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 .
Response to Amendment
Regarding rejections of the claims under §103:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 20 were rejected as being obvious over Rakov in view of Utermoehlen. Claims 4, 13-14, 17, and 19 were rejected as being obvious over Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ludois. Claims 6 and 10 were rejected as being obvious over Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Bertin. Claims 8 and 12 were rejected as being obvious over Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ausserlechner. Claims 15 and 18 were rejected as being obvious over Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ludois, and Bertin. Claim 16 was rejected as being obvious over Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ludois, and Ausserlechner. The Applicant amended claims 1-2, canceled claims 5-20, and added new claims 21-28.
The Applicant amended the specification to correct an informality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 9/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0274946 to Maniouloux.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 with regards to the content of Utermoehlen with respect to the rejection of claim 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argued that the sensor board of Utermoehlen is not stationary relative to the rotor shaft and instead rotates around the rotating element. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner believes that the term “revolves around the rotating element 114 in a substantially circular manner” is a translation error and is attempting to describe the sensor board circumferentially surrounding the shaft. Also, it would not logically make sense for the sensor board to rotate with the rotor shaft as the encoder wheel 126 is also connected to the rotor shaft as indicated in paragraph [0155] and rotates with it. The sensor board cannot also rotate with the rotor shaft as a phase difference must occur between the sensor board and the encoder wheel to generate a usable signal. Therefore, that limitation is taught by Utermoehlen.
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 (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 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 1-3, 21, 23-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,101,084 to Rakov (cited by Applicant on 7/23/2024) in view of WIPO Publication No. 2020/030334 to Utermoehlen, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0063206 to Ausserlechner, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0274946 to Maniouloux et al. (hereinafter Maniouloux).
Regarding claim 1, Rakov teaches an electric machine (Abstract) comprising:
a rotor assembly (FIG. 4A, 400) having a rotor shaft (FIG. 4A, 406) disposed along a central axis;
a stationary member (FIG. 4A, 404; Column 6 lines 7-11) operatively connected to the rotor shaft;
a rotating member (FIG. 4A, 402; Column 6 lines 4-7) operatively connected to the rotor shaft, the rotating member being spaced from the stationary member by an air gap;
wherein the stationary member and the rotating member are configured to enable non-contact power transfer from the stationary member to the rotating member through the air gap (Column 6 lines 55-58);
wherein the stationary member includes a stationary core (FIG. 4A, 424) embedded with a first set of coils (FIG. 4A, 426), the rotating member including a rotating core (FIG. 4A, 420) embedded with a second set of coils (FIG. 4A, 422), and the non-contact power transfer between the stationary member and the rotating member is an inductive power transfer (Column 9 lines 55-58).
Rakov does not teach an inductive position sensor having a sensor target operatively connected to the rotor shaft, the sensor target being fixed relative to the rotor shaft such that the sensor target rotates with the rotor shaft,
wherein the sensor target is positioned circumferentially around the rotating core, the rotating core is positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft, and the sensor target is etched on the rotating core; and
wherein the inductive position sensor includes an inductive sensor board adapted to detect motion of the sensor target, the inductive sensor board being stationary relative to the rotor shaft.
However, Utermoehlen teaches a rotor having an inductive position sensor (FIG. 2, 124) having a sensor target (FIG. 2, 126) operatively connected to the rotor shaft (FIG. 2, 114), the sensor target being fixed relative to the rotor shaft such that the sensor target rotates with the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0096]),
wherein the inductive position sensor includes an inductive sensor board (FIG. 2, 132) adapted to detect motion of the sensor target (Abstract), the inductive sensor board being stationary relative to the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0115]).
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov with the inductive position sensor of Utermoehlen as having position data of the rotor could result in more efficient operation of the electric machine.
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen does not teach the sensor target being positioned circumferentially around the rotating core, the rotating core being positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft, and the sensor target being etched on the rotating core.
However, Ausserlechner teaches an inductive angle sensor with a sensor target (FIG. 1, 123) being positioned circumferentially around the rotating core (FIG. 1, 120), the rotating core being positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0105]).
Therefore 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 electric machine of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen with the sensor target of Ausserlechner to have a more precise high resolution and higher robustness against external magnetic fields (Paragraph [0005]).
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ausserlechner does not teach the sensor target being etched on the rotating core.
However, Maniouloux teaches a target (FIG. 29, 401) that is etched (Paragraph [0286]) on a metal disk.
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ausserlechner with the etched target of Maniouloux due to the physical sturdiness of the construction of the target.
Regarding claim 2, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the electric machine of claim 1, wherein Utermoehlen further teaches the inductive sensor board including a plurality of windings having transmitting coils (FIG. 4, 136) and receiving coils (FIG. 4, 138).
Regarding claim 3, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the electric machine of claim 2, wherein the receiving coils including a positive first coil (FIG. 4A, 138, top), a negative first coil (FIG. 4A, 138, bottom), a positive second coil, and a negative second coil (Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 21, Rakov teaches an electric machine (Abstract) comprising:
a rotor assembly (FIG. 4A, 400) having a rotor shaft (FIG. 4A, 406) disposed along a central axis;
a stationary member (FIG. 4A, 404; Column 6 lines 7-11) operatively connected to the rotor shaft;
a rotating member (FIG. 4A, 402; Column 6 lines 4-7) operatively connected to the rotor shaft, the rotating member being spaced from the stationary member by an air gap;
wherein the stationary member and the rotating member are configured to enable non-contact power transfer from the stationary member to the rotating member through the air gap (Column 6 lines 55-58);
wherein the stationary member and the rotating member respectively include a stationary plate (FIG. 10A, 1025-1) and a rotating plate (FIG. 10A, 1022-1) positioned sufficiently close together to form a capacitor, such that the non-contact power transfer between the stationary member and the rotating member is a capacitive power transfer (Column 9 line 54-Column 10 line 7).
Rakov does not teach an inductive position sensor having a sensor target operatively connected to the rotor shaft, the sensor target being fixed relative to the rotor shaft such that the sensor target rotates with the rotor shaft,
wherein the sensor target is positioned circumferentially around the rotating plate, the rotating plate is positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft, and the sensor target is etched on an exterior surface of the rotating plate; and
wherein the inductive position sensor includes an inductive sensor board adapted to detect motion of the sensor target, the inductive sensor board being stationary relative to the rotor shaft;
wherein the inductive sensor board is positioned radially external to the sensor target.
However, Utermoehlen teaches a rotor having an inductive position sensor (FIG. 2, 124) having a sensor target (FIG. 2, 126) operatively connected to the rotor shaft (FIG. 2, 114), the sensor target being fixed relative to the rotor shaft such that the sensor target rotates with the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0096]),
wherein the inductive position sensor includes an inductive sensor board (FIG. 2, 132) adapted to detect motion of the sensor target (Abstract), the inductive sensor board being stationary relative to the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0115]),
wherein the inductive sensor board is positioned radially external to the sensor target (FIG. 2; 132, 126).
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov with the inductive position sensor of Utermoehlen as having position data of the rotor could result in more efficient operation of the electric machine.
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen does not teach the sensor target being positioned circumferentially around the rotating core, the rotating core being positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft, and the sensor target being etched on the rotating core.
However, Ausserlechner teaches an inductive angle sensor with a sensor target (FIG. 1, 123) being positioned circumferentially around the rotating core (FIG. 1, 120), the rotating core being positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0105]).
Therefore 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 electric machine of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen with the sensor target of Ausserlechner to have a more precise high resolution and higher robustness against external magnetic fields (Paragraph [0005]).
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ausserlechner does not teach the sensor target being etched on the rotating core.
However, Maniouloux teaches a target (FIG. 29, 401) that is etched (Paragraph [0286]) on a metal disk.
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ausserlechner with the etched target of Maniouloux due to the physical sturdiness of the construction of the target.
Regarding claim 23, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the electric machine of claim 21, wherein the inductive sensor board includes a plurality of windings (FIG. 4; 134, 136) and a microcircuit (FIG. 2, 130), the plurality of windings including transmitting coils (FIG. 4, 136) and receiving coils (FIG. 4, 138); and the microcircuit is adapted to calculate position information of the sensor target (Paragraph [0158]-[0159]).
Regarding claim 24, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the electric machine of claim 23, wherein Utermoehlen further teaches the receiving coils including a positive first coil (FIG. 4A, 138, top), a negative first coil (FIG. 4A, 138, bottom), a positive second coil, and a negative second coil (Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 25, Rakov an electric machine (Abstract) including a rotor assembly (FIG. 4A, 400) having a rotor shaft (FIG. 4A, 406) disposed along a central axis, a stationary member (FIG. 4A, 404; Column 6 lines 7-11) operatively connected to the rotor shaft, and a rotating member (FIG. 4A, 402; Column 6 lines 4-7) operatively connected to the rotor shaft;
wherein the rotating member is spaced from the stationary member by an air gap;
wherein the stationary member and the rotating member are configured to enable non-contact power transfer from the stationary member to the rotating member through the air gap (Column 6 lines 55-58);
wherein the stationary member includes a stationary core (FIG. 4A, 424) embedded with a first set of coils (FIG. 4A, 426), the rotating member including a rotating core (FIG. 4A, 420) embedded with a second set of coils (FIG. 4A, 422), and the non-contact power transfer between the stationary member and the rotating member is an inductive power transfer (Column 9 lines 55-58).
Rakov does not teach a vehicle comprising the electric machine; an inductive position sensor having a sensor target operatively connected to the rotor shaft, the sensor target being fixed relative to the rotor shaft such that the sensor target rotates with the rotor shaft,
wherein the sensor target is positioned circumferentially around the rotating core, the rotating core is positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft, and the sensor target is etched on the rotating core; and
wherein the inductive position sensor includes an inductive sensor board having a plurality of windings and a microcircuit; and wherein the microcircuit is adapted to calculate position information of the sensor target, the inductive sensor board being stationary relative to the rotor shaft.
However, Utermoehlen teaches a vehicle (Paragraph [0152]) comprising the electric machine; a rotor having an inductive position sensor (FIG. 2, 124) having a sensor target (FIG. 2, 126) operatively connected to the rotor shaft (FIG. 2, 114), the sensor target being fixed relative to the rotor shaft such that the sensor target rotates with the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0096]),
wherein the inductive position sensor includes an inductive sensor board (FIG. 2, 132) adapted to detect motion of the sensor target (Abstract), the inductive sensor board being stationary relative to the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0115]); and
wherein the inductive sensor board includes a plurality of windings (FIG. 4; 134, 136) and a microcircuit (FIG. 2, 130); and the microcircuit is adapted to calculate position information of the sensor target (Paragraph [0158]-[0159]).
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov with the inductive position sensor of Utermoehlen as having position data of the rotor could result in more efficient operation of the electric machine.
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen does not teach the sensor target being positioned circumferentially around the rotating core, the rotating core being positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft, and the sensor target being etched on the rotating core.
However, Ausserlechner teaches an inductive angle sensor with a sensor target (FIG. 1, 123) being positioned circumferentially around the rotating core (FIG. 1, 120), the rotating core being positioned circumferentially around the rotor shaft (Paragraph [0105]).
Therefore 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 vehicle of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen with the sensor target of Ausserlechner to have a more precise high resolution and higher robustness against external magnetic fields (Paragraph [0005]).
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ausserlechner does not teach the sensor target being etched on the rotating core.
However, Maniouloux teaches a target (FIG. 29, 401) that is etched (Paragraph [0286]) on a metal disk.
Therefore, 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 vehicle of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen and Ausserlechner with the etched target of Maniouloux due to the physical sturdiness of the construction of the target.
Regarding claim 27, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the vehicle of claim 25, wherein Utermoehlen further teaches the plurality of windings including transmitting coils (FIG. 4, 136) and receiving coils (FIG. 4, 138).
Regarding claim 28, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the vehicle of claim 27, wherein Utermoehlen further teaches the receiving coils including a positive first coil (FIG. 4A, 138, top), a negative first coil (FIG. 4A, 138, bottom), a positive second coil, and a negative second coil (Paragraph [0057]).
Claims 4, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0197710 to Ludois et al. (hereinafter Ludois; cited by Applicant on 7/23/2024).
Regarding claim 4, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the electric machine of claim 1.
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux does not teach a rectifier circuit directly connected to the rotating member; and wherein the rotor assembly includes rotor windings electrically coupled with the rectifier circuit.
However, Ludois teaches a rectifier circuit (FIG. 2, 22) directly connected to a rotating member (FIG. 2, 25); and wherein the rotor assembly includes rotor windings (FIG. 2, 16) electrically coupled with the rectifier circuit.
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux with the rectifier of Ludois to provide excitation of the rotor windings and produce a more efficient electric machine operation.
Regarding claim 22, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the electric machine of claim 21.
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux does not teach a rectifier circuit directly connected to the rotating member; and wherein the rotor assembly includes rotor windings electrically coupled to the rectifier circuit.
However, Ludois teaches a rectifier circuit (FIG. 2, 22) directly connected to a rotating member (FIG. 2, 25); and wherein the rotor assembly includes rotor windings (FIG. 2, 16) electrically coupled with the rectifier circuit.
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux with the rectifier of Ludois to provide excitation of the rotor windings and produce a more efficient electric machine operation.
Regarding claim 26, Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux teaches the electric machine of claim 25.
Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux does not teach a rectifier circuit directly connected to the rotating member; and wherein the rotor assembly includes rotor windings electrically coupled to the rectifier circuit.
However, Ludois teaches a rectifier circuit (FIG. 2, 22) directly connected to a rotating member (FIG. 2, 25); and wherein the rotor assembly includes rotor windings (FIG. 2, 16) electrically coupled with the rectifier circuit.
Therefore, 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 electric machine of Rakov in view of Utermoehlen, Ausserlechner, and Maniouloux with the rectifier of Ludois to provide excitation of the rotor windings and produce a more efficient electric machine operation.
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 JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights