DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 3/25/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-3, 5-20 are pending.
- Claim 1 has been amended.
- Claims 4 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025, the applicant presented amendments to the Specification. Specifically, a set of equations 1(a) in newly added paragraph 0058, as well as newly added paragraph 0072, that reads:
“The main FPGA/controller can calculate sin(θz), cos(θz), θx, θy, and Z from the eight (8) analog voltage L1 to L8 using equations (1) or equation (1a) shown above. The main FPGA/controller can calculate the angle θz using inverse tangent with sin(θz)/cos(θz) as the argument.”
The applicant also states in page 8 of the Remarks, that: “While the specification does not explicitly explain how the LDC IC 104 finds the resonance frequency of the parallel LC resonant circuit, this was conventional knowledge in the art prior to the application filing date. For example, a skilled artisan would know that the resonance frequency cab be found by sweeping a frequency generator and measuring the voltage across the capacitor, where the peak voltage indicates resonance frequency”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, the examiner points out that the newly added set of equations (1a) do not rely on calibration factors k1-k5, which are present in the set of equations (1). The originally presented Specification does not mention a set of equations that do not rely on this factor. Moreover, it appears that the factor itself is critical to the process, since, as explained in lines 10-11 of paragraph 0057, the factors are “used to convert inductance value to voltage to use in the control”. Not only does the added set of equation (1a) appear to lack support in the original Specification, it also appears to lack written proper description of the process through which adding or subtracting voltages (inductor voltages represented by L1-L8), would yield a value of degrees/radians (θx, θy, θz) or values of cos(θz) and sin(θz). It is noted that this concern was also raised in the Non-Final Office Action (page 3, last paragraph) and presented again in similar form in the body of the newly presented rejection below.
Additionally, the argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known that the frequency can be found by sweeping a frequency generator and measuring the voltage across the capacitor fails to address the grounds of rejection. The examiner notes that the claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) due to a lack of proper written description, not to a lack of enablement, which the applicant appears to address. The written description requirement is different from the enablement requirement. The former is a requirement to show the inventor had possession of the invention at the time of filing, while the latter ensures others can make or use the invention. Even if a person having ordinary skill in the art would have it to be conventional knowledge to perform a frequency sweep of a given component, the process through which the recited “first part” and “second part” are configured to make radial measurements of the rotor or rotation, tilt and axial measurements is not explained or presented in a way that demonstrates the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Moreover, the Specification is silent about the procedure described in page 7 of the submitted remarks (fourth paragraph), and it’s not clear how a frequency sweep of the parts would be able to yield values which through addition or subtraction (as in equations 1 or 1a) would yield values representing the recited measurements.
Furthermore, it is noted that adding a second set of equations (1a) doesn’t address the issues raised in the previous Office Action concerning equations (1). That is, the Specification still contains a first alternative set of equations (1) that rely on a factor (k1-k5) which use is not properly described and raise questions of possession of the invention at the time of filing.
Finally, it’s noted that the examiner is unable to access the document at the link provided in page 8 of the Remarks. If the document is to be considered, the document should be included with the next response and cited in an Information Disclosure Statement.
The amendment to claim 13 overcomes the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
The new ground of rejection addressing the claims as amended is presented below. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2025, 2/4/2026 and 3/25/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement submissions are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment filed 3/25/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: As explained in the response to arguments section above, the amendments to the Specification introduces a series of equations in paragraph 0058 (equations 1a). The newly added set of equations (1a) do not rely on a calibration factors k1-k5, which are present in the set of equations (1) presented with the original version of the Specification. It’s noted that the originally presented Specification does not mention a set of equations that do not rely on this factor. Moreover, it appears that the factor itself is critical to the process, since, as explained in lines 10-11 of paragraph 0057, the factors are “used to convert inductance value to voltage to use in the control”.
Also, paragraph 0072 as amended reads:
“The main FPGA/controller can calculate sin(θz), cos(θz), θx, θy, and Z from the eight (8) analog voltage L1 to L8 using equations (1) or equation (1a) shown above. The main FPGA/controller can calculate the angle θz using inverse tangent with sin(θz)/cos(θz) as the argument.”
There is no support for this in the original Specification. As noted above, equations (1a) introduce new matter and thus, reliance on those equations not having been disclosed previously, also introduce new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The Specification is also objected due to minor informalities. Specifically, in introducing paragraphs 0058 and 0072 with the amendments to the Specification, the Specification includes two paragraphs 0058 and two paragraphs 0072. Renumbering of the paragraphs may be needed.
** The examiner notes that the response includes a copy of the Specification marked “Clean”. However, in order to properly keep track and process amendments, the marked-up copy should include all changes/modifications intended.
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 1-3 and 5-20 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.
Regarding claim 1 and 15, while the Specification describes a sensor comprising coils and further describes how the coils are positioned with respect to a rotor and generate signals related to the rotor, it lacks any description of how the sensor, and specifically the second part, is configured to make rotation, tilt and axial measurements related to the rotor, as recited in claim 1. Similarly, the Specification lacks any description regarding how the “one or more controllers” measure rotation, tilt and axial of the rotor “using the second plurality of coils.”, as recited in claim 15.
The Specification as best understood, describes a first and second group of coils that generate signals that a processor manipulates in order to produce the measurement values. However, the disclosure lacks any written description of the manner the recited one or more processors perform the calculations, in full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to show the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, a measurement of rotation, tilt and axial of the rotor “using the second plurality of coils.”
For example:
Paragraph 0051 mentions the processing may be performed by an “LDC” unit, but doesn’t describe the procedure itself. As mentioned in the “Response to Arguments” section above, the response (page 7) describes a process that relies on known values of capacitance for capacitors. This however, fails to address how the capacitances are accounted for in the equations (1a). If L1-L8 refer to values of inductance of the coils that, in combination with the known capacitances exhibit resonance at a given frequency, this would be different from the description in paragraph 0057, line 2, which appears to describe that voltages from the eight coils L1-L8 are used.
Paragraph 0057 describes a set of equations, but fails to describe the process through which measurements of voltage (the inductor voltages represented by L1-L8) are able to provide a measurement of angle (
θ
X
,
Y
), or distance (Z). For example, adding/subtracting voltages in the manner described in the either one of the equations (1) would yield a voltage value (volts), not an angle value (degrees/radians) or distance (m). If the calibration factor (k) is needed for the equivalences to hold true, what is the value of k? How is it derived?
Paragraph 0057, line 2, appears to describe that voltages from the eight coils L1-L8 are used. Yet, in the same paragraph,
L
i
is equated to PCB coil inductance. Thus, it’s not clear if the term L in the equations (1) refer to a voltage or inductance values. Moreover, there is no description about how the inductances “can be converted into voltages.”
Paragraphs 0069-0070, appear to describe a process for measuring inductances, through the use of LDC units, but fail to describe how these measurements of inductance are processed/manipulated to arrive at the recited measurement of angle (
θ
X
,
Y
), or distance (Z) or tilt.
Paragraph 0071 describes the process as implemented by control and monitoring algorithms but fails to describe what the algorithm looks like, or what steps it follows.
Consequently, for at least the reasons mentioned above, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-3 and 5-20 are also rejected as they inherit the deficiencies in claim 15 noted above.
Appropriate correction required.
Conclusion
The prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination the position sensor as recited in claim 1. The claims are however, not allowable in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) for the reasons explained below.
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 Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights