DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending in the present application.
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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 1-16 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, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the frame maintains a substantially constant radial distance from the shaft”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially constant”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the frame is configured to move substantially in unison with the shaft”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially in unison”.
Finally, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “a gap between the at least one sensor and the outer surface of the shaft in the target region is substantially constant”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially constant”.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "optionally, wherein" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the plane is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shaft”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially perpendicular”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "optionally, wherein" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
However, for the purpose of examination and antecedent basis within claims 7 and 8, this limitation has been considered by the Examiner as presented below in the rejection of claim 6 below.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the phrases “ the first sensor” and “the second sensor” as the antecedent basis for these phrases is found within an optional limitation of claim 6. However, for the purpose of examination the optional limitation has been considered not optional by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the second frame maintains a substantially constant radial distance from the shaft”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially constant”.
Furthermore, the phrase "optionally, wherein" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrases “the second frame is movable, substantially in unison with the shaft”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially in unison”.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the at least one sensor is configured to detect the change in the magnetic field when the shaft is substantially stationary”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially stationary”.
Furthermore, the phrase "optionally, wherein" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the frame maintains a substantially constant radial distance from the shaft”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially constant”.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “the frame is movable, substantially in unison with the shaft”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially in unison”.
Finally, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “a gap between the at least one sensor and the outer surface of the shaft in the target region is substantially constant”. This is unclear because the Examiner can find no description in the Specification that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain what would be included or excluded by the phrase “substantially constant”.
Regarding claims 4-5, 11-13, and 15-16, these claims are rejected for failing to remedy the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above.
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 1, 5, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina et al. (US Pat. No. 5,526,704, hereinafter Hoshina).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshina teaches a system for sensing torque in a rotatable shaft (see Fig. 1 and 2, all elements; see also Abstract; see also col. 2, line 32 through col. 5, line 65, discussion of torque measurement of shaft 2), the system comprising: a target region extending along at least a portion of a length of the shaft (see Fig. 1, target region 2A and 2B extending along length of the shaft 2); at least one sensor configured to measure a torque transmitted through the shaft over the target region (see Fig. 1 and 2, sensor includes excitation and detection coils 9); a bearing having an inner race and an outer race, the inner race being supported by, and in contact with, an outer surface of the shaft, such that the inner race and the shaft are rotatably locked together (see Fig. 1 and 2, bearing 3 includes inner race in contact with the shaft 2 and outer race connected to frame (outer casing) 1); a frame fixedly mounted to the outer race of the bearing, such that the frame maintains a substantially constant radial distance from the shaft (see Fig. 1, outer race of bearing 3 mounted to frame (outer casing) 1, wherein the bearings 3 keep a fixed distance between the frame 1 and the shafter 2); wherein the shaft is configured to rotate relative to the frame (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 39-61, shaft 2 rotates relative to frame 1); and wherein the at least one sensor is rigidly attached to the frame, such that a gap between the at least one sensor and the outer surface of the shaft in the target region is substantially constant (see Fig. 1 and 2 and col. 5, lines 56-66, sensor coils 9 rigidly fixed to the frame 1 via resin casing 6 and keeps a gap between the coils 9 and the target regions 2A/2B).
Hoshina fails to specifically teach a compliant mount attaching the frame to a fixed structure, such that the frame is configured to move substantially in unison with the shaft, relative to the fixed structure, in at least two dimensions, the at least two dimensions being in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.
However, Hoshina does teach that the frame is attached to a vehicle body (see col. 2, lines 39-61), wherein the shaft is part of a propeller shaft, output axle of a vehicular engine, a drive shaft, et. (see col. 2, lines 57-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the shaft and frame (outer casing) of Hoshina are attached to fixed structures (vehicles frames) of the relative vehicles via compliant mounts such as vibration dampers, springs, shocks, struts, etc. This is because vibration damping and compliant structures are known to allow for movement of the engine/axle relative to the frame along vertical and horizontal directions such that the vibrations are not transferred to the cabin of the vehicle and therefore would apply to the torque measurement casing as well.
Regarding claim 5, Hoshina above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hoshina above fails to specifically teach that the compliant mount is configured such that the shaft, the bearing, and the frame are movable in at least three dimensions relative to the fixed structure.
However, as described above, Hoshina does teach that the frame is attached to a vehicle body (see col. 2, lines 39-61), wherein the shaft is part of a propeller shaft, output axle of a vehicular engine, a drive shaft, et. (see col. 2, lines 57-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the shaft and frame (outer casing) of Hoshina above are attached to fixed structures (vehicles frames) of the relative vehicles via compliant mounts such as vibration dampers, springs, shocks, struts, etc. This is because vibration damping and compliant structures are known to allow for movement of the engine/axle relative to the frame along three dimensions such that the vibrations are not transferred to the cabin of the vehicle and therefore would apply to the torque measurement casing as well.
Regarding claim 10, Hoshina above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Hoshina teaches that the target region is a magnetized portion of the outer surface of the shaft configured to generate a magnetic field, or is configured for excitement by a stationary coil to generate a magnetic field, and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect a change in the magnetic field induced by shear within the outer surface of the shaft, the shear corresponding to torsional deformation of the shaft over at least a portion of the target region due to twisting (see col. 5, lines 24-32, description of magnetic flux generation and torque measurement), and , optionally (please see rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect the change in the magnetic field when the shaft is substantially stationary (see col. 5, lines 24-32, magnetic flux can be measured whether the shaft is rotating or not).
Regarding claim 11, Hoshina above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hoshina teaches that the bearing comprises a redundant bearing.
However, Hoshina does teach the use of multiple bearings (see Fig. 1, pair of bearings 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to include backup or redundant bearings in the device of Hoshina. This is because it is known to use redundant parts which can cause critical failures of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts, in this case the bearings) of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B)).
Regarding claim 14, Hoshina teaches a method for sensing torque in a rotatable shaft (see Fig. 1 and 2, all elements; see also Abstract; see also col. 2, line 32 through col. 5, line 65, discussion of torque measurement of shaft 2), the method comprising: providing a target region extending along at least a portion of a length of the shaft (see Fig. 1, target region 2A and 2B extending along length of the shaft 2); attaching a bearing to the shaft, the bearing having an inner race and an outer race, wherein the inner race is supported by, and in contact with, an outer surface of the shaft, such that the inner race and the shaft are rotatably locked together (see Fig. 1 and 2, bearing 3 includes inner race in contact with the shaft 2 and outer race connected to frame (outer casing) 1); mounting a frame to the outer race of the bearing in a fixed manner, such that the frame maintains a substantially constant radial distance from the shaft (see Fig. 1, outer race of bearing 3 mounted to frame (outer casing) 1, wherein the bearings 3 keep a fixed distance between the frame 1 and the shafter 2); rigidly attaching at least one sensor to the frame, such that a gap between the at least one sensor and the outer surface of the shaft in the target region is substantially constant (see Fig. 1 and 2 and col. 5, lines 56-66, sensor coils 9 rigidly fixed to the frame 1 via resin casing 6 and keeps a gap between the coils 9 and the target regions 2A/2B); and measuring a torsional deformation of the shaft over the target region (see Fig. 1 and 2 and col. 1, lines 41-67, sensor includes excitation and detection coils 9 for detecting torsional deformation over the target region 2A/2B).
Hoshina fails to specifically teach attaching, via a compliant mount, the frame to a fixed structure, such that the frame is movable, substantially in unison with the shaft, relative to the fixed structure, in at least two dimensions, the at least two dimensions being in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the shaft.
However, Hoshina does teach that the frame is attached to a vehicle body (see col. 2, lines 39-61), wherein the shaft is part of a propeller shaft, output axle of a vehicular engine, a drive shaft, et. (see col. 2, lines 57-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the shaft and frame (outer casing) of Hoshina are attached to fixed structures (vehicles frames) of the relative vehicles via compliant mounts such as vibration dampers, springs, shocks, struts, etc. This is because vibration damping and compliant structures are known to allow for movement of the engine/axle relative to the frame along vertical and horizontal directions such that the vibrations are not transferred to the cabin of the vehicle and therefore would apply to the torque measurement casing as well.
Claims 2-4 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Brassert et al. (US Pat. No. 5,345,827, hereinafter Brassert).
Regarding claim 2, Hoshina above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hoshina above fails to specifically teach that the target region comprises a first set of target elements and a second set of target elements, wherein the first set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a first position, wherein target elements of the second set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a second position, wherein target elements of the first and second positions are spaced apart, within the target region, from each other along the longitudinal axis of the shaft, wherein the first and second sets of target elements are interleaved with each other, and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure a distance between adjacent target elements of the first and or second sets of target elements.
Brassert teaches a torque measurement system (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1, 4, and 5), wherein the torque measurement system includes a shaft (70) including a target region (see Fig. 4, target region including 66/68), wherein the target region comprises a first set of target elements (see Fig. 5, elements 67) and a second set of target elements (see Fig. 5, elements 69), wherein target elements of the first set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a first position (see Fig. 5, location of first set of target elements 67 at first position), wherein target elements of the second set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a second position (see Fig. 5, location of second set of target elements 69 at second positions), wherein the first and second positions are spaced apart, within the target region, from each other along the longitudinal axis of the shaft, wherein the first and second sets of target elements are interleaved with each other, and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to measure a distance between adjacent target elements of the first and or second sets of target elements (see Fig. 5 and 6 and col. 4, lines 34-46, first targets 67 and second targets 69 are interleaved and spaced apart vertically along the longitudinal axis of the shaft 70, and wherein one sensor 64 measures the distance between adjacent target elements to determine torque.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Hoshina with the torque measuring system of Brassert. This allows for the development of torque twist in a short shaft as described by Brassert (see col. 4, lines 49-51).
Furthermore, although regarding an optional limitation (see rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above), Hoshina as modified by Brassert above fails to specifically teach that the first set of target elements extend towards the second set of target elements, such that at least a portion of each target element of the first set of target elements is positioned within a same plane as the second set of target elements.
However, Brassert further teaches that the first set of target elements extend towards the second set of target elements, such that at least a portion of each target element of the first set of target elements is positioned within a same plane as the second set of target elements (see Fig. 5, first targets 67 and second targets 69 extend towards each other and portions of each are in the same vertical plane as shown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Hoshina as modified by Brassert with the further torque measuring system configuration of Brassert. This allows for the development of torque twist in a short shaft as described by Brassert (see col. 4, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 3, Hoshina as modified by Brassert above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Hoshina as modified by Brassert above fails to specifically teach that the first set of target elements and the second set of target elements extend in a same direction and overlap each other at the at least one sensor; or the plane is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shaft and defines a deflection region, which is where the at least one sensor is fixedly positioned to measure the distance between adjacent target elements of the first and second sets of target elements.
However, Brassert further teaches that the first set of target elements and the second set of target elements extend in a same direction and overlap each other at the at least one sensor; or the plane is substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shaft and defines a deflection region, which is where the at least one sensor is fixedly positioned to measure the distance between adjacent target elements of the first and second sets of target elements (see Fig. 5 and 6, first targets 67 and second targets 69 overlap each other at the location of the sensor 64 as shown).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Hoshina as modified by Brassert with the further torque measuring system configuration of Brassert. This allows for the development of torque twist in a short shaft as described by Brassert (see col. 4, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 4, Hoshina as modified by Brassert above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Hoshina as modified by Brassert above fails to specifically teach that the at least one sensor comprises one or more variable reluctance (VR) sensors or a plurality of VR sensors that are spaced apart from each other circumferentially around the shaft.
However, Brassert further teaches that the at least one sensor comprises one or more variable reluctance (VR) sensors or a plurality of VR sensors that are spaced apart from each other circumferentially around the shaft (see col. 4, lines 34-46, discussion of variable reluctance sensor).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Hoshina as modified by Brassert with the further torque measuring system configuration of Brassert. This allows for the development of torque twist in a short shaft as described by Brassert (see col. 4, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 15, Hoshina above teaches all of the limitations of claim 14.
Hoshina above fails to specifically teach providing a first set of target elements in and/or on the outer surface of the shaft at a first position within the target region; and providing a second set of target elements in and/or on the outer surface of the shaft at a second position within the target region; wherein the first and second positions are spaced apart, within the target region, from each other along the longitudinal axis of the shaft; and wherein the first and second sets of target elements are interleaved with each other.
Brassert teaches a torque measurement system (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1, 4, and 5), wherein the torque measurement system includes a shaft (70) including a target region (see Fig. 4, target region including 66/68), wherein the target region comprises a first set of target elements (see Fig. 5, elements 67) and a second set of target elements (see Fig. 5, elements 69), wherein target elements of the first set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a first position within the target region (see Fig. 5, location of first set of target elements 67 at first position), wherein target elements of the second set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a second position within the target region (see Fig. 5, location of second set of target elements 69 at second positions), wherein the first and second positions are spaced apart, within the target region, from each other along the longitudinal axis of the shaft, wherein the first and second sets of target elements are interleaved with each other (see Fig. 5 and 6 and col. 4, lines 34-46, first targets 67 and second targets 69 are interleaved and spaced apart vertically along the longitudinal axis of the shaft 70, and wherein one sensor 64 measures the distance between adjacent target elements to determine torque.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Hoshina with the torque measuring system of Brassert. This allows for the development of torque twist in a short shaft as described by Brassert (see col. 4, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 16, Hoshina as modified by Brassert above teaches all of the limitations of claims 14 and 15.
Hoshina as modified by Brassert above fails to specifically teach that the at least one sensor comprises one or more variable reluctance (VR) sensors or a plurality of VR sensors that are spaced apart from each other circumferentially around the shaft.
However, Brassert further teaches that the at least one sensor comprises one or more variable reluctance (VR) sensors or a plurality of VR sensors that are spaced apart from each other circumferentially around the shaft (see col. 4, lines 34-46, discussion of variable reluctance sensor).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Hoshina as modified by Brassert with the further torque measuring system configuration of Brassert. This allows for the development of torque twist in a short shaft as described by Brassert (see col. 4, lines 49-51).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshina as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2014-0005061, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 12, Hoshina above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hoshina fails to teach that the target region comprises a first set of target elements and a second set of target elements; the first set of target elements comprise magnets that are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a first position and are spaced about the shaft in the circumferential direction such that adjacent magnets of the first set of target elements have different polarities from each other; the second set of target elements comprise magnets that are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a second position and are spaced about the shaft in the circumferential direction such that adjacent magnets of the second set of target elements have different polarities from each other; the first and second positions are spaced apart, within the target region, from each other along the longitudinal axis of the shaft; the at least one sensor comprises at least a first sensor, which is arranged at the first position to detect a magnetic field produced by the magnets of the first set of target elements, and a second sensor, which is arranged at the second position to detect a magnetic field produced by the magnets of the second set of target elements; and the system is configured to determine, based on a relative phase shift of the magnetic fields produced by the magnets of the first and second sets of target elements due to a torsional deformation of the shaft between the first and second sets of target elements, respectively, the torque being transmitted through the rotatable shaft.
Lee teaches a torque sensor (see Fig. 1 and 2, all elements; see also translation Abstract and pages 3-6) that the target region comprises a first set of target elements (2) and a second set of target elements (3); the first set of target elements comprise magnets that are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a first position and are spaced about the shaft in the circumferential direction such that adjacent magnets of the first set of target elements have different polarities from each other (see Fig. 1, first set of target elements 2 comprise alternating polarity magnets on the shaft 10 as shown); the second set of target elements comprise magnets that are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a second position and are spaced about the shaft in the circumferential direction such that adjacent magnets of the second set of target elements have different polarities from each other (see Fig. 1, second set of target elements 3 comprise alternating polarity magnets on the shaft 10 as shown); the first and second positions are spaced apart, within the target region, from each other along the longitudinal axis of the shaft (see Fig. 1, longitudinal spacing of 2 and 3 along the shaft 10); the at least one sensor comprises at least a first sensor (4), which is arranged at the first position to detect a magnetic field produced by the magnets of the first set of target elements (see Fig. 1, first sensor 4 detects magnets of 2), and a second sensor (5), which is arranged at the second position to detect a magnetic field produced by the magnets of the second set of target elements (see Fig. 1, second sensor 5 detects magnets of 3); and the system is configured to determine, based on a relative phase shift of the magnetic fields produced by the magnets of the first and second sets of target elements due to a torsional deformation of the shaft between the first and second sets of target elements, respectively, the torque being transmitted through the rotatable shaft (see Abstract and translation pages 3-6, description of operation of the torque sensor).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Hoshina with the torque sensing configuration of Lee. This allows for the sensing of torque on an axle without significant changes to the design of the axile system as suggested by Lee (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Hoshina as modified by Lee above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Hoshina as modified by Lee above fails to specifically teach that the magnets of the first set of target elements are adjacent to each other to form a ring of magnets about the shaft at the first position; and/or the magnets of the second set of target elements are adjacent to each other to form a ring magnets about the shaft at the second position; or wherein: the magnets of the first set of target elements are in direct contact with each other to form a substantially continuous and uninterrupted ring of magnets about the shaft at the first position; and/or the magnets of the second set of target elements are in direct contact with each other to form a substantially continuous and uninterrupted ring of magnets about the shaft at the second position.
However, Lee further teaches that the magnets of the first set of target elements are adjacent to each other to form a ring of magnets about the shaft at the first position (see Fig. 1, configuration of magnets of ring 2); and the magnets of the second set of target elements are adjacent to each other to form a ring magnets about the shaft at the second position (see Fig. 1, configuration of magnets of ring 3); or wherein: the magnets of the first set of target elements are in direct contact with each other to form a substantially continuous and uninterrupted ring of magnets about the shaft at the first position (see Fig. 1, configuration of magnets of ring 2); and the magnets of the second set of target elements are in direct contact with each other to form a substantially continuous and uninterrupted ring of magnets about the shaft at the second position (see Fig. 1, configuration of magnets of ring 3).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Hoshina as modified by Lee above with the specific torque sensing configuration of Lee. This allows for the sensing of torque on an axle without significant changes to the design of the axile system as suggested by Lee (see Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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 claims 6-9, Hoshina as modified by Brassert and Lee above represents the best art of record. However, Hoshina as modified by Brassert and Lee above fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claim 6 (please see consideration of optional claim language in the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above).
Regarding claim 6, Hoshina above fails to teach that the target region comprises a first set of target elements and a second set of target elements, each of which are arranged about the shaft in a circumferential direction thereof, wherein the first set of target elements are on the outer surface of the shaft at a first position, wherein the second set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a second position, and,
Brassert teaches a torque measurement system (see Abstract; see also Fig. 1, 4, and 5), wherein the torque measurement system includes a shaft (70) including a target region (see Fig. 4, target region including 66/68), wherein the target region comprises a first set of target elements (see Fig. 5, elements 67) and a second set of target elements (see Fig. 5, elements 69), each of which are arranged about the shaft in a circumferential direction thereof (see Fig. 5 and 6, first set of target elements 67 and second set of target elements 69 arranged about the shaft 70 in a circumferential direction as shown), wherein the first set of target elements are on the outer surface of the shaft at a first position (see Fig. 5, location of first set of target elements 67 at first position), wherein the second set of target elements are attached to the outer surface of the shaft at a second position (see Fig. 5, location of second set of target elements 69 at second positions).
However, Hoshina as modified by Brassert and Lee above fails to critically teach that the at least one sensor comprises at least a first sensor and a second sensor, both of which are variable reluctance (VR) sensors.
It is noted that Brassert specifically teaches away from using more than one sensor in order to improve reliability and accuracy (see col. 2, lines 57-60).
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claim 6 and the examiner can find no teachings for a system for sensing torque as particularly claimed and including that the at least one sensor comprises at least a first sensor and a second sensor, both of which are variable reluctance (VR) sensors, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855