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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 10/30/2025.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are still pending.
3. Claims 21-25 were cancelled.
4. Applicant's amendments to claims are accepted because do not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163 except for claim 1 that in fact introduces new matter.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the anticipation claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been withdrawn.
III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the obviousness claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has been withdrawn.
IV. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
7. Page-10, the Applicant(s) argues that “As currently amended, claim 1 recites three operations: (i) generating a reference magnetic field; (ii) adjusting the bias voltage and/or bias current of a sensing bridge based on a difference between a common mode signal and a nominal value corresponding to a signal; and (iii) using a differential signal that is generated by the sensing bridge to generate an output signal. It is respectfully submitted that none of these operations can be practically performed by the human mind. In addition, these operations also do not fall within any of the other enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, such as methods of organizing human activity or natural phenomena. (E.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a).) Thus, it is believed that claim 1 is compliant with the requirements of 3 5 U.S. C. 101 under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Alice/Mayo test”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) 1-9 and 13-18 are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, and MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application.
7.1. Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, I. TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY, First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 ... See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includesa new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP §2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories … Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, I. JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS, Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection … In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas." It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings,
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas … C. Mathematical calculations, A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recite a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation …
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions … C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … Another example is Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in Fair Warning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69 … but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) … A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception … Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: … • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); … The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) through (h) for the list of considerations that are evaluated at Step 2B. Although most of these considerations overlap (i.e., they are evaluated in both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B), Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. Additional elements that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity may integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application.
It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"). … Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims"). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process).
In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c), and 2106.05(f). For example, I Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 1978), the Supreme Court noted that the "patent application does not purport to explain how to select the appropriate margin of safety, the weighting factor, or any of the other variables" in the claimed mathematical formula, "[n]or does it purport to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 195. The Court found this failure to explain any specifics of how to use the claimed formula informative when deciding that the additional elements in the claim were insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible. 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. A judicial exception includes but is not limited to “mental process”, which that could be performed with the help of pen and paper despite claiming that such a process is performed by a computer, and “mathematical concepts” defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations that include but not limited to arithmetic operation, mathematical methods and/or performing mathematical operations regardless the claim use the word “calculating” or not when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Regarding step 2A Prong One, in the instant application, the amended claim 1 recites the limitation(s) “… a difference between a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value corresponding the common mode signal … a differential signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge” and the amended claim 14 recites the limitation(s) “… by demodulating and filtering the common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge … calculate a difference between the reference field signal and a nominal value corresponding to the reference field signal and … a differential signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge …” (hereinafter collectively mentioned as the “Abstract-Idea”), which are directed to a judicial exception that falls into the categories of mathematical algorithms and formulas because the generation of a “common mode signal” and “differential signal” involve mathematical calculations and/or equations in light of the specifications despite the fact that the word “calculation” is not present, which could also be performed with the help of a general computer, which is not a particular machine. Furthermore, the difference of the two signal values is a basic arithmetic operation, as it is recited in claim-1. Finally, claim 14 plainly recite the calculation of said “difference”.
Regarding step 2A, Prong Two, the other elements of the claims related to the reference magnetic field source, adjustment circuit, processing circuitry, adjusting a current/voltage to adjust sensitivity of the bridge, feedback circuit, output signal path and the plurality of magnetic field sensing elements arranged in a sensing bridge are not particular machines in which the Abstract-Idea is integrated but simply routine structure and previously known to the fluid monitoring industry, which are used for the routine data gathering of the necessary information/measurements in order to execute the Abstract-Idea, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, which do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception/Abstract-Idea. In addition, the step relative to adjusting output of a magnetic field sensor is not either a practical application because it is a routine and well-understood activity, as it is described and supported below. Therefore, at step 2A Prong Two, it is determined that the Abstract-Idea is not implemented into a practical application.
In light of the foregoing, the claims 1-9 and 13-18 are not patent eligible because the Abstract-Idea involves mathematical algorithms, equations and/or formulas and is not implemented into a practical application.
8. Page 11, the Applicant(s) argues that “These limitations make clear that claim 1 is directed to an improvement in magnetic-field sensor technology, and more specifically to an improvement in current, position, and speed sensors. The improvement resides in how the bias voltage and/or bias current of the sensing bridge is dynamically adjusted concurrently with the generation of an output signal indicative of the level of electrical current through a conductor or the speed or position of a target. Applicant respectfully submits that the inclusion of these limitations brings claim 1 into compliance with 35 U.S.C. 101 under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) 1-9 and 13-18 are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, and MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
8.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). 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 a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …
In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the abstract-idea/judicial exception above mentioned is simply linked to the adjustment of sensors having magnetic field sensing elements to be used in the fields of current measurements and/or speed and position of a target that generates a magnetic field. Thus, the limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment, which is similar to the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit in Parker v. Flook, where the court found the claims ineligibles under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial are mathematical algorithms and formulas and is not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.
8.2. SECOND Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Regarding to the First-Step, the specification by the Applicant(s) appears to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements. Specifically, the method/process of Fig. 4 in combination with Figs. 1-3. Furthermore, it appears to set forth an indication of improvement that includes a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional, or identifies technical improvements over the prior art as established by the courts and set forth in the MPEP.
Regarding to the Second-Step, the full scope of the claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement in technology because claims 1 and 14 lack of detail description such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements. Furthermore, the claim neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer in which a computer software executes the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-idea indicated the rejection below of the instant application.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims 1-9 and 13-18 are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention does not improve technology.
9. Page-11, the Applicant(s) argues that “Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test. In the present case, claim 1, as amended, recites "an adjustment circuit that is configured to adjust at least one of a bias current or bias voltage of the sensing bridge based, at least in part, on a difference between a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value corresponding to the common mode signal ... wherein the adjusting at least one of the bias voltage or bias current of the sensing bridge causes a sensitivity of the sensing bridge to be adjusted' … Accordingly, claim 1 satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations relative to “… an adjustment circuit that is configured to adjust at least one of a bias current or bias voltage of the sensing bridge based, at least in part, on a difference between a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value corresponding to the common mode signal ... wherein the adjusting at least one of the bias voltage or bias current of the sensing bridge causes a sensitivity of the sensing bridge to be adjusted ...” are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the 2106.05(b) III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE; 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
9.1. Argument in support to response to number 9 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, or, if the additional elements. Additionally, the particularity or generality of the elements of the any machine or apparatus has to do with the degree to which said machine in the claim need to be specifically identified.
With regards to the particularity of a machine, the instant application does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims a sensor with a high degree of generality. For example, the sensor includes a sensing bridge formed by a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements that is a very common structure for magnetic sensors; a reference magnetic field source that could anything that generates a magnetic field (coil, magnet, wire, electromagnets, etc.); an adjustment circuit that could be any electronic device controlling capable of controlling the current and/or voltage supply to the bridge; and processing circuitry any sort of microprocessor, processor and/or microcontroller that generates any type of output signal.
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, the instant application, claim 1 simply recites the additional claim elements “A sensor, comprising: a reference magnetic field source that is configured to generate a reference magnetic field; a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements arranged in a sensing bridge, the sensing bridge being configured to sense the reference magnetic field and an external magnetic field simultaneously, the sensing bridge being configured to output a first signal and a second signal; an adjustment circuit that is configured to adjust at least one of a bias current or bias voltage of the sensing bridge … a processing circuitry that is configured to generate an output signal … the output signal being indicative of one of (i) a level of an electrical current flowing through a conductor that generates external magnetic field, or (ii) a speed or position of a target that generates the magnetic field, wherein the adjusting of at least one of the bias voltage or bias current of the sensing bridge causes a sensitivity of the sensing bridge to be adjusted” and claim 14 simply recite the additional claim elements “A sensor, comprising: a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements arranged in a sensing bridge, the sensing bridge being configured to output a first signal and a second signal; a reference magnetic field source that is configured to generate a reference magnetic field; a feedback circuit that is arranged to process a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge, the feedback loop circuit including: (i) circuitry that is configured to extract a reference field signal … a processing circuitry that is configured to generate an output signal … the output signal being indicative of one of (i) a level of an electrical current flowing through a conductor that generates external magnetic field, or (ii) a speed or position of a target that generates the magnetic field, wherein the adjusting of at least one of the bias voltage or bias current of the sensing bridge causes a sensitivity of the sensing bridge to be adjusted” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the systems and methods for adjusting/calibrating/compensating sensor industry.
This is supported by the prior art used to reject and prior art of record. For instance, see Polley Pub. No.: US 2019/0317175 (used in the previous office action), Fig. 11 depicts a sensor 1100 with a plurality of magnetic sensing elements 1102-1105 with magnetic sources 1132-1135, adjustment circuitry configured to adjust a current with its voltage and processing circuitry to generate an output signal with a feedback loop (also see Fig. 13 [0057]-[0080]); Pastre Pub. No.: US 2007/0247141 (used in the previous office action) that teaches circuitry that is configured to extract a reference field signal from the common mode signal by demodulating and filtering the common mode signal, wherein the adjustment circuit is configured to adjust the sensitivity of the sensing bridge and a feedback loop, which similar to claims 9 and 14 (Fig. 1 a, and [0039]-[0040]); Romero Pub. No.: US 2020/0096543 (used in the previous office action) that teaches circuitry that is configured to extract a reference field signal from the common mode signal by demodulating and filtering the common mode signal, wherein the adjustment circuit is configured to adjust the sensitivity of the sensing bridge and a feedback loop, which similar to claims 9 and 14 (Figs. 1-3, and [0053]-[0058]); see SHARMA et al. Pub. No.: US 2019/0339337, Fig. 3 depicts a sensor 300 with a plurality of magnetic sensing resistor elements R1-R4 with a magnetic source 302, adjustment circuitry configured to adjust a current with its voltage and processing circuitry 336 to generate an output signal (also see [0068]-[0073] and the method of Fig. 8).
Therefore, it is concluded that claim 1 and 14 simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to generating the output signal of a sensor, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the systems and methods to adjust/calibrate/compensate sensors that is performed using well well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims 1-9 and 13-18 are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element or combination of elements fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
10. Claim(s) 1-13 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor. The aforesaid claim implements a new subject matter that is not described in the specifications.
10.1. Specifically, the claim recites the limitation(s) “… a difference between a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value corresponding the common mode signal ...”. This specific limitation(s) is not disclosed in the applicant’s specification and, therefore, said claim(s) is/are rejected for no written description in the specification. Furthermore, the examiner has read the specifications and paragraphs [0004], [0022] and [0026] recite a difference between a reference signal, which is extracted from the common mode signal, and a nominal value of the reference field signal or an expected value of the reference signal. This is not the same as the aforesaid limitation above.
10.2. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
10.3. Furthermore, claims 2-13 are also rejected because they further limit and depend in claim-1.
Specification Objections
11. The amendment filed on 10/30/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “… a difference between a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value corresponding the common mode signal …".
Claim Objections
12. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12.1. The claim-element/limitation relative to “a bias current” (lines 2) of claim 9 should be consistent and be written as “the bias current” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language because this claim-element/limitation already has antecedent basis in claim-1.
12.2. The claim-element/limitation relative to “bias voltage” (lines 2) of claim 9 should be consistent and be written as “the bias voltage” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language because this claim-element/limitation already has antecedent basis in claim-1.
12.3. The claim-element/limitation relative to “a common mode signal” (lines 3) of claim 9 should be consistent and be written as “the common mode signal” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language because this claim-element/limitation already has antecedent basis in claim-1.
12.4. The claim-element/limitation relative to “a nominal value” (lines 3) of claim 9 should be consistent and be written as “the nominal value” in order to improve consistency and clarity of the claim language because this claim-element/limitation already has antecedent basis in claim-1.
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.
13. Claim 1-9 and 13-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
14. Claim 1 is directed to “a difference between a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value corresponding the common mode signal … a differential signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements independent claim 1 “A sensor, comprising: a reference magnetic field source that is configured to generate a reference magnetic field; a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements arranged in a sensing bridge, the sensing bridge being configured to sense the reference magnetic field and an external magnetic field simultaneously, the sensing bridge being configured to output a first signal and a second signal; an adjustment circuit that is configured to adjust at least one of a bias current or bias voltage of the sensing bridge … a processing circuitry that is configured to generate an output signal … the output signal being indicative of one of (i) a level of an electrical current flowing through a conductor that generates external magnetic field, or (ii) a speed or position of a target that generates the magnetic field, wherein the adjusting of at least one of the bias voltage or bias current of the sensing bridge causes a sensitivity of the sensing bridge to be adjusted” 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-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
14.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 1 is directed to a sensor, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
14.2.1 Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 1 recites: to “a difference between a common mode signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value corresponding the common mode signal … a differential signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
14.2.2 Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): independent claim 1 does 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/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to calibration of magnetic sensors, current sensors, as automobile, medical devices, all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, hydrocarbons, mineral exploration, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
14.3. 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 1 recites the additional element(s) “A sensor, comprising: a reference magnetic field source that is configured to generate a reference magnetic field; a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements arranged in a sensing bridge, the sensing bridge being configured to sense the reference magnetic field and an external magnetic field simultaneously, the sensing bridge being configured to output a first signal and a second signal; an adjustment circuit that is configured to adjust at least one of a bias current or bias voltage of the sensing bridge … a processing circuitry that is configured to generate an output signal … the output signal being indicative of one of (i) a level of an electrical current flowing through a conductor that generates external magnetic field, or (ii) a speed or position of a target that generates the magnetic field, wherein the adjusting of at least one of the bias voltage or bias current of the sensing bridge causes a sensitivity of the sensing bridge to be adjusted”, 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), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record above and in the previous rejection). 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).
15. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the reference magnetic field is in-band with the external magnetic field”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
16. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the reference magnetic field source and the sensing bridge are so configured as to cause the reference magnetic field to elicit a common mode response in the sensing bridge without affecting a differential mode response of the sensing bridge”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the adjustment circuit is arranged to adjust the sensitivity of the sensing bridge by changing the bias voltage of the sensing bridge”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
18. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the adjustment circuit is arranged to adjust the sensitivity of the sensing bridge by changing the bias current of the sensing bridge”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
19. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the sensing bridge is configured to generate a first signal and a second signal, and the common mode signal is generated in accordance with the equation of: common_ mode signal = (signal_ 1 +signal_ 2)/2, where signal_ 1 is the first signal and signal_ 2 is the second signal”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
20. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the sensing bridge is configured to generate a first signal and a second signal, and the differential signal is generated in accordance with the equation of: differential _signal = signal_1-signal_ 2. where signal_ 1 is the first signal and signal_ 2 is the second signal”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
21. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein each of the magnetic field sensing elements includes one of a giant magnetoresistance (GMR) element, a tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) element, an anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) element, and a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
22. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “wherein adjusting at least one of a bias current or bias voltage of the sensing bridge based, at least in part, on a difference between a common mode signal of that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge and a nominal value includes demodulating and filtering the common mode signal to produce a reference field signal, and detecting a difference between the reference field signal and the nominal value”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
23. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “the reference magnetic field source includes a first portion (313A) that is disposed on a first side of the sensing bridge and a second portion (313B) that is disposed on a second side of the sensing bridge, the second side being opposite to the first side; and the external magnetic field is generated by an external magnetic field source (351) that is disposed between the first and second portions (313A, 313B) of the reference magnetic field source”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
24. Claim 14 is directed to “… process a common mode signal that is that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge … calculate a difference between the reference field signal and a nominal value corresponding to the reference field signal … a differential signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements of dependent claim 14 “A sensor, comprising: a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements arranged in a sensing bridge, the sensing bridge being configured to output a first signal and a second signal; a reference magnetic field source that is configured to generate a reference magnetic field; a feedback loop … the sensing bridge, the feedback loop including: (i) circuitry that is configured to extract a reference field signal by demodulating and filtering the common mode signal, (ii) a subtraction circuit … and (ii) an adjustment circuit that is configured to adjust a sensitivity of the sensing bridge based, at least in part, on the difference; and an output signal path that is configured to generate an output signal that corresponds to an external magnetic field, the output signal being based, at least in part, … the output signal being indicative of one of: (i) a level of an electrical current flowing through a conductor that generates external magnetic field, or (ii) a speed or position of a target that generates the magnetic field” 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-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 14 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
24.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 14 is directed to a sensor, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
24.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 14 recites: “… process a common mode signal that is that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge … calculate a difference between the reference field signal and a nominal value corresponding to the reference field signal … a differential signal that is generated at least in part by the sensing bridge …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
24.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): independent claim 14 does 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/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to calibration of magnetic sensors, current sensors, as automobile, medical devices, all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, hydrocarbons, mineral exploration, research, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
24.3. 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 14 recites the additional element(s) “A sensor, comprising: a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements arranged in a sensing bridge, the sensing bridge being configured to output a first signal and a second signal; a reference magnetic field source that is configured to generate a reference magnetic field; a feedback loop … the sensing bridge, the feedback loop including: (i) circuitry that is configured to extract a reference field signal by demodulating and filtering the common mode signal, (ii) a subtraction circuit … and (ii) an adjustment circuit that is configured to adjust a sensitivity of the sensing bridge based, at least in part, on the difference; and an output signal path that is configured to generate an output signal that corresponds to an external magnetic field, the output signal being based, at least in part, … the output signal being indicative of one of: (i) a level of an electrical current flowing through a conductor that generates external magnetic field, or (ii) a speed or position of a target that generates the magnetic field”, 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), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record above and in the previous rejection). 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).
25. Claim 15 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the reference magnetic field is in-band with the external magnetic field”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
26. Claim 16 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the common mode signal is generated in accordance with the equation of: common_ mode signal = (signal_ 1 +signal_ 2)/2, where signal_ 1 is the first signal and signal_ 2 is the second signal”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
27. Claim 17 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the differential signal is generated in accordance with the equation of: differential _signal = signal_1-signal_ 2. where signal_ 1 is the first signal and signal_ 2 is the second signal”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
28. Claim 18 depends on claim 14, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the reference magnetic field source and the sensing bridge are so configured as to cause the reference magnetic field to elicit a common mode response in the sensing bridge without affecting a differential mode response of the sensing bridge”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry 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 routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Allowable Subject Matter
29. Claim(s) 10-12 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, set forth in this Office action, and if further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
30. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the objection:
31. Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein.
the sensing bridge includes a first magnetic field sensing element (201), a second magnetic field sensing element (202), a third magnetic field sensing element (203), and a fourth magnetic field sensing element (204), the first magnetic field sensing element (201) being coupled in series with the third magnetic field sensing element (203) between a positive terminal and a negative terminal of the sensing bridge, the second magnetic field sensing element (202) being coupled in series with the fourth magnetic field sensing element (204) between a positive terminal and a negative terminal of the sensing bridge, and the first magnetic field sensing element (201) and the third magnetic field sensing element (203) being coupled in parallel with the second magnetic field sensing element (202) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (204) between positive and negative supply terminals of the sensing bridge;
the first magnetic field sensing element (201) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (204) are configured to sense a first component of the external magnetic field that has a first direction (221, 224);
the second magnetic field sensing element (202) and the third magnetic field sensing element (203) are configured to sense a second component of the external magnetic field that has a second direction (222, 223), the second direction being substantially opposite to the first direction;
the first magnetic field sensing element (201) and the second magnetic field sensing element (202) are configured to sense a first component of the reference magnetic field that has a third direction (231, 232);
the third magnetic field sensing element (203) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (204) are configured to sense a second component of the reference magnetic field that has a fourth direction, the fourth direction (233, 234) being substantially opposite to the third direction (231, 232); and
the first magnetic field sensing element (201), the second magnetic field sensing element (202), the third magnetic field sensing element (203), and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (204) have respective axes of maximum sensitivity (211, 212, 213, and 214) that extend in a substantially the same direction.
32. Claim(s) 11 would be allowed if overcoming the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action above due to the fact that it is further limiting and depending on claim 10.
33. Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
the sensing bridge includes a first magnetic field sensing element (301), a second magnetic field sensing element (302), a third magnetic field sensing element (303), and a fourth magnetic field sensing element (304), the first magnetic field sensing element (301) being coupled in series with the third magnetic field sensing element (303) between a positive terminal and a negative terminal of the sensing bridge, the second magnetic field sensing element (302) being coupled in series with the fourth magnetic field sensing element (304) between a positive terminal and a negative terminal of the sensing bridge, and the first magnetic field sensing element (301) and the third magnetic field sensing element (303) being coupled in parallel with the second magnetic field sensing element (302) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (304) between positive and negative supply terminals of the sensing bridge;
the first magnetic field sensing element (301), the second magnetic field sensing element (302), the third magnetic field sensing element (303) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (304) are configured to sense a same component of the external magnetic field;
the first magnetic field sensing element (301) and the third magnetic field sensing element (303) are configured to sense a first component of the reference magnetic field that has a first direction (331, 333);
the second magnetic field sensing element (302) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (304) are configured to sense a second component of the reference magnetic field that has a second direction (332, 334), the second direction being substantially opposite to the first direction;
the first magnetic field sensing element (301) and the fourth magnetic field sensing element (304) have respective axes of maximum sensitivity (311, 314) that extend in a third direction; and
the second magnetic field sensing element (302) and the third magnetic field sensing element (303) have respective axes of maximum sensitivity (312, 313) that extend in a fourth direction, the fourth direction being substantially opposite to the third direction.
34. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. In other words, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, signal processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
Reasons for Allowability / Allowable Subject Matter
35. Claims 19 and 20 are allowed.
36. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
37. Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
at least two of the plurality of magnetic field sensing elements form a first leg of the sensing bridge and at least two other ones of the plurality of magnetic field sensing elements form a second leg of the sensing bridge;
the magnetic field sensing elements in the first leg have substantially opposite axes of maximum sensitivity;
the magnetic field sensing elements in the second leg have substantially opposite axes of maximum sensitivity;
the magnetic field sensing elements in the first leg are arranged to sense a first component of the reference magnetic field that has a first direction and the magnetic field sensing elements in the second leg are arranged to sense a second component of the reference magnetic field that has a second direction, the second direction being substantially opposite to the first direction; and
the magnetic field sensing elements in the first leg and the magnetic field sensing elements in the second leg are arranged to sense a same component of the external magnetic field.
38. Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
at least two of the plurality of magnetic field sensing elements form a first leg of the sensing bridge and at least two other ones of the plurality of magnetic field sensing elements form a second leg of the sensing bridge;
the magnetic field sensing elements in the first leg and the magnetic field sensing elements in the second leg have a substantially same pinning direction;
the magnetic field sensing elements in the first leg are arranged to sense respective components of the reference magnetic field that have substantially opposite directions;
the magnetic field sensing elements in the first leg are arranged to sense respective components of the external magnetic field that have substantially opposite directions;
the magnetic field sensing elements in the second leg are arranged to sense respective components of the reference magnetic field that have substantially opposite directions; and
the magnetic field sensing elements in the second leg are arranged to sense respective components of the external magnetic field that have substantially opposite directions.
39. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the independent claims. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, signal processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858