DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 28, 2024. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0408570 A1 to Hayashi et al. (herein after “Hayashi et al. publication") in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,363 A to Hayashi et al. (herein after “Hayashi et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 14, 19 and 20,
the Hayashi et al. publication discloses an angle sensor arrangement (see FIG. 7 and ¶13 – ¶38), comprising:
a measuring transducer (10);
a measurement acquisition device (10);
a signal processing device (22);
a correction device (23 – 26); and
an angle calculation device (30),
wherein the measurement acquisition device is configured to acquire at least one physical variable representing a current angular position of the measuring transducer, and to output at least two measurement signals which each representing the current angular position of the measuring transducer (see ¶31),
wherein the signal processing device is configured to process the at least two measurement signals and to amplify the at least two measurement signals with a variably adjustable amplification factor and, if necessary, to digitize the at least two measurement signals and to make the at least two processed measurement signals available to the correction device (see FIG. 7 and ¶34),
wherein the correction device is configured to adaptively calculate at least one correction coefficient depending on a current amplification factor set in the signal processing device and to correct the at least two processed measurement signals accordingly and to output the at least two corrected measurement signals (see ¶35).
The Hayashi et al. publication, however, does not disclose
the angle calculation device being configured to calculate the current angular position of the measuring transducer based on at least one mathematical transformation of the at least two corrected measurement signals.
The Masreliez et al. publication discloses “[a] self-calibrating position transducer system . . . [that] . . . uses the position transducer itself as a position reference during calibration, thus eliminating using an external reference during calibration.” (See Abstract.)
According to the Masreliez et al. publication, “FIG. 3 illustrates [that] the self-calibrating position transducer system 200 . . . includes the transducer 100, a signal corrector 210, a Fourier analyzer 220, a memory 230, and a controller 240.
. . . the transducer 100 generates transducer signals Sc and Ss and outputs the signals to the signal corrector 210 over a signal line 140. The signal corrector 210 receives calibration values Ci from the memory 230 over a signal line 232. The signal corrector 210 uses the calibration values Ci to correct the transducer signals Sc and Ss from the transducer 100 and sends the corrected transducer signals Sc and Ss to the Fourier analyzer 220 over a signal line 212.
The signal corrector 210 also outputs a position information signal. The position information signal is determined from the transducer signals Sc and Ss and the calibration values Ci . Alternatively, the position signal is determined from the corrected transducer signals Sc and Ss. In particular, the position information signal can be a position signal indicating the relative position between the read head 110 and the scale 120.” (Emphasis added.)
Such disclosure suggests an angle calculation device being configured to calculate the current angular position of the measuring transducer based on at least one mathematical transformation of the at least two corrected measurement signals.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Hayashi et al. publication so that the angle calculation device is configured to calculate the current angular position of the measuring transducer based on at least one mathematical transformation of the at least two corrected measurement signals, as suggested by the Masreliez et al. publication, in order to calibrate for short range errors, without using an external position reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 13 and 15 – 18 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.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights