DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/3/2024 and 11/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: ANGULAR POSITION AND ROTATIONAL SENSOR
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, 3-9, 12, 14-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 11,174,917 by Larson et al., (Larson hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Larson teaches in Figure 4, a position sensor and a method for assembling the position sensor, the position sensor comprising:
an angle sensor (430 – rotary position sensing device, see col. 16, lines 34-35);
a sensor shaft (extending from 430 and going through 428, 427 and 426 – see annotated Figure 4 below), wherein the sensor shaft is configured to rotate relative to the angle sensor, wherein the angle sensor is configured to sense rotation of the sensor shaft (see col. 16, lines 34-35);
a sensor wheel (427+426, see Figure 4) comprising:
a first wheel-half (426), wherein the first wheel-half comprises a first body and first teeth (along the circumference of 426), wherein the first teeth radially extend from the first body, wherein the first wheel-half is affixed to the sensor shaft (the first wheel- half is affixed to the shaft through a pin), wherein the sensor shaft is configured to rotate with the first wheel (as the sensor shaft rotates, the first wheel-half 426 rotates); and
a second wheel-half (427), wherein the second wheel-half comprises a second body and second teeth (along the circumference of 427), wherein the second teeth radially extend from the second body, wherein the second wheel-half is indirectly supported by the sensor shaft (the sensor shaft supports 427 along axis 444, as illustrated for example, in Figure 2A), wherein the second wheel-half is configured to rotate relative to the sensor shaft and the first wheel-half (the second wheel-half is not affixed to the shaft as the first wheel is and thus, able to rotate with respect to the shaft and the first wheel-half), wherein the second wheel-half is torsionally preloaded to the first wheel-half (through the action of spring 429 – see col. 16, lines 27-29).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Larson substantially teaches all of the elements recited except for explicitly mentioning the presence of a first bearing affixed to the sensor shaft. However, the use of bearings affixed to rotating shafts is well known in the art. For example, Larson shows in Figure 3B, the use of a bearings (321) that allow for a shaft (320) to rotate with respect to a carrier housing (311).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of bearings as taught by Larson in Figure 3B, to include a bearing affixed to the sensor shaft, in order to allow for a smooth rotation of the shaft with respect to internal portions of the sensor 430.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to that discussed above with regards to claim 1, Larson shows in Figure 3B, the shaft is affixed to the bearing (321) on a shoulder portion protruding from the shaft. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to include a shoulder to the sensor shaft of the position sensor shown in Figure 4, as taught by Larson, in order to provide a larger surface area on which to affix the bearings.
Regarding claim 4, Larson substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the sensor shaft comprising a knurled shaft-section, wherein the first body is affixed to the knurled shaft-section.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have it obvious to include a knurled shaft-section in the area the shaft couples to the wheel. For example, Larson shows in Figure 1D, a gear wheel (102) that is affixed to a shaft (101) at a knurled section of the shaft. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of knurled sections for affixing shafts to wheels, as taught by Larson in Figure 1D, in the sensor shaft and wheel of the Larson’s apparatus of Figure 4, order to increase the surface area of the shaft that is in contact with the inner surface of the wheel’s center hole.
Regarding claim 5, Larson shows in Figure 4, the sensor shaft comprising a smooth shaft-section (surface of the shaft facing the inner surface of the through hole in unit 427), wherein the second body (body of 427) is supported by the smooth shaft-section (when assembled in the manner illustrated for example, in Figure 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Larson teaches the position sensor as claimed, except for the preferred position of the bearing with respect to the angle sensor and the sensor wheel as recited in claims 6 and/or 7. As mentioned with regards to the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to include a bearing to allow for a smooth rotation of the shaft with respect to other portions of the sensor. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to arrange/rearrange said bearing to the preferred position (between the angle sensor and the second wheel, or at a position where the first wheel-half is disposed between the first bearing and the second wheel-half). Shifting the position of the bearing would not have modified the functionality of the system and the claimed apparatus. The particular placement of the bearing (as long as its functionality remains the same) would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 8, Larson teaches in Figure 4, the sensor shaft comprises a body (not shown portion of the shaft inside 430), a smooth shaft-section (flat surface of the shaft facing away from 430, see annotated Figure 4 below) and a shoulder (portion protruding from the shaft as illustrated for example, in annotated Figure 3A below). As mentioned with regards to the rejection of claim 4 above, it would have been obvious to include a knurled shaft-section. Thus, Larson teaches a sensor wherein the shoulder is disposed between the body section and the knurled shaft-section, wherein the knurled shaft-section is disposed between the shoulder and the smooth shaft-section.
PNG
media_image2.png
529
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
650
910
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 3A and 4
Regarding claim 9, Larson shows in Figure 4, the sensor wheel (427+426) comprising a leg spring (429), wherein the second wheel-half (427) is torsionally preloaded to the first wheel-half through the leg spring (see col. 16, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 12, Larson teaches the position sensor of claim 1, comprising a rotational lock (provided by torsion spring and retaining ring; see col. 8, line 30-32), wherein the rotational lock is configured to lock the second wheel-half to the first wheel-half and unlock the second wheel-half from the first wheel-half.
Regarding claim 14, Larson substantially teaches all of the elements recited except for explicitly mentioning the presence of a second bearing supported by the sensor shaft, wherein the second wheel-half is disposed between the first wheel-half and the second bearing. However, the use of bearings affixed to rotating shafts is well known in the art. For example, Larson shows in Figure 3B, the use of first bearings (321) connected to a first gear wheel and second bearings (unlabeled, surrounded by portion 325) that allow for a shaft (320) to rotate with respect to a carrier housing (311).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of bearings as taught by Larson in Figure 3B, to include a first bearing affixed to the sensor shaft and the first wheel-half and a second bearing affixed to the body of the sensor 430, in order to allow for a smooth rotation of the shaft with respect to internal portions of the sensor 430. The examiner notes that, although Larson doesn’t explicitly mention the bearing position with respect to other elements in the sensor as claimed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to arrange/rearrange said bearings to the preferred position. Shifting the position of the bearing would not have modified the functionality of the system and the claimed apparatus. The particular placement of the bearing (as long as its functionality remains the same) would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 15, as explained in regards to claim 14, Larson teaches in Figure 3B the use of a plain bearing.
Regarding claim 16, although Larson doesn’t explicitly mention the presence of a bearing sleeve, wherein the bearing sleeve is affixed to the sensor shaft, wherein the bearing sleeve axially secures the second wheel-half, wherein the second bearing is supported by the sensor shaft via the bearing sleeve. However, in addition to that stated in regards to the rejection of claim 14 above, the examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that it’s common knowledge in the art that bearings are enclosed within housings (sleeves) that allow their movement within a shaft. See for example, Figure 3B, which shows bearings (321) surrounded by a sleeve that is affixed to a shaft (320) in order to allow the shaft to rotate with respect to the bearings.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of the WIPO|PCT Publication WO2021/004567 by Hintze et al., published January 14, 2021 (Hintze hereafter). A copy of the foreign document along with a translation is provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 2, Larson teaches the sensor comprises a housing (outer casing of 430). Larson substantially teaches all of the claimed elements as mentioned above, except for explicitly showing the internal constitution of the position sensor. That is, Larson doesn’t show the position sensor comprising a sensor sleeve, wherein the sensor sleeve is configured to rotate relative to the sensor housing, wherein the sensor sleeve is configured to sense the rotation of the sensor sleeve relative to the sensor housing, wherein the sensor shaft comprises a body section, wherein the body section is affixed to the sensor sleeve.
Hintze teaches in Figure 1, a angular position sensor comprising a housing (06+07) and a sensor sleeve (gear 13, interpreted as a sleeve as it surrounds shaft 02), wherein the sensor sleeve is configured to rotate relative to the sensor housing (it rotates with the shaft in relation to static portion 04 and housing 07), wherein the sensor sleeve is configured to sense the rotation of the sensor sleeve relative to the sensor housing (using the arrangement of magnet 17 and hall sensor 18), wherein the sensor shaft comprises a body section (02), wherein the body section is affixed to the sensor sleeve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of angular position sensors comprising sleeves as taught by Hintze, in the position sensor of Larson, in order to incorporate a sensing arrangement for sensing the rotation of Larson’s the sensing shaft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a road wheel actuator comprising a position sensor and a ball screw drive comprising a ball screw spindle comprising external spindle-threads; and a ball screw nut comprising internal nut-threads, a nut-bearing, external nut-threads, and a drive section, wherein the ball screw nut is axially constrained to the housing by the nut-bearing, wherein the internal nut-threads couple to the external spindle-threads, wherein rotation of the ball screw nut causes translation of the ball screw spindle relative to the ball screw nut and the housing, wherein the external nut-threads engage the first teeth and the second teeth, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 18-19, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 17.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the position sensor of claim 9, the leg spring comprising a first leg, a second leg, and a coil, wherein the coil connects the first leg and the second leg; wherein the first wheel-half defines a first coil-well, a first leg-catch, and a first travel-well, wherein the first leg-catch and the first travel-well are disposed radially outwards of the first coil-well; wherein the second wheel-half defines a second coil-well, a second leg-catch, and a second travel-well, wherein the second leg-catch and the second travel-well are disposed radially outwards of the second coil-well; wherein the first leg is abutted to the first leg-catch and disposed in the second travel-well, wherein the second leg is abutted to the second leg-catch and disposed in the first travel-well, wherein the coil is disposed in the first coil-well and the second coil-well, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 11, the claim is objected as it further limits objected claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the position sensor of claim 12, wherein the first body defines a first lock-aperture; wherein the second body defines a second lock-aperture; wherein the second wheel-half is configured to rotate relative to the first wheel-half to align the second lock-aperture with the first lock-aperture, wherein the second teeth are aligned with the first teeth when the second lock-aperture is aligned with the first lock-aperture, wherein the rotational lock is configured to lock the second wheel-half to the first wheel-half by being disposed within the first lock-aperture and the second lock-aperture, wherein the rotational lock is configured to unlock the second wheel-half from the first wheel-half by being disposed within one of the first lock-aperture or the second lock-aperture, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 11,193,841 by Toyama, directed to rotational sensors including arrangements to minimize gear tooth-to-tooth play (see Figure 3).
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 March 3, 2026