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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2026 & 03/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 03/16/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-40 remain pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, & 13-36 have been amended.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 14 line 9 to page 16 line 8, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejection of claim 15 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 14 line 9 to page 16 line 8, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejection of claim 18 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “The §112 Rejections:”
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 14 line 9 to page 15 line 7, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 15 lines 1-2):
“Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims 1, 13, 14, 23, and 36 sufficiently describe how the determination of the deviation and correction of the output signal is performed.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Neither the originally filed claims nor the amendments filed 03/16/2026 make it clear as to how “determining a deviation of the output signal (V, 9-from a linear response by an amplitude of a high order component sign (V)-of the output voltage (V+1);” is done. Presumably, there would have to be means of creating a magnetic field and a means of measuring that magnetic field and that one would have to accurately know the actual magnetic field as well as what the magnetoresistive sensor returns as a measured value of the magnetic field. The “determining a deviation of the output signal” requires knowing the measured output signal and the actual value so that the difference results in a deviation.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 15 lines 8-12, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 15 lines 8-12):
“Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 10 has been amended to avoid any potential inconsistency with the definition of H0 in claim 9 by presenting the recited expression as an approximation used in certain embodiments/performances of the method, rather than redefining H0”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Claim 10 states “the correction method according to claim 9” and therefore inherits the limitations of claim 9 including an approximation for H0 which includes a term proportional to ‘D2’. Claim 10 then defines H0 as being proportional to ‘D’. It cannot be the case that both these relations hold over the domain of values for ‘D’ ( the curves possibly intersect in as many as two places but due to terms with different magnitudes (i.e., ‘1’ vs ‘2’) they cannot be equal over the domain of ‘D’).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 15 lines 17-19, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 15 lines 17-19):
“Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 17 has been amended herein to fix the antecedent basis issues and further relies on the amended claim 14.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
In the claims filed 06/30/2023 there was insufficient antecedent basis for “the corrected voltage output”, and in the amended claims filed 03/16/2026 there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the corrected voltage signal”. Any time there is an element preceded by ‘the’ there should be a previous recitation of that element preceded by ‘a’; otherwise it is unclear what that element is and what limitations might be applicable to it.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 16 line 1 to page 16 line 5, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 16 lines 4-5):
“Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 19 has been amended herein to indicate that the correction resistor is disposed between two voltage signal paths, where the correction resistor generates a voltage when the first current from the voltage-to-current converter circuit is supplied to the correction resistor.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
It is not clear how a “correction resistor” (presumably a physical object and a resistor i.e. passive circuit element) can be disposed between two signals (non-physical data). Additionally, it is not clear how a resistor is “generating the corrected output signal” considering that resistors are passive circuit elements and don’t generate data (and don’t make “corrected output signal”).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 16 line 6 to page 16 line 8, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 16 lines 6-8):
“Lack of Antecedent Basis in the Claims
Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1, 11, 13, 15, 17, 23, and 38-40 have been amended herein to fix any outstanding antecedent basis issues.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Though most of the antecedent basis issues have been addressed, there remains issues with claims 38-40. These claims begin with “The method according to claim 37”, but claim 37 has at least two distinct methods (“The characterization method” & “the correction method”) which could be “the method according to claim 37”.
Regarding “The §101 Rejections:”
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 16 line 9 to page 17 line 26, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 16 lines 12-13):
“Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejections, and in the interest of advancing prosecution, Applicant herein amends Claims 1 and 13 to recite,…”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The additional limitations are further directed towards judicial exceptions (either mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) or natural phenomena MPEP 2106.04(b)). MPEP 2106.04(d)(III): “Because a judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter, if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”. combinations of judicial exceptions without significantly more are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 18 lines 1-20, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 18 lines 10-14):
“That is, it’s not merely the correction of a magnetoresistive sensor in normal operation with respect to an external magnetic field, but the removal of error introduced by non-linear components influencing the magnetoresistive sensor. An increase in applied magnetic fields leads to a rapid increase in amplitude, which is already impacted by non-linear components.”
& (page 18 lines 15-17)
“While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the claims recite determining a deviation of an output signal based on contributions from non-linear components and impacted by an increasing magnetic field …”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Limitations directed towards mathematical concepts such as determining deviation based on signals, amplitudes and high-order components are not significantly more than judicial exceptions.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 18 line 21 to page 19 line 19, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 18 lines 23-26):
“the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The combination of the elements in the claims, including determining a deviation in an output signal based on the increase in the amplitude of a high-order component signal of the output voltage, …”
& (page 19 lines 8-13):
“In particular, the combination of additional elements use mathematical formulas and calculations that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application of correcting an output signal which is already impacted by non-linear components when the output signal experiences an increasing and large magnetic field that distorts (e.g. rapidly increases) the non-linearity in the output signal (as introduced by the non-linear components).”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The claims recites judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts or natural phenomenon without reciting elements or limitations which would at step 2A Prong Two incorporate those judicial exceptions into a practical application. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation any recited physical elements are no more than field of art limitations corresponding to a computer environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 19 line 20 to page 20 line 12, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 19 lines 21-26):
“Even if the Examiner finds the claims 1, 13, and 36 recite the abstract idea of grouping of mathematical concepts and/or do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. That is, the correction of the output signal based on a deviation from a linear response is informed by both non-linearity introduced by non-linear components…”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At step 2B the claims are found to not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). Limitations such as “correction of the output signal based on a deviation from a linear response is informed by both non-linearity” are further directed towards judicial exceptions and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (see MPEP 2106.05: “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”)
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 20 line 13 to page 21 line 16, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 20 lines 14-15):
“Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejections, and in the interest of advancing prosecution, Applicant herein amends Claims 14 and 23 to recite, inter alia:…”
Examiner respectfully responds:
These amendments are further directed towards judicial exceptions; in particular “non-linear components” and “corrected output signal” are within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 21 line 17 to page 22 line 8, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 21 lines 18-25):
“The Examiner indicated that the elements of Claims 14 and 23 recite the abstract idea of grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The amended claims are directed towards an integrated circuit performing a method of correcting an output signal from a magnetoresistive sensor, where non-linearity is introduced into the output signal … That is, it’s not merely the correction of a magnetoresistive sensor in normal operation with respect to an external magnetic field, but the removal of error introduced by non-linear components influencing the magnetoresistive sensor.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Limitations and elements directed towards “non-linearity” & “removal of error by introduced non-linear components” are within the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. “external magnetic field” is within the judicial exception grouping of natural phenomenon and an “integrated circuit” is no more than indicative that the judicial exceptions are performed in a computer environment.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 22 line 9 to page 23 line 6, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 22 lines 10-18):
“Even if the Examiner find that the claims 14 and 23 recite the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The combination of the elements in the claims, including determining and correcting a deviation in an output signal based on the increase in the amplitude of a high-order component signal…In particular, the combination ow additional elements that use mathematical formulas and calculations that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application of correcting an output signal …”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The claim does not have additional elements or limitations which would incorporate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. “determining and correcting a deviation” in a signal is within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts and the use of other mathematical formulas and calculations (which are also judicial exceptions) cannot incorporate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 22 line 9 to page 23 line 6, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 22 lines 25-27):
Furthermore, performing a comparison to determine which output signal (the corrected output signal or the original output signal) based on a specific threshold further integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner indicated as much in the Office Action, by stating that the at least one comparator “describes physical components and incorporates any judicial exceptions into a practical application at Revised Step 2A Prong Two the 35 USC 101 analysis.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Limitations directed towards computations and manipulation of data to produce data are within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Regarding the claims 15, 17-22, the judicial exceptions were interpreted as being incorporated into a practical application because “IC comprising at least one comparator” in combination with other physical elements of the claim(s) were interpreted as a specific physical device which would incorporate judicial exceptions into a practical application. However, if this device were no more than computer elements indicating a field of use involving computing elements or generic conventional elements (i.e., well known in the field) then this “IC comprising at least one comparator” would not be sufficient to incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claims 14 & 23 are not significantly more than judicial exceptions.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection" page 23 line 7 to page 24 line 2, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 23 lines 10-):
“the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. That is, the correction of the output signal based on a deviation from a linear response is informed by both non-linearity introduced by non-linear components that contribute to an output voltage associated with the output signal, but that he non-linearity increases rapidly as the magnetic field increases. While magnetoresistive sensors are well known in the field, solutions for correcting distorted output signals… ”
Examiner respectfully responds:
These elements are directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts (‘correcting a signal based on deviation from linear …’) or natural phenomena (magnetic fields).
Note, “components” in a mathematical equation are not significantly more than mathematical concepts and are not elements or limitations which could incorporate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
claim 28 lines 1-2: “one Analog Multipurpose Unit (AMU) configured to determine the additional signal.”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 28:
Three-Prong test for “one Analog Multipurpose Unit (AMU)”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“one Analog Multipurpose Unit (AMU)” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above):
Yes;
It is unclear how “determine the additional signal” is done by the nonce.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “one Analog Multipurpose Unit (AMU)” for claim 28 and its dependents claims 29-32 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note:
The initially filed specification (filed 30 June 2023) was searched for an interpretation of “one Analog Multipurpose Unit (AMU) configured to determine the additional signal.”
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found:
Page 7 lines 23-25: “Figs. 22a and 22b show an analog IC units based of a
combination of LOG RATIO, LOG & ANTILOG operational amplifiers (Fig. 22a) and an analog IC unit as an Analog Multipurpose Unit (AMU)”
&
Figs. 22a and 22b
Therefore, for the purposes of examination “Analog Multipurpose Unit (AMU)” is interpreted as generic computing elements which perform logic/computer operations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1, 13, 14, 23, & 36 in lines 4-5, 5-6, 4-5, 5-6, & 5-6 (respectively) recites the limitation "determining a deviation of the output signal from a linear response based on an amplitude of a high order component signal of an output voltage;". It is not clear how this ‘determining’ is done. Presumably, in order to determine the deviation from a linear response there would have to be some means of applying a magnetic field whose field strength is known and then measuring the magnetic field strength with the magnetoresistive sensor for multiple applied values of the magnetic field. It is not clear what is being done or what sort of device is used to apply magnetic fields of specific field strengths or to determine a deviation from linearity in the response of the sensor. To determine an error between the measurement and the ideal it is necessary to have a means of knowing an actual ideal value and a measured value.
Claims 1, 13, 14 23, & 36 in lines 5-6, 6-7, 6-7, 7-8, 7-8 (respectively) recites the limitation "Wherein the amplitude of the high order component signal of the output voltage is representative of contributions to the output voltage by non-linear components". It is unclear how “amplitude of the high order component signal” is “representative of contributions to the output voltage by non-linear components”. Typically the amplitude is the sum of the components (including “non-linear components”), how can the amplitude not also be dependent on the linear components?, and (if dependent on both linear and non-linear) how could an amplitude which includes all components be “representative” of the non-linear components separately from the linear components?, What does “representative” mean in this context?
Claims 1, 13, 14, 23, & 36 in lines 11-13, 12-14, 12-13, 16-17, & 11-13 (respectively) recites the limitation "wherein compensating the output signal includes adding an additional signal derived from the output signal and based on the amplitude of the high order component signal of the output voltage". It is unclear what the “compensating” means; “compensating the output signal” could be ‘dropping higher order terms from a Taylor series fit of the output’ or ‘fitting a line to the output signal using a least squares method’, or etc. Additionally, it is unclear how the “output signal” is “derived from the output signal” & “based on the amplitude of ... the output voltage”; the “output voltage” is likely a physical manifestation of the “output signal” and so it is not clear how it also contributes to a “compensating”.
Claim 10 in lines 2-3 recites the limitation "H0 is defined by: [equation in claim 10]". However, claim 10 inherits the limitations of claim 9, and claim 9 states "H0 is defined by: [equation in claim 9]". The equations in claims 9 and 10 are not equivalent and H0 can’t be equal to both.
Claim 14 in line 23 recites the limitation "the corrected output signal segment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for ‘the corrected output signal’.
Claim 17 in line 2 recites the limitation "the corrected voltage signal". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 in lines 9-11 recites the limitation "a correction resistor disposed between the sensor output voltage signal and the corrected output signal, generating the corrected output signal when first current is supplied to the correction resistor.". It is not clear what a correction resistor is or how it generates the corrected output.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claims 38-40 in line 1 (for each claim) recites the limitation "The method according to claim 37" where claim 37 recites “The characterization method according to claim 36” where claim 36 recites “A characterization method” but also recites other methods such as “a correction method”. Therefore, references to “the method” are unclear because there are at least two different methods.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’:
Claims 2-12, 15-22, 24-35, & 37-40 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-13, & 36-39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“determining a deviation of the output signal from a linear response based on an amplitude of a high order component signal of an output voltage of the magnetoresistive sensor, wherein the amplitude of the high order component signal of the output voltage is representative of contributions of the output voltage by non-linear components, wherein the amplitude of the high order component signal of the out voltage increases with an increase in an applied magnetic field to the magnetoresistive sensor; and”
“ determining a corrected output signal by compensating the output signal for the high order component signal such that the corrected output signal has a linearity error smaller than the linearity error of the output signal, wherein compensating the output signal includes adding an additional signal derived from the output signal and based on the amplitude of the high order component signal of the output voltage.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“determining a deviation of the output signal from a linear response …”
“determining a corrected output signal …”
are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 1 additionally recites:
“A correction method for correcting an output signal provided by a magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field comprising:”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering:”
Analysis:
Recitation of “a magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (such as CPC symbol G01R33/09: “Magnetoresistive devices”).
Recitation of “magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field” merely indicates where the data was obtained from and therefore indicates the insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the element of “magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field” is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III): “Examiners should not assert that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports the rejection in writing with one or more of the following: (A) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). … (C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”
Analysis:
Para 0001-0002 of the originally filed specification of the instant application makes it clear that the subject matter of magnetoresistive sensors is well known in the art.
Para 0002: “Linear magnetic sensors have many consumer, industrial and automotive applications …”.
Citations to publications indicating the conventional nature of “magnetoresistive sensors”:
US 8766623 B2 “Magnetic-field Sensor Including A Plurality Of Magnetoresistive Sensor Elements And Method Of Calibrating A Magnetic-field Sensor” (Ausserlechner)
US 9423472 B2 “Magnetoresistive Sensor Module On The Planar Surface” (Kolb)
Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed 03/16/2026 page 23 lines 14-15: “While magnetoresistive sensors are well known in the field”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, no elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
194
663
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular “threshold” & “linear equation”):
PNG
media_image4.png
196
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular “coefficients”).
PNG
media_image5.png
166
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular “coefficients”).
PNG
media_image6.png
172
665
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular “high order components”).
PNG
media_image7.png
170
641
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular “proportional to” a variable).
PNG
media_image8.png
80
621
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular “coefficients” & “components”).
PNG
media_image9.png
232
646
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular equations).
PNG
media_image10.png
207
671
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 9 and thereby from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 9 and thereby from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular equations).
PNG
media_image11.png
213
661
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular equations).
PNG
media_image12.png
254
648
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A correction method”, which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 6 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) in the form of equations and calculations as shown below (in particular “signal offset (V0) is added” ).
PNG
media_image13.png
114
646
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program” which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“determining a deviation of the output signal from a linear response based on an amplitude of a high order component signal of an output voltage of the magnetoresistive sensor, wherein the amplitude of the high order component signal of the output voltage is representative of contributions to the output voltage by non-linear components, wherein the amplitude of the high order component signal of the output voltage increases with an increase in an applied magnetic field to the magnetoresistive sensor; and”
“ determining a corrected output signal by compensating the output signal for the high order component signal such that the corrected output signal has a linearity error smaller than the linearity error of the output signal, wherein compensating the output signal includes adding an additional signal derived from the output signal and based on the amplitude of the high order component signal of the output voltage.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations of:
“determining a deviation of the output signal from a linear response …”
“determining a corrected output signal …”
are mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim 13 additionally recites:
“A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a method for correcting an output signal provided by a magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field, the method comprising::”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II): “For claim limitations that recite a generic computer component performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, such as using the Internet to gather data, examiners can explain why these generic computing functions do not meaningfully limit the claim.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: … (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.”
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering:”
Analysis:
Recitation of “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program” indicates the field of use or technological environment of computing elements and is not significantly more than the program itself.
Recitation of “a magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field” merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (such as CPC symbol G01R33/09: “Magnetoresistive devices”).
Recitation of “magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field” merely indicates where the data was obtained from and therefore indicates the insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the element of “magnetoresistive sensor in the presence of an external magnetic field” is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III): “Examiners should not assert that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports the rejection in writing with one or more of the following: (A) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). … (C) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”
Analysis:
Para 0001-0002 of the originally filed specification of the instant application makes it clear that the subject matter of magnetoresistive sensors is well known in the art.
Para 0002: “Linear magnetic sensors have many consumer, industrial and automotive applications …”.
Citations to publications indicating the conventional nature of “magnetoresistive sensors”:
US 8766623 B2 “Magnetic-field Sensor Including A Plurality Of Magnetoresistive Sensor Elements And Method Of Calibrating A Magnetic-field Sensor” (Ausserlechner)
US 9423472 B2 “Magnetoresistive Sensor Module On The Planar Surface” (Kolb)
Conclusion:
Therefore, no elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 36-39 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-13.
Note:
Regarding claim 14 (and its dependents 15-22, & 40), the limitation(s) of “an applied magnetic field to the magnetoresistive sensor” & “determining a selected signal to output via at least one comparator disposed on the integrated circuit” in combination, describes physical components and incorporates any judicial exceptions into a practical application at Revised Step 2A Prong Two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Regarding claim 23 (and its dependents 24-35), the limitation(s) of “an applied magnetic field to the magnetoresistive sensor” & “at least one comparator disposed on the IC” describes physical components and incorporates any judicial exceptions into a practical application at Revised Step 2A Prong Two of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11313922 B2 "Signal Processing Circuit And Magnetic Sensor System" (Saruki) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 14
US 10809313 B2 "Method For Offset Compensation Of A Sensor Signal Of A Hall Sensor And Sensor Arrangement" (Stahl-Offergeld) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 3
US 10585147 B2 "Magnetic Field Sensor Having Error Correction" (Romero) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3 & Fig. 4
US 10914792 B2 "Linearity Compensation Circuit And Sensing Apparatus Using The Same" (Jiang) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 11022468 B2 "Magnetoresistive Angle Sensor And Corresponding Strong Magnetic Field Error Correction And Calibration Methods" (Deak) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3A & Fig. 5.
US 9354284 B2 "Magnetic Field Sensor Configured To Measure A Magnetic Field In A Closed Loop Manner" (Latham) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2 & Fig. 3.
US 7288931 B2 "Method For Determining Residual Error Compensation Parameters For A Magnetoresistive Angle Sensor And Method For Reducing A Residual Angle Error In A Magnetoresistive Angle Sensor" (Granig) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 8.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights