DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determining a first order of rotational symmetry based on the size and a second order of rotational symmetry based on the resolution;” is indefinite. The pending disclosure provides no guidance beyond what is already known in the art. As outlined below, the order of symmetry is inherently limited by fabrication methods, and both the order of symmetry of the receiver coil and the order of symmetry of the rotor coil are both known to affect the resolution.
It is unclear what is meant by determining a first order of rotational symmetry based on the size. Paragraph [0039] of the specification as filed 11/20/2024 states that determining the coil size “can be difficult to fabricate in a cost-efficient manner. For example, trace widths, trace separation, viz size (e.g., diameter) may be too small for standard fabrication techniques.” As best understood by the examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand determining the symmetry would inherently be based on sized due to limitations of fabricating coils. In addition, [0057] teaches, in reference to Fig. 4 identified as prior art, “The inductive angular position sensor is symmetric around an axis-of-symmetry 440 at the center of the coils and has an overall size corresponding to an outer diameter (i.e., diameter 450).” Therefore, as best understood by the examiner, determining “based on the size” is already disclosed in view of Fig. 4, wherein the “size” as claimed is in reference to the diameter.
Further, [0065] teaches “increasing the symmetry of both coils can increase resolution of the angular measurement.” Therefore, both the first order of rotational symmetry and the second order of rotational symmetry are determined based on the resolution. Further, as best understood by the examiner, both the first order of rotational symmetry and the second order of rotational symmetry would both be limited by the size.
Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner how to reasonably interpret and limit the scope of protection sought by the applicant beyond what would already be fundamentally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art combined with a mere matter of design choice. For the purpose of examination, any first order of rotational symmetry and second order of rotational symmetry would inherently read on the limitations in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 11 recites similar subject matter as claim 1, except wherein resolution is replaced with “harmonic suppression”. The claim limitation “determining a first order of rotational symmetry based on the size and a second order of rotational symmetry based on the harmonic suppression;” is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 since, as best understood by the examiner, the harmonic suppression is based on both the first symmetry and the second symmetry in an analogous manner as the resolution. Therefore, the claim is rejected in an equivalent manner as outlined above.
Claims 2-10, and 11-20 are rejected through a dependence on one of claims 1 and 11.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0063206 (Ausserlechner).
Regarding claim 1, Ausserlechner teaches a method for constructing an inductive angular position sensor (see inductive angular position sensor of Fig. 9), the method comprising:
selecting a size and a resolution of the inductive angular position sensor (it would be desirable to improve inductive angle sensors so that they may provide for a precise high resolution of the angular displacement and given size; see [0005], [0114]);
determining a first order of rotational symmetry based on the size and a second order of rotational symmetry based on the resolution (the periodicities are 3-fold and 2-fold, and both would be determined based on size and resolution in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation since both would need to fit the size of the rotor and would affect the resolution; see Fig. 9; see [0005], [0114], [0165]);
disposing a receiver coil having the first order of rotational symmetry on a first substrate (pick-up coils 111, 112, and exciter coil 113 are arranged on a first substrate; see [0102]; see Fig. 9);
disposing a rotor coils having the second order of rotational symmetry on a second substrate (targets 121, 122 are mounted on a same substrate holder of a rotatable shaft of rotor 120; see Fig. 9; see [0031]); and
positioning the receiver coil to be coaxially aligned with the rotor coil and separated along an axis-of-symmetry by an air gap (the rotor coils 121, 122 are positioned coaxially and aligned with pick-up coils 111, 112, and are separated by a gap; see Figs. 1, 9).
Regarding claim 11, Ausserlechner teaches a method for constructing an inductive angular position sensor (see inductive angular position sensor of Fig. 9), the method comprising:
selecting a size and a harmonic suppression of the inductive angular position sensor (it would be desirable to improve inductive angle sensors so that they may provide for a precise high resolution of the angular displacement and given size while removing the m-th harmonic; see [0005], [0072]-[0073], and [0114]);
determining a first order of rotational symmetry based on the size and a second order of rotational symmetry based on the harmonic suppression (the periodicities are 3-fold and 2-fold, and both would be determined based on size and harmonic suppression in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation since both would need to fit the size of the rotor and would affect the harmonic suppression; see Fig. 9; see [0005], [0072]-[0073], [0114], [0165]);
disposing a receiver coil having the first order of rotational symmetry on a first substrate (pick-up coils 111, 112, and exciter coil 113 are arranged on a first substrate; see [0102]; see Fig. 9);
disposing a rotor coils having the second order of rotational symmetry on a second substrate (targets 121, 122 are mounted on a same substrate holder of a rotatable shaft of rotor 120; see Fig. 9; see [0031]); and
positioning the receiver coil to be coaxially aligned with the rotor coil and separated along an axis-of-symmetry by an air gap (the rotor coils 121, 122 are positioned coaxially and aligned with pick-up coils 111, 112, and are separated by a gap; see Figs. 1, 9).
Regarding claim 2, Ausserlechner teaches wherein selecting the second order of rotational symmetry includes: selecting the second order so that it is greater than the first order to increase the resolution for the size selected (Fig. 9 shows wherein rotor target coil 121 has a 3-fold symmetry and pickup-coil 1 has a 2-fold symmetry; see Fig. 911).
Regarding claim 4, Ausserlechner teaches wherein disposing the receiver coil having the first order of rotational symmetry on the first substrate further includes: implementing the receiver coil as multiple receiver coils spatially rotated relative to each other around the axis-of-symmetry , wherein each of the multiple receiver coils is in a twisted loop configuration to reduce even harmonics of a fundamental frequency of the inductive angular position sensor (receiver coils having 3-fold symmetry comprise 6 loops with alternating loops wound in opposite directions in a manner known in the art to cancel out even harmonics; see Figs. 6 and 9).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ausserlechner teaches wherein disposing the rotor coil having the second order of rotational symmetry on the second substrate further includes: implementing the rotor coil as a multi-winding rotor coil including a first-rotor-winding and a second-rotor-winding, wherein the first-rotor-winding and the second-rotor-winding have the second order of rotational symmetry (the targets 121, 122 may comprise a coil with one or multiple winding, wherein it would be reasonably understood the multiple windings still maintain a target coil having k-fold symmetry; see [0106]).
Regarding claim 10, Ausserlechner teaches further comprising: disposing an excitation coil, which is circular and centered on the axis-of-symmetry, on the first substrate within an interior of the receiver coil (see excitation coil 113 in Fig. 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art was identified which teaches the limitations of claims 3, 6-9, 12-13, and 15-20 in combination with all limitations of respective parent claims as best understood by the examiner, however, the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights