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 5/15/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
The Examiner acknowledges paragraphs [0039], [0049], and [0051], but respectfully notes that these paragraphs do not provide support for the argued claim feature. Paragraph [0039] explains “The abnormality detection part 65 performs an abnormality detection by comparing the detection values of the detection elements 401 to 403. In the present embodiment, by using three signals output corresponding to each of the detection elements 401 to 403, an abnormal system can be identified by a majority vote of the three output signals, and control and abnormality monitoring based on the detected values of the normal system can be continued.” This is the only mention in the elected embodiment of any form of comparison. Here it is clear that an abnormality is detected by comparing the actual detection values between detection elements 401, 402, and 403. The newly presented claim is now reciting that the abnormality is detected by way of a comparison between main information according to the state information and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element. This is not originally disclosed for several reasons.
First, main information and state information are not the detection values from any detection element. As explained in the disclosure, “The state information in the present embodiment is an angle information according to the rotation angle of the motor 80,” and “ the angle calculation part 452 that calculates a state information using the digitally converted detection signal of the main detection element 401.” As such, state information is reasonably a computed angle. Main information comes from this computed angle, and is therefore not a detection value that was output from a detection element. While the disclosure does explain that an abnormality detection is done “using” both main formation and sub information, it does not state that this is done by way of a comparison between these values. The original disclosure explicitly disclose that when comparison is used to identify an abnormality, it is done by comparison the actual detection values and using a majority vote system amongst the three compared values. Nothing in the original disclosure states that a comparison between main and sub information is ever performed. Meaning, as best understood, the original disclosure discloses more than one way to identify an abnormality, and the comparison scheme is based on the actual detection values and not angles computed based on these values.
Second, the original disclosure requires more than one comparison to perform abnormality detection when a comparison is implemented for such a purpose. Paragraph [0039] expressly requires that when a comparison is used for abnormality detection, “an abnormal system can be identified by a majority vote of the three output signals, and control and abnormality monitoring based on the detected values of the normal system can be continued.” By definition, more than two “votes,” and thus more than two signals are necessarily to have a majority vote. Two signals cannot yield a majority, especially when one is abnormal and the other is not. Paragraph [0039] reasonably requires the use of all three signals to obtain a majority vote, but where the claim does not require this, and instead only requires the comparison between two values instead of three. This phrase therefore further introduces new matter for this reason.
With regard to the arguments on page 7 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
These rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
With regard to the arguments on pages 8-9 directed towards Harada et al. (Harada) (US 2011/0246133 A1),
Upon further consideration, the Examiner notes that Harada does disclose the argued claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that the comparison in Harada is between a threshold and a computed angle, but the Examiner also notes that applicant does not define what the sub information or the main information are in the claim. Claim 1 only requires that the main information is “according to the state information included in the digital signal, and the sub information is “according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element.” As such, the main and sub information must reasonably relate to these digitally converted detection signals, but with no further restriction as to what this means in the claim. To that point, the threshold value can be a digital value that is reasonably related to both the detection signals from the main and sub detection elements, because it is based on the maximum angle value that these signals can be used to compute (Paragraph [0193]). Claiming that the main and sub information are “according to” the above digital signals does not mean this information is the digital signals or is derived from these signals. Instead, it only reasonably requires that it is related to these signals, and Harada reasonably discloses such a feature. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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, 6, 8, and 10 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..
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “a control unit including a sub digital conversion part configured to digitally convert the analog signal acquired from the sensor, and an abnormality detection part configured to perform an abnormality detection to identify an abnormal system by comparing between main information according to the state information included in the digital signal and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element, wherein the abnormality detection part performs the abnormality detection using a value obtained by converting the analog signal into sub state information as a sub information, or a value obtained by converting the state information into an analog output as a main information” on lines 12 to the end introduces new matter.
The Examiner acknowledges paragraphs [0039], [0049], and [0051], but respectfully notes that these paragraphs do not provide support for the argued claim feature. Paragraph [0039] explains “The abnormality detection part 65 performs an abnormality detection by comparing the detection values of the detection elements 401 to 403. In the present embodiment, by using three signals output corresponding to each of the detection elements 401 to 403, an abnormal system can be identified by a majority vote of the three output signals, and control and abnormality monitoring based on the detected values of the normal system can be continued.” This is the only mention in the elected embodiment of any form of comparison. Here it is clear that an abnormality is detected by comparing the actual detection values between detection elements 401, 402, and 403. The newly presented claim is now reciting that the abnormality is detected by way of a comparison between main information according to the state information and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element. This is not originally disclosed for several reasons.
First, main information and state information are not the detection values from any detection element. As explained in the disclosure, “The state information in the present embodiment is an angle information according to the rotation angle of the motor 80,” and “ the angle calculation part 452 that calculates a state information using the digitally converted detection signal of the main detection element 401.” As such, state information is reasonably a computed angle. Main information comes from this computed angle, and is therefore not a detection value that was output from a detection element. While the disclosure does explain that an abnormality detection is done “using” both main formation and sub information, it does not state that this is done by way of a comparison between these values. The original disclosure explicitly disclose that when comparison is used to identify an abnormality, it is done by comparison the actual detection values and using a majority vote system amongst the three compared values. Nothing in the original disclosure states that a comparison between main and sub information is ever performed. Meaning, as best understood, the original disclosure discloses more than one way to identify an abnormality, and the comparison scheme is based on the actual detection values and not angles computed based on these values.
Second, the original disclosure requires more than one comparison to perform abnormality detection when a comparison is implemented for such a purpose. Paragraph [0039] expressly requires that when a comparison is used for abnormality detection, “an abnormal system can be identified by a majority vote of the three output signals, and control and abnormality monitoring based on the detected values of the normal system can be continued.” By definition, more than two “votes,” and thus more than two signals are necessarily to have a majority vote. Two signals cannot yield a majority, especially when one is abnormal and the other is not. Paragraph [0039] reasonably requires the use of all three signals to obtain a majority vote, but where the claim does not require this, and instead only requires the comparison between two values instead of three. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “the abnormality detection part is configured to perform the abnormality detection to identify the abnormal system from among a plurality of systems including a main system corresponding to the main detection element and a sub system corresponding to the sub detection element by comparing between the main information according to the state information included in the digital signal and the sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element” on lines 2 to the end introduces new matter.
1) First, this phrase introduces new matter because in the combination, applicant is preforming two distinct comparisons to identify an abnormality, one recited in Claim 1, and one recited in Claim 11. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose two distinct comparisons to identify an abnormality as currently claimed, in the combination. The above phrase therefore introduces new matter.
2) Second, the Examiner acknowledges paragraphs [0039], [0049], and [0051], but respectfully notes that these paragraphs do not provide support for the argued claim feature. Paragraph [0039] explains “The abnormality detection part 65 performs an abnormality detection by comparing the detection values of the detection elements 401 to 403. In the present embodiment, by using three signals output corresponding to each of the detection elements 401 to 403, an abnormal system can be identified by a majority vote of the three output signals, and control and abnormality monitoring based on the detected values of the normal system can be continued.” This is the only mention in the elected embodiment of any form of comparison. Here it is clear that an abnormality is detected by comparing the actual detection values between detection elements 401, 402, and 403. The newly presented claim is now reciting that the abnormality is detected by way of a comparison between main information according to the state information and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element. This is not originally disclosed for several reasons.
First, main information and state information are not the detection values from any detection element. As explained in the disclosure, “The state information in the present embodiment is an angle information according to the rotation angle of the motor 80,” and “ the angle calculation part 452 that calculates a state information using the digitally converted detection signal of the main detection element 401.” As such, state information is reasonably a computed angle. Main information comes from this computed angle, and is therefore not a detection value that was output from a detection element. While the disclosure does explain that an abnormality detection is done “using” both main formation and sub information, it does not state that this is done by way of a comparison between these values. The original disclosure explicitly disclose that when comparison is used to identify an abnormality, it is done by comparison the actual detection values and using a majority vote system amongst the three compared values. Nothing in the original disclosure states that a comparison between main and sub information is ever performed. Meaning, as best understood, the original disclosure discloses more than one way to identify an abnormality, and the comparison scheme is based on the actual detection values and not angles computed based on these values.
Second, the original disclosure requires more than one comparison to perform abnormality detection when a comparison is implemented for such a purpose. Paragraph [0039] expressly requires that when a comparison is used for abnormality detection, “an abnormal system can be identified by a majority vote of the three output signals, and control and abnormality monitoring based on the detected values of the normal system can be continued.” By definition, more than two “votes,” and thus more than two signals are necessarily to have a majority vote. Two signals cannot yield a majority, especially when one is abnormal and the other is not. Paragraph [0039] reasonably requires the use of all three signals to obtain a majority vote, but where the claim does not require this, and instead only requires the comparison between two values instead of three. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claims 6, 8, 10, and 11,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1 and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al. (Harada) (US 2011/0246133 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 1,
Harada discloses A detection device, comprising: a sensor (5),(51),(52),(60) including at least one main detection element (M1) configured to detect a change in a physical quantity of a detection target (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0179]), at least one sub detection element (H1) configured to detect a change in the physical quantity of the detection target (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0177]), a main digital conversion part (60) configured to digitally convert a detection signal of the main detection element (Paragraph [0179] / note section (60) is a digital angle converter), and a calculation part (65) configured to calculate a state information using the digitally converted detection signal of the main detection element (Paragraphs [0180],[0181],[0185] / note the digital angle signal phi is output to cos and sin circuits 66,68 and the up-down counter (calculation part) calculates the state information (phi angle) by counting) the sensor being configured to output a digital signal including the state information and output an analog signal according to the detection signal of the sub detection element (Figure 12), (Paragraphs [0185],[0188] / note the output of the amplified Hall sensors H1 and H2 are analog signals, and the output phi angle signal from (60) is a digital signal including the state information (angle)); and a control unit (53,70) including a sub digital conversion part (53) configured to digitally convert the analog signal acquired from the sensor (Figures 12,13B,13D), (Paragraph [0189] / note the sensor signals H1 and H2 have been converted to digital pulses VH1 and VH1 as seen in Figures 13A-13D), and an abnormality detection part (70) configured to perform an abnormality detection to identify an abnormal system by comparing between main information according to the state information included in the digital signal and sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element; wherein the abnormality detection part performs the abnormality detection using a value obtained by converting the analog signal into sub state information as a sub information, or a value obtained by converting the state information into an analog output as a main information (Paragraphs [0180],[0181][0192],[0193] / note the threshold (threshold angle) is a digital value that is reasonably obtained according to the state or sub information in either or both digital signals because it is related to the maximum angle these signals can be used to compute / the digital angle phi is converted into an analog signal by way of the DACs 67 and 69, after which the output section compares the computed angle phi to a threshold and only outputs the angle phi when the deviation is smaller or equal to a threshold value, and thus is reasonably detecting an abnormality when the deviation is above the threshold as the signal is “abnormal” as it has deviated too far from the threshold).
As to Claim 6,
Harada discloses the sensor includes one main detection element and two sub detection elements (Figure 12 / note M1 as the main and H1,H2 as the two sub detection elements).
As to Claim 8,
Harada discloses the main detection element and the sub detection element are sealed in the same sealing part (Figure 12), (Paragraph [0130] / note all detection elements are sealed in the same chip 5).
As to Claim 10,
Harada discloses the main detection element and the sub detection element detect a rotational state of the detection target (Paragraph [0129]), and the state information is an angle information according to a rotation angle of the detection target (Paragraph [0202]).
As to Claim 11,
Harada discloses the abnormality detection part is configured to perform the abnormality detection to identify the abnormal system from among a plurality of systems including a main system corresponding to the main detection element and a sub system corresponding to the sub detection element by comparing between the main information according to the state information included in the digital signal and the sub information according to the digitally converted detection signal of the sub detection element (Paragraphs [0180],[0181][0192],[0193] / note the threshold (threshold angle) is a digital value that is reasonably obtained according to the state or sub information in either or both digital signals because it is related to the maximum angle these signals can be used to compute / the digital angle phi is converted into an analog signal by way of the DACs 67 and 69, after which the output section compares the computed angle phi to a threshold and only outputs the angle phi when the deviation is smaller or equal to a threshold value, and thus is reasonably detecting an abnormality when the deviation is above the threshold as the signal is “abnormal” as it has deviated too far from the threshold).
(Note: the main detection element is the main system, and the sub detection element(s) are the sub system, and further two comparisons can be said to exist as the system will perform a comparison more than once, with one comparison being the claim 1 comparison, and a later comparison being the claim 11 comparison).
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 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