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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0021] the word “hall” should be capitalized.
In paragraph [0072] the word “hall” should be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 2 the phrase “drive unit comprising” should instead be “a drive unit comprising.”
In claim 19 line 2 the word “hall” should be capitalized.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0053171 to Gombor et al. (hereinafter Gombor; cited by Applicant on 1/5/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Gombor teaches a vehicle (Paragraph [0004]) comprising:
a drive unit (Paragraph [0004]):
a printed circuit board (PCB) (FIG. 1, 110) comprising a coil assembly (FIG. 1, 112);
a rotor assembly (Paragraph [0069]) connected to a shaft (FIG. 1), the shaft having a target (FIG. 1, 120); and
circuitry electrically coupled to the coil assembly (Paragraph [0063]), the circuitry transmitting an electromagnetic field from the coil assembly to the target on the shaft, receiving a reflected electromagnetic field at the coil assembly from the target on the shaft, and determining a position of the shaft based at least in part on the reflected electromagnetic field (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Gombor teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the coil assembly comprises a transmitting coil and receiving coils (FIG. 1, 112; Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Gombor teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the receiving coils comprise a receiving sine coil and a receiving cosine coil (Paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Gombor teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the transmitting coil and the receiving coils are disposed on a first layer of the PCB (FIG. 5, 511) and a second layer of the PCB (FIG. 5, 512; Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 7, Gombor teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the circuitry comprises an application-specific integrated circuit (FIG. 1, 111; Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Gombor teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is disposed on the PCB (FIG. 1; Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Gombor teaches a drive unit for a vehicle (Paragraph [0004]), the drive unit comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (FIG. 1, 110) comprising a position sensor (FIG. 1, 100);
a rotor assembly (Paragraph [0069]) connected to a shaft (FIG. 1), the shaft having a target (FIG. 1, 120); and
circuitry electrically coupled to the position sensor (Paragraph [0063]), the circuitry determining a position of the shaft using the target (Paragraph [0064]).
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombor in view of German Patent No. 10 2022 124 999 to Bader et al. (hereinafter Bader).
Regarding claim 5, Gombor teaches the vehicle of claim 2.
Gombor does not teach the coil assembly comprising a first transmitting coil with a first set of receiving coils and a second transmitting coil associated with a second set of receiving coils.
However, Bader teaches a coil assembly comprising a first transmitting coil with a first set of receiving coils and a second transmitting coil associated with a second set of receiving coils (Paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Gombor with the teachings of Bader to place multiple coils to provide a cost-effective multi-channel high performance system for position sensing (Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Gombor in view of Bader teaches the vehicle of claim 5, wherein Bader further teaches the first transmitting coil and the first set of receiving coils are disposed on a first layer of the PCB and a second layer of the PCB, and wherein the second transmitting coil and the second set of receiving coils are disposed on a third layer of the PCB and a fourth layer of the PCB (Paragraph [0024]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombor in view of German Patent No. 10 2018 213 413 to Utermoehlen.
Regarding claim 9, Gombor teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is disposed on a second PCB (Paragraph [0022]), the second PCB being substantially circular (FIG. 7, 710) and defining an interior portion, wherein the target is positioned within the interior portion (Paragraph [0064]).
Gombor does not teach the second PCB being a flexible PCB.
However, Utermoehlen teaches a PCB holding a position sensor (FIG. 2, 132) being made of a flexible material (Paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Gombor with the teachings of Utermoehlen to provide a flexible PCB for easier installation and replacement of the component.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombor in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0080797 to Roos and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0115932 to Schmitt et al. (hereinafter Schmitt).
Regarding claim 11, Gombor teaches the drive unit of claim 10.
Gombor does not teach the target comprising a disk affixed to an end of the shaft, wherein the disk comprises a first side affixed to the end of the shaft, a second side, and an edge between a first circumference of the first side and a second circumference of the second side, wherein the edge comprises a channel having a varying width based at least in part on a number of poles of the drive unit.
However, Roos teaches a disk (FIG. 2, 4) affixed to an end of the shaft (FIG. 2, 3), wherein the disk comprises a first side affixed to the end of the shaft (FIG. 2, 4, left side), a second side (FIG. 2, 4, right side), and an edge between a first circumference of the first side and a second circumference of the second side.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor with the teachings of Roos to place the target on the end of the shaft so the position sensor receives less electromagnetic interference from the motor.
Gombor in view of Roos does not teach the edge comprising a channel having a varying width based at least in part on a number of poles of the drive unit.
However, Schmitt teaches a position sensor target (FIG. 1; 3, 4) having a channel with a varying width based at least in part on a number of poles of the drive unit (Paragraph [0039]; [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor in view of Roos with the teachings of Schmitt to have the position sensor measure a channel on the side of the target to reduce the axial footprint of the drive unit.
Regarding claim 12, Gombor in view of Roos and Schmitt teaches the drive unit of claim 11, wherein Schmitt further teaches the circuitry determining the position of the shaft based at least in part on the channel (Paragraph [0039]-[0043]).
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombor in view of Roos.
Regarding claim 13, Gombor teaches the drive unit of claim 10.
Gombor does not teach the target comprising a magnet having a north pole and a south pole.
However, Roos teaches a position sensor target (FIG. 2, 4) comprising a magnet having a north pole and a south pole.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor with the teachings of Roos to provide a magnet as a magnetoresistance sensing system is more resistant to electromagnetic interference and may take up less space than an inductive sensing system.
Regarding claim 14, Gombor in view of Roos teaches the drive unit of claim 13, wherein Roos further teaches the position of the shaft based at least in part on the north pole and the south pole (Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Gombor teaches the drive unit of claim 10.
Gombor does not teach the position sensor being a magnetoresistive sensor.
However, Roos teaches a position sensor being a magnetoresistive sensor (Paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor with the magnetoresistive sensor of Roos as a magnetoresistance sensing system is more resistant to electromagnetic interference and may take up less space than an inductive sensing system.
Regarding claim 16, Gombor teaches the drive unit of claim 10.
Gombor does not teach the position sensor being an anisotropic magnetoresistive sensor.
However, Roos teaches a position sensor being an anisotropic magnetoresistive sensor (Paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor with the anisotropic magnetoresistive sensor of Roos as a magnetoresistance sensing system is more resistant to electromagnetic interference and may take up less space than an inductive sensing system.
Regarding claim 17, Gombor teaches the drive unit of claim 10.
Gombor does not teach the position sensor being a giant magnetoresistance effect sensor.
However, Roos teaches a position sensor being a giant magnetoresistance effect sensor (Paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor with the giant magnetoresistance effect sensor of Roos as a magnetoresistance sensing system is more resistant to electromagnetic interference and may take up less space than an inductive sensing system.
Regarding claim 18, Gombor teaches the drive unit of claim 10.
Gombor does not teach the position sensor being a tunnel magnetoresistance effect sensor.
However, Roos teaches a position sensor being a tunnel magnetoresistance effect sensor (Paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor with the tunnel magnetoresistance effect sensor of Roos as a magnetoresistance sensing system is more resistant to electromagnetic interference and may take up less space than an inductive sensing system.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombor in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0209629 to Bach et al. (hereinafter Bach).
Regarding claim 19, Gombor teaches the drive unit of claim 10.
Gombor does not teach the position sensor being a circular vertical Hall effect sensor.
However, Bach teaches a position sensor (FIG. 6, 48) being a circular vertical Hall effect sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive unit of Gombor with the circular vertical Hall effect sensor of Roos as a magnetoresistance sensing system is more resistant to electromagnetic interference and may take up less space than an inductive sensing system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gombor in view of Bader and Schmitt.
Regarding claim 20, Gombor teaches a printed circuit board FIG. 1, 110) associated with a drive unit of a vehicle (Paragraph [0004]) and being oriented substantially perpendicular to an axial direction of a shaft of the drive unit (FIG. 1), the printed circuit board comprising:
a first application-specific integrated circuit (FIG. 5, 521);
a second application-specific integrated circuit (FIG. 5, 522); and
a plurality of layers (Paragraph [0077]),
wherein a first layer of the plurality of layers and a second layer of plurality of layers comprise a first transmitting coil and a first set of receiving coils (FIG. 5; 511, 512; Paragraph [0079]),
wherein the first application-specific integrated circuit transmits a first electromagnetic field from the first transmitting coil to a target (FIG. 1, 120) on the shaft (Paragraph [0064]).
Gombor does not teach a microcontroller; a third layer of the plurality of layers and a fourth layer of the plurality of layers comprise a second transmitting coil and a second set of receiving coils,
wherein the second application-specific integrated circuit transmits a second electromagnetic field from the second transmitting coil to the target on the shaft, receives a second reflected electromagnetic field at the second set of receiving coils from the target on the shaft, and determines a second position of the shaft based at least in part on the second reflected electromagnetic field, and wherein the microcontroller determines a third position of the shaft based at least in part on the first position and the second position.
Bader teaches a third layer of the plurality of layers and a fourth layer of the plurality of layers comprising a second transmitting coil and a second set of receiving coils (Paragraph [0024]), wherein the second application-specific integrated circuit transmits a second electromagnetic field from the second transmitting coil to the target on the shaft, receives a second reflected electromagnetic field at the second set of receiving coils from the target on the shaft, and determines a second position of the shaft based at least in part on the second reflected electromagnetic field (in view of Gombor Paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printed circuit board of Gombor with the teachings of Bader to place multiple coils to provide a cost-effective multi-channel high performance system for position sensing (Paragraph [0007]).
Gombor in view of Bader does not teach a microcontroller; wherein the microcontroller determines a third position of the shaft based at least in part on the first position and the second position.
However, Schmitt teaches a system with two position sensors (FIG. 1; 5, 6) connected to a microcontroller (FIG. 1, 10), wherein the microcontroller determines a third position of the shaft based at least in part on the first position and the second position (Paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the printed circuit board of Gombor in view of Bader with the teachings of Schmitt to provide a microcontroller to process the position sensor data to provide further position information for operating the drive unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights