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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2025 and 08/03/2026 are considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 and 13 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.
Claims 1 and 13 discloses “inductive sensor is in a low-power mode”. It is unclear what defines a low-power mode. All subsequent claims are also rejected due to dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2008309598A) hereinafter ‘Yamada’.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Yamada discloses an inductive sensor (Para [0002] detect rotation angle from change in inductance of electromagnetic inductive coupling) comprising: an exciter coil (Fig. 11, A5 excitation coil) configured to generate a magnetic field corresponding to an excitation current (Para [0011, 0014] magnetic field generated by A5); a rotor coil (Fig. 18, A20) mechanically coupled to a movable element (Para [0011] coupled to rotor portion which rotates with respect to axis A10 of Fig. 18; Para [0011] shaft 3 of Claim 19) configured to generate a plurality of coil voltages at a plurality of receiver coils (Fig. 13, A6a, A6b, A6c; Para [0017] voltage output is generated at output of A6a in the state of overlapping of A6a and A20; Para [0014] voltage outputs of terminals S1, S2, S3 corresponding to plurality of receiver coils in Para [0013]; a first receiver coil, a second receiver coil, and a third receiver coil of Claim 19) according to a different angle-dependent inductive coupling between the rotor coil and each of the plurality of receiver coils (Para [0017-0018] outputs U1, U2, U3 of outputs S1, S2, S3 of the detection coils A6a, A6b, A6c with each output having a phase difference of 20 degrees); and a difference encoder including a comparator configured to output comparisons of the plurality of coil voltages while the inductive sensor is in a low-power mode, the comparisons defining angle states of the movable element (Para [0018] processing circuit A7 compares the output values of outputs U1, U2, U3 resulting in a measurement of the rotation angle; Para [0007]).
Yamada further discloses comparing output values of outputs of the coil voltages (Para [0018]).
Yamada discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of comparators. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to provide a plurality of comparator circuits, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Benis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada further discloses wherein the difference encoder is configured to output a set of comparisons for each measurement period in a series of measurement periods at a sampling rate (Para [0018] outputs of data, received by detection coils, by processing circuit, Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada further discloses wherein each angle state is a unique range of angles within a turn of the movable element (Para [0018] each output has phase difference of 20 degrees and angle can be measured in region of 60 degrees; other angles are known per Para [0043]), the turn being an angular rotation of 360 degrees (Para [0011] coupled to rotor portion which rotates with respect to axis A10 of Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada further discloses wherein the plurality of receiver coils includes: a first receiver coil configured to generate a first coil voltage; a second receiver coil configured to generate a second coil voltage; and a third receiver coil configured to generate a third coil voltage (Fig. 13, A6a, A6b, A6c; Para [0017] voltage output is generated at output of A6a in the state of overlapping of A6a and A20; Para [0014] voltage outputs of terminals S1, S2, S3 corresponding to plurality of receiver coils in Para [0013]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada further discloses wherein the first receiver coil, the second receiver coil, and the third receiver coil are mechanically arranged so that the first coil voltage, the second coil voltage, and the third coil voltage are 120 degrees out of phase with each other as the movable element is rotated (Para [0057] conductor 3b comprises plurality of detection conductors; Para [0066-0067]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2008309598A) hereinafter ‘Yamada’, and further in view of Matsushita (JP 2017120222A), hereinafter ‘Matsushita’.
Regarding Claim 10, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose a non-resonant driver configured to switch the exciter coil alternately between a positive terminal and a negative terminal of a voltage source during a measurement period at a switching frequency.
Matsushita discloses a resolver circuit comprising a non-resonant driver configured to switch the exciter coil alternately between a positive terminal and a negative terminal of a voltage source during a measurement period at a switching frequency (Fig. 2, push pull circuit 46; Para [0020-0024, 0027) for the benefit of providing a resolver capable of improving the S/N ratio of output without increasing manufacturing cost (Para [0013-0015).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide a non-resonant driver configured to switch the exciter coil alternately between a positive terminal and a negative terminal of a voltage source during a measurement period at a switching frequency for the benefit of improving the S/N ratio of an output within the field of determining rotation angles of stators/rotors as disclosed by Yamada without increasing manufacturing cost as taught by Matsushita in Para [0020-0024, 0027, 0013-0015].
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2008309598A) hereinafter ‘Yamada’, and further in view of Timmons et al. (US 20170108469), hereinafter ‘Timmons’.
Regarding Claim 12, Yamada discloses a method for sensing a rotating element (Para [0001]), the method comprising: transmitting an excitation current to an exciter coil to generate a magnetic field (Fig. 11, A5 excitation coil; Para [0011, 0014] magnetic field generated by A5); rotating a rotor coil (Fig. 18, A20), coupled to the rotating element (Para [0011] coupled to rotor portion which rotates with respect to axis A10 of Fig. 18), in order to generate a different angle-dependent inductive coupling between the rotor coil and each of a plurality of receiver coils (Fig. 13, A6a, A6b, A6c; Para [0017] voltage output is generated at output of A6a in the state of overlapping of A6a and A20; Para [0014] voltage outputs of terminals S1, S2, S3 corresponding to plurality of receiver coils in Para [0013]; Para [0017-0018] outputs U1, U2, U3 of outputs S1, S2, S3 of the detection coils A6a, A6b, A6c with each output having a phase difference of 20 degrees); receiving, during a measurement period, a plurality of coil voltages from the plurality of receiver coils (Para [0017-0018] outputs U1, U2, U3 of outputs S1, S2, S3 of the detection coils A6a, A6b, A6c with each output having a phase difference of 20 degrees); generating comparisons of the plurality of coil voltages; and determining an angle state of the rotating element for the measurement period based on the comparisons (Para [0018] processing circuit A7 compares the output values of outputs U1, U2, U3 resulting in a measurement of the rotation angle).
Yamada fails to explicitly disclose generating set of pair-wise comparisons.
Timmons discloses a system and method of magnetic sensing using pairwise statistical comparison plots of pairs of data extracted from measured magnetic field data such as angles for the benefit of measuring divergence for each pair and provide additional information regarding the measured data for statistical significance (Para [0111-0112]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide analyzing data such as through the use of generating a set of pair-wise comparisons for the benefit of measuring divergence for each pair of compared data and provide additional information regarding the measured data for statistical significance as taught by Timmons in Para [0111-0112].
Regarding Claim 13, Yamada further discloses configuring an inductive sensor in a low-power mode (Para [0007]), the inductive sensor including the exciter coil (Fig. 11, A5 excitation coil), the rotor coil (Fig. 18, A20), and the plurality of receiver coils (Fig. 13, A6a, A6b, A6c; Para [0010-0011]); and activating a difference encoder including a comparator to generate the set of pair-wise (as combined and taught by Timmons above) comparisons based on the low-power mode Para [0018] processing circuit A7 compares the output values of outputs U1, U2, U3 resulting in a measurement of the rotation angle; Para [0007].
Yamada further discloses comparing output values of outputs of the coil voltages (Para [0018]).
Yamada discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of comparators. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to provide a plurality of comparator circuits, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Benis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (JP 2008309598A) hereinafter ‘Yamada’, in view of Timmons et al. (US 20170108469), hereinafter ‘Timmons’ and further in view of Gowreesunker et al. (US 20170248446), hereinafter ‘Gowreesunker’
Regarding Claim 16, Yamada fails to disclose detecting angle-state transitions between angle states determined over a plurality of measurement periods to count turns of the rotating element.
Gowreesunker discloses a rotary encode used to detect the degree of change of angle rotation (Para [0048]) and identifying a plurality of measurement periods to count turns of the rotating element (Para [0062-0063]) for the benefit of analyzing the electrical signals for sequences of rising and falling edges to determine or estimate the angular velocity and/or direction of rotation of the rotatable component (Para [0003]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide detecting angle-state transitions between angle states determined over a plurality of measurement periods to count turns of the rotating element for the benefit of analyzing the electrical signals for sequences of rising and falling edges to determine or estimate the angular velocity and/or direction of rotation of the rotatable component as taught by Gowreesunker in Para [0062-0063, 0003].
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Yamada fails to disclose detecting angle-state transitions between angle states determined over a plurality of measurement periods to estimate a speed of the rotating element, the speed being relative to a sampling rate of the plurality of measurement periods and of Claim 18 adjusting the sampling rate based on the speed of the rotating element.
Gowreesunker discloses a rotary encode used to detect the degree of change of angle rotation (Para [0048]) and movement of a rotatable shaft including speed of the movement (Para [0047]) and the rotational speed is relative to a sampling rate of a plurality of periods (Para [0025, 0106]) and of Claim 18 adjusting the sampling rate based on the speed of the rotating element (Abstract) for the benefit of analyzing the electrical signals for sequences of rising and falling edges to determine or estimate the angular velocity and/or direction of rotation of the rotatable component (Para [0003]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide detecting angle-state transitions between angle states determined over a plurality of measurement periods to estimate a speed of the rotating element, the speed being relative to a sampling rate of the plurality of measurement periods for the benefit of analyzing the electrical signals for sequences of rising and falling edges to determine or estimate the angular velocity and/or direction of rotation of the rotatable component as taught by Gowreesunker in the Abstract and Para [0003, 0025, 0047-0048, 0106].
Regarding Claim 20, Yamada fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured by the software instructions to: detect angle-state transitions based on angle states determined over multiple measurement periods taken at a sampling rate; and determine a direction of rotation of the shaft, a speed of the rotation of the shaft, or a turn count of the shaft based on the angle-state transitions.
Gowreesunker discloses a rotary encode used to detect the degree of change of angle rotation (Para [0048]) and identifying a plurality of measurement periods to count turns of the rotating element (Para [0062-0063]) and movement of a rotatable shaft including speed of the movement (Para [0047]) and the rotational speed is relative to a sampling rate of a plurality of periods (Para [0025, 0106]) for the benefit of analyzing the electrical signals for sequences of rising and falling edges to determine or estimate the angular velocity and/or direction of rotation of the rotatable component (Para [0003]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide wherein the processor is further configured by the software instructions to: detect angle-state transitions based on angle states determined over multiple measurement periods taken at a sampling rate; and determine a direction of rotation of the shaft, a speed of the rotation of the shaft, or a turn count of the shaft based on the angle-state transitions for the benefit of analyzing the electrical signals for sequences of rising and falling edges to determine or estimate the angular velocity and/or direction of rotation of the rotatable component as taught by Gowreesunker in Para [0025, 0047-0048, 0062-0063, 0003, 0106].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9, 11, 14, 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 6, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the plurality of comparators includes: a first comparator configured to output a first comparison, the first comparison having a first binary state corresponding to a difference between the first coil voltage and the second coil voltage; a second comparator configured to output a second comparison, the second comparison having a second binary state corresponding to a difference between the second coil voltage and the third coil voltage; a third comparator configured to output a third comparison, the third comparison having a third binary state corresponding to a difference between the third coil voltage and the first coil voltage; and the angle states of the movable element include eight possible angle states in a turn of the movable element, each possible angle state corresponding to a respective combination of the first binary state, the second binary state, and the third binary state” in combination with all other limitations of the claim, respective base claims, and overcoming 35 U.S.C 112 rejections, renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 11, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the difference encoder further includes: a rectification stage including a set of switches for each of the plurality of comparators that reverses each input of the plurality of comparators according to the switching frequency” in combination with all other limitations of the claim, respective base claims, and overcoming 35 U.S.C 112 rejections, renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 14, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein generating the set of pair-wise comparisons of the plurality of coil voltages includes: generating, using a first comparator, a first comparison having a first binary state corresponding to a difference between a first coil voltage of a first receiver coil and a second coil voltage of a second receiver coil; generating, using a second comparator, a second comparison having a second binary state corresponding to a difference between the second coil voltage of the second receiver coil and a third coil voltage of a third receiver coil; and generating, using a third comparator, a third comparison having a third binary state corresponding to a difference between the third coil voltage of the third receiver coil and the first coil voltage of the first receiver coil” in combination with all other limitations of the claim and respective base claims, renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights