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 .
Remarks
Office Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 5/28/2024. Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 11-20 are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 13-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: The term “the third coil [[(9)]]” in line 4 should read --the second coil--.
Claim 7: The term “the third coils” in line 3 should read --the third coil--.
Claim 13-17: Claims 13-17 depend from claim 1, not claim 11; claims 3-7 are duplicates should it indeed depend on claim 1 and would be objected to as duplicates. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a rotatable component “ and “a path that is phase-offset thereto” in lines 2 and 17 respectively, and the claim also recites “such as in particular a shaft “ and “in particular a cosinusoidal path, along the circular circumference” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites the term “preferably” creates a broad recitation followed by a narrow limitation in the same claim and should be addressed with FP07-34-04 since the scope of the claim is ambiguous.
Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as listed below:
Claim 1: The limitation “the circumference” line 5 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1: The limitation “the first sensor target” line 9 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 1: The limitation “a circular circumference” line 15 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3: The limitation “the radially outer lateral surface” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9: The limitation “the control unit” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9: The limitation “the circuit board” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11: The limitation “the first sensor target” lines 6-7 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11: The limitation “a circular circumference” lines 13-14 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 19: The limitation “the control unit” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20: The limitation “the first sensor target” lines 9-10 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 20: The limitation “a circular circumference” lines 16-17 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The cited prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitation of the independent claim(s), in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the features as presented in the independent claim(s) with the allowable feature being:
Claim 1: “wherein the first coil follows a sinusoidal path along a circular circumference and the second coil follows a path that is phase-offset thereto, in particular a cosinusoidal path, along the circular circumference, wherein the first inductive sensor comprises an energizable third coil wherein the energizable third coil is arranged radially offset in the manner of a circular ring inside the first coil and the second coil, and the grooves are open radially inwards.”.
Claim 11: “wherein the first coil follows a sinusoidal path along a circular circumference and the second coil follows a path phase-offset relative to the sinusoidal path of the first coil along the circular circumference, wherein the first inductive sensor comprises an energizable third coil, wherein the energizable third coil is radially offset inside the first coil and the second coil.”
Claim 20: “wherein the first coil follows a sinusoidal path along a circular circumference and the second coil follows a path phase-offset relative to the sinusoidal path of the first coil along the circular circumference, wherein the first inductive sensor comprises an energizable third coil, wherein the energizable third coil is radially offset inside the first coil and the second coil.”
Moller et al. (US 2023/0288181) has been cited as prior art most closely related to the claimed invention.
Moller teaches a sensor arrangement (Fig. 1-13) configured to determine the angular position of a rotor, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: a first annular sensor target (12) including a plurality of teeth (18) and grooves (24) distributed in an alternating manner along the circumference of the first annular sensor target (12); and a first inductive sensor (10) arranged at a distance axially from the first sensor target (12), wherein the first annular sensor target (12) and the first inductive sensor (10) are rotatable in relation to one another about a common axis of rotation (A1).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heeren et al. (US 6078158) teaches a motor control processor which controls motor spin-up in a disk drive by detecting environmental temperature at the spindle motor of the disk drive, controlling commutation phase advance to generate substantially maximum torque if the detected environmental temperature indicates that maximum torque is needed.
Kunz-Vizenetz et al. (US 2005/0030012) teaches an angle of rotation sensor including a rotary shaft coupled to a permanent magnet
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHAD H JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1231. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. 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.
RASHAD H. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2834
/RASHAD H JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2834