US 10712217

I'll run targeted searches against USPTO/patent databases and CAFC docket sources for the exact number 10712217.

Let me narrow the litigation/appeal search specifically.

Search scope and results

I searched for the exact identifier 10712217 (US 10,712,217 B2) against patent databases (Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, EPO publication server) and against litigation/appellate docket sources (CourtListener/Justia dockets, RPX Insight, CAFC docket aggregators).

CAFC 2026 dockets: no results. I found no Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket (2026 or otherwise) naming patent 10712217, and no district-court infringement complaint asserting it. The only "10712217"-like hits outside patent literature were unrelated (a Tenth Circuit docket entry number in Blanca Telephone Co. v. FCC, No. 20-9510, and a UK Companies House gazette list containing the digit string). I cannot prove a negative from a web search — treat this as "nothing found," not "confirmed no litigation."

Bibliographic summary (US 10,712,217 B2)

Priority note (literal): the "Applications Claiming Priority" table lists two German applications — DE 102017111305.3 (2017‑05‑23) and DE 102017118456.2 (2017‑08‑14) — but attributes a priority date of 2017‑05‑23 to both rows. That appears to be a database artifact; the second DE filing carries its own 2017‑08‑14 filing date. I report the table as it literally appears rather than correcting it.

Family/relatives: sibling US 10,551,259 B2 ("Torque sensor with mathematically smooth claws", app. 15/987,263, same filing date); EP 3407044 B1; CN 108931329 B; JP 7075815 B2; KR 102439663 B1; DE 102017118456 B4; HU E050107 T2. Note a separate but related case titled "Stator mounting in torque sensor" (EP 3407045 B1 / DE 102017118456 B4) — do not conflate it with this patent's "Stator fastening in torque sensor."

Prior art cited on the face: US 2004/0194560 A1 (Valeo Schalter und Sensoren), US 2007/0295109 A1 (JTEKT), DE 102012024383 A1 (Valeo). The specification additionally identifies EP 1 870 684 B1 as the known stator forming the preamble of claim 1.

Abstract (as published)

A stator for guiding a location-dependent magnetic field around a rotation axis, having a first stator ring and a second stator ring arranged concentrically. First claws project axially from the first stator ring toward the second and are spaced by first claw gaps, engaging second claw gaps between second claws that project toward the first ring. Each claw has a claw head. In at least one of the first claw gaps and one of the second claw gaps, opposite the corresponding claw head engaging that gap, a stator fastening element is arranged to fasten the first and second stator rings.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — the stator (apparatus)

A two‑part "claw‑pole" flux stator:

• Two stator rings lie in two different axial planes, concentric/coaxial about the rotation axis.
• First claws project axially from ring 1 toward ring 2, spaced apart by first claw gaps; second claws project axially from ring 2 toward ring 1, spaced by second claw gaps. The two sets interleave (claws of one ring sit in the gaps of the other).
• Each claw carries a claw head on its side axially facing the opposite ring.
• The point of novelty: a stator fastening element is placed in a claw gap (at least one first gap and one second gap), positioned opposite the claw head that engages that gap, and it fastens both rings to a carrier. Rather than putting bolt holes through the ring (the prior-art approach), the fastener lives in the claw gaps on the radial inner side — which frees the axial space between the rings for flux collectors/shielding.
• And critically, the fastening element is positively defined as (a) a stator interlocking element acting in the circumferential direction, with which a carrier interlocking element on the carrier engages axially, and (b) a yoke pointing radially toward the rotation axis.

So claim 1 is not merely "a fastener in a gap" — the interlocking‑element and radial‑yoke limitations are part of the independent claim and are the narrowest, unavoidable elements of the apparatus claim.

Claim 6 — the sensor (system)

A torque sensor for measuring torque between two shafts joined by a torsion bar:

• A cylindrical carrier with two opposing front faces, each bearing a carrier fastening element.
• A stator as claimed (the claim‑1 structure), fixed to the first shaft, with its rings seated on the carrier's front faces and attached via the carrier fastening elements and stator fastening elements.
• A magnetic transducer fixed to the second shaft, coaxial with the rotation axis, generating and feeding the magnetic field into the stator.
• A magnetic field sensor reading the field that passes through the stator.
• Same narrowing language as claim 1: the stator fastening element must be a circumferentially acting stator interlocking element engaged axially by a carrier interlocking element, and must be a radially pointing yoke.

Dependent claims (context)

Claim 2: yoke integral (one piece) with its stator ring. Claim 3: fastening element in the radial gap between two adjacent claws. Claim 4: centered in that radial gap. Claim 5: each stator ring is a punched part with axially bent claws. Claim 7 (dep. on 6): carrier fastening elements are spigots that are stalked (heat‑upset / swaged) into the stator fastening elements. Claim 8 (dep. on 6): connecting columns on a carrier front face carry a support‑ring attachment element for the first shaft.

Uncertainty / caveats

• No authoritative USPTO or CAFC docket record was located for 10712217 in my searches. I have not verified the full USPTO file history (office actions, terminal disclaimers, assignments beyond the 2018 assignment recorded at Reel/Frame 045884/0656).
• The Google Patents page's auto‑generated "Definitions" section paraphrases the claims loosely; I relied on the authoritative Claims (8) text, which matches the language I summarized above.
• Claim 1 recites "a stator fastening element is arranged on a carrier for fastening the first and second stator ring," while the claimed apparatus is the stator — the carrier is referenced but not positively recited as a claimed element. I flag this as a drafting observation, not a legal conclusion about validity.
• Dates and status reflect what the sources state as of the fetched records; legal status entries are expressly disclaimed as assumptions on the source page.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10712217 across the sources you specified.

The first searches returned no relevant litigation. Let me search the litigation-specific sources directly.

Let me check the dedicated litigation databases more directly.

Findings: No litigation found involving US 10,712,217

After searching litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, RPX Empower litigation database, Justia Dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, and general web searches keyed to the exact number "10712217" and the exact string "10,712,217"), I found no litigation — district court, ITC, or PTAB — in which US Patent 10,712,217 is identified as an asserted or challenged patent.

What I searched and what turned up

Relevant near-misses (do NOT involve the '217 patent)

• Luminatronics LLC v. Bourns, Inc. — Case No. 4:25-cv-00111, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III), filed February 6, 2025; E.D. Tex. Cause of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement; PACER docket last retrieved February 7, 2025. Bourns is the defendant here, but the sources I retrieved do not identify the asserted patent as US 10,712,217, and Luminatronics is a patent-assertion entity whose suits to date have generally involved semiconductor/electronics patents rather than Bourns' torque-sensor portfolio. I cannot confirm the asserted patent number from the retrieved material. Sources: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-[235829](/patent/235829)-luminatronics-v-bourns ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/4:2025cv00111/235829
• Various historical "Bourns" cases (e.g., Bourns v. Painton, the old Bourns '926 potentiometer invalidity decision, Marlan Bourns' testimony) — these are decades old and concern unrelated potentiometer technology.
• US 10,456,217 / US 10,524,879 / US 11,369,456 (Align/ClearCorrect IPR2025-00815) and US 9,198,117 — different patents; the similar-looking numbers are not the '217 patent in suit here and I have not conflated them.

Important context on the '217 patent itself

US 10,712,217 B2 ("Stator fastening in torque sensor") is:

• Owner/assignee: Bourns, Inc. (Riverside, CA)
• Inventors: Sebastian Berner, Miguel Cano, Hans Schmotz
• Application: US 15/987,382, filed May 23, 2018; priority May 23, 2017 (DE 10 2017 111 305.3)
• Granted: July 14, 2020; status Active; anticipated expiration May 23, 2038
• Family: US 10,551,259 ("Torque sensor with mathematically smooth claws," US 15/987,263) and foreign counterparts (EP 3 407 044 B1, CN 108931329 B, KR 10-2439663 B1, JP 7,075,815 B2, DE 10 2017 118 456 B4, HU E050107 T2).
• Post-grant challenges: The Google Patents record shows no IPR/PGR, reexamination, or other PTAB proceeding involving the '217 patent. The prosecution history shows a straightforward path (non-final action Sept. 4, 2019; response Feb. 8, 2020; notice of allowance Apr. 20, 2020; issue fee June 10, 2020). The only legal events are routine assignments and maintenance-fee payments (4th-year fee paid Jan. 9, 2024).

Caveats / confidence

• Confidence: moderately high that no litigation naming US 10,712,217 exists as of the search date. Google Patents' own litigation linkage (the "Cited By"/"Litigation" fields) lists only third-party forward citations and no case data for this patent.
• Limitations: (1) I was cut off before running every remaining litigation-database query, and Unified Patents/PACER/Docket Navigator searches can miss very recent filings not yet indexed. (2) Documentation like complaints often lists patents only in exhibits that free databases do not fully index, so a case asserting this patent could exist without the number appearing in searchable text. (3) I could not verify the patent-in-suit in Luminatronics v. Bourns.
• Recommendation: To be conclusive, a PACER/docket-number search on Bourns, Inc. as a party (both plaintiff and defendant), and a paid Docket Navigator "patent = 10,712,217" query, would be needed. I did not perform those.

Bottom line: Based on the searches performed, I found no known litigation involving US Patent 10,712,217. I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome because no such case was located.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before drafting.

Let me run a few more targeted checks.

PTAB / AIA Trial Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,712,217 B2

Patent: US 10,712,217 B2 — "Stator fastening in torque sensor"
Patent Owner / Current Assignee: Bourns, Inc. (Riverside, CA)
Application: 15/987,382 · Filed: 2018-05-23 · Granted: 2020-07-14
Priority: 2017-05-23 (DE 102017111305.3); also DE 102017118456.2 (2017-08-14)
Anticipated expiration: 2038-05-23 · Claims: 8 (claims 1–5 stator; claims 6–8 sensor)
Analysis date: 2026-09-29

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal (the canonical structured source for this task) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceedings for US 10,712,217 as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web searches of PTAB materials, Federal Circuit dockets, and third-party litigation databases surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal touching this patent. The breakdown is therefore: active — 0; claims invalidated — 0; claims sustained — 0; settled — 0; institution denied — 0.

Defensive posture: This is the "no one has ever tried" scenario, not the "hardened survivor" scenario. All eight claims — including independent claim 1 (stator) and independent claim 6 (sensor) — stand completely untested at the PTAB. There is no cancelation to point to, no FWD to quote, and no estoppel to exploit. The patent is not "hardened" by survivorship; it is simply unlitigated. Any challenge you want to make, you will have to build and file yourself, and you will get exactly one first shot at institution.

Proceedings on file

None. There are no proceeding sections to populate — no IPRxxxx-xxxxx or PGRxxxx-xxxxx numbers exist for this patent, and I will not invent any. For completeness on the negative finding:

• Google Patents "Cited By" table for US 10,712,217 lists only patent citations (e.g., US 2022/0214236 A1, LG Innotek; US 2023/0314250 A1, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH), not PTAB proceedings.
• The only third-party examiner citations of record are US 2004/0194560 A1 (Valeo), US 2007/0295109 A1 (JTEKT), and DE 102012024383 A1 (Valeo) — prosecution-level art, never repackaged into an AIA petition.
• Family counterparts (EP 3407044 B1, DE 102017118456 B4, CN 108931329 B, KR 102439663 B1, JP 7075815 B2, HU E050107 T2) show foreign grant/opposition-track activity at most; none of that is a US AIA trial. (Note: the Google Patents family legal-status table shows DE 102017118456 B4 as "Expired – Fee Related," a German national fee lapse — I flag it as an observation only, since it is not a PTAB matter and I have not verified it against DPMA records.)
• The sibling patent from the same family, US 10,551,259 B2 ("Torque sensor with mathematically smooth claws," app. 15/987,263, filed the same day 2018-05-23), likewise shows no AIA proceedings. No petitioner has taken a run at either Bourns torque-sensor patent.

Caveat on the negative finding: the ODP structured list is authoritative and current, and it is empty. Web search cannot prove a universal negative, so treat "zero proceedings" as high-confidence but not absolutely conclusive against an as-yet-unindexed very recent filing. The practical risk of that is low here, because any petition filed now would have to be brand new.

Strategic summary

Claim-status ledger: nothing canceled, nothing sustained, everything untested. Claims 1–5 (the stator claims, directed to the yoke/stator-interlocking-element arranged in the claw gaps) and claims 6–8 (the sensor claims, adding the cylindrical carrier with carrier fastening elements, the stalked spigots of claim 7, and the connecting columns/attachment element of claim 8) are all live and all untested. There is no narrowing amendment, no certificate of correction narrowing scope, and no substitute-claim record from a motion to amend. Whatever scope claim 1 had at issuance on 2020-07-14 is the scope you face today.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate for everyone. Because no petition has ever been filed, no one is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent. That cuts both ways. For you as a defendant, it means the entire prior-art universe is available: the three examiner-cited references above, plus the family-level citations (e.g., FR 2952176 B1, DE 10222118 B4, JP 3874642 B2, and the specification's own admitted background reference EP 1870684 B1, which the patent expressly identifies as the known stator "according to the preamble of the applicable claim 1"). EP 1870684 B1 is notable: the applicant conceded it discloses a stator within the preamble of claim 1, which makes it a natural § 103 anchor for the added fastening-element limitations. Against you, it means there is no petitioner-side record to borrow, no expert declaration already on file, and no institution decision reasoning to lean on — you must fund and build the invalidity case from zero.

Pattern signals. None of the classic markers are present. There is no repeat petitioner, no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator in the chain (the only "cited by" third parties are competitors LG Innotek and Valeo, on the citation side, not the petition side), no Patent Owner appeal history on this patent, and no parallel ITC or district-court campaign that I can attribute to this specific patent from the record before me. Bourns holds a large automotive-sensor portfolio and is a well-resourced, large-entity patent owner that pays its maintenance fees (4th-year fee paid 2024-01-09), so it is fully capable of defending an IPR — it simply has not had to.

Procedural availability (what you could file):

• IPR — available now. The patent granted 2020-07-14, well past the § 311(c) nine-month window, and IPR is the only realistic vehicle (§ 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications).
• PGR — unavailable; the § 321(c) nine-month post-grant window is long closed and PGR is limited to § 112/§ 101-style grounds outside IPR anyway.
• CBM — unavailable. The transitional covered-business-method program sunset for new petitions on 2020-09-16, and a stator/torque-sensor patent is not a "financial product or service" in any event.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not expect a free defensive win. There is no FWD to quote, no claim to call dead, and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel to inherit. Any PTAB-based defense must be built de novo, including your own expert declaration and claim-construction positions.

2. Watch your § 315(b) clock. If you have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of this patent, you have one year from service to file an IPR. That date is the single hardest deadline in the analysis and it has not started running for anyone else — meaning no competitor has burned it down for you.

3. Anchor invalidity on the admitted prior art. Start with EP 1870684 B1, which the specification itself characterizes as a known stator falling within the preamble of claim 1, then attack the distinguishing limitations: the yoke/stator-interlocking element positioned "in at least one of the first claw gaps and in one of the second claw gaps relative to the corresponding claw head" (claim 1), and the sensor-side carrier/spigot/stalking and column/attachment-element structure (claims 6–8). The claim-8 "connecting columns … carry an attachment element on the carrier for the first shaft" limitation is highly structural and likely the most vulnerable to § 103 combinations.

4. Verify before you rely. Nothing in this report substitutes for a direct PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board docket check (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and a Federal Circuit docket check on the day you file. If a petition has been filed in the last several weeks, the ODP ingest lag I flagged above is where it would hide — and if one appears, its existence immediately changes the estoppel and timing analysis for every other party.

5. Reassess the target's value. An eight-claim, never-challenged patent from a large-entity owner with a 2038 expiration is a meaningful runway. If you are a defendant, the absence of any prior PTAB activity means the patent owner has never had its claims stress-tested — often a sign the claims are either narrow enough to design around or were simply never worth asserting against a well-funded defendant. Both hypotheses favor you, but they call for different work: design-around diligence versus a full invalidity search.

I'll work from the authoritative full text provided, then verify what I can against live sources.

Assignment Reconstruction — US 10,712,217 B2

"Stator fastening in torque sensor" · App. US 15/987,382 · Filed 2018-05-23 · Granted 2020-07-14 · Priority 2017-05-23 (DE)

Method note: The authoritative full text supplied for this patent reproduces the Google Patents legal-events table, which mirrors the USPTO assignment record. Live queries to assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov returned no additional documents (the search endpoints did not return record-level data in this session). Where the correspondent of record is not stated in the underlying record, I say so rather than infer it.

Inventors

Pattern check: No evidence of inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing. All three appear as assignors on the same instrument on the filing date itself, which is the normal employment-obligation footprint for an operating company, not the pre-sale divergence seen in portfolio fire-sales. (One aggregator page — PlainSite's Bourns party-docket index — lists a "Schmotz, Hans / Assignor" entry dated 2020-08-07 against a different application number, 16/816,628, not this patent. I could not verify what that instrument is; it is recorded here only as an unconfirmed observation and is not counted as a finding.)

Original assignee

Bourns, Inc. (assignee of record per Reel 045884/0656; also the original assignee and current assignee listed by Google Patents).

• Line of business: Bourns is an operating manufacturer of electronic components — position and torque sensors, potentiometers, circuit-protection devices (TVS/thyristors), and magnetics — headquartered in Riverside, California, with a sensor engineering presence in Germany.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes, in substance — the patent claims a claw-pole stator and carrier fastening used in a magneto-elastic/angular-displacement steering torque sensor, and Bourns is an established supplier of steering-torque and steering-angle sensors to the automotive EPS market (cf. Bourns' earlier torque-sensor family member EP 2 433 848, "three-piece torque sensor assembly," also Bourns-assigned). I did not find a public product page keyed to this specific patent number, so product-embodiment is assessed from Bourns' commercial sensor line rather than from a claim-charting exercise.
• Current status: Operating, privately held. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition of Bourns surfaced. The company is actively maintaining the asset — 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-01-09 ("M1551," large entity). Note that the German counterpart (DE 10 2017 118 456 B4) is listed as not active — Expired / Fee Related, so the family is not being prosecuted uniformly.

Assignment timeline

The record contains exactly one recorded assignment. There is no post-issuance chain.

• 2018-05-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-05-23 — Reel 045884 / Frame 0656
  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Berner, Sebastian, Dr.; Cano, Miguel; Schmotz, Hans (all three, jointly)
  • Assignee: BOURNS, INC. (a California corporation)
  • Correspondent: Not stated in the record available to me. The legal-events text gives the reel/frame and the REEL/FRAME statement verbatim but does not expose the recording correspondent field. I will not name an attorney here without the record. (Action item for verification: pull Reel 045884 / Frame 0656 at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov — the correspondent box on the cover sheet is the single field still unverified for this chain.)
  • Context: Original employment/inventor-to-company assignment. Routine, contemporaneous with filing — not a fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Related instruments in the same family (not assignments of this patent, listed for completeness): US 15/987,263 → US 10,551,259 B2 ("Torque sensor with mathematically smooth claws"), same inventors, same filing date, same family ID 62217804 — a sibling divisional-style filing, still Bourns-owned. DE 10 2017 111 305.3 and DE 10 2017 118 456.2 are the priority documents.

Because the record consists only of the original inventor→Bourns assignment, no further assignment sections follow — there is no assignee chain to diagram beyond issuance.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10712217
    2017 : DE priority applications filed
    2018 : US application filed
         : Inventors assign to Bourns Inc
    2020 : Patent granted to Bourns Inc
    2024 : 4th year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data — only the original assignment is on record.

The entire recorded chain is a single inventor-to-company instrument: Reel 045884 / Frame 0656, executed and recorded 2018-05-23, conveying the rights of Berner, Cano, and Schmotz to Bourns, Inc. That is the ordinary employment assignment of a working manufacturer, and nothing in the record contradicts it — no licensing-only transferee, no NPE assignee, no litigation-driven transfer, no cascade. The patent is still actively maintained by Bourns (4th-year fee paid 2024-01-09, large entity), so this is not a lapsed asset awaiting assertion either. A genuine assignment-chain analysis is closed here rather than incomplete — the sole outstanding verification is the correspondent-of-record field on the 045884/0656 cover sheet, which the retrieved record did not expose.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10712217" or the reel/frame "045884/0656"); Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10712217B2](/patent/US10712217B2)/en.

Confidence and gaps: Inventor names, assignee legal name, conveyance type, and reel/frame (045884/0656) are taken directly from the authoritative patent text and are high confidence. The correspondent of record is unknown to me and I have deliberately left it blank rather than guess. Product-embodiment by Bourns is assessed from the company's known steering-sensor business, not from a located product datasheet citing this patent. The PlainSite "Schmotz / 2020-08-07 / 16/816,628" entry is flagged as unverified and is excluded from the verdict.

I'll research US patent 10712217 and its cited prior art. Let me start with searches.

Let me get details on the other cited references.

Let me verify the US2004/0194560A1 reference details and the background prior art EP1870684B1.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,712,217 B2

A. Confirmation of the target patent

I located the exact number requested (not a similar number):

Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10712217/en ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/10712217

Note on methodology/caveats. I could not execute a live query against USPTO Patent Center / Patent Application Information Retrieval in this environment; the citation data below is taken from the USPTO record as mirrored on Google Patents, Justia and FreePatentsOnline, together with the full authoritative patent text supplied. Critically, the face of US 10,712,217 does not state the statutory basis (§102 vs. §103) on which each reference was applied; the prosecution history (a non-final action mailed 2019-09-04, response 2020-02-08, allowance 2020-04-20 per the Legal Events) would be needed to confirm that. So the "§ 102" question below is answered analytically, and I flag explicitly where I am inferring rather than reading from the record.

B. The claims at issue

There are two independent claims:

• Claim 1 — the stator: first + second concentric stator rings on axially spaced planes; first/second claws with claw heads intermeshing through first/second claw gaps; a stator fastening element arranged in at least one of the first claw gaps and one of the second claw gaps "relative to the corresponding claw head," the fastening element being a stator interlocking element acting in the circumferential direction into which a carrier interlocking element may engage axially, and the interlocking element being "a yoke radially pointing to the rotation axis."
• Claims 2–5 — depend from 1 (one-piece yoke; radial gap between adjacent claws; centered in radial gap; punched part with axially bent claws).
• Claim 6 — the sensor: cylindrical carrier with two oppositely facing front sides each with a carrier fastening element; stator on the front sides; magnetic field transducer; magnetic field sensor; with the same "yoke radially pointing to the rotation axis" interlocking limitation.
• Claims 7–8 — depend from 6 (stalked spigots; connecting columns carrying an attachment element/support ring).

The claimed point of novelty is therefore the location and form of the fastening (a radially-inwardly-pointing yoke seated in the claw gaps, axially engaged by a carrier spigot), not the two-ring intermeshing-claw architecture, which the specification itself concedes is old.

C. References cited on the face of US 10,712,217 (three, all marked "cited by examiner")

C.1 — US 2004/0194560 A1 (Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH)

Description (from Valeo's parallel family disclosures — EP 1 424 541 A2 with inventors Fröhlich/Proft/Rachui/Jerems and US 6,912,923 B2, whose text I retrieved): a torque-sensing device in which the shaft has two relatively rotatable shaft sections. A multi-pole magnetic ring surrounds and is connected to the first shaft section; a stator holder is mounted on the second shaft section, and two stator elements are fixed to the holder, each having fingers (claws) projecting axially (or radially), uniformly distributed over at least part of the circumference with gaps between them, the fingers of each element being interconnected by a magnetic flux ring. Magnetic flux concentrators are provided and the magnetic field sensor sits between the flux rings / flux conductors, with the stator assembly rotating with the second shaft.

Claims potentially implicated:

• Claim 6 — this is the strongest match of the three references. It supplies the claim-6 architecture almost element-for-element except the claim-6 "wherein" clause: a carrier/stator holder, two stator rings (flux rings) with interleaved axially-projecting fingers, a magnetic transducer (multi-pole ring) coaxial with the rotation axis, flux conductors, and a magnetic field sensor reading the field passed through the stator.
• Claim 1 (preamble) — supplies the two-concentric-ring/intermeshing-claw environment.
• Not supplied: the claim-1/claim-6 "yoke radially pointing to the rotation axis" seated in the claw gap and axially engaged by a carrier interlocking element. On the record before me, a single-reference § 102 anticipation of claim 1 or claim 6 is not supported; this reference reads far more like a § 103 vehicle for the sensor architecture.

C.2 — US 2007/0295109 A1 (JTEKT Corporation) — granted as US 7,562,590 B2

Description (from the US 7,562,590 B2 specification, retrieved in full): a torque detecting device using a cylindrical multi-pole magnet rotating with the first shaft and one set of two yoke rings rotating with the second shaft. Each yoke ring has pole claws (claws) arranged equally on its inner circumference and extending axially, the two rings being placed with the claws facing each other and arranged alternately at equal intervals, then integrated by a resin retaining cylinder to form a yoke assembly. The invention resides in the manufacturing method: each yoke ring is provided with a positioning hole passing through the yoke ring in the axial direction — one hole aligned with a pole claw, the other aligned with a space between adjacent pole claws — and a common positioning pin is inserted through both holes so the claws are correctly interleaved before resin molding. The yoke rings are stamped from soft-magnetic plate and the claws are bent.

Claims potentially implicated:

• Claim 1 — the JTEKT positioning features sit in the claw-gap region and at a claw position (the "position aligned with a space between adjacent pole claws" is the direct analogue of the claimed fastening element "in the claw gap relative to the corresponding claw head"). This is the closest teaching among the three to the location limitation of claim 1.
• Claim 5 — "each stator ring is a punched part with the claws being bent axially" is squarely met by the JTEKT yoke rings stamped from soft-magnetic plate with bent pole claws.
• Not supplied: the claimed element is a yoke radially pointing to the rotation axis with a carrier interlocking element engaging it axially. JTEKT's published subject matter is a positioning hole through the ring used with a mold pin for alignment during over-molding — not an axially-stalked carrier spigot capturing a radial yoke. Again, single-reference § 102 anticipation of claim 1 is not supported; this is § 103 material (notably against claims 1/5 combined with a carrier-fastening teaching).

C.3 — DE 10 2012 024 383 A1 (Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH)

Description (from the DE/EP/WO text): a motor-vehicle device combining a torque-sensor arrangement with a steering-angle-sensor arrangement. The torque sensor has a magnetic stator conducting flux from a magnet to at least one flux conductor and thence to at least one magnetic sensor, and comprises two stator parts offset from one another in the axial direction, each having a radially extending, annular boundary/rim element. The steering-angle sensor has a rotation-transmitting element with a permanent magnet and a magnetic field detector, and that rotation-transmitting element with its permanent magnet is arranged in the axial direction between the two boundary/rim elements of the stator parts.

Claims potentially implicated:

• Claim 6 — supplies carrier + two-stator-part stator + flux conductors + magnetic sensor in a steering-shaft torque sensor, i.e. the environment of claim 6.
• Motivation relevance rather than element-by-element: the instant specification expressly frames its problem as wanting to place flux collectors axially between the stator rings for EM-shielding purposes and being unable to do so with the old through-bore fastening (see the "SUMMARY" and the DE 10 2012 024 383 equivalent concept). DE 10 2012 024 383 is therefore the reference showing that mounting an additional component axially between the two stator rings/rim elements was known.
• Not supplied: the claw-gap yoke fastening of claims 1/6. Single-reference § 102 anticipation of any claim is not supported; it is § 103 material, particularly for the claim-6 sensor setting and for the stated problem.

D. The closest prior art is named in the specification, not on the face: EP 1 870 684 B1

Claim 1 is drafted against a conceded prior art: the Description states, "A known stator is disclosed in EP 1 870 684 B1," whose claim-1 preamble the present claim 1 adopts, and further that in this known stator "fastening elements in the shape of through-bores on the stator ring" are used, which is why flux collectors had to be placed radially outside rather than axially between the stator rings. (EP 1 870 684 B1 was granted 2009-08-26; it appears in the family citation list of US 7,562,590 B2 / US 2007/0295109, filed via EP 07 110 575 with a 2007-06-19 filing date.)

This reference is the single most relevant prior art to claim 1, because it supplies the entire preamble (two concentric stator rings, intermeshing clawed rings with claw heads, circumferential guiding of a location-dependent magnetic field) and the problem the invention solves. However — on the record before me — it does not disclose the characterizing portion of claim 1 (the yoke in the claw gap engaged axially by a carrier interlocking element), which is exactly why the applicant was able to distinguish over it. There is no § 102 anticipation of claim 1 by EP 1 870 684 B1 as claimed; it is the § 103 starting point.

E. Bottom-line assessment

1. Only three references are of record as examiner citations: US 2004/0194560 A1, US 2007/0295109 A1 and DE 10 2012 024 383 A1. Note that all three are keyed to torque sensors with intermeshing clawed stator rings and a magnetic sensor, and two of the three (US 2004/0194560 A1 and DE 10 2012 024 383 A1) are Valeo documents, the third being JTEKT.
2. No single one of them anticipates independent claim 1 or independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on the record I could retrieve. None discloses the distinguishing limitation — a stator interlocking element in the form of a yoke radially pointing to the rotation axis, seated in the claw gap relative to the opposing claw head, into which a carrier interlocking element engages axially (claim 1), nor the dependent stalked-spigot/connecting-column features (claims 7–8).
3. The realistic rejection theory (which the 2020 notice of allowance implies was overcome) is § 103 obviousness by combination: e.g., Valeo US 2004/0194560 A1 or EP 1 870 684 B1 for the stator/sensor environment + JTEKT US 2007/0295109 A1 for the claw-region placement/punched-and-bent ring (claim 5) + a carrier-fastening teaching from the carrier/stator-holder disclosures, to reach claim 1; and DA 10 2012 024 383 A1 for the axial-between-the-rings mounting concept in the claim-6 setting.
4. Weakest single-reference § 102 candidates, if any, are the dependent claims, not the independents: claim 5 (punched part, axially bent claws) against JTEKT US 7,562,590 B2; claim 3/4 (fastening element in the radial gap between adjacent claws) against JTEKT's "space between adjacent pole claws" positioning-hole teaching — though even there JTEKT's element is a through-hole, not a radial yoke, so § 102 is doubtful and § 103 more apt.
5. I did not independently verify the full text of US 2004/0194560 A1 itself; its technical content in section C.1 is drawn from Valeo's closely related family documents EP 1 424 541 A2 / US 6,912,923 B2 retrieved in this session. This should be confirmed against the US 2004/0194560 A1 specification before relying on it. Similarly, I could not confirm the exact §102/§103 basis the examiner used; that requires the USPTO office actions.

Sources consulted (all mirror the USPTO record):

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US10712217/en (full text, citation lists)
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/10712217
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070295109 ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/38/3b/9b/79e04ef577690c/US7562590.pdf (JTEKT)
• https://patents.google.com/patent/DE102012024383A1/en ; http://data.epo.org/gpi/EP2932217B2 (Valeo)
• http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP1424541NWA2/document.pdf ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f3/14/ca/b9ebb3ec27a6df/US6912923.pdf (Valeo family)
• http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP3407045NWA1/document.pdf (Bourns EP sibling, DE 10 2017 118 456)

I'll examine the prior art references cited on this patent's page before building the obviousness analysis.

Let me examine the third cited reference and the background stator reference.

Let me pull the actual disclosure of the primary cited reference, US20040194560A1.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 10,712,217 B2 (“Stator fastening in torque sensor”)

Assumption/scope note: I am analyzing the claims as issued (8 claims) against the prior art identified on the patent’s own Google Patents page. The application was filed 2018‑05‑23 claiming priority 2017‑05‑23 (DE 102017111305.3), so it is an AIA case; all references below predate 2017‑05‑23 by years and qualify as prior art under §102(a)(1)/(a)(2), subject to the ordinary verification of public accessibility.

Headline conclusion: There is a strong §103 case against claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, a moderate case against claim 2, and a weak/contestable case against claim 7 (stalking) and against the “radially inward‑pointing yoke” limitation of claims 1 and 6 — those two are where the patentee has the best rebuttal material.

1. The Prior Art of Record on the Page

Two structural facts sharpen the analysis:

1. The patent’s own “known stator” is the Jtekt family. The specification states: “A known stator is disclosed in EP 1 870 684 B1.” EP 1 870 684 A1 claims priority to JP 2006‑173614 — the same JP priority as US 2007/0295109 A1. So the admitted background art and one of the three cited references are the same invention. That is an admission of prior art usable in the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 5.
2. Valeo already placed the sensing hardware between the two flux rings. The ’217 patent’s stated problem is that in known stators the fastening is a through‑bore in the ring, which prevents putting “collector sheets” axially between the stator rings for EMI shielding. US 2004/0194560 A1 puts the sensor between the two flux rings with a flux concentrator straddling them; DE 10 2012 024 383 A1 puts a magnet‑carrying element axially between the two stator parts. Both therefore supply the reason to relocate the fastening.

2. Claim 1 — Element‑by‑Element Mapping (primary combination: US 2007/0295109 A1 + US 2004/0194560 A1 + DE 10 2012 024 383 A1)

Law: Graham v. John Deere factors; KSR Int’l v. Teleflex (combining known elements per known methods; simple substitution; “obvious to try”; design incentives); In re Kahn (articulated reasoning with rational underpinning).

Articulated motivation to combine (the critical step):

• Same field, same problem: all three are electric‑power‑steering torque sensors with interleaved claw/yoke rings and a flux guide to a stationary field sensor (G01L 3/10, 3/104; B62D 5/04, 6/10).
• The known problem supplies the motivation: as the ’217 specification itself concedes, through‑bores in the ring preclude placing flux collectors axially between the rings; Valeo’s US 2004/0194560 A1 already shields the sensor between the flux rings with a surrounding concentrator, and DE’383 already exploits the axial space between stator parts. A POSA seeking Valeo’s EMI‑shielded, between‑the‑rings sensor in Jtekt’s interleaved‑claw construction would be led directly to move the fixation out of the ring body and into the claw gap, exactly where Jtekt’s own indexing features already sit.
• Reasonable expectation of success / predictable mechanical art: relocating a pin‑in‑hole fixation from the ring web to the gap between adjacent claws, and indexing it to the claw positions (Jtekt already indexes to “a position aligned with the pole claw” and “a position aligned with the space between adjacent pole claws”), is a mechanical repositioning with predictable results — a classic KSR “known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.”
• Design incentive: axial packaging/compactness and EMI immunity (both expressly discussed in the ’217 spec and in DE’383’s packaging rationale).

No anticipation: no single reference shows the fastening element sitting in the claw gap opposite the engaging claw head in the form of a radially inward yoke; the case is a combination/§103 case, not §102.

3. Dependent Claims 2–5 and 8

4. Claim 7 — “Spigots which are stalked with the stator fastening elements”

This is the hardest limitation to meet on this record. The page’s cited art shows:

• axially inserted and withdrawn positioning pins (Jtekt, leaving pin hole 56), and
• molded resin integration of the two yoke rings (Jtekt’s retaining cylinder).

Neither reference, as revealed by the fetched text, expressly discloses heat‑staking (softening the projecting spigot end and axially deforming it into a form closure). A rejection here would have to rest on:
(a) Official notice / routine expedient — thermal staking and riveting are notoriously well‑known ways to head a thermoplastic or metal stud (a KSR “known technique” argument), and the ’217 spec describes the step in entirely conventional terms (“the spigots are heated … the material softens … the softened material is now pressed”); or
(b) a secondary reference disclosing staked spigots.

Recommendation: if an IPR/opposition is contemplated, locate a staking reference (e.g., a plastic‑boss heat‑staking or riveting teaching in the sensor/housing art) before asserting claim 7.

5. The Weak Link: “the stator interlocking element is a yoke radially pointing to the rotation axis” (claims 1 and 6)

The three cited references do not, on their face, expressly disclose a fork/yoke oriented radially inward as the stator fastening element. Jtekt’s disclosure is a hole‑and‑pin system; Valeo’s is a molded retaining cylinder and a locking holder. The ’217 specification supplies the purpose of the yoke (“open on a radial inner side of the stator, so that no magnetic conducting material … may interfere with the stator and cause undesirable magnetic short circuits”).

Two consequences:

• A rejection must either (i) treat the yoke/fork as an obvious mechanical substitution for Jtekt’s hole‑in‑the‑ring (a bracket/fork that receives an axial stud is an ordinary alternative to a through‑hole and pin), or (ii) find an express fork/cleat teaching in art cited elsewhere in the family file. Candidates worth verifying (dates must be checked against 2017‑05‑23): FR 2 952 176 B1 (Jtekt Europe, “Magnetic flux collector for a torque detection device”), JP 6214444 B2 (Showa, stator unit/torque detection device), KR 10‑2264226 B1 (LG Innotek, stator and torque‑angle sensor module), US 9,810,592 B2 (LG Innotek), and Valeo DE 10 2013 006 567 A1 / DE 10 2015 102 013 A1 — all listed on the page’s “Family Cites Families (25)” table.
• Note that several other “Similar Documents” on the page publish after the 2017‑05‑23 priority (e.g., CN 108474699 A, 2018‑08‑31; US 2018/0086375 A1, 2018‑03‑29; EP 3 489 630 B1, 2021), so they are not available as prior art. Likewise, sibling members of this family — DE 10 2017 125 114 / EP 3 407 045 B1 (“Stator mounting in torque sensor”) and US 10,551,259 B2 — share the 2017‑05‑23 priority and are not citable prior art.

6. Claim 6 (independent sensor claim)

Claim 6 is the claim‑1 stator concept embedded in a torque‑sensor architecture:

• cylindrical carrier with two opposite front sides, each with a carrier fastening element → Jtekt’s retaining cylinder (52) integrating both yoke rings and carrying the shaft collar; Valeo’s stator holder (30);
• stator fixed to the first shaft / transducer fixed to the second shaft, coaxial → Valeo US 2004/0194560 A1 (magnet ring on one shaft section, stator holder on the other, torsion rod between);
• magnetic field sensor recording the field passing the stator → Valeo’s field sensor (42/44) between the flux rings, with flux concentrator; DE’383’s magnet detector;
• interlocking yoke radially inward → same gap as claim 1.

The same motivation analysis applies, and the torque‑sensor architecture is squarely conventional (both Jtekt and Valeo disclose interleaved claw/yoke rings on opposed shaft parts joined by a torsion bar).

7. Rebuttal Exposure (where the patentee can fight)

1. Teaching away / structural necessity: The patentee will argue that Jtekt, Valeo and the admitted EP 1 870 684 B1 all fix the stator through the ring web or a resin overmold precisely because the gap between claws is a magnetic air‑gap region; moving a fastening element there risks the short circuits the ’217 spec attributes to the yoke being radially open. That is the strongest argument, and it attacks the “reasonable expectation of success” prong.
2. The “yoke radially pointing to the rotation axis” is the point of novelty. If no secondary reference expressly shows a fork/cleat in the claw gap, this limitation may carry the claim.
3. Claim 7 (staking) — absent a staking reference, an Official‑Notice‑based rejection is vulnerable to traverse.
4. Objective indicia: none appear in the record (no unexpected results, no commercial‑success or copying evidence). The stated benefit (better EMI shielding via collectors axially between rings) is a result reasonably expected from Valeo’s own between‑the‑flux‑rings arrangement, which undercuts the “unexpected results” argument.

8. Bottom Line

• Strongest rejection: US 2007/0295109 A1 (Jtekt; = EP 1 870 684 B1 family) as primary, in view of US 2004/0194560 A1 (Valeo) — for the reason to relocate the fastening so that flux collection/sensing can sit axially between the rings — and further in view of DE 10 2012 024 383 A1 (Valeo) — as evidence that placing sensor components axially between the two stator parts was itself known. This combination reads on claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and (with more argument) 2 and 8.
• Claims 1 and 6 are the contested ones because of the radially inward yoke requirement; claim 7 is the other soft spot (staking).
• Practical note: DE 10 2012 024 383 A1 is German‑language; a rejection relying on it requires an English translation for the record. All three references are pre‑2017, so the §102(a)(2)/(a)(1) timing is not in issue.
• Confidence caveat: I have grounded the mappings above in the text actually fetched for US 2004/0194560 A1, US 2007/0295109 A1/US 7,562,590 B2, EP 1 870 684 A1 and DE 10 2012 024 383 A1/EP 2 932 217. I have not verified the full text of the “Family Cites Families” candidates (FR 2 952 176 B1, JP 6214444 B2, KR 10‑2264226 B1, US 9,810,592 B2, DE 10 2013 006 567 A1, DE 10 2015 102 013 A1); I flag them as verification leads rather than as established disclosures, and their publication/filing dates should be confirmed before being relied on against the 2017‑05‑23 priority.