DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “distorting harmonic waves” which lacks antecedent basis in the original disclosure. The original specification discloses “interfering harmonic waves” (see par. [0004]). The limitation appears to borrow language from the cited prior art; i.e., Smith et al.
Claims 3-14 are rejected due to their dependencies upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2021/0055135) in view of Hulten et al. (US 2025/0093220).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement (element 700, Fig. 7) for detecting a movement of a movable body (i.e., not shown rotor) (see par. [0088]), comprising: at least one movable coupling device (i.e., not shown circumferentially variable coupling element) coupled to the movable body (see par. [0088]); and at least one measured-value detection device (see Fig. 7) comprising at least one circuit carrier having at least one exciter structure (element 702, Fig. 7) and at least one receiving structure (elements 704-708, Fig. 7), wherein the at least one exciter structure is coupled to at least one oscillator circuit (element 112, Fig. 1) which, during operation, couples a periodic alternating signal into the at least one exciter structure, the at least one movable coupling device is designed to influence an inductive coupling between the at least one exciter structure and the at least one receiving structure (see par. [0048]), at least one evaluation and control unit (element 110, Fig. 1) is designed to evaluate signals induced in the at least one receiving structure and to determine a measurement signal for a current position of the movable body, the at least one receiving structure comprises at least one receiving coil (elements 704-708, Fig. 7) having at least one periodically repeating loop structure, each of the at least one periodically repeating loop structure designed as a superposition in an angular direction of a sinusoidal fundamental wave and of at least one harmonic wave of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see Fig. 7), and the at least one harmonic wave introduced into the loop structure is configured to counteract distorting harmonic waves in a magnetic alternating field generated by the movable coupling device (see par. [0083]).
Even assuming arguendo, without conceding, that Smith et al does not discloses a periodicity of each loop structure of the at least one periodically repeating loop structure and of the sinusoidal fundamental wave corresponds to a periodicity of the at least one movable coupling device, Hulten et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art. Hulten et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein a periodicity of each loop structure of the at least one periodically repeating loop structure (elements 101, 102, Fig. 4) and of the sinusoidal fundamental wave corresponds to a periodicity of the at least one movable coupling device (element 20, Fig. 4) (see Fig. 4 and claim 27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as, improved detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the superposition of the sinusoidal fundamental wave and the at least one harmonic wave is a Fourier series using at least two summands (see par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein a harmonic order of the at least one harmonic wave is three times that of a harmonic order of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one harmonic wave has a phase offset of 0° or of 180° relative to the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein an amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave for the superposition with the sinusoidal fundamental wave is predetermined in a range between -20% and +20% (i.e., 1/6th) of an amplitude of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein: the at least one receiving structure comprises two receiving coils each having a respective periodically repeating loop structure (see Fig. 3); and the respective periodically repeating loop structures of the two receiving coils are offset 90° relative to each other such that a first of the two receiving coils forms a sine channel and a second of the two receiving coils forms a cosine channel (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one evaluation and control unit is designed to determine the measurement signal from a signal of the sine channel and from a signal of the cosine channel using an arctangent function (see par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one receiving structure comprises three receiving coils (elements 704, 706, 708, Fig. 7) with a periodically repeating loop structure, the three receiving coils forming a multi-phase system (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one evaluation and control unit is designed to carry out a suitable phase transformation of signals of the multi-phase system and to determine the measurement signal using an arctangent function (see par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the movable body performs a rotational movement about a rotational axis (see Fig. 7).
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2021/0055135) in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0089358), as evidenced by Lugani (US 2021/0302207).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement (element 700, Fig. 7) for detecting a movement of a movable body (i.e., not shown rotor) (see par. [0088]), comprising: at least one movable coupling device (i.e., not shown circumferentially variable coupling element) coupled to the movable body (see par. [0088]); and at least one measured-value detection device (see Fig. 7) comprising at least one circuit carrier having at least one exciter structure (element 702, Fig. 7) and at least one receiving structure (elements 704-708, Fig. 7), wherein the at least one exciter structure is coupled to at least one oscillator circuit (element 112, Fig. 1) which, during operation, couples a periodic alternating signal into the at least one exciter structure, the at least one movable coupling device is designed to influence an inductive coupling between the at least one exciter structure and the at least one receiving structure (see par. [0048]), at least one evaluation and control unit (element 110, Fig. 1) is designed to evaluate signals induced in the at least one receiving structure and to determine a measurement signal for a current position of the movable body, the at least one receiving structure comprises at least one receiving coil (elements 704-708, Fig. 7) having at least one periodically repeating loop structure, each of the at least one periodically repeating loop structure designed as a superposition in an angular direction of a sinusoidal fundamental wave and of at least one harmonic wave of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see Fig. 7) , and the at least one harmonic wave introduced into the loop structure is configured to counteract distorting harmonic waves in a magnetic alternating field generated by the movable coupling device (see par. [0083]).
Even assuming arguendo, without conceding, that Smith et al does not discloses a periodicity of each loop structure of the at least one periodically repeating loop structure and of the sinusoidal fundamental wave corresponds to a periodicity of the at least one movable coupling device, Chen et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art. Chen et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein a periodicity of each loop structure of the at least one periodically repeating loop structure (elements 140-1, 140-2, Fig. 6) and of the sinusoidal fundamental wave corresponds to a periodicity of the at least one movable coupling device (element 132A, Fig. 5) (see par. [0035] and Figs. 5 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as, improved detection accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the superposition of the sinusoidal fundamental wave and the at least one harmonic wave is a Fourier series using at least two summands (see par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 4, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein a harmonic order of the at least one harmonic wave is three times that of a harmonic order of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one harmonic wave has a phase offset of 0° or of 180° relative to the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein an amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave for the superposition with the sinusoidal fundamental wave is predetermined in a range between -20% and +20% (i.e., 1/6th) of an amplitude of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein: the at least one receiving structure comprises two receiving coils each having a respective periodically repeating loop structure (see Fig. 3); and the respective periodically repeating loop structures of the two receiving coils are offset 90° relative to each other such that a first of the two receiving coils forms a sine channel and a second of the two receiving coils forms a cosine channel (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one evaluation and control unit is designed to determine the measurement signal from a signal of the sine channel and from a signal of the cosine channel using an arctangent function (see par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one receiving structure comprises three receiving coils (elements 704, 706, 708, Fig. 7) with a periodically repeating loop structure, the three receiving coils forming a multi-phase system (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one evaluation and control unit is designed to carry out a suitable phase transformation of signals of the multi-phase system and to determine the measurement signal using an arctangent function (see par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the movable body performs a rotational movement about a rotational axis (see Fig. 7).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2021/0055135) in view of Hulten et al. (US 2025/0093220), as evidenced by Lugani (US 2021/0302207).
Regarding claim 12, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein an amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave is optimized to achieve minimum angular error (i.e., the amplitude of the design of Smith et al. eliminates the third harmonic) (see par. [0093]). [The examiner asserts that by eliminating the third harmonic the angular error is reduced as evidenced by Lugani (see par. [0092])].
Regarding claim 13, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave is in a range of between -20% and +20% (i.e., 1/6th) of an amplitude of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one harmonic wave has a phase offset that is optimized, along with the amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave, to achieve the minimum angular error (i.e., the amplitude and phase offset of the design of Smith et al. eliminates the third harmonic) (see par. [0093]). [The examiner asserts that by eliminating the third harmonic the angular error is reduced as evidenced by Lugani (see par. [0092])].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2021/0055135) in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0089358), as evidenced by Lugani (US 2021/0302207).
Regarding claim 12, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein an amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave is optimized to achieve minimum angular error (i.e., the amplitude of the design of Smith et al. eliminates the third harmonic) (see par. [0093]). [The examiner asserts that by eliminating the third harmonic the angular error is reduced as evidenced by Lugani (see par. [0092])].
Regarding claim 13, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave is in a range of between -20% and +20% (i.e., 1/6th) of an amplitude of the sinusoidal fundamental wave (see par. [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Smith et al. discloses an inductive sensor arrangement, wherein the at least one harmonic wave has a phase offset that is optimized, along with the amplitude of the at least one harmonic wave, to achieve the minimum angular error (i.e., the amplitude and phase offset of the design of Smith et al. eliminates the third harmonic) (see par. [0093]). [The examiner asserts that by eliminating the third harmonic the angular error is reduced as evidenced by Lugani (see par. [0092])].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “none of Smith, Hulten, nor Chen teaches the at least one harmonic wave introduced into the loop structure is configured to counteract distorting harmonic waves in a magnetic alternating field generated by the movable coupling device, as recited in amended claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith et al. discloses “incorporating the third harmonic can counteract the distorted waveforms” (see par. [0083]). Consequently, Smith et al. anticipates the argued limitation.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
2/22/2026