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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 1/23/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, III, VII, IX, XI, XIII, and XIV in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement used a boilerplate rationale to demonstrate a serious search burden, that the restriction requirement fails to provide a sufficient explanation as to why the species would have a separate classification, separate status in the art, or different fields of search and thus does not completely with the provision of the MPEP, and lastly that the restriction provides only conclusory statements without supporting reasons or examples for restriction. This is not found persuasive because:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant, in that the restriction does not merely use boilerplate language or fail to meet the requirements set forth by the MPEP. What applicant considers boilerplate expressly comes directly from MPEP 808.02(c) which expressly states that the Examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the three options, including a different field of search, which may be done by explaining that such a search would require searching different classes/subclasses or employing different search queries, which demonstrates that a different field of search necessary. The Examiner made such an explanation by first demonstrating the distinct features found in each species, followed by a statement explaining that search burden would exist because each species requires a different field of search requiring different search terms and strategies, “including those directed towards the specific claim features found in one species but no in the other.”
The statements noted by applicant cannot reasonably be interpreted in a vacuum, and instead incorporate those distinct features from each species as expressly noted by the Examiner. In combination, it is clear that a search for one species would require a different field of search and would not likely find prior art for another species. For example, when comparing Species III, IV, and V, it is reasonable that a search for a circular or annular band shape, such as that required in Species III, would be different and not likely find prior art for a rectangular or elliptical shape as required in Species IV, and V. Similarly, searching for features required to have the same size as is Species VI, would not reasonably find prior art for a species expressly requiring features to have different sizes as required in Species VII.
The statements made by the Examiner are, respectfully, not conclusory, as they expressly identify distinct features found in each species, followed by an explanation that searching for these distinct features would create a serious search burden that would require a different field of search, such as requiring different search terms and strategies as appropriate for those distinct species. The Examiner has therefore met the requirements of the MPEP by identifying why each species are distinct and mutually exclusive, and explaining that a search for the features of one species would create a serious search burden for searching the other species because a different field of searching requiring different search terms and strategies as appropriate for the different respective species.
The arguments, respectfully, do not reasonably present any arguments or evidence demonstrating that a search for one species would reasonably identify prior art for another or that a burden would not exist. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 8, 9, 11, 14-20, and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species and expressly consistent with those claims identified by applicant as readable on the elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 13, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ausserlechner (US 2021/0063206 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Ausserlechner discloses A method, comprising: providing a target (123) including: (i) a base having a through-hole formed therein that defines an inner perimeter of the base (see above figure), the base having an outer side running around an outer perimeter of the base (see above figure), and the base having an inner side running around the inner perimeter of the base (see above figure), (ii) a first set of first conductive features (122) that are coupled to the outer side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 122 must be metal), each of the first conductive features extending outwardly (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (iii) and a second set of second conductive features (121) that are coupled to the inner side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 121 must be metal), each of the second conductive features extending inwardly (see above figure), (Figure 7A), wherein a first count of the first conductive features in the first set is different from a second count of the second conductive features in the second set (Figure 7A / note there are 9 of the 122 targets and 8 of the 121 targets), (Paragraph [0122]), and detecting an angular position of the target based on a first electrical angle that is associated with the first set of first conductive features and a second electrical angle that is associated with the second set of second conductive features (Paragraphs [0036],[0134],[0135] / note the embodiment of Figure 7A merely uses a different configuration for the targets but otherwise uses the same coils and is reasonably intended to use the same position determination described earlier, as evidenced by the fact that both use the same (123) number for the target, and especially given that the Nonius/Vernier method is mentioned with his a way to unambiguously determine a position of a rotating object in paragraph [0135]) , wherein the angular position of the target is in the range 0-360 mechanical degrees so that the detected angular position covers an entire mechanical revolution of the target (Paragraph [0133] / note the unique reading over a full 360 degrees).
As to Claim 2,
Ausserlechner discloses any two adjacent first conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a first distance, and any two adjacent second conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a second distance that is different from the first distance (Figure 7A / note targets 122 are reasonably spaced farther apart than targets 121 given the size of the holes between the respective targets).
As to Claim 4,
Ausserlechner discloses at least one of the first conductive features has a different width than at least one of the second conductive features (Figure 7A / the width of targets 122 are reasonably greater than that of targets 121).
As to Claim 5,
Ausserlechner discloses the first conductive features are staggered with respect to the second conductive features (Figure 7A).
As to Claim 6,
Ausserlechner discloses the base is shaped as a ring (Figure 7A / note the object identified above as the base is reasonably a ring).
As to Claim 7,
Ausserlechner discloses each of the first conductive features is shaped as a sector of a ring and each of the second conductive features is shaped as a sector of a ring (Figure 7A).
As to Claim 10,
Ausserlechner discloses at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different widths (Figure 7A / note that this claim does not define what these different widths are relative to, and at least two of the first conductive features do have different widths relative to the widths of the second conductive features).
As to Claim 12,
Ausserlechner discloses the outer side of the base defines a first shape and the inner side of the base define a second shape that is concentric with the first shape (Figure 7A).
As to Claim 13,
Ausserlechner discloses the base, the first set of first conductive features, and the second set of second conductive features are integral with each other (Figure 7A).
As to Claim 21,
Ausserlechner discloses A system comprising: a target (123) including: (i) a base having a through-hole formed therein that defines an inner perimeter of the base (see above figure), the base having an outer side running around an outer perimeter of the base (see above figure), and the base having an inner side running around the inner perimeter of the base (see above figure), (ii) a first set of first conductive features (122) that are coupled to the outer side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 122 must be metal), each of the first conductive features extending outwardly (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (iii) and a second set of second conductive features (121) that are coupled to the inner side of the base (see above figure), (Figure 7A), (Paragraph [0122] / note all of 123 is made of a metal, and thus targets 121 must be metal), each of the second conductive features extending inwardly (see above figure), (Figure 7A), wherein a first count of the first conductive features in the first set is different from a second count of the second conductive features in the second set (Figure 7A / note there are 9 of the 122 targets and 8 of the 121 targets), (Paragraph [0122]); a first receiving coil (111a) configured to generate a first signal in response to a first reflected magnetic field that is produced by the first set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0056]); a second receiving coil (111b) configured to generate a second signal in response to the first reflected magnetic field that is produced by the first set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0056]); a third receiving coil (112a) configured to generate a third signal in response to a second reflected magnetic field that is produced by the second set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0057]); a fourth receiving coil (112b) configured to generate a fourth signal in response to the second reflected magnetic field that is produced by the first set of conductive features (Figures 1,6,7A), (Paragraphs [0027],[0031],[0057]); and a processing circuitry (140) that is configured to generate an output signal based, at least in part, on the first signal, the second signal, the third signal, and the fourth signal, the output signal being indicative of an angular position of the target (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0096]).
As to Claim 22,
Ausserlechner discloses any two adjacent first conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a first distance, and any two adjacent second conductive features are spaced apart from one another by a second distance that is different from the first distance (Figure 7A / note targets 122 are reasonably spaced farther apart than targets 121 given the size of the holes between the respective targets).
As to Claim 24,
Ausserlechner wherein at least one of the first conductive features has a different width than at least one of the second conductive features (Figure 7A / the width of targets 122 are reasonably greater than that of targets 121).
As to Claim 25,
Ausserlechner discloses the first conductive features are staggered with respect to the second conductive features (Figure 7A).
As to Claim 26,
Ausserlechner discloses each of the first conductive features has a different size than any of the second conductive features (Figure 7A / the width and size of targets 122 are reasonably greater than that of targets 121).
As to Claim 27,
Ausserlechner discloses at least two of the first conductive features in the first set have different widths (Figure 7A / note that this claim does not define what these different widths are relative to, and at least two of the first conductive features do have different widths relative to the widths of the second conductive features).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2022/0306192 to Scheer et al. which discloses rotating targets as part of an angle sensor, and 2) US 11,692,808 to Wey which discloses a rotation detection device with rotating targets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights