of the bigger since coil 3, different of the coil area of right half lobe of bigger sine coil 3 and the coil area of left whole lobe of the bigger since coil 3 is about 40 percent).
However, Shaga is silent with regard to wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the second lobe of the sine coil by about 25 percent.
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be 25 percent because the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a shorter lobe of the sine coil to further reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the second lobe of the sine coil by about 25 percent, for the purpose of further reducing material and weight.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaga et al. (US 2020/0271480) found in IDS in view of Pichler (CN 113984093 A), and further in view of Oshinubi et al. (US 2020/0116529).
Regarding claim 6, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Shaga teaches wherein: the first lobe of the sine coil comprises a first number of one or more first coil winding portions (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-2 and 5, [0009], left positive lobe of sine coil have two winding portions 16a and 16b),
the first lobe portions of the cosine coil comprise a second number of one or more second coil winding portions (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1, 3 and 5, [0009], left positive lobe of sine coil and left half negative lobe of sine coil have two winding portions 18a and 18b).
However, the combination of Shaga and Pichler is silent with regard to the first number of the one or more first coil winding portions is less than the second number of the one or more second coil winding portions.
Oshinubi teaches a first number of one or more first coil winding portions of sine coil is less than the second number of the one or more second coil winding portions of cosine coil (e.g fig. 3, solid-line sine coil has 2 winding portions and dash-line cosine coil has 4 winding portions).
It would produce a result of adding two more cosine coil in additional to the existing cosine coil, for the purpose of increasing detection area and/or improving sensitivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have the first number of the one or more first coil winding portions is less than the second number of the one or more second coil winding portions, for the purpose of increasing detection area and/or improving sensitivity.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaga et al. (US 2020/0271480) found in IDS in view of Pichler (CN 113984093 A), and further in view of Howard et al. (US 7,932,715).
Regarding claim 7, combination of Shaga and Pichler is silent with regard to wherein the sine coil comprises: a first coil turn; a second coil turn; and a bypass connection to connect an end of the first coil turn to a beginning of the second coil turn at substantially a middle of the first lobe.
Howard teaches a sine coil (e.g. sine coil 1a) comprises: a first coil turn (e.g. fig. 2, left solid line coil turn of sine coil 1a);
a second coil turn (e.g. fig. 2, dashed line coil turn of sine coil 1a); and
a bypass connection to connect an end of the first coil turn to a beginning of the second coil turn at substantially a middle of a first lobe (e.g. fig. 1a, a circular bypass connection at a middle of left first lobe of sine coil 1a connects an end of the left solid line coil turn of sine coil 1a to a beginning of the dashed line coil turn of sine coil 1a).
It would produce a predictive result of using a bypass connection to connect coil turns of the sine coil, for the purpose of implementing the coils on different side of the substrate and/or performing detections on front and back of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga and Pichler by applying the teaching of Howard to explicitly have wherein the sine coil comprises: a first coil turn; a second coil turn; and a bypass connection to connect an end of the first coil turn to a beginning of the second coil turn at substantially a middle of the first lobe, for the purpose of implementing the coils on different side of the substrate and/or performing detections on front and back of the substrate.
Claims 12-13, 15-16, 20-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaga et al. (US 2020/0271480) found in IDS, and further in view of Pichler (CN 113984093 A) and Masreliez et al. (US 6,011,389).
Regarding independent claim 20, Shaga teaches an apparatus (e.g. figs. 1 and 5) comprising:
a linear inductive position sensor (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0009], inductive lear position sensor 8 or position sensor 60 in fig. 5) comprising:
a support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], a multilayer substrate 10);
a first sense coil comprising a sine coil arranged about a longitudinal axis of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10),
the sine coil having opposing ends between opposing ends of the support structure (e.g figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b have left and right ends between the left and right ends of the multilayer substrate 10),
the sine coil defining at least a first lobe and a second lobe (e.g. figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe and a right negative lobe);
a second sense coil comprising a cosine coil arranged about the longitudinal axis of the support structure (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b arranged in horizonal direction of the multilayer substrate 10),
the cosine coil having opposing ends between the opposing ends of the support structure (e.g figs. 1 and 5, cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b have left and right ends between the left and right ends of the multilayer substrate 10),
the cosine coil defining first lobe portions (e.g. figs. 1, 3 and 5, left positive lobe and left half of negative lobe as shown in figs. 1 and 3) substantially coextensive with the first lobe of the sine coil (e.g. figs. 1-3 and 5, coextensive with left positive lobe of since coil 16a and 16b as shown in figs. 1-2) and second lobe portions (e.g. figs. 1, 3 and 5, right positive lob and right half of negative lobe as shown in figs. 1 and 3) substantially coextensive with the second lobe of the sine coil (e.g. figs. 1-3 and 5, coextensive with right positive lobe of since coil 16a and 16b as shown in figs. 1-2);
one or more oscillator coils arranged around the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0049], oscillator coils 12 and 14 arranged around sine sensing coil 16a and 16b and cosine sensing coil 18a and 18b);
a target movably positionable along the longitudinal axis from a start position to an end position (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0009] and [0049], movable conductive target 20 horizontal form left position to right end position); and
a position sensor circuitry to determine a first position signal and a second position signal (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0012] and [0050], sensor interface IC has sensing circuits 36b and 36c, and sensing circuit 36b determines sensing signal from since coil and sensing circuit 36c determines sensing signal from cosine coil) indicating a position of the target at least partially based on first and second sense signals from the sine coil and the cosine coil, respectively (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0013] and [0049], indicating position of target 20 based on sensing signals from respective sine coil and cosine coil),
wherein the first lobe of the sine coil is located at an end of the support structure at or towards the end position for the target (e.g. figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe at left end of the multilayer substrate 10 towards the right end position for the target 20).
However, Shaga is silent with regard to wherein a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal.
Pichler teaches a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference (e.g. fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%), the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal (e.g. last paragraph of “Contensts of the Invention”, output signals are used in error compensation, the smaller sine coil covers areas outside the bigger cosine coil and/or bigger sine coil which may be used to compensate for an offset of a first position signal).
It would produce a predictive result of adding smaller since coil and cosine coil to the position sensor for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein a coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than a coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference of the first lobe being sufficient to cancel or compensate for an offset of the first position signal, for the purpose of improving measurement accuracy and resolution (e.g. Pichler, paragraph 6 of “Background” section).
However, combination of Shaga and Pichler is silent with regard to the target having a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil.
Masreliez teaches a target having a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between opposing ends of sine coil or the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 27A-27B, column 24: lines 59-65 “conductive member 312 can be longer than the receiver winding 104 along the measuring axis 300”).
It would produce a predictive result of having the target with a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga and Pichler by applying the teaching of Masreliez to explicitly have the target having a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil, for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 21, combination Shaga, Pichler and Masreliez teaches the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within 40 percent (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%, and based on visual approximation the percentage difference is less than 40 percent).
However, combination of Shaga, Pichler and Masreliez is silent with regard to wherein the percentage difference is within a range of about 20 to 30 percent.
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be within the range between 20 percent and 30 percent, the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a short lobe of the sine coil to reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the percentage difference is within a range of about 20 to 30 percent, for the purpose of reduce material and weight.
Regarding claim 22, combination Shaga, Pichler and Masreliez teaches the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil is less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by a percentage difference, the percentage difference within 40 percent (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%, and based on visual approximation the percentage difference is less than 40 percent).
However, combination of Shaga, Pichler and Masreliez is silent with regard to wherein the percentage difference is about 25 percent.
It is obvious to optimize the percentage difference to be 25 percent, the optimized range might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, using the optimized range would achieve optimal results.
It would produce a predictive result of using a short lobe of the sine coil to reduce material and weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga by applying the teaching of Pichler to explicitly have wherein the percentage difference is about 25 percent, for the purpose of reduce material and weight.
Regarding claim 12, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches a target movably positionable along the longitudinal axis of the support structure between a start position and an end (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0009] and [0049], movable conductive target 20 horizontal form left position to right end position), and wherein the first lobe of the sine coil is located at an end of the support structure at or towards the end position for the target (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe at left end of the multilayer substrate 10 towards the right end position for the target 20).
However, combination of Shaga and Pichler is silent with regard to the target having a length greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil, wherein in the start position, the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, and wherein in the end position, the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil.
Masreliez teaches a target having a length greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 27A-27B, column 24: lines 59-65 “conductive member 312 can be longer than the receiver winding 104 along the measuring axis 300”),
wherein in the start position (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, right start position), the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, column 25: lines 3-10, when target 308 is at right start position, the target disturbs substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between transmitting coil and receiving coil), and
wherein in the end position (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27A, left end position), the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, column 25: lines 3-10, when target 308 is at left end position, the target disturbs substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between transmitting coil and receiving coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga and Pichler by applying the teaching of Masreliez to explicitly have the target having a length greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil, wherein in the start position, the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, and wherein in the end position, the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 15, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches the method of claim 14, Shaga further teaches wherein the target is movably positionable along the longitudinal axis of the support structure from a start position to an end position (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0009] and [0049], movable conductive target 20 horizontal form left position to right end position), and the first lobe of the sine coil is located at an end of the support structure at or towards the end position for the target (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe at left end of the multilayer substrate 10 towards the right end position for the target 20).
However, the combination of Shaga and Pichler is silent with regard to the target has a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil.
Masreliez teaches the target has a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 27A-27B, column 24: lines 59-65 “conductive member 312 can be longer than the receiver winding 104 along the measuring axis 300”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga and Pichler by applying the teaching of Masreliez to explicitly have the target has a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil, for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 16, combination Shaga and Pichler teaches wherein in the start position, the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, and wherein in the end position, the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil.
Masreliez teaches wherein in the start position (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, right start position), the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, column 25: lines 3-10, when target 308 is at right start position, the target disturbs substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between transmitting coil and receiving coil), and
wherein in an end position (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27A, left end position), the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, column 25: lines 3-10, when target 308 is at left end position, the target disturbs substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between transmitting coil and receiving coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga and Pichler by applying the teaching of Masreliez to explicitly have wherein in the start position, the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, and wherein in the end position, the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 23, combination Shaga and Pichler is silent with regard to wherein in a start position, the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, and wherein in an end position, the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil.
Masreliez teaches wherein in a start position (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, right start position), the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, column 25: lines 3-10, when target 308 is at right start position, the target disturbs substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between transmitting coil and receiving coil), and
wherein in an end position (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27A, left end position), the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil (e.g. Masreliez, fig. 27B, column 25: lines 3-10, when target 308 is at left end position, the target disturbs substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between transmitting coil and receiving coil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga and Pichler by applying the teaching of Masreliez to explicitly have wherein in a start position, the target is to disturb substantially little or none of a magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, and wherein in an end position, the target is to disturb substantially most or an entirety of the magnetic coupling between the one or more oscillator coils and the sine coil and the cosine coil, for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 13, combination Shaga, Pichler and Masreliez teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein: the position sensor circuitry is to determine a position voltage of the target based on the first and the second position signals (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0016], (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0012] and [0050], sensor interface IC has sensing circuits 36b and 36c, and sensing circuit 36b determines induced voltage based on sensing signal from since coil and sensing circuit 36c determines induced voltage based on sensing signal from cosine coil), the position voltage having improved linearity over the measurement range from the start position to the end position (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, smaller sine coil and cosine coil are included to the bigger sine coil and cosine coil to improve linearity measurement from right start position to left end position) as a result of the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil being less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by the percentage difference (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%).
Regarding claim 24, combination Shaga, Pichler and Masreliez teaches wherein: the position sensor circuitry is to determine a position voltage of the target based on the first position signal and the second position signal (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0016], (e.g. figs. 1 and 5, [0012] and [0050], sensor interface IC has sensing circuits 36b and 36c, and sensing circuit 36b determines induced voltage based on sensing signal from since coil and sensing circuit 36c determines induced voltage based on sensing signal from cosine coil)), the position voltage having improved linearity over the measurement range from the start position to the end position (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, smaller sine coil and cosine coil are included to the bigger sine coil and cosine coil to improve linearity measurement from right start position to left end position) as a result of the coil area of the first lobe of the sine coil being less than the coil area of the first lobe portions of the cosine coil by the percentage difference (e.g. Pichler, fig. 11, a coil area of a first lobe of a smaller sine coil is less than a coil area of a first lobe portions of a bigger cosine coil a percentage difference by divided the difference of the two coil areas by the total of the coil areas times 100%).
Regarding claim 27, combination of Shaga and Pichler teaches comprising: a position sensor circuitry to determine a first position signal and a second position signal (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0012] and [0050], sensing circuit 36b determines sensing signal from since coil and sensing circuit 36c determines sensing signal from cosine coil) indicating a position of a target at least partially based on first and second sense signals from the sine coil and the cosine coil, respectively (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0013] and [0049], indicating position of target 20 based on sensing signals from respective sine coil and cosine coil),
wherein the target is movably positionable along the longitudinal axis from a start position to an end position (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1 and 5, [0009] and [0049], movable conductive target 20 horizontal form left position to right end position),
wherein the first lobe of the sine coil is located at an end of the support structure at or towards the end position for the target (e.g. Shaga, figs. 1-2 and 5, sine sensing coil 16a and 16b defining at a left positive lobe at left end of the multilayer substrate 10 towards the right end position for the target 20).
However, combination of Shaga and Pichler is silent with regard to the target has a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil.
Masreliez teaches a target has a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil (e.g. figs. 27A-27B, column 24: lines 59-65 “conductive member 312 can be longer than the receiver winding 104 along the measuring axis 300”).
It would produce a predictive result of having the target with a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shaga and Pichler by applying the teaching of Masreliez to explicitly have the target has a length that is greater than or equal to a measurement range extending substantially between the opposing ends of the sine coil or the cosine coil, for the purpose of reducing interference by having larger absorbing area to absorb generated magnetic field to obtain net zero value receiver output signal (e.g. Masreliez, column 25: lines 3-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights