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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding Linder not teaching the limitations of claim 1 because it is not a matter of mere substitution, this is not found persuasive because Substituting sensors to improve a motor is known within the art. In this particular case, the person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the sensor disclosed by TMAG for the dual sensor combo of Linder in order to downsize (instead of having two sensors to do the job, the sensor of TMAG is only one sensor) the control operation of the motor. As for impermissible hindsight, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USFQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 7 has been withdrawn due to the amendment filed 7/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5,and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder (US 20180097462) in view of TMAG5170 High-Precision…with SPI (hereinafter TMAG).
1. Linder teaches:
A motor assembly 101, comprising:
an electrical motor 102, and a control unit 103 connected to and adapted to control an operation of the electrical motor (fig 1), wherein:
the electrical motor comprises an internal stator 104 and an external rotor 105,
the external rotor is provided with a preset number of pole portions 108-111 arranged at an inside of the external rotor and adapted to form magnetic poles (fig 1),
and
the control unit is further adapted to:
receive the preset number of pole portions (this is inherent by the way the sensors are positioned on the control unit to face the outside of the rotor, MPEP 2112)
determine an angular position of the rotor based on the measured magnetic flux (via Hall sensors 112 & 113) and the received the preset number of pole portions, and
control a rotation of the electrical motor based on the determined angular position (that is why Hall sensors 112 & 113 are used); but does not teach the motor assembly further comprises at least one single chip multi-axis magnetic sensor connected to the control unit and arranged in a proximity of a periphery of the external rotor to measure a magnetic flux originating from the magnetic poles of the external rotor.
TMAG teaches that one single chip multi-axis magnetic sensor (the TMAG5170) optimize position sensing speed and accuracy (col 1 1st para). The person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to design the motor assembly to further comprise at least one single chip multi-axis magnetic sensor (the TMAG5170) connected to the control unit and arranged in a proximity of a periphery of the external rotor to measure a magnetic flux originating from the magnetic poles of the external rotor to reduce the number of sensors on the control unit which would reduce the cost of manufacturing the motor.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention being effectively filed to modify the invention of Linder so that the motor assembly further comprises at least one single chip multi-axis magnetic sensor connected to the control unit and arranged in a proximity of a periphery of the external rotor to measure a magnetic flux originating from the magnetic poles of the external rotor, as taught by TMAG so as to reduce the cost of manufacturing the motor.
2. Linder teaches:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is further adapted to, and the angular position of the rotor is further based on the received preset number of pole portions (this is inherent by the way the sensors are positioned on the control unit to face the outside of the rotor, MPEP 2112).
3. Linder teaches:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, wherein the electrical motor is a permanent magnet synchronous machine (since it is a BLDC motor).
4. Linder teaches:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, wherein the electrical motor is a brushless DC motor.
5. Linder teaches:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, wherein the preset number of pole portions comprises a plurality of permanent magnets arranged at regular intervals along the inside of the external rotor (fig 1).
8. Linder in view of TMAG teach:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, wherein: the single multi-axis magnetic sensor (of TMAG) is adapted to produce measurement signals from said measurement of the magnetic flux, and the control unit (of Linder in view of TMAG) is adapted to process the measurement signals (of Linder in view of TMAG) to estimate the angular position of the external rotor (of Linder in view of TMAG) within an electrical cycle of the electrical motor (of Linder in view of TMAG).
9. Linder teaches:
The motor assembly according to claim 8, wherein the control unit is adapted to estimate the angular position by using inverse trigonometry (para 0025).
10. Linder teaches:
The motor assembly according to claim 9, wherein the inverse trigonometry is implemented by table look-up and interpolation (para 0026).
11. Linder teaches:
The motor assembly according to claim 8, wherein the control unit is adapted to estimate the angular position by using a CORDIC calculation scheme (see paras 0025 & 0026).
12. Linder in view of TMAG teach:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, wherein single multi-axis magnetic sensor (of TMAG) comprises an analog to digital converter (ADC) (inherent to the TMAG5170, MPEP 2112), and single multi-axis magnetic sensor provides digitized data indicative of the measured magnetic flux to the control unit (inherent to the TMAG5170, MPEP 2112).
13. Linder in view of TMAG teach:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, wherein single multi-axis magnetic sensor (of TMAG) is configured to provide data indicative of the measured magnetic flux to the control unit using a data bus communication protocol (inherent to the TMAG5170 by way of connection to PCB, MPEP 2112).
14. Linder in view of TMAG teach:
The motor assembly according to claim 1, further comprising a planar printed circuit board (PCB) 115 adapted to receive single multi-axis magnetic sensor (of TMAG) and the control unit, wherein the planar PCB is arranged in at least one of a tangential orientation or a perpendicular orientation relative to an axis of the motor (Linder fig 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder in view of TMAG and in further view of Mu et al. (CN 108377081).
6. Linder has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the preset number of pole portions comprises a plurality of magnetized ferrite magnets.
Mu et al. teach that a plurality of ferrite magnets are cheaper than a rare earth magnets (excerpt below). The person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the pole portions in the form of a plurality of ferrite magnets as this would reduce costs in manufacturing the motor.
PNG
media_image1.png
156
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Linder was effectively filed to modify it such that the preset number of pole portions comprises a plurality of magnetized ferrite magnets, as taught by Mu et al. so as to reduce the cost of manufacturing the motor.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linder in view of TMAG and in further view of Okukawa (CN 1151627).
7. Linder has been discussed above, re claim 1; but does not teach that the preset number of pole portions comprises single multi-pole ferrite magnet ring magnetized ferrite magnets.
Okukawa teaches that a ferrite ring magnet is cheaper than a rare earth magnet (excerpt below). The person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the pole portions in the form of a ferrite ring magnet as this would reduce costs in manufacturing the motor.
PNG
media_image2.png
227
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention of Linder was effectively filed to modify it such that the preset number of pole portions comprises a single multi-pole ferrite magnet ring magnetized ferrite magnets, as taught by Okukawa so as to reduce the cost of manufacturing the motor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TERRANCE L KENERLY whose telephone number is (571)270-7851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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 5712723560. 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.
/TERRANCE L KENERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights