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 .
Claims
Applicant’s Claims filed on 08/21/2023 regarding claims 1-12 is fully considered. Of the above claims, claims 4-5 and 9-12 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “averaging processing of generating N average signals by averaging an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft” in lines 11-13 can be better recited as --averaging processing of generating N average signals, each of the N average signals is generated by averaging an output signal of a magnetic sensor of the first magnetic sensors and an output signal of another magnetic sensor of the respective second magnetic sensors, the another magnetic sensor being arranged at the position opposite to the magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft--.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “in the averaging processing, the signal processing device generates the average signals by adding an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft” in lines 3-5 can be better recited as --in the averaging processing, the signal processing device generates the average signals, each average signal by adding an output signal of a magnetic sensor of the first magnetic sensors and an output signal of another magnetic sensor of the second magnetic sensors, the another magnetic sensor being arranged at the position opposite to the magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft--.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “in the averaging processing, the signal processing device generates the average signals by subtracting an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft from an output signal of the first magnetic sensor” in lines 3-6 can be better recited as --in the averaging processing, the signal processing device generates the average signals, each average signal by subtracting an output signal of a magnetic sensor of the second magnetic sensors, arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensors across the rotation shaft, from another magnetic sensor of the first magnetic sensors--.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “a third step of generating N average signals by averaging an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft” in lines 11-13 can be better recited as --a third step of generating N average signals, each of the N average signals is generated by averaging an output signal of a magnetic sensor of the first magnetic sensors and an output signal of another magnetic sensor of the respective second magnetic sensors, the another magnetic sensor being arranged at the position opposite to the magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft--.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “a step of adding an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft” in lines 4-6 can be better recited as --a step of adding an output signal of a magnetic sensor of the first magnetic sensors and an output signal of another magnetic sensor of the second magnetic sensors, the another magnetic sensor being arranged at the position opposite to the magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft--.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation of “a step of subtracting an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft” in lines 4-6 can be better recited as --a step of subtracting an output signal of a magnetic sensor of the first magnetic sensors and an output signal of another magnetic sensor of the second magnetic sensors, the another magnetic sensor being arranged at the position opposite to the magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft--.
Regarding claim 11, the recitations of “a motor” in line 2 and “a rotational position” in lines 3-4 refer to previously recited limitations.
Regarding claim 12, the recitations of “a motor” in line 2 and “a rotational position” in lines 3-4 refer to previously recited limitations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott et al. (US 2015/0226581 A1).
Schott et al. (embodiment in FIG. 28) teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 1, a position detection device that detects a rotational position of a motor (arrangement for absolute angular position measurement; FIGs. 2, 4, 28; the measurement of rotation angle is required in various applications, such as electrical switches or position detection of a motor or a valve or the like; [0002]), the position detection device comprising:
a first sensor group including N, N is a multiple of 3, first magnetic sensors facing a magnet that rotates in synchronization with a rotation shaft of the motor and arranged at predetermined intervals along a rotation direction of the magnet (arrangement 1 comprising a sensor 6, in this case an integrated circuit, for absolute angular position measurement of the rotor 2 with respect to a stator, whereto the sensor 6 is fixedly mounted; the rotor 2 is rotatable around a rotation axis 4, and comprises a multi-pole magnet 5 having at least four magnetic poles, Np=4, in this case a permanent disk-magnet having four poles; [0122]; FIG. 2; horizontal Hall elements HH1, HH6, HH7 and HH8 of the position sensor 6; [0199]; FIG. 28), and a second sensor group including N second magnetic sensors arranged at positions opposite respectively to the N first magnetic sensors across the rotation shaft in a radial direction of the magnet (horizontal Hall elements HH2, HH3, HH4 and HH5 of the position sensor 6; [0199]; FIG. 28); and
a signal processing device that processes output signals respectively output from the N first magnetic sensors and the N second magnetic sensors (such a chip may further include analog-to-digital convertors for digitizing the measured signals Si, Ti, and a digital signal processor provided with an algorithm for calculating the angle a based on the formulas described above, or equivalent formulas, or table, or in any other way known by the person skilled in the art; [0159]), wherein
the signal processing device executes
numerical processing of generating N numerical signals by processing an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft (the angular position between the sensor and the rotor is calculated; [0201]-[0202]), and
estimation processing of estimating a rotational position of the motor based on the N numerical signals (the position a thus determined is substantially insensitive to position offset; [0202]).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the magnet has an even number of magnetic pole pairs (four poles; FIG. 4; two pole pairs), and
in the averaging processing, the signal processing device generates the average signals by adding an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft, and dividing an addition result by 2 (averaging of two signals is defined as the adding of the two signals and dividing the addition by 2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the magnet is a disk-shaped magnet attached to the rotation shaft of the motor (a multi-pole magnet 5 is a disk-shaped and attached to rotor 2; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the magnet is a rotor magnet attached to a rotor of the motor (a multi-pole magnet 5 is attached to rotor 2; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6, a position detection method of detecting a rotational position of a motor (method of operation of the arrangement for absolute angular position measurement; FIGs. 2, 4, 28; the measurement of rotation angle is required in various applications, such as electrical switches or position detection of a motor or a valve or the like; [0002]), the position detection device comprising:
a first step of acquiring an output signal of N, N is a multiple of 3, first magnetic sensors from a first sensor group including the N first magnetic sensors facing a magnet that rotates in synchronization with a rotation shaft of the motor and arranged at predetermined intervals along a rotation direction of the magnet (arrangement 1 comprising a sensor 6, in this case an integrated circuit, for absolute angular position measurement of the rotor 2 with respect to a stator, whereto the sensor 6 is fixedly mounted; the rotor 2 is rotatable around a rotation axis 4, and comprises a multi-pole magnet 5 having at least four magnetic poles, Np=4, in this case a permanent disk-magnet having four poles; [0122]; FIG. 2; horizontal Hall elements HH1, HH6, HH7 and HH8 of the position sensor 6; [0199]; FIG. 28);
a second step of acquiring an output signal of N second magnetic sensors from a second sensor group including the N second magnetic sensors arranged at positions opposite respectively to the N first magnetic sensors across the rotation shaft in a radial direction of the magnet (horizontal Hall elements HH2, HH3, HH4 and HH5 of the position sensor 6; [0199]; FIG. 28);
a third step of generating N numerical signals by processing an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft (the angular position between the sensor and the rotor is calculated; [0201]-[0202]), and
a fourth step of estimating a rotational position of the motor based on the N numerical signals (the position a thus determined is substantially insensitive to position offset; [0202]).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the magnet has an even number of magnetic pole pairs (four poles; FIG. 4; two pole pairs), and
the third step includes
a step of adding an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft, and a step of generating the average signals by dividing an addition result by 2 (averaging of two signals is defined as the adding of the two signals and dividing the addition by 2).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the magnet is a disk-shaped magnet attached to the rotation shaft of the motor (a multi-pole magnet 5 is a disk-shaped and attached to rotor 2; FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the magnet is a rotor magnet attached to a rotor of the motor (a multi-pole magnet 5 is attached to rotor 2; FIG. 2).
Schott et al. (embodiment in FIG. 28) do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 1, the numerical processing is an averaging processing
Further regarding claim 6, the third step of generating N numerical signals by averaging the output signal.
Schott et al. (alternative algorithm) teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 1, the numerical processing is an averaging processing (it is to be noted that instead of calculating the sum of the values of each group S, T, one could also calculate the average value of each group; [0134]) for the purpose of calculating a typical value in a group and comparing this typical value to another typical value in a different group.
Further regarding claim 6, the third step of generating N numerical signals by averaging the output signal (it is to be noted that instead of calculating the sum of the values of each group S, T, one could also calculate the average value of each group; [0134]) for the purpose of calculating a typical value in a group and comparing this typical value to another typical value in a different group.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the numerical processing is an averaging processing; the third step of generating N numerical signals by averaging the output signal, as taught by Schott et al., into Schott et al. for the purpose of calculating a typical value in a group and comparing this typical value to another typical value in a different group.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott et al. (US 2015/0226581 A1) in view of Santos et al. (US 2022/0412774 A1).
Schott et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 3, wherein the magnet has an odd number of magnetic pole pairs (six-pole magnet has three magnetic pole pairs; [0122]).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the magnet has an odd number of magnetic pole pairs (six-pole magnet has three magnetic pole pairs; [0122]).
Schott et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 3, in the averaging processing, the signal processing device generates the average signals by subtracting an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft from an output signal of the first magnetic sensor, and dividing a subtraction result by 2.
Further regarding claim 8, a step of subtracting an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft, and a step of generating the average signals by dividing a subtraction result by 2.
Santos et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 3, in an averaging processing, a signal processing device generates average signals by subtracting an output signal of a second magnetic sensor arranged at a position opposite to a first magnetic sensor across a rotation shaft from an output signal of the first magnetic sensor, and dividing a subtraction result by 2 (the summation of the Sine1 signal plus the Cosine2 signal, along with the sum of Cosine1 signal minus the Sine2 signal; [0042]; FIG. 9) for the purpose of shifting the sensors both 180 degrees mechanical and 90 degrees electrical.
Further regarding claim 8, a step of subtracting an output signal of a first magnetic sensor and an output signal of a second magnetic sensor arranged at a position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across a rotation shaft, and a step of generating average signals by dividing a subtraction result by 2 (the summation of the Sine1 signal plus the Cosine2 signal, along with the sum of Cosine1 signal minus the Sine2 signal; [0042]; FIG. 9) for the purpose of shifting the sensors both 180 degrees mechanical and 90 degrees electrical.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the averaging processing, the signal processing device generates the average signals by subtracting an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft from an output signal of the first magnetic sensor, and dividing a subtraction result by 2; a step of subtracting an output signal of the first magnetic sensor and an output signal of the second magnetic sensor arranged at the position opposite to the first magnetic sensor across the rotation shaft, and a step of generating the average signals by dividing a subtraction result by 2, as taught by Santos et al., into Schott et al. for the purpose of shifting the sensors both 180 degrees mechanical and 90 degrees electrical.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott et al. (US 2015/0226581 A1) in view of Maslov et al. (US 2004/0021437 A1).
Schott et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 11, a vehicle (with the increase of compactness of electrical systems, particularly in automobiles with the arrival of hybrid engine systems, such position sensors are additionally exposed to external magnetic fields from nearby current conductors carrying strong current; [0004]; it is clear that the main advantage of such a sensor is that it can measure the position with an improved accuracy, even in the presence of an external magnetic field caused by a current flowing in one or more conductors, such as is the case “under the hood” of a vehicle; [0198]) comprising:
a motor (the measurement of rotation angle is required in various applications, such as electrical switches or position detection of a motor or a valve or the like; [0002]); and
the position detection device that detects a rotational position of the motor (arrangement for absolute angular position measurement; FIGs. 2, 4, 28).
Schott et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 11, the vehicle is an automated guided vehicle.
Maslov et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 11, the vehicle is an automated guided vehicle (with a centralized electronic control system for a vehicle and its propulsion system, one can easily imagine endless future design opportunities including auto-piloting of a car; [0057]) for the purpose of incorporating an adaptive electric motor technology within a vehicle.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the vehicle is an automated guided vehicle, as taught by Maslov et al., into Schott et al. for the purpose of incorporating an adaptive electric motor technology within a vehicle.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott et al. (US 2015/0226581 A1) in view of Chan (US 2019/0229570 A1).
Schott et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 12, a device comprising:
a motor (the measurement of rotation angle is required in various applications, such as electrical switches or position detection of a motor or a valve or the like; [0002]); and
the position detection device that detects a rotational position of the motor (arrangement for absolute angular position measurement; FIGs. 2, 4, 28).
Schott et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 12, the device is a sewing device.
Chan teaches the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 12, the device is a sewing device (securing a sensor to the stator set for detecting a position of the rotor relative to the stator set while the extension shaft of the sewing machine is rotating; [0031]) for the purpose of incorporating a reliable drive apparatus for quality operation of a sewing machine.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the device is a sewing device, as taught by Chan, into Schott et al. for the purpose of incorporating a reliable drive apparatus for quality operation of a sewing machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
4 September 2025
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853