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 1-15 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 one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1, we recognize that the limitations. 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 “magnet installed on a moving body that is configured to move relatively in a first direction with respect to a fixed member, a first magnetic sensor and a second magnetic sensor installed on the fixed member, and arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance in the first direction, and configured to detect a magnetic flux density of a magnetic field
generated by the magnet, wherein each of the first magnetic sensor, and the second magnetic sensor is a Hall sensor configured to detect the magnetic flux density based on a voltage generated according to a Hall effect, an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the fixed member,” but said limitations are, recited at high level of generality, merely directed to insignificant data collection activity. The claims also recite “a calculation circuit,” but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines and do not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the position of a magnet. However, improved or new abstract ideas are nonetheless abstract idea and not eligible under the 101, and is therefore not an improvement of other technology under the practical application. In short, the claims do not recite sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. 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 “magnet installed on a moving body that is configured to move relatively in a first direction with respect to a fixed member, a first magnetic sensor and a second magnetic sensor installed on the fixed member, and arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance in the first direction, and configured to detect a magnetic flux density of a magnetic field generated by the magnet, wherein each of the first magnetic sensor, and the second magnetic sensor is a Hall sensor configured to detect the magnetic flux density based on a voltage generated according to a Hall effect, an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the fixed member,” but said limitations are, recited at high level of generality, merely directed to insignificant data collection activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “a calculation circuit,” but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to 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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaaf, US-PGPUB 2015/0081246 (hereinafter Schaaf) (cited by the Applicant)
Regarding Claim 1. Schaaf discloses a position calculation device configured to calculate a position of a magnet installed on a moving body that is configured to move relatively in a first direction with respect to a fixed member (Abstract, measuring relative position of a magnet; Paragraph [0052], fixed position, Paragraph [0013], Fig. 1), the position calculation device comprising: a first magnetic sensor and a second magnetic sensor installed on the fixed member, and arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance in the first direction, and configured to detect a magnetic flux density of a magnetic field generated by the magnet (Fig. 9, Paragraph [0065], plurality of magnetic sensors or probes fixedly arranged apart from each other by a predetermined distance); and a calculation circuit (Fig. 9, Evaluation and calculation unit 108) configured to calculate the position of the magnet (Paragraph [0025], position of the magnetic field source or magnet; Paragraph [0001])), using a first ratio between a first component in the first direction and a second component in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, of a first magnetic flux density detected by the first magnetic sensor, a second ratio between a third component in the first direction and a fourth component in the second direction, of a second magnetic flux density detected by the second magnetic sensor, and the predetermined distance (Paragraph [0031], Paragraph [0052], position of the magnet, based on magnetic sensors detecting at least two orthogonal magnetic field components, Bz and By, as quotient or ratio in Paragraphs [0029], quotient, Paragraph [0053], [0056], ratio).
Regarding Claim 2. Schaaf discloses two magnetic poles possessed by the magnet are arranged alongside one another in the first direction (Fig. 9, N/S); and the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet (Paragraph [0025], position of the magnetic field source or magnet; Paragraph [0001]), in accordance with whether or not the second component is greater than or equal to zero, whether or not the fourth component is greater than or equal to zero, and an order in which the two magnetic poles are arranged (note: the limitations “whether or not…” is interpreted as “regardless of whether something happens or not.” In other words, the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet regardless of whether any of the component satisfies the recited condition in regard to the zero) (nonetheless, Paragraph [0031], Paragraph [0057]-[0058], and Fig. 2 shows the magnitudes with respect to zero that are used to calculate the position of the magnet)
Regarding Claim 3. Schaaf discloses the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet (Paragraph [0025], position of the magnetic field source or magnet; Paragraph [0001]), in accordance with whether or not a product of the
second component and the fourth component is less than zero, and in a case that the product of the second component and the fourth component is greater than or equal to zero, the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet in accordance with whether or not a magnitude of the first magnetic flux density is greater than a magnitude of the second magnetic flux density (note: the limitations “whether or not…” is interpreted as “regardless of whether something happens or not.” In other words, the calculation circuit calculates the position of the magnet regardless of whether any of the component satisfies the recited condition in regard to the zero.) (nonetheless, Paragraph [0031], Paragraph [0057]-[0058], and Fig. 2 shows the magnitudes with respect to zero that are used to calculate the position of the magnet)
Regarding Claim 14. Schaaf discloses each of the first magnetic sensor and the second magnetic sensor is a Hall sensor configured to detect the magnetic flux density based on a voltage generated according to a Hall effect (Paragraph [0065], Hall probes)
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaaf, US-PGPUB 2015/0081246 in view of Hayashi et al., US-PGPUB 2006/0169334 (hereinafter Hayashi)
Regarding Claim 15. Schaaf does not disclose an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the fixed member.
Hayashi discloses an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the fixed member (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041])
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 Hayashi in Schaaf and have an attachment member configured to be installed in an attachment groove formed in the fixed member, so as to accurately determine the position of the magnet in a secured, fixed position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 4-13, the prior arts do not teach or suggest the specific limitations and mathematical equations claimed in the dependent claims 4-13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kadoguchi, US-PGPUB 2021/0148732
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