DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 11/17/2025. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 are pending. Claim 9 was canceled. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 10-11 were amended.
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendments. A new objection to the specification is provided below.
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in view of amendments.
The previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of amendments correcting the informality.
Rejections to claims 1-15 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of amendments removing the indefinite terminology “significant”.
Claims 10-11 are objected to for allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant identifies the amendments on page 13 of the arguments filed 11/17, 2025 under Discussion re: Patentability of Claim 1, section 1 and concludes, “Claim 1 thus requires a single exciter that couples with two receiving structure through coupling devices, wherein the two coupling devices rotate at different speeds.” (Emphasis provided by Examiner).
The Examiner disagrees with this interpretation as nothing in the claims specifies that the two coupling devices rotate at different speeds. The claims merely state, “…such that the first coupling device rotates at a different speed about the axis of rotation than the rotatable body.” (Emphasis provided by Examiner). While claim 1 establishes an antecedent basis for “at least two coupling devices” and “a first coupling device”, the claims never establish an antecedent basis for a second coupling device, nor do the claims ever recite a speed for a second coupling device or specify that a second coupling device is coupled to the rotatable body.
Regarding arguments under Discussion re: Patentability of Claim 1, section 2. starting on page 13, the applicant argues Heinemann is not arranged as required by the claim as “claim 1 requires a single exciter that couples with two receiving structures through two coupling devices, wherein the two decoupling devices rotate at different speeds (Emphasis added) This is described at paragraph 31 of the Applicant’s specification.” (All emphasis added by the Applicant).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s interpretation of the claim. The Applicant’s interpretation is consistent with what is disclosed in the specification (e.g. [0027]-[0031]), but the Examiner notes paragraph 31 recites structural relationships which are not recited in the claims.
Further, while the requirement that the first coupling device and the second coupling device rotate at different speeds is recited in [0028] of the specification, this is not recited in the claims. For example, the last two sentences of paragraph [0028] state:
“This means that the rotational movement of the torsion rod 3A corresponds to the rotational movements of the second coupling device 5B and the third coupling device 5C. The first coupling device 5A1, 5A1 is connected to the torsion rod 3A via the transmission device 30. Thus, the rotational movement of the first coupling device 5A1, 5A2 is transmitted or reduced as a function of the transmission ratio of the transmission device 30 to the rotational movement of the rotatable body 3 designed as a torsion rod 3A.”
Thus, these features of [0028] are not recited in claim 1. Furthermore, there is nothing in the claims that the first coupling device and second coupling device or first receiving structure and second receiving structure are on the same side of the carrier substrate.
The Applicant further characterizes Heinemann in arguments filed on page 14 and the first paragraph of page 15. The only disagreement the Examiner has with the interpretation of Heinemann is the conclusion that Heinemann excites scale element 2 and scale element 3 with “different exciter elements”. Heinemann teaches in [0054]:
Excitation tracks 1.111, 1.113, 1.115 of first detector unit 1.11 include excitation conductor traces 1.1111, 1.1131, 1.1151, which extend in first layer A. In a similar manner, excitation tracks 1.121, 1.123, 1.125 of second detector unit 1.12 include excitation conductor traces 1.1211, 1.1231, 1.1251 which extend in fourth layer F.
However, Heinemann teaches in [0070]:
A precondition for the generation of corresponding signals is that excitation conductor traces 1.1111, 1.1131, 1.1151, 1.1211, 1.1231, 1.1251 generate an electromagnetic excitation field that is variable in time in the region of the respectively scanned graduation structures. … This electronic circuit of scanning element 1 operates not only as an evaluation element but also as an excitation control element under whose control the excitation current is generated or produced, which flows through excitation conductor traces 1.1111, 1.1131, 1.1151, 1.1211, 1.1231, 1.1251. Excitation conductor traces 1.1111, 1.1131, 1.1151, 1.1211, 1.1231, 1.1251 thus are energized by one and the same excitation control element. First excitation track 1.111 and second excitation track 1.121 are electrically connected in series.
Therefore, while several excitation conductor traces are recited, all these traces are connected in series and powered by the same current and may reasonably be interpreted as a single “exciter structure” in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation.
In contrast, the claims recite, “at least one exciter structure coupled to at least one oscillator circuit, which, during operation, comprises at least one periodic change signal in the at least one exciter structure” and “each of the respective one of the at least two coupling device configured to inductively couple the at least one exciter structure with the respectively associated receiving structures”. Therefore, excitation conductor traces 1.1111, 1.1131, 1.1151, 1.1211, 1.1231, 1.1251 are electrically connected in series and driven with a single excitation current from the excitation control element to generate an electromagnetic excitation field that is variable in time in both scale elements 2, 3. Therefore, the excitation traces teach all the limitation of “at least one exciter structure” and may reasonably be interpreted collectively as a “exciter structure” in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, claims 1-8 and 10-15 stand rejected as outlined below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification makes numerous references to “5A1, 5A1”. As best understood by the examiner, this should be corrected to recite “5A1, 5A2”. For example, paragraph [0027] makes three references to “coupling devices 5, 5A1, 5A1, 5B, 5C” should be corrected to - - coupling devices 5, 5A1, 5A2, 5B, 5C - -. The examiner identified 5 similar occurrences in [0028] and one more occurrence in [0033].
Paragraph [0027] recites at line 4 (see page 10 of specification filed 8/24/2023), “devices 5 rotatable about the axis of rotation DA, 5A1, 5A1, 5B, 5C and at least one measured…”. As best understood by the examiner, this should be amended to recite - - devices 5, 5A1, 5A1, 5B, 5C rotatable about the axis of rotation DA - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0178673 (Heinemann).
Regarding claim 1, Heinemann teaches an inductive sensor arrangement for detecting a rotational movement of a body rotatable about an axis of rotation (an inductive sensor for detecting a position of a scanning element relative to two scale elements that are rotatable; see [0002]), comprising:
at least two coupling devices rotatable about the axis of rotation (scale elements 2, 3 rotatable about axis R and comprise coupling tracks 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2; see Figs. 1, 10, 11; see [0047]); and
at least one measured value acquisition device having a multilayered circuit carrier (scanning element 1 comprising a multilayer circuit board 1.1; see Fig. 1, 6, 9; see [0048]) comprising:
at least one exciter structure coupled to at least one oscillator circuit, which, during operation, comprises at least one periodic change signal in the at least one exciter structure (“an exciter structure” is broadly interpreted as exciting tracks 1.111, 1.113, 1.115, 1.121, 1.123, 1.125 comprising excitation conductor traces 1.1111, 1.1131, 1.1151, 1.1211, 1.1231, 1.1251 which are connected in series and excited with an electrical excitation current to generate an electromagnetic excitation field that is variable in time, therefore the ; see Figs. 2, 3; see [0003], [0050], [0070]); and
at least two receiving structures, each receiving structure of the at least two receiving structures associated with a respective one of the at least two coupling devices, each of the respective one of the at least two coupling device configured to inductively couple the at least one exciter structure with the respectively associated receiving structure, wherein at least two of the receiving structures of the at least two receiving structures are arranged concentrically on the circuit carrier, without overlap (receiving tracks 1.112, 1.114, 1.122, 1.124 are arranged with one of the coupling devices 2.1, 2.2, 31.1, 3.2 to inductively couple with the exciting tracks, and the receiving tracks are arranged concentrically with tracks 1.112 and 1.114 not overlapping; see Figs. 2, 3);
at least one transmission device configured to transfer rotational movement of the rotatable body about the axis of rotation with a predetermined transmission ratio coaxially to at least a first coupling device of the at least two coupling devices, such that the first coupling device rotates at a different speed about the axis of rotation than the rotatable body (“Second scale element 3, for example, is connected to a drive shaft of a motor in a torsionally fixed manner. The drive shaft in turn is connected to a reduction gear that has an output shaft. First scale element 2 rotates with this output shaft.” Therefore, since the drive shaft is connected to an output shaft by a reduction gear and scale element 3 is connected to a drive shaft and scale element 2 is connected to the output shaft, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the coupling elements of scale element 2 and the coupling elements of scale element 3 rotate with a different speed; see [0047); and
at least one evaluation and control unit configured to evaluate signals induced in the at least two receiving structures, which are provided by the at least two receiving structures as at least two different measurement signals, the at least two different measurement signals representing information about the rotational movement of the body (“Signals generated by receiver tracks 1.112, 1.114, 1.122, 1.124 are further processed with the aid of a few of electronic components 1.2, which form an evaluation circuit.” See [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Heinemann teaches wherein the at least one exciter structure and the at least two receiving structures are arranged concentrically (see Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 3, Heinemann teaches wherein the at least one exciter structure and the at least two receiving structures are arranged concentrically on the circuit carrier without overlap (Figs. 2-9 show no overlap between exciting tracks 1.111, 1.113, 1.115, 1.121, 1.123, 1.125 and receiving tracks 1.112, 1.114, 1.122, 1.124.).
Regarding claim 4, Heinemann teaches wherein: at least one first receiving structure of the at least two receiving structures, which is associated with the first coupling device, is arranged radially outside the at least one exciter structure on the circuit carrier, and at least one second receiving structure of the at least two receiving structures is arranged radially within the at least one exciter structure on the circuit carrier (receiving structures 1.112 and 1.114 are arranged radially inside and radially outside, respectively, of excitation structure 1.113; see Figs. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 6, Heinemann teaches wherein the at least two coupling devices each have a plurality of electrically conductive coupling segments that define a periodicity of the signals induced in the at least two receiving structures (scale elements 2, 3 comprise graduation tracks 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2 which define a periodicity of the signals; see Figs. 10, 11; see [0069], [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Heinemann teaches wherein the at least two receiving structures comprise at least one receiver coil having a periodically repeating loop structure (the receiving tracks 1.112, 1.114, 1.122, 1.124 comprise repeating loops; see Figs. 2-5).
Regarding claim 13, Heinemann teaches wherein: a first receiver coil of the at least one receiver coil forms a sine channel and a second receiver coil of the at least one receiver coil forms a cosine channel, the at least two measurement signals each comprise a signal of the sine channel and a signal of the cosine channel, and the at least one evaluation and control unit is configured to determine corresponding information of the rotational movement of the body using an arctangent function (“…receiver conductor traces 1.1121, 1.1141, 1.1221, 1.1241 adjacent in a receiver track 1.112, 1.114, 1.122, 1.124 are arranged at an offset from one another by ⅛ the full sine period (by λ/4 or 45° along the circumferential direction or first direction x). Receiver conductor traces 1.1121, 1.1141, 1.1221, 1.1241 are electrically connected so that on the one hand, they supply 0° and 90° signals and 45° and 135° signals on the other hand. From the 0° and 90° signals, a first position signal is able to be determined, and from the 45° and 135° signals, a second signal redundant with respect to the first position signal is able to be determined.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the signals corresponding to 0° and 90° as corresponding to sine and cosine signals, and it is mathematically understood that the angle is determined based on an arctangent of the sine and cosine signals. See [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Heinemann teaches wherein the at least one evaluation and control unit is configured to determine a differential angle between a first portion of the rotatable body and a second portion of the rotatable body and/or an absolute rotational angle of the rotatable body from the at least two different measurement signals (the angular position is able to be determined in absolute terms; see [0069]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0178673 (Heinemann) in view of US 2024/0010275 (Heo).
Regarding claim 5, Heinemann fails to teach wherein the at least one transmission device is configured as a planetary gear train or as a gear system.
Heo teaches wherein the at least one transmission device is configured as a planetary gear train or as a gear system (a gear system comprising a gear ratio such that a first initial shaft 110, a first initial gear 111, and a first initial rotor 113 are connected by sub-gears 121, 141 to a second initial gear 131, a second initial shaft 130, a second initial rotor 133; see Figs. 2-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Heo into Heinemann in order to gain the advantage of a gear system which is able to provide a gear reduction between a drive shaft and an output shaft. While Heinemann does not explicitly disclose a gear system, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the gear system of Heo would provide the gear reduction as disclosed in Heinemann.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0178673 (Heinemann) in view of US 2022/0282997 (Meisenberg).
Regarding claim 7, Heinemann fails to teach wherein the first coupling device is configured as a tooth disk and faces a first side of the circuit carrier, and the electrically conductive coupling segments are configured as teeth and are separated from one another by recesses.
Meisenberg teaches wherein the first coupling device is configured as a tooth disk and faces a first side of the circuit carrier, and the electrically conductive coupling segments are configured as teeth and are separated from one another by recesses (a coupling element may comprise a conductive element or tooth or teeth formed by blades or wings, or described by a gear; see [0003], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Meisenberg into Heinemann in order to gain the advantage of conducting element in the form of a conducting tooth, blade, wing, or a gear as a routine matter of design choice as all are known in the art as conducting elements for an inductive angular sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to choose between a conductive element, a tooth, blade, wing, or gear without providing any new or unexpected result, or requiring any undue experimentation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0178673 (Heinemann) in view of US 2023/0077015 (Latham).
Regarding claim 8, Heinemann fails to teach wherein the electrically conductive coupling segments of the first coupling device are connected to each other via an internal short-circuit ring or via an external short-circuit ring.
Latham teaches wherein the electrically conductive coupling segments of the first coupling device are connected to each other via an internal short-circuit ring or via an external short-circuit ring (conductive targets 300, 302 are formed with slots 304, 318 formed in a metal disk with conductive portions at outer, intermediate, and inner portions of the target; see Figs. 3A, 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Latham into Heinemann in order to gain the advantage of conducting elements in the form of a conducting target having alternating open and intact regions for a coupling target as both configurations of couplers are known in the art of inductive encoders to provide a conductive target, and substituting the target of Heinemann with the target of Latham would not provide any new or unexpected result.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0178673 (Heinemann) in view of US 2019/0310148 (Bertin).
Regarding claim 14, Heinemann fails to teach wherein: each of the at least two receiving structures comprises at least three receiver coils having a periodically repeating loop structure that form a multi-phase system, the at least one evaluation and control unit is configured to execute a suitable phase transformation of signals of the multi-phase system and, via an arctangent function, to determine the at least two measurement signals.
Bertin teaches wherein: each of the at least two receiving structures comprises at least three receiver coils having a periodically repeating loop structure that form a multi-phase system, the at least one evaluation and control unit is configured to execute a suitable phase transformation of signals of the multi-phase system and, via an arctangent function, to determine the at least two measurement signals (the receiving structures may be two phase or three phase and the angle is determined by an arctangent function; see Figs. 3B, 3C, 3H, 3I, 3J; see [0055], [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Bertin into Heinemann as both two-phase and three-phase receiver coils are known in the art as alternative receiver coil configurations for determining an angular position, and it would be an obvious matter of design choice to use a two-phase or three-phase system without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein: a second coupling device of the at least two coupling devices and a further coupling device are each configured as a rotor electrically conductive coupling segments configured as blades, the number of electrically conductive coupling elements of the second and further coupling devices differs, and the second coupling device faces a first side of the circuit carrier and the further coupling device faces a second side of the circuit carrier, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
After further search and consideration, it would not be obvious to incorporate a second coupling device and a further coupling device, each configured as a rotor with electrically conductive coupling segments configured as blades in combination with the first coupling device as outlined in Fig. 1.
Claim 11 is objected to due to a dependence on claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858