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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 of co-pending Application No. 18/200/770 (reference application) in view of Nicholl et al. (US 20190242764), hereinafter ‘Nicholl’. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims cover similar subject matter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Comparison of the claims is disclosed below.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 of Instant Application
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 of Application: 18200770
Clm 1: An attitude adjustment apparatus comprising: a driving device comprising a motor configured to generate a driving force;
Clm1: An attitude adjusting apparatus comprising: a driving device configured to include a motor, the motor configured to generate a driving force;
and a control device configured to adjust an attitude of a target object based on a rotation angle of the motor,
a controller configured to adjust an attitude of a target object by referring to a rotation angle of the motor
wherein the driving device further comprises: a sensing assembly configured to generate a magnetic field, sense changes in the magnetic field,
wherein the driving device comprises: a sensing module configured to generate at least one magnetic field and sense a change of the at least one magnetic field;
and output sensing result data based on the changes in the magnetic field;
Clm 2: a magnetic field sensor configured to sense the first magnetic field changed by the one blade and output a sensor value.
and a target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a blade configured to alter the magnetic field generated by the sensing assembly,
a sensing target configured to be rotated by the driving force of the motor, the sensing target comprising one blade that is configured to change the at least one magnetic field generated by the sensing module,
and wherein the control device is further configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor
and wherein the controller is configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor
based on a target rotation angle and the sensing result data.
Clm 4: wherein the controller is configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor by referring to: the first sensor value of the first magnetic field sensor for a first angle range of a rotation angle range of the motor
Clm 2
Clm 4
Clm 5
Clm 9
Clms 6 and 11 An attitude adjustment apparatus comprising: a driving device comprising a motor configured to generate a driving force;
Clm 1: An attitude adjusting apparatus comprising: a driving device configured to include a motor, the motor configured to generate a driving force
and a control device configured to adjust an attitude of a target object based on a rotation angle of the motor,
a controller configured to adjust an attitude of a target object by referring to a rotation angle of the motor
wherein the driving device further comprises: a first sensing assembly configured to generate a first magnetic field, sense changes in the first magnetic field,
wherein the driving device comprises: a sensing module configured to generate at least one magnetic field and sense a change of the at least one magnetic field;
and output, first sensing result data based on the changes in the first magnetic field;
Clm 2: a magnetic field sensor configured to sense the first magnetic field changed by the one blade and output a sensor value.
a second sensing assembly configured to generate a second magnetic field, sense changes in the second magnetic field, and output, to the at least one processor, second sensing result data based on the changes in the second magnetic field;
Clm 4: a second coil configured to generate a second magnetic field
a first target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a single first blade configured to alter the first magnetic field;
Clm 1: a sensing target configured to be rotated by the driving force of the motor, the sensing target comprising one blade that is configured to change the at least one magnetic field
and configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor,
and wherein the controller is configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor
based on a target rotation angle, the first sensing result data, and sensing second result data.
Clm 4: wherein the controller is configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor by referring to: the first sensor value of the first magnetic field sensor for a first angle range of a rotation angle range of the motor
Clm 7
Clm 4
Clm 10
Clm 9
Clm 13
Clms 4 and 5
Regarding Claim 1 co-pending applicant ‘770 does not explicitly disclose the controller comprising a processor and a plurality of blades.
However Nicholl discloses a magnetic field angle sensor system comprising a processor (Para [0012], Clm 16) and a plurality of teeth (Para [0007, 0041-0042]) for the benefit of measuring the rotation of targets and relative rotation and displacement resulting in an angle of rotation determined and torque measurement (Para [0044-0045]).
Therefor it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine a processor and plurality of blades for the benefit of measuring the rotation of targets and relative rotation and displacement resulting in an angle of rotation determined and torque measurement as taught by Nicholl in Para [0044-0045].
Regarding Claims 6 and 11, co-pending applicant ‘770 does not explicitly disclose the controller comprising a processor processing, outputting to the processor, a second target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a plurality of second blades configured to alter the second magnetic field, and a plurality of blades of Claim 6, and plurality of blades of Claim 11.
However Nicholl discloses a magnetic field angle sensor system comprising a processor (Para [0012], Clm 16), outputting to the processor (Para [0006] processing circuit is configured to measure a rotation of the first magnetic target relative to the second magnetic target based on an output from the first magnetic sensor and an output from the second magnetic sensor), a second target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor (Para [0007] the first magnetic target and the second magnetic target. The first magnetic target can include a first toothed gear, and the second magnetic target can a second toothed gear that has the same number of teeth as the first toothed gear. The first magnetic target and the second magnetic target can have the same number of magnetic structures as each other. The magnetic torque sensor system can include a shaft that includes a first shaft portion coupled to the first magnetic target and a second shaft portion coupled to the second magnetic target, in which the first shaft portion and the second shaft portion are configured to rotate relative to each other; Para [0055] motor coupled to shaft), comprising a plurality of second blades configured to alter the second magnetic field (Para [0044] various teeth of target gear 1 may pass by sensor 4, thereby distorting the magnetic field lines; distortion or magnetic field line direction change may be measured by the field direction sensors), and a plurality of teeth (Para [0007, 0041-0042]) for the benefit of measuring the rotation of targets and relative rotation and displacement resulting in an angle of rotation determined and torque measurement as taught by Nicholl in Para [0044-0045].
Therefor it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine a processor processing, outputting to the processor, a second target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a plurality of second blades configured to alter the second magnetic field, and a plurality of blades for the benefit of measuring the rotation of targets and relative rotation and displacement resulting in an angle of rotation determined and torque measurement as taught by Nicholl in Para [0044-0045].
Regarding Claim 12, Nicholl further discloses a difference between the number of blades in the plurality of first blades and the plurality of second blades is one (Para [0040-0044]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 20200096844), hereinafter ‘Liao’, and further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 20210211013), hereinafter ‘Tsuji’.
Regarding Claim 1, Liao discloses an attitude adjustment apparatus comprising: a driving device (Fig. 4, 400 having a rotatable housing 401; Para [0114]) comprising a motor configured to generate a driving force (Fig. 4, motor 413; Para [0091] one or more motors may be configured to directly drive the frame assembly to rotate around at least one or a pitch, roll or yaw axis so as to adjust the posture of the assembly; the one or more motors can comprise one or more actuators that are configured to actuate one or more components of the frame assembly to move about one or more rotational axes. One or more actuators may comprise one or more motors); and a control device comprising at least one processor configured to adjust an attitude of a target object based on a rotation angle of the motor (Fig. 1, disclosing processor 111; Para [0047] processors 111 may include any electronic device or set of electronic devices responsible for signal processing, manipulation of data, and/or communication to motors; Para [0090-0091] a movement of the optical assembly may be controlled by the controller. The controller may be used for calculating posture information associated with the optical assembly based on the motion and position information obtained by the one or more sensors. For example, detected angular velocity and/or angular position of the optical assembly may be used to calculate the attitude of the optical assembly with respect to a pitch, roll and/or yaw axis of the optical assembly; one or more motors may be configured to directly drive the frame assembly to rotate around at least one or a pitch, roll or yaw axis so as to adjust the posture of the assembly), wherein the driving device further comprises: a sensing assembly configured to generate a magnetic field (Para [0126] motor is driven by electro-magnetic permanent magnets, thus generating magnetic field; Para [0140] ), sense changes in the magnetic field, and output sensing result data based on the changes in the magnetic field (Para [0053] imaging device may include magnetic sensor; Para [0111] magnetic field sensor configured to detect a rotational position of one or more actuators for driving the rotational movement of the housing relative a base support); and wherein the control device is further configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor based on a target rotation angle and the sensing result data (Para [0110] one controller may be used for controlling a rotational movement of the housing and/or the carrier; a separate controller may be provided for controlling the rotational movement of the housing or the imaging device as a whole. The separate controller may be in communication with the controller for controlling the movement of the carrier. The two controllers may work together to control an attitude of the optical assembly; Para [0017] rotational movement of the carrier is measured using one or more sensor; detecting position and attitude and sensors comprise magnetic field sensors to detect rotational position of one or more actuators for driving the rotational movement of the carrier).
Liao fails to explicitly disclose a target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a plurality of blades configured to alter the magnetic field generated by the sensing assembly.
French teaches a plurality of blades which alter a magnetic field as a function of rotation of a shaft (Clm 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide a plurality of blades which alter a magnetic field as a function of rotation of a shaft for the benefit determining a rotational speed of the motor as taught by French in Clm 2 and Col. 3, lines 9-21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 would be allowable if the Double Patenting rejection above is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 2-5, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the sensing assembly further comprises a coil configured to generate the magnetic field, and a magnetic field sensor configured to sense the magnetic field altered by the plurality of blades and sequentially output a sensor value calculated for each of the plurality of blades” in combination with all other limitations of the claim and overcoming the Double Patenting rejection above. All subsequent claims would be allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 6, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “a second sensing assembly configured to generate a second magnetic field, sense changes in the second magnetic field, and output, to the at least one processor, second sensing result data based on the changes in the second magnetic field; a first target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a single first blade configured to alter the first magnetic field; and a second target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a plurality of second blades configured to alter the second magnetic field, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor based on a target rotation angle, the first sensing result data, and sensing second result data” in combination with all other limitations of the claim and overcoming the Double Patenting rejection above. All subsequent claims would be allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 11, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “ a second sensing assembly configured to generate a second magnetic field, sense changes in the second magnetic field, and output, to the at least one processor, second sensing result data based on the changes in the second magnetic field; a first target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a plurality of first blades configured to alter the first magnetic field; and a second target, which is rotated by the driving force of the motor, comprising a plurality of second blades configured to alter the second magnetic field, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the rotation angle of the motor based on a target rotation angle, the first sensing result data, and the second sensing result data” in combination with all other limitations of the claim and overcoming the Double Patenting rejection above. All subsequent claims would be allowable due to dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858