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 Office Action is responsive to the Applicant's communication filed on December 18, 2025. In view of this communication, claims 1-28 are now pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species I, species A, and species 1 in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3-4, 24, and 26-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 18, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coil assembly having a core of magnetic material and electrical windings; wherein the outer magnet ring comprises fewer magnets than the inner magnet ring; and the controller must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
The coils 102 found in paragraph [0041]
The permanent magnets 106 found in paragraph [0041]
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference number 50 found in Figure 6
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 reads “sensor” when it should be plural “sensors”
Claim 22 reads “apply in algorithm” when it should read “apply an algorithm”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a DC electric motor, does not reasonably provide enablement for a coil assembly having a core of magnetic material and electrical windings. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The limitation a coil assembly having a core of magnetic material and electrical windings is not supported in the description or referenced in the drawings; there for a person skilled in the art would have no way to enable oneself to make the present invention.
Claims 2-28 are rejected solely due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a DC electric motor wherein the inner magnet ring comprises fewer magnets than the outer magnet ring, does not reasonably provide enablement for wherein the outer magnet ring comprises fewer magnets than the inner magnet ring. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The limitation an outer magnet ring comprises fewer magnets than an inner magnet ring is not supported in the description or shown in the drawings; there for a person skilled in the art would have no way to enable oneself to make the present invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a DC electric motor wherein a set of sensors is arranged for detection of the inner magnet ring, does not reasonably provide enablement for a first set of sensors arranged for detection of the inner magnet ring, and a second set of sensors arranged for detection of the outer magnet ring. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The limitation a first and second set of sensors is shown in the drawings. However, it is not described or shown in the description as too which set of sensors is the “first” or “second” set, thus a person skilled in the art would have no way of telling which sensor corresponds to which function. Therefore, the disclosure does not clearly enable a person skilled in the art to make the present invention.
Claims 12-26 are rejected solely due to their dependency on claim 11.
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 9, 10, 15, 16, and 20 are 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.
Claim 9 recites, “a common denominator”, this term is unclear because all whole numbers share the common denominator of 1. Additionally, there is no matter in the disclosure that implies there would be a non-whole number of pole pairs.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the common denominator is interpreted to mean, “common factor”.
Claim 10 recites, the limitation "a substrate " in claim 10. A substrate was presented in its independent claim 1. There is redundant antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites, “the number of pole pairs”, this term is unclear because the reader cannot determine which pole pairs (outer or inner) the inventor is speaking of.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the number of pole pairs is interpreted to mean, “the number of pole pairs of the inner magnet ring”
Claim 16 recites, “the outer magnets of the inner magnet ring”, this term is unclear because the reader cannot determine which magnets the sensors should be disposed along.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the outer magnets of the inner magnet ring is interpreted to mean, “the outer magnets of the outer magnet ring”
Claim 20 recites, “wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, with the controller”, this term is unclear because the controller insists upon itself.
In order to properly conduct a search on the subject, the controller is further configured to: receive, with the controller is interpreted to mean, “the controller is further configured to: receive”
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)(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) 1-2, 5-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated BYEON (US 20210159765 A1).
Regarding claim 1, BYEON teaches:
A DC electric motor system [0042]comprising:
a stator (Fig 4; 200) mounted to a substrate(Fig 4; 600)[0048], the stator (Fig 4; 200) comprising a coil assembly having a core (Fig 2; 210)of magnetic material and electrical windings[0044];
a rotor (Fig 4; 300) mounted to the stator(Fig 4; 200)[0045], the rotor (Fig 4; 300) comprising:
an inner magnet ring (Fig 4; 400) having a first set of permanent magnets adjacent to the core (Fig 2; 210) of magnetic material, the first set of permanent magnets (Fig 4; 400)being arranged to facilitate rotation of the rotor[0046];
an outer magnet ring (Fig 4; 500)having a second set of permanent magnets, the second set of permanent magnets (Fig 4; 500)arranged to facilitate determination of a displacement of the rotor(Fig 4; 300) based on relative positions of the first and second set of permanent magnets(Fig 4; 400/500)[0047];
one or more sensors (Fig 4; 610/620)mounted on the substrate(Fig 4; 600) and disposed about the circumference of the rotor(Fig 4; 300)(shown in Fig 5 [0058]), wherein the one or more sensors (Fig 4; 610/620) are arranged to obtain voltage signals from the first and second set of magnets (Fig 4; 400/500)during rotation of the rotor(Fig 4; 300)[0058-0059], the voltage signals corresponding to positions of the first and second set of permanent magnets(Fig 4; 400/500)[0058].
PNG
media_image1.png
469
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
461
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
305
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
454
348
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, BYEON teaches the system of claim 1:
wherein the rotor (Fig 4; 300)comprises a common ring(Fig 4; 310/320) wherein the first set of magnets (Fig 4; 400)are mounted on an inside surface of the common ring(Fig 4; 310/320) thereby defining the inner magnet ring(Fig 4; 400), and the second set of magnets(Fig 4; 500) are mounted on an outside surface of the common ring (Fig 4; 320)thereby defining the outer magnet ring(Fig 4; 500)[0055].
Regarding claim 5, BYEON teaches the system of claim 1:
wherein the inner and outer magnets (Fig 4; 400/500)each comprise an even number of magnets(inner magnets 400 are shown to have 8 [0058]; outer magnets 500 are shown to have 72 magnets [0059]) (both sets of magnets 400/500 may also be in (any) plurality as stated [0046-0047]).
The Applicant should note that it been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art(both set of the magnets being a plurality [0046-0047], discovering the optimum or workable ranges (of number of magnets) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, BYEON teaches the system of claim 5:
wherein the inner magnet ring(Fig 4; 400) comprises a different number of magnets than the outer magnet(Fig 4; 500) (inner magnets 400 are shown to have 8 [0058]; outer magnets 500 are shown to have 72 magnets [0059]) (both sets of magnets 400/500 may also be in (any) plurality as stated [0046-0047]).
The Applicant should note that it been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art(both set of the magnets being a plurality [0046-0047], discovering the optimum or workable ranges (of number of magnets) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, BYEON teaches the system of claim 6:
wherein the inner magnet ring(Fig 4; 400) comprises fewer magnets than the outer magnet ring(Fig 4; 500) (inner magnets 400 are shown to have 8 [0058]; outer magnets 500 are shown to have 72 magnets [0059]) (both sets of magnets 400/500 may also be in (any) plurality as stated [0046-0047]).
The Applicant should note that it been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art(both set of the magnets being a plurality [0046-0047], discovering the optimum or workable ranges (of number of magnets) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, BYEON teaches the system of claim 6:
wherein the outer magnet ring (Fig 4; 500)comprises fewer magnets than the inner magnet ring(Fig 4; 400)( the outer magnet 500 is mentioned by BYEON to be a plurality (any) of magnets[0047] that plurality could conceivably be 2, making it less than the inner magnets of 8[0058])(both sets of magnets 400/500 may also be in (any) plurality as stated [0046-0047]).
The Applicant should note that it been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art(both set of the magnets being a plurality [0046-0047], discovering the optimum or workable ranges (of number of magnets) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, BYEON teaches the system of claim 1:
wherein each of the inner and outer magnet rings (Fig 4; 400/500) comprises one or more pole pairs, wherein the number of pole pairs of the inner and outer magnet rings do not share a common denominator(inner magnets 400 are shown to have 4 pole pairs [0058]; outer magnets 500 are shown to have 36 pole pairs [0059] )( the outer magnet 500 is mentioned by BYEON to be a plurality of (any) magnets[0047] that plurality could conceivably be 35 pole pairs, making the inner and outer magnets 400/500 not share a common factor).
The Applicant should note that it been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art(both set of the magnets being a plurality [0046-0047], discovering the optimum or workable ranges (of number of magnets) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, BYEON teaches the system of claim 1:
wherein the stator (Fig 4; 200) mounted on a substrate(Fig 4; 600)[0048], and the one or more sensors (Fig 4; 610/620) are mounted on the substrate (Fig 4; 600) and arranged along the path of the magnets of the inner and/or outer magnet ring(Fig 4; 400/500)[0058-0059].
Regarding claim 11, BYEON teaches the system of claim 1:
wherein the one or more sensors (Fig 4; 610/620) comprise:
a first set (Fig 4; 610)of sensors arranged for detection of the inner magnet ring(Fig 4; 400)[0058], and
a second set of sensors (Fig 4; 620)arranged for detection of the outer magnet ring(Fig 4; 500) [0059].
Regarding claim 12, BYEON teaches the system of claim 11:
wherein the first set of sensors (Fig 3; 610)comprises two or more sensor [0058] disposed along or adjacent a path (Fig 5; O1)of the inner magnets (Fig 4; 400) of the inner magnet ring.
Regarding claim 13, BYEON teaches the system of claim 11:
wherein the first set (Fig 5; 610)of sensors comprises at least three sensors spaced apart and disposed within one quadrant of rotation of the rotor(Fig 4; 300)[0058], and the second set of sensors (Fig 4; 610)comprises at least three sensors(second sensors may be in a plurality [0059], even though only 2 are shown in Fig 5 it conceivably teaches 3 or more) that are spaced apart and disposed within one quadrant of rotation of the rotor(Fig 4; 300)[0059].
Regarding claim 14, BYEON teaches the system of claim 11:
wherein the inner magnet ring (Fig 4; 400), has an even number of magnets with two or more pole pairs(8 poles, 4 pole pairs[0058]).
Regarding claim 16, BYEON teaches the system of claim 11:
wherein the second set of sensors(Fig 5; 620) comprises two or more sensors disposed along or adjacent a path (Fig 5; O2)of the outer magnets of the inner magnet ring[0059].
Regarding claim 17, BYEON teaches the system of claim 11:
wherein the outer magnet ring (Fig 4; 500)has an even number of magnets with two or more pole pairs(72 poles, 36 pole pairs [0059]).
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) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYEON (US 20210159765 A1) in view of WOO (US 20190229600 A1).
In regards to claim 15, BYEON teaches the system of claim 14:
the first set (Fig 5; 610)of sensors are spaced apart (shown in Fig 5).
BYEON does not teach:
wherein the spacing = 120/P where P is the number of pole pairs.
WOO teaches:
wherein the first set (Fig 4; S1) of sensors are spaced apart, wherein the spacing = 120/P where P is the number of pole pairs [0013-0014].
PNG
media_image5.png
482
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 spacing of the sensors of BYEON by using the equation for spacing as taught by WOO in order to improve sensor resolution (WOO [0060]).
In regards to claim 18, BYEON teaches the system of claim 17:
the second set (Fig 5; 620)of sensors are spaced apart (shown in Fig 5).
BYEON does not teach:
where P is the number of pole pairs of the outer magnet ring.
WOO teaches:
wherein the second set of sensors(Fig 4; S2) are spaced apart, wherein the spacing = 120/P, where P is the number of pole pairs of the outer magnet ring[0013-0014].
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 spacing of the sensors of BYEON by using the equation for spacing as taught by WOO in order to improve sensor resolution (WOO [0060]).
Claim(s) 19-22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYEON (US 20210159765 A1) in view of PHAN (US 20170025974 A1).
In regards to claim 19, BYEON teaches the system of claim 11:
a controller (Fig 6; 1000) configured for operation of the motor based on an absolute position of the rotor[0058-0059].
BYEON does not teach:
the controller is further configured to determine displacement by:
obtaining a first set of sinusoidal signals from the first set of sensors;
obtaining a second set of sinusoidal signals from the second set of sensors;
analyzing the first and second set of signals to determine an absolute position.
PHAN teaches:
a controller configured for operation of the motor based on an absolute position of the rotor(Fig 10[0051]), wherein the controller is further configured to determine displacement [0051] by:
obtaining a first set of sinusoidal signals from the first set of sensors(Fig 3A; 202a) ;
obtaining a second set of sinusoidal signals from the second set of sensors(Fig 3A; 202a);
analyzing the first and second set of signals to determine an absolute position[0050].
PNG
media_image6.png
436
531
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
452
372
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 control unit of BYEON by using the PID as taught by PHAN in order to advantageously connect the signals generated from the position sensor to the commutation circuitry of the motor (PAHN [0050]).
In regards to claim 20, BYEON in view of PHAN, teaches the system of claim 19.
BYEON does not teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, with the controller, a desired position of the rotor;
compare the desired position with the absolute position or displacement determined; and adjust pulse width modulation and drive direction of the motor based on the comparison to achieve the desired position of the rotor.
PHAN teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive, with the controller, a desired position of the rotor(Fig 2A; 104) (Fig 10[0051]);
compare the desired position with the absolute position or displacement determined(Fig 10 [0051]); and adjust pulse width modulation and drive direction of the motor based on the comparison to achieve the desired position of the rotor(Fig 10 [0051]).
PNG
media_image8.png
416
529
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 21, BYEON in view of PHAN, teaches the system of claim 19.
BYEON does not teach:
wherein the controller is a proportional- integral-derivative (PID) controller.
PHAN teaches:
wherein the controller is a proportional- integral-derivative (PID) controller(Fig 10 [0050-0051]).
In regards to claim 22, BYEON in view of PHAN, teaches the system of claim 19.
BYEON does not teach:
wherein the control unit is further configured with programmable instructions recorded on a memory thereof, the instructions configured to apply in algorithm to analyze the linear portions of the first and second set of signals.
PHAN teaches:
wherein the control unit is further configured with programmable instructions recorded on a memory thereof(PSOC [0053]), the instructions configured to apply in algorithm to analyze the linear portions of the first and second set of signals[0013].
In regards to claim 25, BYEON in view of PHAN, teaches the system of claim 19:
wherein the substrate (Fig 4; 600) is a printed circuit board (PCB) [0042] comprising circuitry enabling analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) of voltage values in the defined linear portions of the signals(the functional limitation process is shown in [0006]) from the first and second set of sensors(Fig 4; 610/620).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BYEON (US 20210159765 A1) in view of PHAN (US 20170025974 A1), in further view of SUMITA (US 20190052214 A1).
In regards to claim 23, BYEON in view of PHAN, teaches the system of claim 22.
Combination BYEON/PHAN does not teach:
wherein the control unit is further configured such that the algorithm utilizes a center-of-mass interpolation.
SUMITA teaches:
wherein the control unit is further configured such that the algorithm utilizes a center-of-mass interpolation[0093].
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 control unit of combination BYEON/PHAN by making the algorithm take a center-of-mass approach as taught by Sumita in order to help detect abnormalities in the motor position (SUMITA [0095]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L SETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Oluseye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/N.L.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834