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 .
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “configuring the first magnetic sensing device includes configuring the first magnetic sensing device with the magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to continue to record the number of turns in a powered off condition” on lines 1-3 is indefinite. At issue here is that there is no prior “configuring” method step. It is unclear if this phrase is further introducing a new step, or intends to refer to the prior sensor already configuration of the sensor.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) (US 2017/0370961) in view of Mattheis et al. (Mattheis) (US 2018/0372510).
As to Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12,
Hashimoto discloses A measurement system comprising:
a magnet (40) mounted on a rotatable shaft (14) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0080]);
a first magnetic sensing device (42a,42b) for detecting a first magnetic field from the magnet (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0082]), the first magnetic sensing device comprising: an angle sensor (42a) configured to detect an orientation of the first magnetic field and a second magnetic sensor (42b) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0082]); and
a second magnetic sensing device (142,144 or 44,46d,46c)) comprising a magnetic target (34 or 44) mounted on the rotatable shaft and an incremental sensor (36a,36b or 46c,46d) configured to detect a second magnetic field (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0128]), the magnetic target comprises a track for inducing a change in the second magnetic field (Figure 2 / note the gear teeth will perform this function or the magnet poles of the magnet is the track), (Paragraphs [0128],[0130).
Hashimoto does not disclose a magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to detect a number of turns of the first magnetic field, the magnetic multi-turn sensor is configured to continue to record the number of turns in a powered off condition, configuring the first magnetic sensing device includes configuring the first magnetic sensing device with the magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to continue to record the number of turns in a powered off condition
Mattheis discloses the first magnetic sensing device comprising: an angle sensor (3) configured to detect an orientation of the first magnetic field and a magnetic multi-turn sensor (2) configured to detect a number of turns of the first magnetic field (Paragraphs [0148],[0149]), (Figure 11), the magnetic multi-turn sensor is configured to continue to record the number of turns in a powered off condition and configuring the first magnetic sensing device includes configuring the first magnetic sensing device with the magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to continue to record the number of turns in a powered off condition (Paragraph [0015],[0149] / note this is a property of this type of multi-turn sensor, and where the prior art is using the same type of sensor as applicant which must therefore disclose this feature).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto to include a magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to detect a number of turns of the first magnetic field, the magnetic multi-turn sensor is configured to continue to record the number of turns in a powered off condition, configuring the first magnetic sensing device includes configuring the first magnetic sensing device with the magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to continue to record the number of turns in a powered off condition as taught by Mattheis in order to advantageously be able to provide a turn count or number of rotations with a sensor that will retain that turn count even when a power loss occurs, and in order to advantageously add the ability to provide a turn count utilizing a sensor that provides high resolution capability over a range of rotation, and where the sensor is one that can be produced in a more cost-effective manner and provide on smaller chip surfaces (Paragraph [0032]), thereby reducing costs and allowing a sensor that can count revolutions using less space.
As to Claim 3,
Hashimoto discloses the track of the magnetic target is a hole, a notch, or a tooth (Figure 2); and further comprising: a back-biasing magnet (38) providing the second magnetic field (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0128]).
As to Claims 4 and 14,
Hashimoto discloses the track of the magnetic target is an active magnetic area on the magnetic target (Figure 2 / note the teeth are active when magnetized or the magnetic poles can be the active area), mounting the second magnetic sensing device includes mounting the second magnetic sensing device with the track of the magnetic target being an active magnetic area on the magnetic target (Figure 2 / note the teeth are active when magnetized or the magnetic poles can be the active area).
As to Claim 13,
Hashimoto discloses mounting the second magnetic sensing device includes mounting the second magnetic sensing device with the track of the magnetic target being a hole, a notch, or a tooth (Figure 2 / note teeth of the gear 34); and mounting the second magnetic sensing device includes positioning a back-biasing magnet (38) for providing the second magnetic field (Figure 2).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) (US 2017/0370961) in view Bogos et al. (Bogos) (US 2019/0331507).
As to Claim 6,
Hashimoto discloses A measurement system comprising:
a magnet (40) mounted on a rotatable shaft (14) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0080]);
a first magnetic sensing device (42a,42b) for detecting a first magnetic field from the magnet (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0082]), the first magnetic sensing device comprising: an angle sensor (42a) configured to detect an orientation of the first magnetic field and a second magnetic sensor (42b) (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0082]); and
a second magnetic sensing device (142,144 or 44,46d,46c)) comprising a magnetic target (34 or 44) mounted on the rotatable shaft and an incremental sensor (36a,36b or 46c,46d) configured to detect a second magnetic field (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0128]), the magnetic target comprises a track for inducing a change in the second magnetic field (Figure 2 / note the gear teeth will perform this function or the magnet poles of the magnet is the track), (Paragraphs [0128],[0130).
Hashimoto does not disclose a magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to detect a number of turns of the first magnetic field, and a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target.
Bogos discloses a magnetic multi-turn sensor (604) configured to detect a number of turns of the first magnetic field ((Paragraph [0041] / note Column 5, Lines 15-37 of US 9,593,967 expressly incorporated for this sensor explains that this sensor is a multi-turn sensor), and a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto to include a magnetic multi-turn sensor configured to detect a number of turns of the first magnetic field, and a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target.as taught by Bogos in order to advantageously utilize a sensor that has high resolution capability over a range of rotations that can include multiple turns, and that can be reprogrammed to provide coarse to fine resolution depending on need (see Column 5, Lines 15-37 of US 9,593,967), and in order to advantageously minimize noise within the system and allow the sensors to properly detect the rotation of the magnetic target.
Bogos is stated to disclose a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target because paragraph [0039] expressly discloses that the shield is intended to protect the electronic circuits inside the sensor from electromagnetic signals and noise and can be located at any location in the device, and thus must reasonably disclose the above feature because the magnet will generate electromagnetic signals and noise relative to the magnetic target and its respective sensors, and thus the shield must reasonably be present to block such noise.
However, only to the extent that it is held that Bogos does not expressly disclose such feature, Hashimoto in view of Bogos would not disclose a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target.
Bogos however expressly discloses as noted above, that the shield can be placed at another location, and thus anywhere within the overall sensor with the intentional purpose of blocking electromagnetic signals and noise.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto in view of Bogos to therefore include relocating or locating the shield between a source of noise (magnet) and a separate target and its sensors to therefore include a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target given the above disclosure and teaching of Bogos in order to advantageously minimize noise within the system and allow the sensors to properly detect the rotation of the magnetic target.
As to Claim 7,
Hashimoto discloses the magnet is within a center of the magnetic target (Figure 2 / when viewed along the axis of the shaft, the magnet is within a center of the magnetic target).
As to Claim 8,
Hashimoto discloses the incremental sensor is mounted beyond a circumference of the magnetic target (Figure 2).
As to Claim 9,
Hashimoto discloses the incremental sensor is a first incremental sensor; and the second magnetic sensing device includes a second incremental sensor positioned at an even angular distance from the first incremental sensor (Figure 2 / note sensors 36a,36b or 46c,46d).
As to Claim 10,
Hashimoto discloses a motor (12) coupled to the rotatable shaft (Paragraph [0071]).
Claims 5, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (Hashimoto) (US 2017/0370961) in view of Mattheis et al. (Mattheis) (US 2018/0372510) as applied to Claims 1 and 11 and in further view of Bogos et al. (Bogos) (US 2019/0331507).
As to Claims 5 and 15,
Hashimoto in view of Mattheis does not disclose a mold compound coupling the magnet and the magnetic target, forming a mold compound coupling the magnet and the magnetic target.
Bogos discloses a mold compound (106) coupling the magnet (132) and the magnetic target (142), forming a mold compound (106) coupling the magnet (132) and the magnetic target (142) (Figures 1-5), (Paragraph [0035] / note that any material used for the housing is a “mold compound” as it can reasonably be formed using a mold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto in view of Mattheis to include a mold compound coupling the magnet and the magnetic target, forming a mold compound coupling the magnet and the magnetic target as taught by Bogos in order to advantageously protect the sensors, magnetic target, and magnet from the external environment and therefore minimize damage to any of the components.
As to Claim 16,
Hashimoto in view of Mattheis does not disclose positioning a shield between the magnet and the magnetic target.
Bogos discloses positioning a shield between the magnet and the magnetic target. (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto in view of Mattheis to include positioning a shield between the magnet and the magnetic target as taught by Bogos in order to advantageously minimize noise within the system and allow the sensors to properly detect the rotation of the magnetic target.
Bogos is stated to disclose a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target because paragraph [0039] expressly discloses that the shield is intended to protect the electronic circuits inside the sensor from electromagnetic signals and noise and can be located at any location in the device, and thus must reasonably disclose the above feature because the magnet will generate electromagnetic signals and noise relative to the magnetic target and its respective sensors, and thus the shield must reasonably be present to block such noise.
However, only to the extent that it is held that Bogos does not expressly disclose such feature, Hashimoto in view of Matthew and Bogos would not disclose a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target.
Bogos however expressly discloses as noted above, that the shield can be placed at another location, and thus anywhere within the overall sensor with the intentional purpose of blocking electromagnetic signals and noise.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hashimoto in view of Mattheis and Bogos to therefore include relocating or locating the shield between a source of noise (magnet) and a separate target and its sensors to therefore include a shield positioned between the magnet and the magnetic target given the above disclosure and teaching of Bogos in order to advantageously minimize noise within the system and allow the sensors to properly detect the rotation of the magnetic target.
As to Claim 17,
Hashimoto discloses mounting the magnet includes mounting the magnet within a center of the magnetic target. (Figure 2 / when viewed along the axis of the shaft, the magnet is within a center of the magnetic target).
As to Claim 18,
Hashimoto discloses mounting the second magnetic sensing device including the incremental sensor includes mounting the incremental sensor beyond a circumference of the magnetic target (Figure 2).
As to Claim 19,
Hashimoto discloses: mounting the second magnetic sensing device including the incremental sensor includes mounting the incremental sensor as a first incremental sensor; and mounting the second magnetic sensing device includes mounting a second incremental sensor positioned at an even angular distance from the first incremental sensor (Figure 2 / note sensors 36a,36b or 46c,46d).
As to Claim 20,
Hashimoto discloses coupling a motor (12) to the rotatable shaft (Paragraph [0071]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2010/0050731 to Granig et al. which discloses two different sensing systems, both attached to a rotating shaft, one system with a magnet and sensor, and the other being toothed wheel and sensor, and 2) DE 29924383 U1 which discloses a multi-turn rotary encoder with plural magnets and respective sensors at different locations, where the magnets are attached to a shaft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights