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 Objections
Claims 1 and 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1: Line 1 of the claim recites in part “A method to detecting a rotor position” and is grammatically incorrect. A possible correction could be to recite instead --A method for detecting a rotor position-- or --A method to detect a rotor position--.
As to claim 6: Line 3 of the claim recites in part “entered into the database” but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or in parent claim 1. However, for purposes of expedient examination, the examiner is interpreting the claim to read instead as --entered into a database--, which could constitute a proper correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uehira et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0021246 A1 (hereafter Uehira), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of EP 1830155 A1 listed in the foreign patent documents section of the IDS filed 29 October 2024.
As to claim 1: Uehira discloses a method to detecting (see the claim objection of the instant claim for the reason indicated previously above) a rotor position of a rotor element (101; see fig. 1 and ¶ 126) as a function of a sensor signal of a sensor unit (110; see ¶ 126) to detect a first angular position of the rotor element (see fig. 1 and ¶ 126-127), which relates to a repeating subsection of a rotation of the rotor element within a rotational range (see fig. 5 and ¶ 133), the method comprising:
determining the first angular position of the rotor position of the rotor element (101) as a function of the sensor signal (see ¶ 137 regarding the rotation angle being “finely carried out”);
sensing a piece of position information for localizing the first angular position within the rotational range (see ¶ 137 regarding the angle detection being “roughly carried out”);
ascertaining a piece of error information of an expected angle error as a function of the first angular position and the position information (see ¶ 139 regarding the prevention of the occurrence of an error); and
determining the rotor position of the rotor element relating to the rotational range as function of the error information (see ¶ 142).
As to claim 2: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, to ascertain the error information as a function of the first angular position and the position information, a second angular position is determined (see fig. 5 and ¶ 133), which relates to the rotational range of the rotor element, and wherein the rotor position is determined as a function of the second angular position (see ¶ 133 regarding the differences between the measurement and the ideal value of the rotation angle of the rotor 101).
As to claim 3: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the rotational range is divided into multiple angle segments (see the segments depicted in fig. 5), the first angular position being localized as a function of the sensing of the position information in one of the angle segments (see the differences between the characteristic measured rotation angles of rotor 101 that differ from the ideal value of said rotor 101 as depicted in fig. 5 and disclosed in ¶ 133).
As to claim 4: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a sensing of the sensor signal and/or the determination of the first angular position takes place continuously over the angle segments, and wherein a course of the second angular position is determined as a function of the angle segments and a course of the first angular position (see ¶ 139 and 140 regarding the angular positions that are determined continuously for a number of angle segments especially as depicted in fig. 7).
As to claim 5: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, to ascertain the error information, the error information is taken from a database, which comprises multiple entries for the sensor signal and/or the second angular position with a piece of predetermined error information about the angle error assigned in each case (see ¶ 141 regarding the error information with regard to the maximum and minimum angles stored in an EEPROM 115).
As to claim 6: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a calibration process is carried out, in which the expected angle error is ascertained over the rotational range, and the pieces of error information are entered into a database (see ¶ 141 regarding the sine and cosine wave signal information entered into the EEPROM 115 which is used to prevent errors as further disclosed in ¶ 142 and is thus considered to be a calibration process).
As to claim 8: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the rotational range comprises a complete rotation of the rotor element (101; see fig. 1 and ¶ 126) around a rotation axis, a piece of error information of the expected angle error being able to be determined for each first angular position and/or second angular position within the rotational range (see fig. 5 regarding the range 510 and details in ¶ 134).
As to claim 9: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, when sensing the position information, a position signal is obtained from a further sensor system (111; see ¶ 126 and 127), and/or the position information is called up from a memory unit.
As to claim 11: Uehira discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the rotor element (101; see fig. 1 and ¶ 126) is a shaft of a vehicle (see ¶ 2).
As to claim 13: Uehira discloses a sensor device (see fig. 1) to detect a rotor position (see ¶ 126) of a rotor element (101; see ¶ 126) within a rotational range (see fig. 5 and ¶ 134 regarding range 510), the sensor device comprising:
a sensor unit (110; see ¶ 126) for detecting a first angular position of a rotor element (see fig. 1 and ¶ 126-127), which relates to a subsection of a rotational range of the rotor element (see fig. 5 and ¶ 133); and
a control unit (114; see ¶ 127) for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (see ¶ 127).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehira et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0021246 A1 (hereafter Uehira), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of EP 1830155 A1 listed in the foreign patent documents section of the IDS filed 29 October 2024 in view of Carvalho et al. US PG-PUB 2022/0231582 A1 (hereafter Carvalho).
As to claim 7: Uehira teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a sensor unit (110; see ¶ 126), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the sensor unit is designed as an inductive sensor, the sensor unit comprising:
a conductor unit, which is rotatably fixedly connected to the rotor element; and
a sensor element for the inductive sensing of the conductor element for detecting the first angular position.
However, Carvalho teaches a sensor unit that is designed as an inductive sensor (see ¶ 188), the sensor unit comprising:
a conductor unit (not labeled but see the disclosed “conductive part” in ¶ 188), which is rotatably fixedly connected to a rotor element (106; see ¶ 188); and
a sensor element (119, 120, 121, 122; see ¶ 188) for the inductive sensing of the conductor element for detecting an angular position (see ¶ 188).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uehira’s sensor unit to be designed as an inductive sensor, the sensor unit comprising: a conductor unit, which is rotatably fixedly connected to the rotor element; and a sensor element for the inductive sensing of the conductor element for detecting the first angular position because such a sensor unit is highly accurate, provides a linear response, and is low cost, such as suggested in ¶ 205 of Carvahlo and accordingly would be advantageous to improve the accuracy of Uehira’s sensor while maintaining a low cost.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehira et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0021246 A1 (hereafter Uehira), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of EP 1830155 A1 listed in the foreign patent documents section of the IDS filed 29 October 2024 in view of Suzuki et al. US PG-PUB 2019/0367093 A1 (hereafter Suzuki).
As to claim 10: Uehira teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including sensing of position information regarding a rotor position that is calculated as a function of a first angular position with ascertainment of error information (see ¶ 139 regarding the prevention of the occurrence of an error), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein, up to the sensing of the position information, an initialization process takes place, in which the rotor position is calculated as a function of the first angular position, the ascertainment of the error information taking place only after the initialization process has been completed.
Suzuki teaches wherein, up to the sensing of position information, an initialization process takes places (see ¶ 156), the ascertainment of error information taking place only after the initialization process has been completed (see ¶ 156 and 163).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uehira’s method such that , up to the sensing of the position information, an initialization process takes place, in which the rotor position is calculated as a function of the first angular position, the ascertainment of the error information taking place only after the initialization process has been completed because such steps are an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of checking for abnormal conditions in a rotating system, such as suggested in ¶ 170 of Suzuki, and further also allows for calculations of corrections to rotating components that may not be operating as expected, such as further suggested in ¶ 172 of Suzuki and accordingly would be useful in Uehira’s method by both measuring for and correcting any angular positions of the sensed rotor therein.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehira et al. US PG-PUB 2009/0021246 A1 (hereafter Uehira), prior art of record as being the US equivalent of EP 1830155 A1 listed in the foreign patent documents section of the IDS filed 29 October 2024 in view of Chen US PG-PUB 2019/0074751 A1 (hereafter Chen).
As to claim 12: Uehira teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
a computer program product comprising commands, which when executed by a control unit, prompt the control unit to carry out the method of claim 1.
However, Chen teaches a computer program product that comprises commands, which when executed by a control unit, prompt the control unit to carry out a rotor method (see ¶ 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Uehira’s method to include a computer program product comprising commands, which when executed by a control unit, prompt the control unit to carry out the method of claim 1 because such a computer program product is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of automatically processing sensing data pertaining to a rotor and sensing components associated therewith as suggested in ¶ 135 of Chen and accordingly would serve to gather data in an autonomous manner when executing the method of Uehira.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights