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 Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are objected to due to the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Claim language “A method for determining the angular position of a shaft” should read “A method for determining [[the]] an angular position of a shaft” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Claim language “compensating for the amplitude and offset of the signals generated, storing the compensated sine signal values in a first memory area, storing the compensated cosine signal values in a second memory area, calculating the so-called "measured" angle in real time on the basis of the compensated sine and cosine signals, storing the measured angle calculated in a third memory area” should read “compensating for [[the]] an amplitude and offset of the signals generated, storing [[the]] a compensated sine signal values in a first memory area, storing [[the]] a compensated cosine signal values in a second memory area, calculating [[the]] a so-called [["]]measured[["]] angle in real time on the basis of the compensated sine and cosine signals, storing [[the]] a measured angle calculated in a third memory area” should read “compensating for [[the]] an amplitude and offset of the signals generated, storing [[the]] a compensated sine signal values in a first memory area, storing [[the]] a compensated cosine signal values in a second memory area, calculating [[the]] a so-called "measured" angle in real time on the basis of the compensated sine and cosine signals, storing [[the]] a measured angle calculated in a third memory area” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Claim language “detecting the zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing a first angular position of the shaft, detecting the zero crossing of the compensated cosine signal characterizing a second angular position of the shaft offset by 90° relative to the first angular position” should read “detecting [[the]] a zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing a first angular position of the shaft, detecting [[the]] a zero crossing of the compensated cosine signal characterizing a second angular position of the shaft offset by 90° relative to the first angular position” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Claim language “calculating a first virtual angle on the basis of the calculated measured angle values stored in the third memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 90°, calculating an intermediate compensated angle by finding the mean of the measured angle value stored for said instant and of the first virtual angle value stored for said instant” should read “calculating a first virtual angle on the basis of [[the]] calculated measured angle values stored in the third memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 90°, calculating an intermediate compensated angle by finding [[the]] mean of the measured angle value stored for said instant and of [[the]] first virtual angle value stored for said instant” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Claim 6:
Claim language “A system for determining the angular position of a shaft” should read “A system for determining [[the]] an angular position of a shaft” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Claim language “compensate for the amplitude and offset of the signals generated by the sensor, store the compensated sine signal values in a first memory area, store the compensated cosine signal values in a second memory area, calculate the so-called "measured" angle in real time on the basis of the compensated sine and cosine signals, store the measured angle calculated in a third memory area” should read “compensate for [[the]] an amplitude and offset of the signals generated by the sensor, store [[the]] a compensated sine signal values in a first memory area, store the compensated cosine signal values in a second memory area, calculate [[the]] a so-called [["]]measured[["]] angle in real time on the basis of the compensated sine and cosine signals, store [[the]] a measured angle calculated in a third memory area” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Claim language “calculate an intermediate compensated angle by finding the mean of the measured angle value stored for said instant and of the first virtual angle value stored for said instant” should read “calculate an intermediate compensated angle by finding the mean of the measured angle value stored for said instant and of [[the]] first virtual angle value stored for said instant” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Claim 10:
Claim language “A motor vehicle comprising a drive shaft and a system as claimed in claim 6” should read “[[A]] The motor vehicle comprising [[a]] the drive shaft and [[a]] the system as claimed in claim 6” in order to comply with the antecedent basis requirement.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a machine/process. The below claim is considered to be a statutory category (process).
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that
the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ‘’additional elements’’.
A method for determining the angular position of a shaft of a motor vehicle by means of a target fixed to a free end of said shaft and comprising a magnetic element, and a magnetoresistive position sensor mounted facing said target, said method comprising:
at each instant:
rotating the shaft,
generating a sine signal and a cosine signal,
compensating for the amplitude and offset of the signals generated,
storing the compensated sine signal values in a first memory area,
storing the compensated cosine signal values in a second memory area,
calculating the so-called "measured" angle in real time on the basis of the compensated sine and cosine signals,
storing the measured angle calculated in a third memory area,
during a first rotation of the shaft:
detecting the zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing a first angular position of the shaft,
detecting the zero crossing of the compensated cosine signal characterizing a second angular position of the shaft offset by 90° relative to the first angular position,
on the basis of the detection of the zero crossing of the cosine signal, at each instant:
calculating a first virtual angle on the basis of the calculated measured angle values stored in the third memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 90°,
calculating an intermediate compensated angle by finding the mean of the measured angle value stored for said instant and of the first virtual angle value stored for said instant,
storing the intermediate compensated angle values in a fourth memory area,
during a second rotation of the shaft:
detecting the zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing the first angular position of the shaft,
detecting the zero crossing of the difference between the compensated sine signal and the compensated cosine signal characterizing a third angular position of the shaft offset by 45° relative to the first angular position,
on the basis of the zero crossing of the difference between the compensated sine signal and the compensated cosine signal, at each instant:
calculating a second virtual angle on the basis of the calculated intermediate compensated angle values stored in the fourth memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 45°,
calculating a final compensated angle by finding the mean of the intermediate compensated angle value stored for said instant and of the second virtual angle value stored for said instant.
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that when recited as such in a claim limitation covers mathematical processes (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
Steps of “calculating the so-called "measured" angle in real time on the basis of the compensated sine and cosine signals”, “calculating a first virtual angle on the basis of the calculated measured angle values stored in the third memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 90°”, “calculating an intermediate compensated angle by finding the mean of the measured angle value stored for said instant and of the first virtual angle value stored for said instant”, “calculating a second virtual angle on the basis of the calculated intermediate compensated angle values stored in the fourth memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 45°”, and “calculating a final compensated angle by finding the mean of the intermediate compensated angle value stored for said instant and of the second virtual angle value stored for said instant“ are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical process grouping.
Steps of “detecting the zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing a first angular position of the shaft”, “detecting the zero crossing of the compensated cosine signal characterizing a second angular position of the shaft offset by 90° relative to the first angular position”, “detecting the zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing the first angular position of the shaft”, and “detecting the zero crossing of the difference between the compensated sine signal and the compensated cosine signal characterizing a third angular position of the shaft offset by 45° relative to the first angular position” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to combination of mental and mathematical process groupings.
With regards to the mental steps, according to the 2019 PEG: “If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.”).”
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Limitations of “at each instant: rotating the shaft”, “generating a sine signal and a cosine signal”, “compensating for the amplitude and offset of the signals generated”, “storing the compensated sine signal values in a first memory area”, “storing the compensated cosine signal values in a second memory area”, “storing the measured angle calculated in a third memory area”, “storing the intermediate compensated angle values in a fourth memory area” are treated as extra solution activities recited in generality (e.g., mere data gathering) and steps recited at a high level of generality such that substantially all practical applications of the judicial exception(s) are covered.
The additional elements: “shaft”, “motor vehicle”, “magnetic element”, “magnetoresistive position sensor”, “sine signal”, “cosine signal”, “amplitudes of the signals”, “offset of the signals”, “compensated sine signal values”, “compensated cosine signal values”, “memory area”, “zero crossing”, “angular position of the shaft”, “virtual angle”, “calculated measured angle values”, “intermediate compensated angle”, add extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The preamble of Claim 1: “A method for determining the angular position of a shaft of a motor vehicle by means of a target fixed to a free end of said shaft and comprising a magnetic element, and a magnetoresistive position sensor mounted facing said targe” is a generically recited preamble.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this particular case, the claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.) The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process).
Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US7170279 to Haas et al. (hereinafter Haas) and US20230079776 to Zhou (hereinafter Zhou).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Similar analysis has been applied to independent Claim 6. The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-5, and 7-10 merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional limitations corresponding to mathematical relationship grouping. These limitations do not help to integrate the claims into a practical application or make them significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claims to a particular practical application).
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to independent claim 1, the teachings of combined show all the elements of the claims except “during a first rotation of the shaft: detecting the zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing a first angular position of the shaft, detecting the zero crossing of the compensated cosine signal characterizing a second angular position of the shaft offset by 90° relative to the first angular position, on the basis of the detection of the zero crossing of the cosine signal, at each instant: calculating a first virtual angle on the basis of the calculated measured angle values stored in the third memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 90°, calculating an intermediate compensated angle by finding the mean of the measured angle value stored for said instant and of the first virtual angle value stored for said instant, storing the intermediate compensated angle values in a fourth memory area, during a second rotation of the shaft: detecting the zero crossing of the compensated sine signal characterizing the first angular position of the shaft, detecting the zero crossing of the difference between the compensated sine signal and the compensated cosine signal characterizing a third angular position of the shaft offset by 45° relative to the first angular position, on the basis of the zero crossing of the difference between the compensated sine signal and the compensated cosine signal, at each instant: calculating a second virtual angle on the basis of the calculated intermediate compensated angle values stored in the fourth memory area since the zero crossing of the sine signal, plus 45°, calculating a final compensated angle by finding the mean of the intermediate compensated angle value stored for said instant and of the second virtual angle value stored for said instant“, in combination with the rest of the claim’s limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
The closest prior art
The closest prior art references are:
US20080309527 to Inoue (hereinafter Inoue) discloses resolver.
US5637998 to Kushinara (hereinafter Kushinara) discloses digital system for detecting angular position.
US20090105909A1 to Yamaguchi (hereinafter Yamaguchi) discloses rotational angle detecting device.
US20140158453 to Takaki et al. (hereinafter Takaki) discloses rotation angle detection device and electric power steering system including the same
US5239490 to Masaki et al. (hereinafter Masaki) discloses device for detecting rotation of rotary shaft and rotation controlling apparatus using the same.
US20040194557 to Nagase (hereinafter Nagase) discloses torque sensor.
US20220009548 to Nishioka et al. (hereinafter Nishioka) discloses detection signal correction method, motor control device, and electric power steering device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:30pm CT, Monday through Friday.
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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857