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 § 102
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)(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, 4-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Loge et al (US 20150241199 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Loge discloses a modular resolver, comprising: a first unit (fig. 1, third assembly 3) and a second unit (fig. 1, second assembly 2) that are rotatable relative to one another about an axis (paragraph 34 “The resolver may be operated such that third assembly 3 acts as a stator, and second assembly 2 rotates relative to third assembly 3”), the resolver adapted to determine a relative angular position between the first unit and the second unit (paragraph 38 “When using two receiver windings 2.5 of second assembly 2 that are offset by 90.degree., two voltage signals that are phase-offset by 90.degree. are able to be picked off, the voltage signals being a function of the relative angular position between first assembly 1 and second assembly 2.”); wherein the first unit and/or the second unit includes resolver windings (fig. 1, 2.2 and 3.2) and transformer windings (fig. 1, transformer windings 1.5); wherein the first unit includes a first housing component and a second housing component (fig. 1, housing 1.1 and 2.1); wherein the second unit includes a first hub component and a second hub component (see figure 1 marked below); wherein the first and second housing components are coupled at least one connection point that extends in a circumferential direction and/or the first and second hub components are coupled at least one further connection point that extends in the circumferential direction (see figure 1 marked below).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 4, Loge discloses the first and second housing components are coupled together in a torsion-proof manner (paragraph 26 “Core stack 1.2 and winding housing 1.1A of first transformer A are fixed in place on a shaft 6 in a torsionally fixed manner.”), and/or the first and second hub components are coupled together in a torsion-proof manner (paragraph 27 “In the present exemplary embodiment, two receiver windings 2.5, offset by 90.degree., are provided. In addition, second assembly 2 has a housing 2.1. Arranged within this housing 2.1 and connected thereto in a torsionally fixed manner is a winding 2.2B, which in turn is arranged inside a winding housing 2.1B, and a further winding 2.2C, which is arranged in a further winding housing 2.1C.”).
With respect to claim 5, Loge discloses the first and second housing components are coupled together by a torsion-proof coupling (paragraph 26 “Core stack 1.2 and winding housing 1.1A of first transformer A are fixed in place on a shaft 6 in a torsionally fixed manner.”), and/or the first and second hub components are coupled together by a torsion-proof coupling (paragraph 27 “In the present exemplary embodiment, two receiver windings 2.5, offset by 90.degree., are provided. In addition, second assembly 2 has a housing 2.1. Arranged within this housing 2.1 and connected thereto in a torsionally fixed manner is a winding 2.2B, which in turn is arranged inside a winding housing 2.1B, and a further winding 2.2C, which is arranged in a further winding housing 2.1C.”).
With respect to claim 6, Loge discloses the first and second housing components are coupled together in a form-locking, force-locking, and/or material-locking manner (paragraph 26 “Core stack 1.2 and winding housing 1.1A of first transformer A are fixed in place on a shaft 6 in a torsionally fixed manner.”) and/or the first and second hub components are coupled together in a form-locking, force-locking, and/or material-locking manner (paragraph 27 “. In addition, second assembly 2 has a housing 2.1. Arranged within this housing 2.1 and connected thereto in a torsionally fixed manner is a winding 2.2B, which in turn is arranged inside a winding housing 2.1B, and a further winding 2.2C, which is arranged in a further winding housing 2.1C.”).
With respect to claim 7, Loge discloses the first and second housing components are coupled together by a form-locking, force-locking, and/or material-locking coupling, (paragraph 26 “Core stack 1.2 and winding housing 1.1A of first transformer A are fixed in place on a shaft 6 in a torsionally fixed manner.”) and/or the first and second hub components are coupled together by a form-locking, force-locking, and/or material-locking coupling (paragraph 27 “. In addition, second assembly 2 has a housing 2.1. Arranged within this housing 2.1 and connected thereto in a torsionally fixed manner is a winding 2.2B, which in turn is arranged inside a winding housing 2.1B, and a further winding 2.2C, which is arranged in a further winding housing 2.1C.”).
With respect to claim 8, Loge discloses the first and second hub components are rotationally symmetric (fig. 1, first and second assemblies are rotationally symmetrical).
With respect to claim 9, Loge discloses the transformer windings are arranged in a region of the second housing component and the second hub component (fig. 1, transformers A and B are in same region), and the resolver windings are arranged in a region of the first housing component and the first hub component (see at least figure 1, 3 1.5, 2.5 and 3.2 are in the region of their hub components).
With respect to claim 10, Loge discloses the housing components and hub components are arranged such that an air gap is located between the first and second units (see at least figure 1, there is an airgap between the first and second assemblies), and the resolver windings and the transformer windings are shielded from all sides by the housing components and the hub components (fig. 1, housings 1.1 and 2.1 protect assemblies).
With respect to claim 11, Loge discloses an air gap is arranged between the first and second unit (fig. 1, air gap between third and second assembly).
With respect to claim 12, Loge discloses the resolver windings and the transformer windings are shielded from all sides by the housing components and the hub components (fig. 1, housings 1.1 and 2.1 protect assemblies).
With respect to claim 13, Loge discloses the first unit is arranged as a stator (paragraph 34 “The resolver may be operated such that third assembly 3 acts as a stator”), and the second unit is arranged as a rotor (paragraph 34 “second assembly 2 rotates relative to third assembly 3””).
With respect to claim 14, Loge discloses the first and second hub components are coupled to a hollow shaft adapted to be rotationally fixed to a motor shaft (fig. 1, assemblies are fixed to shaft 6).
With respect to claim 20, Loge discloses the first and second housing components and/or the first and second hub components have substantially the same longitudinal extension in an axial direction with respect to the axis (fig. 1, first and second assemblies have substantially the same longitudinal extension in the axial direction ).
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 2-3 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taguchi et al (US 20230037848 A1)
With respect to claim 2, Loge teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the first housing component and/or the first hub component is formed of a first material, and the second housing component and/or the second hub component is formed of a second material.”
Taguchi teaches the first housing component and/or the first hub component is formed of a first material (fig. 2, housing base 11 and paragraph 50 “Vacuum materials, such as austenitic stainless steel and aluminum alloy, which discharge fewer gases in vacuum and in which components of gases to be discharged are known are available for the housing base 11, the housing shaft portion 12, and the lid portion 14 because they are partially exposed to the vacuum”), and the second housing component and/or the second hub component is formed of a second material (fig. 2, outer housing and paragraph 50 “the housing outer 13 is exposed to the atmospheric atmosphere At and is not exposed to the vacuum. Therefore, common structural materials such as cast iron, low carbon steel, and the like may be used, and of course, stainless steel may be used. This structure allows the motor 1 to use a higher proportion of structural materials and reduce the amount of vacuum materials, which are more expensive than structural materials.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor and resolver of Loge with the differing materials of Taguchi in order to prevent or redirect magnetic and/or electrical interferences from one area of the device to another.
With respect to claim 3, Loge teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the first material includes an amagnetic raw material, and the second material includes a magnetic raw material.”
Taguchi teaches the first material includes an amagnetic raw material (paragraph 50 “Vacuum materials, such as austenitic stainless steel and aluminum alloy, which discharge fewer gases in vacuum and in which components of gases to be discharged are known are available for the housing base 11, the housing shaft portion 12, and the lid portion 14 because they are partially exposed to the vacuum”), and the second material includes a magnetic raw material (and paragraph 50 “the housing outer 13 is exposed to the atmospheric atmosphere At and is not exposed to the vacuum. Therefore, common structural materials such as cast iron, low carbon steel, and the like may be used, and of course, stainless steel may be used. This structure allows the motor 1 to use a higher proportion of structural materials and reduce the amount of vacuum materials, which are more expensive than structural materials.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor and resolver of Loge with the differing materials of Taguchi in order to prevent or redirect magnetic and/or electrical interferences from one area of the device to another.
With respect to claim 16, Loge teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the first housing component and the second housing component are formed of different materials, and the first hub component and the second hub component are formed of different materials.”
Taguchi teaches the first housing component and the second housing component are formed of different materials (paragraph 50 quoted above,), and the first hub component and the second hub component are formed of different materials (paragraph 93 “The coupling portion 15 is a soft magnetic material and is formed of, for example, low carbon steel having a carbon concentration of 0.48% or less” and fig. 2 resolver partition wall 70 and paragraph 50 “the housing outer 13 is exposed to the atmospheric atmosphere At and is not exposed to the vacuum. Therefore, common structural materials such as cast iron, low carbon steel, and the like may be used, and of course, stainless steel may be used. This structure allows the motor 1 to use a higher proportion of structural materials and reduce the amount of vacuum materials, which are more expensive than structural materials.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor and resolver of Loge with the differing materials of Taguchi in order to prevent or redirect magnetic and/or electrical interferences from one area of the device to another.
With respect to claim 17, Loge teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the first housing component and the first hub component are formed of the same material, and the second housing component and the second hub component are formed of the same material.”
Taguchi teaches the first housing component and the first hub component are formed of the same material (fig. 2, housing base 11 and paragraph 50 “Vacuum materials, such as austenitic stainless steel and aluminum alloy, which discharge fewer gases in vacuum and in which components of gases to be discharged are known are available for the housing base 11, the housing shaft portion 12, and the lid portion 14 because they are partially exposed to the vacuum”), and the second housing component and the second hub component are formed of the same material (fig. 2, outer housing and paragraph 50 “the housing outer 13 is exposed to the atmospheric atmosphere At and is not exposed to the vacuum. Therefore, common structural materials such as cast iron, low carbon steel, and the like may be used, and of course, stainless steel may be used. This structure allows the motor 1 to use a higher proportion of structural materials and reduce the amount of vacuum materials, which are more expensive than structural materials.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor and resolver of Loge with the differing materials of Taguchi in order to prevent or redirect magnetic and/or electrical interferences from one area of the device to another.
With respect to claim 18, Loge teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the first housing component and the first hub component are formed of an amagnetic material, and the second housing component and the second hub component are formed of a magnetic material.”
Taguchi teaches the first housing component and the first hub component are formed of an amagnetic material (fig. 2, housing base 11 and paragraph 50 “Vacuum materials, such as austenitic stainless steel and aluminum alloy, which discharge fewer gases in vacuum and in which components of gases to be discharged are known are available for the housing base 11, the housing shaft portion 12, and the lid portion 14 because they are partially exposed to the vacuum”), and the second housing component and the second hub component are formed of a magnetic material (fig. 2, outer housing and paragraph 50 “the housing outer 13 is exposed to the atmospheric atmosphere At and is not exposed to the vacuum. Therefore, common structural materials such as cast iron, low carbon steel, and the like may be used, and of course, stainless steel may be used. This structure allows the motor 1 to use a higher proportion of structural materials and reduce the amount of vacuum materials, which are more expensive than structural materials.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor and resolver of Loge with the differing materials of Taguchi in order to prevent or redirect magnetic and/or electrical interferences from one area of the device to another.
With respect to claim 19, Loge teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the amagnetic material includes an amagnetic steel, aluminum, an aluminum alloy and/or a plastic, and the magnetic material includes a magnetic steel.”
Taguchi teaches the amagnetic material includes an amagnetic steel, aluminum, an aluminum alloy and/or a plastic (fig. 2, housing base 11 and paragraph 50 “Vacuum materials, such as austenitic stainless steel and aluminum alloy, which discharge fewer gases in vacuum and in which components of gases to be discharged are known are available for the housing base 11, the housing shaft portion 12, and the lid portion 14 because they are partially exposed to the vacuum”), and the magnetic material includes a magnetic steel (fig. 2, outer housing and paragraph 50 “the housing outer 13 is exposed to the atmospheric atmosphere At and is not exposed to the vacuum. Therefore, common structural materials such as cast iron, low carbon steel, and the like may be used, and of course, stainless steel may be used. This structure allows the motor 1 to use a higher proportion of structural materials and reduce the amount of vacuum materials, which are more expensive than structural materials.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor and resolver of Loge with the differing materials of Taguchi in order to prevent or redirect magnetic and/or electrical interferences from one area of the device to another.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loge in view of Miya et al (US 20040150395 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Loge teaches the above-mentioned limitations but does not teach “the first and second housing components are welded, laser-welded, and/or bonded to each other, and/or the first and second hub components are welded, laser-welded, and/or bonded to each other.”
Miya teaches the first and second housing components are welded, laser-welded, and/or bonded to each other (paragraph 26 “The cover 73 is fixed to the case 75 by bonding or screw fastening.”), and/or the first and second hub components are welded, laser-welded, and/or bonded to each other (paragraph 27 “This securing method may include impregnation and securing with varnish during varnish impregnation of the rotary transformer output winding 65, for example. Alternatively, the crossover 60 may be secured with another bonding material. The crossover 60 is securely attached to the rotary shaft 68, and nonconformities by which the crossover may become loose, disconnected, or short circuited due to vibration no longer occur.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention was filed, to combine the motor and resolver of Loge with the bonding of Miya in order to securely fasten the magnetic and electrical circuits and supporting parts the motor thereby decreasing the affects of vibrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm EST.
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 M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights