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 .
This communication is in response to amendment received on 07/07/2026.
Applicant has added new claims 28 – 30.
Claims 1 – 30 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s main argument that none of these descriptions teaches or suggests placing sensor elements on a second side of the die opposing the first side. Applicant in Fig. 2 discloses sensor elements (214, on the other side of the die opposing the first side) on a second side of the die (202) opposing the first side (212, on one side of the die), [0026]. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument because Latham clearly discloses sensor elements (808b, on the other side of the die opposing the first side) on a second side of the die opposing the first side (808a, on one side of the die), (col. 5, lines 25 - 302).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 – 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Latham et al. (10,132,879).
As to claim 20, Latham et al. (hereinafter Latham) discloses a gain equalization for multiple axis magnetic field sensing comprising a semiconductor die (Col. 5, lines 26 - 36); a first magnetic field sensor unit (808a) having a first sensor output (812a) on a first side of the semiconductor die; a second magnet field sensor unit (808b) having a second sensor output (812b) on a second side of the semiconductor die opposing the first side; one or more coils (810) having one or more footprints overlapping the first (808a) and second (808b) magnetic field sensor units; and a processing circuit (814, 816, 804) having first and second inputs , a current terminal (830), and a processing output (806, 842), the first sensor input coupled to the first sensor output, (812a) the second sensor input coupled to the second sensor output (812b), and the current terminal (830) coupled to the one or more coils (810), (Fig. 8), (Col. 19, line 54 – Col. 20, line 60).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 21, Latham discloses that the one or more coils includes: a first coil having a first footprint that overlaps the first magnetic field sensor unit (808a); and a second coil having a second footprint that overlaps the second magnetic field sensor unit (808b), wherein the first coil and the second coil are connected in series (Fig. 8).
As to claim 22, Latham discloses that the one or more coils (810) overlap at least a portion of the first magnetic field sensor unit (808a) or the second magnetic field sensor unit (808b).
As to claim 23, Latham discloses that the one or more coils (810) surrounds one or more core regions, and the first magnetic field sensor unit (808a) and the second magnetic field sensor unit (808b) overlap the one or more core regions (Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 1 – 19 and 26, the prior art fails to show that the first magnetic field sensor unit is configurable to provide a first sensor signal responsive to at least one or more first magnetic fields, wherein the second magnetic field sensor unit is configurable to provide a second sensor signal responsive to at least the one or more first magnetic fields; and wherein the processing circuit is configurable to: determine a first measurement of the one or more first magnetic fields from the first sensor signal; determine a second measurement of the one or more first magnetic fields from the second sensor signal; determine one or more magnitudes of the one or more first magnetic fields from a current through the one or more coils via the current terminal: and determine one or more gains responsive to determining the first and second measurements and the one or more magnitudes. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
Claims 28 - 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 28 - 30, the prior art fails to show that the first magnetic field sensor is configurable to provide the first sensor signal responsive to the one or more first magnetic fields and a second magnetic field, and the second magnetic field sensor is configurable to provide the second sensor signal responsive to one or more first magnetic fields and a third magnetic field; and wherein the processing circuit is configurable to: determine a first measurement of the one or more first magnetic fields from the first sensor signal; determine a second measurement of the one or more first magnetic fields from the second sensor signal; determine one or more magnitudes of the one or more first magnetic fields from the current; and determine the one or more gains responsive to determining the first and second measurements and the one or more magnitudes. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 24 – 25 and 27, the prior art fails to show receiving a first sensor signal from the first magnetic field sensor unit, the first sensor signal representing one or more calibration magnetic fields provided by the one or more coils responsive to the calibration current and a second magnetic field; receiving a second sensor signal from the second magnetic field sensor unit, the second sensor signal representing the one or more calibration magnetic fields and a third magnetic field; determining a first measurement of the one or more calibration magnetic fields and a second measurement of the second magnetic field from the first sensor signal based on different frequency characteristics of the first and second measurements; determining a third measurement of the one or more calibration magnetic fields and a fourth measurement of the third magnetic field from the second sensor signal based on different frequency characteristics of the third and fourth measurements; and providing a signal representing a measurement result responsive to determining the first, second, third, and fourth measurements. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
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 REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lee Rodak can be reached at 5712705628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REENA AURORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights