DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two-step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determine a first process to correct the signal has not been run for the first temperature, based on a determination that the first process has not been run for the first temperature, running the first process to correct the signal based on the first temperature, and based on the first process and the first temperature, calculate a first value to correct the signal received from the second sensor,” are abstract ideas, as they involve mental process. Additionally, the limitation “wherein the additional value is determined using at least one of a linear formula or a polynomial formula,” are abstract ideas, as they involve usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “an exciter, a first sensor configured to detect a first temperature of an environment, a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter, and a controller (or processor) configured to detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor,” are recited, but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any sensors or controller (processor), and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improved abstract idea of correcting the values of the sensor data. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract idea, and not eligible. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “an exciter, a first sensor configured to detect a first temperature of an environment, a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter, and a controller (or processor) configured to detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor,” are recited, but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, and recitation of general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeken et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0285802 (hereinafter Loeken)
Regarding Claims 1, 13. Loeken discloses an encoder (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0011], rotary encoder), comprising:
an exciter (Fig. 1, exciter unit 11, Paragraph [0034]);
a first sensor configured to detect a first temperature of an environment (Paragraph [0009], sensor temperature; Paragraph [0015], first sensor temperature corresponds to the room temperature; Paragraph [0040]);
a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter (Paragraph [0009], position of the machine shaft connected to the exciter; Paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, 18, Hall sensor; Paragraph [0008], [0016], [0018], measuring positions); and a controller configured to (Fig. 1, 19, microcontroller):
detect the first temperature of the environment using the first sensor (Paragraph [0016], first temperature); determine a first process to correct the signal has not been run for the first temperature, based on a determination that the first process has not been run for the first temperature, running the first process to correct the signal based on the first temperature (Paragraphs [0005]-[0006], required calibration; Paragraph [0017], one example of the first process is start of the required calibration, which involve changing the temperature by local heating or cooling. Although Loeken does not explicitly disclose said determination, it would have been obvious to do so, to confirm and to perform the require calibration (that has not been done previously), which begins with the process of changing the temperature. Another example of the first process is, prerequisite condition of once the first sensor temperature has been captured), and based on the first process and the first temperature, calculate a first value to correct the signal received from the second sensor (Paragraphs [0018]-[0020], deviation value between the captured second position measured value at changed temperature and a predefined desired position (used for correction), where the predefined position is the captured first position measured value at the first temperature, Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claims 2, 14. Loeken discloses the first value to correct the signal of the encoder comprises at least one of a first correction value to correct an offset of the signal, a second correction value to correct a gain of the signal, or a third correction value to correct a phase of the signal (Paragraph [0020], output encoder signal corrected by determined deviation or correction value)
Regarding Claim 3. Loeken discloses the first process to correct the signal of the encoder occurs as the encoder is operating (Paragraph [0027], during operation)
Regarding Claim 4. Loeken discloses the controller further configured to after calculating the first value, add the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associate the first value with the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures; [0037])
Regarding Claim 5. Loeken discloses using the look-up table to correct the signal received from the first sensor based on a detection of a second temperature of the environment, wherein using the look-up table comprises: looking up the second temperature of the environment in the look up table to determine a second value to correct the signal received from the second sensor; and using the second value from the look up table to correct the signal based on the second temperature (Paragraph [0022], any measured values for any temperature can be corrected based on the correction table)
Regarding Claim 6. Loeken discloses in response to a first determination that a second value to correct the signal is not stored in the look-up table for the second temperature and in response to a second determination that a second process to correct the signal cannot be run for the second temperature, the controller is further configured to calculate the second value associated with the second temperature, wherein the second value is calculated using a third value to correct the signal associated with a third temperature for which a corresponding process to correct the signal of the encoder has been run (Paragraph [0022], extrapolation or interpolation)
Regarding Claim 8. Loeken discloses determining whether the first process has been run for the first temperature detected, further comprises determining whether the first temperature detected is within a predetermined range of temperatures that have not been corrected and, based on a determination that the first process has not been run for the predetermined range of temperatures, running the first process based on the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0022], first process is extrapolation or interpolation, for those in positioned measured values between the temperature ranges)
Regarding Claim 9. Loeken discloses after calculating the first value, add the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associate the first value with the first temperature detected; and determine an additional value for another temperature within the predetermined range based on the first value associated with the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures; [0037])
Regarding Claim 11. Loeken discloses the look-up table is stored on a memory of the encoder (Paragraphs [0025], [0028], stored)
Regarding Claim 12. Loeken discloses determining whether the encoder is being used (Paragraph [0027], during operation), and based on a determination that the encoder is being used, delay or stop the first process to correct the signal of the encoder (Paragraph [0017], stopping the machine shaft)
Regarding Claim 15. Loeken discloses after calculating the first value, adding the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associating the first value with the first temperature detected, and using the look-up table to correct the signal received from the second sensor based on a detection of a second temperature of the environment (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures; [0037])
Regarding Claim 16. Loeken discloses in response to a first determination that a second value is not stored in the look-up table for the second temperature and in response to a second determination that a second process to correct the signal cannot be run for the second temperature, calculating a second value associated with the second temperature, wherein the second value is calculated using a third value associated with a third temperature for which a corresponding process to correct the signal of the encoder has been run (Paragraph [0022], extrapolation or interpolation, for those expected values between the temperature ranges, including in the situations where such temperature value is not or cannot be obtained)
Regarding Claim 18. Loeken discloses determining whether the first process has been run for the first temperature detected, further comprises determining whether the first temperature detected is within a predetermined range of temperatures that have not been corrected and, based on a determination that the first process has not been run for the predetermined range of temperatures, running the first process based on the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0022], first process is extrapolation or interpolation, for those in positioned measured values between the temperature ranges)
Regarding Claim 19. Loeken discloses after calculating the first value, adding the first value to a look-up table for the encoder and associating the first value with the first temperature detected, and determining an additional value to correct the signal for another temperature within the predetermined range based on the first value associated with the first temperature detected (Paragraph [0025], storing the correction value in the correction table; Paragraph [0022] correction table with temperatures and extrapolation or interpolation to derive additional correction values; [0037])
Regarding Claim 20. Loeken discloses an encoder (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0011], rotary encoder), comprising:
an exciter (Paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, exciter unit 11);
a first sensor configured to detect a temperature of an environment (Paragraph [0009], sensor temperature; Paragraph [0015], first sensor temperature corresponds to the room temperature; Paragraph [0040]);
a second sensor configured to detect a position associated with the exciter and generate a signal based on the position associated with the exciter (Paragraph [0034], Fig. 1, 18, Hall sensor; Paragraph [0008], [0016], [0018], measuring positions; Paragraphs [0005]-[0006], required calibration); and a processor configured to: detect the temperature of the environment using the first sensor (Paragraph [0016], first temperature), determine the signal of the encoder has not been corrected for the temperature detected, and based on a determination that signal has not been corrected for the temperature detected (Paragraph [0005]-[0006], required calibration; Paragraph [0017], begin temperature change by heating or cooling, for the purpose of calibration. Although Loeken does not explicitly disclose said determination, it would have been obvious to do so, to confirm and to perform the required calibration (which has not been done previously), correct the signal for the temperature detected (Paragraphs [0018]-[0020], deviation value between the captured second position measured value at changed temperature and a predefined desired position (used for correction), where the predefined position is the captured first position measured value at the first temperature, Paragraph [0023])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loeken et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0285802 in view of Jonas et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0157861 (hereinafter Jonas)
Regarding Claim 7, 10 and 17. Loeken discloses the second value (claim 10: additional value) is calculated using interpolation or extrapolation using the third value associated with the third temperature (Paragraph [0022]).
Loeken does not disclose the second value (additional value) is calculated using linear formula using the third value associated with the third temperature.
Jonas discloses encoder (Fig. 1) to perform measurement, which includes using calculating the correction values may be determined by a linear interpolation or other polynomial functions for interpolation between the temperature values (Paragraphs [0089]-[0090])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Jonas in Loeken and calculate the second value (additional value) using linear formula using the third value associated with the third temperature, with accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Agrawal et al., US Pat No. 9,423,281
Hayashi, US-PGPUB 2020/0096365 discloses delaying
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857