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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 29-30 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of claims 16 & 29 and line 3 of claim 30, change “a rotational speed” to --said rotational speed-- in order to avoid a duplicant positive recitation for the limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-30 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.
A)Regarding claim 16, the claim states: “…ascertaining a rotational speed and/or a movement variable…”[lines 1 and 2nd from last line]. It is not clear from the claim whether both the rotation speed and movement variable is being ascertained or there is an option where only one could being ascertained.
For examination purpose, the examiner is taking a position that the claimed limitation is using “or” rather than “and” until further explanation or amendment is given by the applicant. Since claims 17-28 depend from claim 16, they also are rejected for the above reason.
B) Regarding claim 21, the claim states: “…the difference between two estimated values, and/or deviation values, and/or reference values assigned to consecutive time intervals is ascertained…”[lines 2-3]. It is not clear from the claim what values are being assigned to time intervals. It is not clear whether all of the two estimated values, deviation values and reference values is being used or is one of the values used to be assigned to the time intervals as claimed. Further, the claim states: “…wherein: (i) the time intervals are corrected only when convergence has been recognized, and/or (ii) a convergence rate is ascertained and the time intervals…”[lines 5-6]. It is not clear from the claim whether both conditions are being performed at once or just once condition is being performed during used.
For examination purpose, the examiner is taking a position that the claimed limitation is using “or” rather than “and” until further explanation or amendment is given by the applicant. Since claim 22 depends from claim 21, they also are rejected for the above reason.
C) Regarding claim 22, the claim states: “…magnitude, and/or the plurality of magnitudes, and/or an average value of the plurality of magnitudes…” [line 2]. It is not clear from the claim how many magnitudes are being used to compared to the threshold value. Further, the claim states: “…at least one of the magnitudes and/or average values, and/or (ii) a third specified threshold…”[lines 5-6]. It is not clear from the claim whether both conditions are being performed at once or just once condition is being performed during used.
For examination purpose, the examiner is taking a position that the claimed limitation is using “or” rather than “and” until further explanation or amendment is given by the applicant.
D) Regarding claim 25, the claim states: “…a convergence rate and/or a deviation value…” [lines 1-2 and 4-5]. It is not clear from the claim whether the rate or the value or possibly both are being using used for ascertained.
For examination purpose, the examiner is taking a position that the claimed limitation is using “or” rather than “and” until further explanation or amendment is given by the applicant. Since claim 26 depends from claim 25, it is also rejected for the above reason.
E) Regarding claim 26, the claim states: “…a higher convergence rate and/or a smaller deviation value…” [line 2]. It is not clear from the claim whether the rate or the value or possibly both are being using used for signal curve.
For examination purpose, the examiner is taking a position that the claimed limitation is using “or” rather than “and” until further explanation or amendment is given by the applicant.
F) Regarding claim 29, the claim states: “…ascertaining a rotational speed and/or a movement variable…”[lines 2 and 2nd from last line]. It is not clear from the claim whether both the rotation speed and movement variable is being ascertained or there is an option where only one could being ascertained.
For examination purpose, the examiner is taking a position that the claimed limitation is using “or” rather than “and” until further explanation or amendment is given by the applicant.
G) Regarding claim 30, the claim states: “…ascertaining a rotational speed and/or a movement variable…”[lines 2-3 and 2nd from last line]. It is not clear from the claim whether both the rotation speed and movement variable is being ascertained or there is an option where only one could being ascertained.
For examination purpose, the examiner is taking a position that the claimed limitation is using “or” rather than “and” until further explanation or amendment is given by the applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 23-24, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tepass et al (US 10,794,927) in view of Dorner et al (DE 102013021218A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Tepass et al disclose [see Fig. 2 above] a method for ascertaining a rotational speed or a movement variable derived from said rotational speed [see col. 3, lines 58-60], including a wheel circumferential speed, using a rotational speed sensor (SL, SM, SR) [see col. 3, lines 58-60] having a plurality of sensor elements [see col. 4, lines 6-9] and an incremental encoder wheel [see col. 3, lines 60-62], the method comprising the following steps: ascertaining temporally adjacent measurement events of the rotational speed sensor, continuously [see col. 6, lines 1-14]; ascertaining at least one estimated value for at least one duty cycle of a period including at least two of the measurement events [see col. 6, lines 1-38]; and ascertaining the rotational speed or the movement variable [see col. 6, lines 1-38]. However, the prior art does not disclose time intervals as claimed. Dorner et al disclose [see Fig. 1 above] a method for ascertaining a rotational speed or a movement variable derived from said rotational speed [see Abstract], including a wheel circumferential speed, using a rotational speed sensor (sensor 4) having an incremental encoder wheel (encoder wheel 2), the method comprising the following steps: ascertaining time intervals temporally adjacent measurement events of the rotational speed sensor (4) [see pg. 4 2nd & 3rd paragraphs and pg 5, 3rd paragraph]; ascertaining at least one estimated value for at least one duty cycle of a period including at least two of the measurement events, depending on the time interval [see pg. 5 4th paragraph]; correcting at least two of the time intervals depending on the estimated value [see Abstract and pg. 4, 3rd & last paragraphs]. Further, Dorner et al teaches that the addition of ascertaining time intervals is advantageous because it helps preset reference values as correction value to detect time measurement values for rotational speed determination are corrected by the correction values. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Tepass et al by adding time interval in the process as taught by Dorner et al in order to preset reference values to detect time measurement values for rotational speed determination.
Regarding claim 17, Tepass et al disclose wherein a specified signal value of a signal curve of the sensor elements (SL,SM, SR), including a zero crossing of a signal curve [via zero crossing detection device N), is taken into account as a measurement event [see col. 4, line 54 – col. 5, line 3 and col. 5, lines 38-42].
Regarding claim 18, Tepass et al disclose wherein a measurement event is ascertained depending on signal curves of at least two of the sensor elements (SL, SR), and depending on a difference signal curve of at least two of the sensor elements (SL, SR) [see col.4, lines 6-20].
Regarding claim 23, Tepass et al disclose wherein at least two signal curves are generated from sensor signals, calculated together in different ways, of at least two sensor elements (SL, SR) of the rotational speed sensor (SL, SM, SR) in each case, wherein consecutive measurement events are in each case assigned to different signal curves, and wherein, in each case, estimated values for one duty cycle are ascertained for each of the signal curves [see col.4, lines 6-20].
Regarding claim 24, Tepass et al disclose wherein at least one estimated value is ascertained for at least one relative offset of two consecutive measurement events assigned to different signal curves, and wherein the time intervals are corrected depending on the estimated value [see col.4, lines 6-20].
Regarding claim 27, Tepass et al in view of Dorner et al disclose wherein Dorner et al disclose measurement events assigned to one of the signal curves are discarded when a fourth specified threshold value is undershot by at least one of the time intervals [see Abstact].
Regarding claim 28, Tepass et al disclose wherein the incremental encoder wheel is magnetic and at least three sensor elements including Hall sensors or magnetoresistive sensors [see col. 4, lines 37-53 and col. 5, lines 21-35], are arranged equidistantly in a row [see Fig. 2 above], wherein a difference between sensor signals of two outer ones of the sensor elements (SL, SR) is generated as a first signal curve, and a difference between one sensor signal of a middle sensor element (SM) and an average value of sensor signals of the two outer sensor elements (SL, SR) is generated as a second signal curve.
Regarding claim 29, Tepass et al disclose [see Fig. 2 above] a method for ascertaining a rotational speed or a movement variable derived from said rotational speed [see col. 3, lines 58-60], including a wheel circumferential speed, using a rotational speed sensor (SL, SM, SR) [see col. 3, lines 58-60] having a plurality of sensor elements [see col. 4, lines 6-9] and an incremental encoder wheel [see col. 3, lines 60-62], the method comprising the following steps: ascertaining temporally adjacent measurement events of the rotational speed sensor, continuously [see col. 6, lines 1-14]; ascertaining at least one estimated value for at least one duty cycle of a period including at least two of the measurement events [see col. 6, lines 1-38]; and ascertaining the rotational speed or the movement variable [see col. 6, lines 1-38]. However, the prior art does not disclose non-transitory medium and time intervals as claimed. Dorner et al disclose [see Fig. 1 above] a non-transitory medium (processing unit 3) on which is stored a computer program for ascertaining a rotational speed or a movement variable derived from said rotational speed [see Abstract], including a wheel circumferential speed, using a rotational speed sensor (sensor 4) having an incremental encoder wheel (encoder wheel 2), the method comprising the following steps: ascertaining time intervals temporally adjacent measurement events of the rotational speed sensor (4) [see pg. 4 2nd & 3rd paragraphs and pg 5, 3rd paragraph]; ascertaining at least one estimated value for at least one duty cycle of a period including at least two of the measurement events, depending on the time interval [see pg. 5 4th paragraph]; correcting at least two of the time intervals depending on the estimated value [see Abstract and pg. 4, 3rd & last paragraphs]. Further, Dorner et al teaches that the addition of ascertaining time intervals is advantageous because it helps preset reference values as correction value to detect time measurement values for rotational speed determination are corrected by the correction values. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Tepass et al by adding time interval in the process as taught by Dorner et al in order to preset reference values to detect time measurement values for rotational speed determination.
Regarding claim 30, Tepass et al disclose [see Fig. 2 above] a method for ascertaining a rotational speed or a movement variable derived from said rotational speed [see col. 3, lines 58-60], including a wheel circumferential speed, using a rotational speed sensor (SL, SM, SR) [see col. 3, lines 58-60] having a plurality of sensor elements [see col. 4, lines 6-9] and an incremental encoder wheel [see col. 3, lines 60-62], and a control device [shown as drive machine] for a motor vehicle [not shown but see col. 2, lines 25-30], the method comprising the following steps: ascertaining temporally adjacent measurement events of the rotational speed sensor, continuously [see col. 6, lines 1-14]; ascertaining at least one estimated value for at least one duty cycle of a period including at least two of the measurement events [see col. 6, lines 1-38]; and ascertaining the rotational speed or the movement variable [see col. 6, lines 1-38]. However, the prior art does not disclose computer device and time intervals as claimed. Dorner et al disclose [see Fig. 1 above] a computer device (processing unit 3), wherein the computer device (3) is configured to ascertain a rotational speed or a movement variable derived from said rotational speed [see Abstract], including a wheel circumferential speed, using a rotational speed sensor (sensor 4) having an incremental encoder wheel (encoder wheel 2), the method comprising the following steps: ascertaining time intervals temporally adjacent measurement events of the rotational speed sensor (4) [see pg. 4 2nd & 3rd paragraphs and pg 5, 3rd paragraph]; ascertaining at least one estimated value for at least one duty cycle of a period including at least two of the measurement events, depending on the time interval [see pg. 5 4th paragraph]; correcting at least two of the time intervals depending on the estimated value [see Abstract and pg. 4, 3rd & last paragraphs]. Further, Dorner et al teaches that the addition of ascertaining time intervals is advantageous because it helps preset reference values as correction value to detect time measurement values for rotational speed determination are corrected by the correction values. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Tepass et al by adding time interval in the process as taught by Dorner et al in order to preset reference values to detect time measurement values for rotational speed determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21-22 and 25-26 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 19, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to at least one deviation value of the duty cycle from a specified ideal value and/or at least one reference value characterizing the duty cycle, is ascertained depending on at least three consecutive time intervals, and the estimated value is ascertained depending on the deviation value and/or the reference value. Since claim 20 depends from claim 19, it also has allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to at least one magnitude or a plurality of magnitudes, of the difference between two estimated values, and/or deviation values, and/or reference values assigned to consecutive time intervals is ascertained, wherein it is ascertained, depending on the magnitude or the plurality of magnitudes, whether consecutive estimated values converge, and wherein: (i) the time intervals are corrected only when convergence has been recognized, and/or (ii) a convergence rate is ascertained and the time intervals are corrected in a manner weighted with the convergence rate. Since claim 22 depends from claim 21, it also has allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 25, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to a convergence rate and/or a deviation value of a respective duty cycle from a specified ideal value for the estimated values is ascertained in each case, and wherein each respective duty cycle is in each case assigned to one of the at least two different signal curves, depending on the ascertained convergence rates and/or deviation values. Since claim 26 depends from claim 25, it also has allowable subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights