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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106), claim 1 is directed to sensor circuit, which is a product, and falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, prong 1, Claim 1 recites configured to receive said at least one input signal and for providing an output signal representative of the physical quantity; the processing circuit comprising a closed loop, comprising: i) a first sub-circuit arranged for receiving said at least one input signal and at least one feedback signal, and comprising a combiner, and configured for providing a first signal; ii) a frequency dependent filter configured for receiving and filtering said first signal, and for providing a filtered signal or a signal derived therefrom as the output signal; and iii) a second sub-circuit configured for receiving said filtered signal, and for converting said filtered signal into said at least one feedback signal using a non-linear function; wherein the non-linear function is a piecewise-linear approximation function defined by a plurality of parameters determined during a calibration procedure. The specification discloses that each element of the processing circuit may be implemented completely in the digital domain (par. 139). The first sub-circuit, frequency dependent filter and second sub-circuit are each disclosed as mathematical functions that are implemented by a processing circuit (pars. 134-137). The abstract idea is mathematical functions that fall into the mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
The additional elements in claim are a signal acquisition circuit comprising at least one sensor configured to provide at least one input signal related to the physical quantity; and a processing circuit.
Per step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The signal acquisition circuit comprising a sensor is used for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The processing circuit amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, the additional elements provide for a generic computer with the ability to gather data and does not provide any further that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above with regard to integration into a practical application. Additionally, the signal acquisition circuit comprising at least one sensor is well-understood routine and conventional as shown by the activity that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), II).
Claims 2 and 4-13 depend from claim 1 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2 and 4-13 are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 recites further additional elements that the signal acquisition circuit comprises at least one magnetic sensor configured to measure a magnetic field signal associated with the physical quantity to be measured; or wherein the signal acquisition circuit comprises at least two magnetic sensors, each configured to measure a magnetic field associated with the physical quantity to be measured; or wherein the signal acquisition circuit comprises at least three magnetic sensors, each configured to measure a magnetic field associated with the physical quantity to be measured. The magnetic sensor is further description of elements that are used for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, and therefore, the magnetic sensor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when considered individually or in combination with the processing circuit. The magnetic sensor is not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason. Additionally, magnetic sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional (See Specification, par. 3).
Claim 14 recites further details of the abstract idea. Claim 14 recites an additional element for “a magnetic source configured for generating a magnetic field having a phase indicative of a mechanical position.” The magnetic source is further description of elements that are used for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, and therefore, the magnetic source does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when considered individually or in combination with the processing circuit. The magnetic source is not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason. Additionally, a magnetic source are well-understood, routine and conventional (See Specification, par. 3).
Claims 15 and 16 depend from claim 14 and recite further details of the abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites further details of the abstract idea. Claim 17 also recites more additional elements including a printed circuit board comprising a plurality of coils; and comprising a target, which is movable relative to said plurality of coils; and comprising said magnetic sensor circuit. A printed circuit board comprising a plurality of coils and a target that is movable relative to the plurality of coils generally links the abstract idea to the technological field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). When considered in combination with the other additional elements, the combination does not add any additional functionality and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The printed circuit board is not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason. Further, a printed circuit board with a plurality of coils and a target that is movable relative to the plurality of coils is well-understood, routine and conventional (See US 2021/0010829 to Qama et al., par. 19; Fig. 1B coils 104).
Claim 18 recites a further additional element for a current conductor for conducting a current to be measured. This element is further description of elements that are used for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, and therefore, the current conductor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when considered individually or in combination with the processing circuit. The current conductor is not significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason. Additionally, a current conductor is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), II).
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those recited in claims 1 and 12 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3517897 to Raman et al. (Raman) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0082419 to Li (Li).
Claim 1
With regard to a signal acquisition circuit comprising at least one sensor configured to provide at least one input signal related to the physical quantity; Raman teaches sensing elements that provide an analog signal representative of the input phase (Fig. 1, sensing elements 2; pars. 33, 39).
With regard to a processing circuit configured to receive said at least one input signal and for providing an output signal representative of the physical quantity; the processing circuit comprising a closed loop, comprising: i) a first sub-circuit arranged for receiving said at least one input signal and at least one feedback signal, and comprising a combiner, and configured for providing a first signal; Raman teaches a combiner circuit that receives the signal representing the input phase and combines it with a representation of the error (Fig. 1, combiner circuit 4;pars. 39, 61).
With regard to ii) a frequency dependent filter configured for receiving and filtering said first signal, and for providing a filtered signal or a signal derived therefrom as the output signal; Raman teaches a loop filter that filters the signal output from the combiner (Fig. 1, loop filter 60; par. 63).
With regard to iii) a second sub-circuit configured for receiving said filtered signal, and for converting said filtered signal into said at least one feedback signal using a non-linear function; Raman teaches a feedback signal unit that generates an error signal based on the output from the loop filter (Fig. 1, feedback signal unit 8, pars. 47, 51-53).
With regard to wherein the non-linear function is defined by a plurality of parameters determined during a calibration procedure, Raman teaches determining various weights to be used in the combiner circuit (pars. 51, 55).
Raman does not teach that the non-linear function is a piecewise-linear approximation function. Li teaches correcting a position signal using a piecewise linearization relationship (par. 37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the position sensing, as taught by Raman, to include a piecewise linearization relationship, as taught by Li, because the position signal would have been more accurate (Li, par. 37).
Claim 2
.Raman does not teach that the piecewise-linear approximation function passes through a limited number of points, said limited number of points comprising through 4 to 32 points. Li teaches applying the piecewise linearization relationship on a limited number of points through 4 to 32 points (par. 37; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the position sensing, as taught by Raman, to include a piecewise linearization relationship, as taught by Li, because the position signal would have been more accurate (Li, par. 37).
Claim 3
Raman teaches that the signal acquisition circuit comprises at least one magnetic sensor configured to measure a magnetic field signal associated with the physical quantity to be measured; or wherein the signal acquisition circuit comprises at least two magnetic sensors, each configured to measure a magnetic field associated with the physical quantity to be measured; or wherein the signal acquisition circuit comprises at least three magnetic sensors, each configured to measure a magnetic field associated with the physical quantity to be measured (pars. 31-33; external magnet).
Claim 4
Raman teaches that the physical quantity has an input phase, and wherein the output signal is a phase signal indicative of the input phase; and wherein the signal acquisition circuit comprises a plurality of sensors configured to provide a plurality of input signals, each being a function of said input phase; and wherein the first sub-circuit further comprises a phase generator configured to provide an estimate of said input phase; and wherein the processing circuit is configured to provide the output phase so as to have an improved accuracy with respect to the input phase (Fig. 1, par. 39, input phase and a representative output phase).
Claim 5
Raman teaches that the first sub-circuit comprises said phase generator followed by said combiner (par. 46, encoded as a set of trigonometric values, then combined with weights),
and wherein the phase generator is arranged for receiving and converting said at least one input signal into said phase signal (par. 46).,
and wherein said combiner is configured for receiving and combining said phase signal and said feedback signal (par. 46).
Claim 6
Raman teaches that the second sub-circuit comprises a nonlinear function block arranged for receiving and modifying said filtered signal using said non- linear function; and where the at least one feedback signal is derived from the modified signal (par. 67-70).
Claim 13
Raman teaches that the processing circuit introduces a non- linearity; and wherein the nonlinear function block is configured to reduce or substantially eliminate at least the non-linearity introduced by the processing circuit (Fig. 1, feedback signal unit 8; pars. 47, 51, 52).
Claim 14
Raman teaches a magnetic source configured for generating a magnetic field having a phase indicative of a mechanical position (pars. 18, 31-33);
and a magnetic sensor circuit according to claim 3 (pars. 31-33);
wherein an input phase, and a nonlinear error function of said mechanical position (par. 39);
and wherein a nonlinear function block is configured to reduce or substantially eliminate said nonlinear error function (par. 39)
Claim 15
Raman teaches that the second sub-circuit is configured for reducing or substantially eliminating errors related to or caused by mechanical non-idealities of the magnetic source, situated outside of the magnetic sensor circuit (par. 39).
Claim 16
Raman teaches that the magnetic source is a permanent magnet which is movable relative to the magnetic sensor circuit, or vice versa; and wherein the second sub-circuit is configured for reducing or substantially eliminating errors related to mechanical mounting aspects (par. 39).
Claim 18
Raman teaches a current conductor for conducting a current to be measured (pars. 31-33); and a sensor circuit according to claim 3, configured for measuring a magnetic field generated by the current to be measured (pars. 31-33).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raman in view of Li, as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0010829 to Qama et al. (Qama).
Claim 17
Raman and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 14 upon which claim 17 depends. Further, Raman teaches that the second sub-circuit is configured for reducing or substantially eliminating errors related to mechanical mounting aspects of the target, and/or related to layout aspects of the plurality of coils (par. 39).
Raman and Li do not teach a printed circuit board comprising a plurality of coils; and comprising a target, which is movable relative to said plurality of coils; and comprising said magnetic sensor circuit. Qama teaches a printed circuit board with coils including a transmit coil, a sine sensor coil, a cosine sensor coil and a target positioned above the substrate (par. 19; Fig. 1B, coils 104, target 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the position sensing combination, as taught by Raman and Li, to include a printed circuit board, as taught by Qama, because then a well known circuit building platform would have been available for mounting the circuit elements allowing the measurement to be made in various settings (Qama, pars. 2, 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that the rejection fails to distinguish claims that recite an exception from claims that merely involve an exception as detailed in the USPTO’s memo “Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101” (August 4, 2025). Applicant states that even though the claimed first sub-circuit, combiner, and frequency dependent filter of claim 1 may involve a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, these limitations do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols. However, a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). The first sub-circuit, frequency dependent filter and second sub-circuit are each disclosed as mathematical functions that are implemented by a processing circuit (pars. 134-137). The claim limitations for a combiner, filtering a signal and converting the filtered signal using a piecewise-linear approximation function are all mathematical concepts.
Applicant states that the claimed invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes and is patent eligible. Applicant refers to four circuit topologies illustrated in Figures 3(a), 3(b), 6 and 7 that reduce certain nonlinearities and provide a technical improvement over conventional sensor circuits, or over related conventional technology or technological processes. Further Applicant states that while the rejection equates the additional elements of claim 1 to a generic computer or to well-understood routine and conventional elements, the claim is not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but provides a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the technical field, as demonstrated in the teachings of the specification referenced above; and further, the rejection gives no consideration to the non-conventional arrangement of the asserted generic elements.
However, the specification only discloses block diagrams of elements that may be implemented completely in the digital domain (Specification, pars. 139, 169, 170; Fig. 6, processing circuit 650). The non-conventional arrangement and circuits can be realized by programming a computer to perform the mathematical functions in the disclosed order.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant states that Raman does not disclose or suggest a non-linear function block defined by a plurality of calibration parameters that approximate an inverse of combined nonlinearities according to the current claims. However, Raman teaches compensation using multiple weights that are used in calibration (pars. 51, 55).
Applicant states that the piecewise-linear relationship of Li is between the ratio H2/H1 and the error and is applied as a post-processing step, and that nowhere does Li teach incorporating this mapping as a memoryless non-linear function block within a closed-loop transfer function operating continuously at high speed. However, the claim simply requires using a non-linear function, wherein the non-linear function is a piecewise-linear approximation function. Li teaches correcting a position signal using a piecewise linearization relationship (par. 37).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857