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 .
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116164675 (YU et al), see translation in view of DE 1102019001965 (Huxford et al), see translation. As to claims 1 and 10, Yu et al disclose a method for monitoring a concentricity (measuring and adjusting coaxiality) of a rotor (as in fig. 1) rotating in a stator (abstract) about an axis of rotation in a motor (engine motor) with a position sensor having an encoder ring and two measurement sensors (displacement sensors 1/2/3 mounted on rotor), wherein the measurement sensors (1/2/3) have a rotational angle distance from one another as seen about the axis of rotation (O) and are arranged to each output one piece of position information in relation to a rotary orientation of the encoder ring dependent on an angular position of the rotor relative to the stator, comprising: a working position detection step in which, in a working angle position of the rotor relative to the stator, each measurement sensor detects one piece of working position information in a working condition of the motor (angular displacements α0 α1 α2 α3 β0 β1 β2 β3 of fig. ½ ) ; a working condition “metric determination” step in which a working condition metric characterizing a distance between the two measurement sensors is determined based on the acquired working position information (calculating the measured coordinates of the center of the measured cross section from the measuring points); and a monitoring step in which a concentricity error is output if the working condition metric fulfills a predetermined condition (calculating the error between the target coordinates and the measured coordinates of the measuring cross section and if error is less than allowable value, coaxiality/concentricity is qualified), see par[011] et seq of translation and figures 1-7. Further, it is noted that a stator as well as an encoder ring is not depicted although the stator is indicated in the discussion as well as in description of fig. 1. Further, in par[048], there is reference to an angular displacement sensor to measure angular displacement of the rotor to measure the relative angles between the sensors. In a related prior art device, Huxford teaches measuring angular displacement sensor using a “rotary encoder” 10 as depicted in figure 1 including rotor 22, rotary disk 14, and optical source/detector 16 where it is indicated in the translation pg. 7 that the sensor assembly 10 is suitable for measuring the angular position of any object that rotates around a fixed axis such as a rotor of a rotary actuator and includes 2 sensors 12 which in this case are photodetectors and a target in the form of a disc 14 with light source 16 where the signal can be processed to generate an angular position signal and offset. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included a rotary encoder as disclosed by Huxford to the method/tool of Yu et al since it is not specified that the type angular sensor used is a rotary encoder, per se and since Huxford clearly indicates using a rotary encoder having 2 sensors/photodetectors to measure the angular position to determine offset. As to claim 2, note different working angle positions of the rotor as seen in the figures 1 and 2 of the sensors 1/2/3 at different angular positions. As to claim 3, note the discussion with regard to solving the center coordinate (x0, y0) and fixed angle of 3 displacement sensors of fig. 1. As to claim 4, note the different angles α0 α1 α2 α3 β0 β1 β2 β3 of figs. 1 and 2. As to claim 5, note usage of storage and computer which collects the sensor data and inherently stores the reference condition. As to claim 6, note description of fig. 3 indicating rotating rotor for one week to obtain several radial jumping data. As to claim 7, note the depiction of fig. 1 showing the distance between the sensors as between 45 and 135 degrees. As to claim 8, note the discussion regarding the given allowable range e of the target coordinates (xp,yp) from the center coordinate (x0,y0). As to claim 9, note control flow chart of fig. 7.
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 1-10 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. In claim 1, on line 12, “the acquired working position information” lacks clear antecedent basis. In claim 3, “the acquired reference position information” lacks clear antecedent basis. In claim 5, the indication of “and/or” is indefinite. Further, 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 7 recites the broad recitation 45 and 135 degrees, and the claim also recites 75 and 105 or 90 degrees 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 9 is not clear since the preamble is drawn to a device and there are no apparatus features included other than the preamble. Please note that claims 2,4,6,8 and 10 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note other prior art devices are cited on PTO-892 which includes state of the art offset or concentricity sensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASHMIYA FAYYAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
NF
Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/N.S.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN SWEENEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights