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 13 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 13 recite(s) determining a magnetic sensor signal…; comparing the magnetic signal against a threshold signal; and outputting a binary signal... This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements wherein the threshold signal is indicative….; and outputting a binary signal indicative….; are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculation, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry or field that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routing, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is ineligible due to the following analysis:
Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 13 is directed to a method, therefore, it is direction to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claims 13 recites determining a magnetic sensor signal indicative of an angle of a magnetic field; comparing the magnetic sensor signal against a threshold signal indicative of a predefined angular threshold, which are mathematical-calculation steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial- exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Claim 13 do not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations in a variety of technologies. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 13 recites the additional element(s) “wherein the threshold is indicative indicative of a predefined angular threshold, and outputting a binary signal indicative of whether the angle of the magnetic field exceeds or falls below the predefined angular threshold.”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously Known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), magnetic sensors, magnet(s), and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial- exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim 14 recite(s) determining a first sensor signal indicative of a first trigonometric function of the angle of the magnetic field; determining a second sensor signal indicative of a second trigonometric function of the angle of the magnetic field. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these are mathematical-calculations steps that could also be performed by a processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements wherein the magnetic sensor signal…; are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculation, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry or field that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routing, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 recite(s) obtaining the binary signal based on logically combining a first output of a first comparator of a magnetic angle switch current . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these are mathematical-calculations steps that could also be performed by a processor. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements the binary signal based on logically combining a first output of a first comparator of a magnetic angle switch current…; are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculation, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry or field that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routing, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shoji (2006/0255796).
As to claims 1 and 13, Shoji discloses an angle switch device with magnetoresistive effect element comprising: a magnetic sensor circuit (13) configured to: determine a sensor signal indicative of an angle of a magnetic field (Vout; [0033] differential output is applied to the output transistor circuit 63 via the Schmitt trigger circuit 62 to on/off-control this transistor. Therefore, the angle switch device provides a binary signal Vout indicating whether the angle .theta. of the magnetic field applied to the GMR elements 15 and 16 from the magnet section 14 is larger than or smaller than 90 degrees); and a switch circuit (60, 62) configured to: compare the sensor signal against a threshold signal, wherein the threshold signal is indicative of a predefined angular threshold ([0033], Therefore, the angle switch device provides a binary signal Vout indicating whether the angle .theta. of the magnetic field applied to the GMR elements 15 and 16 from the magnet section 14 is larger than or smaller than 90 degrees. ), and output a binary signal (Vout) indicative of whether the angle of the magnetic field exceeds the predefined angular threshold or falls below the predefined angular threshold (Fig. 6, [0031] – [0034]).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Shoji discloses an angle switch device with magnetoresistive effect element comprising a movable magnet (14) causing a magnetic field ([0021], Fig. 2); an actuator (11, 23) configured to move the movable magnet (14) along a trajectory ([0026] – [0028], Fig. 1 - 2); and a magnetic angle switch circuit (100) comprising: a magnetic sensor circuit (13) configured to determine a sensor signal indicative of an angle of the magnetic field (Vout; [0033] differential output is applied to the output transistor circuit 63 via the Schmitt trigger circuit 62 to on/off-control this transistor. Therefore, the angle switch device provides a binary signal Vout indicating whether the angle .theta. of the magnetic field applied to the GMR elements 15 and 16 from the magnet section 14 is larger than or smaller than 90 degrees), and a switch circuit (60, 62) configured to: compare the sensor signal against a threshold signal, wherein the threshold signal is indicative of a predefined angular threshold ([0026 – [0034]; Fig. 1 – 6; ([0033], Therefore, the angle switch device provides a binary signal Vout indicating whether the angle .theta. of the magnetic field applied to the GMR elements 15 and 16 from the magnet section 14 is larger than or smaller than 90 degrees.)), and output a binary signal (Vout) indicative of whether the angle of the magnetic field exceeds the predefined angular threshold or falls below the predefined angular threshold (Fig. 6, [0031] – [0034]) wherein the magnetic angle switch circuit (60, 62) is located at a position in proximity to the trajectory of the movable magnet (14), and wherein the magnetic angle switch circuit (60, 62) is configured to output the binary signal in response to the angle of the magnetic field at the position of the magnetic angle switch circuit ([0026 – [0034]; Fig. 1 – 6).
As to claims 4 and 18, Shoji discloses that the magnetic sensor circuit comprises: a first voltage divider circuit comprising a first magneto-resistor (15) connected in series to a second magneto-resistor (16), and wherein the switch circuit comprises: a first comparator circuit (60) having a first input coupled to a first terminal of the magnetic sensor circuit between the first magneto-resistor and the second magneto-resistor, and a second input coupled to the threshold signal [0012], [0013], [0031] – [0034], (Fig. 6).
As to claims 5 and 19, Shoji discloses that a first reference magnetization of the first magneto-resistor and a second reference magnetization of the second magneto-resistor differ by 180° ([0029], [0031] – [0034], Fig. 3B, 6).
As to claim 9, Shoji discloses that the first magneto-resistor and the second magneto-resistor magneto-resistors comprise TMR resistors [0018], [0029].
As to claim 12, Shoji discloses that at least one of the position of the magnetic angle switch circuit (13) relative to the magnet (14) is adjustable, or an orientation of the magnetic angle switch circuit relative to the magnet is adjustable [0028] and [0036].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 2, 3, 10, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (2006/0255796) in view of HARADA et al. (2011/0246133).
As to claims 2 and 16, Shoji fails to explicitly disclose that the magnetic sensor circuit is configured to determine the sensor signal being indicative of at least one trigonometric function of the angle, wherein the trigonometric function comprises at least one of a sine of the angle or a cosine of the angle. HARADA et al. (hereinafter HARADA) discloses a rotation sensor wherein the magnetic sensor circuit is configured to determine the sensor signal being indicative of at least one trigonometric function of the angle, wherein the trigonometric function comprises at least one of a sine of the angle or a cosine of the angle (Fig. 12; [0134], [0363], [0518]).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shoji in view of the teachings of HARADA wherein the sensor signal being indicative of at least one trigonometric function of the angle, wherein the trigonometric function comprises at least one of a sine of the angle or a cosine of the angle to output a relative rotation angle.
As to claims 3, 14 and 17, Shoji fails to explicitly disclose that the magnetic sensor circuit is configured to: determine a first sensor signal indicative of a first trigonometric function of the angle, determine a second sensor signal indicative of a second trigonometric function of the angle, and determine the sensor signal indicative of the angle based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal. HARADA discloses that the magnetic sensor circuit is configured to: determine a first sensor signal (sin2θ) indicative of a first trigonometric function of the angle, determine a second sensor signal (cos2θ) indicative of a second trigonometric function of the angle, and determine the sensor signal indicative of the angle based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (Fig. 12), [0179]-[0180], [0363]. Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shoji in view of the teachings of HARADA wherein the magnetic sensor circuit is configured to: determine a first sensor signal indicative of a first trigonometric function of the angle, determine a second sensor signal indicative of a second trigonometric function of the angle, and determine the sensor signal indicative of the angle based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal to compute a relative rotation angle.
As to claim 10, Shoji fails to explicitly disclose that the magnetic sensor circuit comprises: a first Hall sensor configured to determine a first sensor signal indicative of a first magnetic field component of the magnetic field, and a second Hall sensor configured to determine a second sensor signal indicative of a second magnetic field component of the magnetic field, and wherein the magnetic sensor circuit is configured to determine the sensor signal based on a combination of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal. HARADA discloses that the magnetic sensor circuit (50) comprises: a first Hall sensor (H1) configured to determine a first sensor signal indicative of a first magnetic field component of the magnetic field, and a second Hall sensor (H2) configured to determine a second sensor signal indicative of a second magnetic field component of the magnetic field ([0132], [0136] – [0138]), and wherein the magnetic sensor circuit (50) is configured to determine the sensor signal based on a combination (53c) of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (Fig. 40). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shoji in view of the teachings of HARADA that the magnetic sensor circuit comprises: a first Hall sensor configured to determine a first sensor signal indicative of a first magnetic field component of the magnetic field, and a second Hall sensor configured to determine a second sensor signal indicative of a second magnetic field component of the magnetic field, and wherein the magnetic sensor circuit is configured to determine the sensor signal based on a combination of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal to accurately determine angular range for the rotation angle.
Claim(s) 6 – 8, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (2006/0255796) in view of David et al. (2016/0123771).
As to claims 6 - 7 and 20, Shoji fails to disclose that a second voltage divider circuit comprising a third magneto-resistor connected in series to a fourth magneto-resistor, and wherein the switch circuit comprises: a second comparator having comprising: a first input coupled to a second terminal of the magnetic sensor circuit between the third magneto-resistor and the fourth magneto-resistor, and a second input coupled to a second threshold signal indicative of a second predefined angular threshold. David et al. (hereinafter David) discloses a magnetic field sensor providing a movement detector comprising a second voltage divider circuit comprising a third magneto-resistor (802) connected in series to a fourth magneto-resistor (802), and wherein the switch circuit comprises: a second comparator (812) having comprising: a first input coupled to a second terminal of the magnetic sensor circuit between the third magneto-resistor (802) and the fourth magneto-resistor (802), and a second input coupled to a second threshold signal (818) indicative of a second predefined angular threshold (Fig. 8, 9; [0131], [0147] – [0149], [0153] [0155]).
PNG
media_image3.png
680
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shoji in view of the teachings of David such that including a second voltage divider circuit comprising a third magneto-resistor connected in series to a fourth magneto-resistor, and wherein the switch circuit comprises: a second comparator having comprising: a first input coupled to a second terminal of the magnetic sensor circuit between the third magneto-resistor and the fourth magneto-resistor, and a second input coupled to a second threshold signal indicative of a second predefined angular threshold would accurately indicate a speed of rotation and/or a direction of a rotating object.
As to claims 8 and 15, Shoji fails to explicitly disclose a combiner circuit configured to logically combine a first output of the first comparator and a second output of the second comparator to obtain the binary signal. David discloses a combiner circuit (814) configured to logically combine a first output of the first comparator (812) and a second output of the second comparator (812) to obtain the binary signal (812a), Fig. 8, 9; [0131], [0147, The voltage signal 808 is received by an amplifier 810 The amplifier 810 configured to generate an amplified voltage signal 810a. A comparator 812 is coupled to receive the amplified voltage signal 810a, coupled to receive a threshold signal 818, and configured to generate a comparison signal 812a (i.e., a binary, two-state, signal).] – [0149] and [0153] – [0155]. Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Shoji in view of the teachings of David such including a combiner circuit configured to logically combine a first output of the first comparator and a second output of the second comparator to obtain the binary signal would accurately indicate a speed of rotation and/or a direction of a rotating object.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Ostermann et al. (11,448,713) is cited for its disclosure of an angle sensor.
Romero (2017/0356967) is cited for its disclosure of magnetic field sensor having error correction.
Park et al. (11,719,528) is cited for its disclosure of a magneto-resistive angle sensor system and vehicle comprising a magneto-resistive angle sensor system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 5712705628. 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.
/REENA AURORA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858