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 (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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention s directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to claims 1 and 9,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 1 is directed to method which is an apparatus and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
a) obtaining a first signal provided, and obtaining a second signal; b) amplifying and digitizing the first signal to obtain a first digital signal, and amplifying and digitizing the second signal to obtain a second digital signal; c) deriving a first input value or a first set of input values from said first and second digital signal, and applying this first input value or this first set of input values to the angle calculator, and obtaining a first angle value; d) deriving a second input value or a second set of input values from said first and second digital signal, and applying this second input value or this second set of input values to the angle calculator, and obtaining a second angle value from the angle calculator, wherein the first and second input value or the first set and the second set of input values have a first predefined mathematical relationship; e) performing a consistency test of the first angle value and the second angle value based on a second predefined mathematical relationship, associated with the first predefined relationship; f) detecting an error of the single angle calculator based on an outcome of the consistency test (hereinafter mentioned as “Mathematical Calculations”).
(These limitations can be performed by mental steps using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “first magnetic sensor element; second magnetic sensor element; and angle calculator” in the independent claim 1 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because relate to insignificant extra solution activity, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. first magnetic sensor element; second magnetic sensor element; and angle calculator such features were conventional, as best understood, for example Pub NO. US 2018/0188071 A1 discloses first magnetic sensor element; second magnetic sensor element; and angle calculator. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
9. In Claim 9, this claim recites the same claim features as already addressed in above Claim 1, and thus this claim also raises an issue under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons.
5. Claim 2 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. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the angle calculator is configured to estimate or to determine an arctangent function with one argument or an arctangent function with two arguments”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
6. Claim 3 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. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein step b) further comprises: storing the first digital signal in a first data register, and storing the second digital signal in a second data register; and wherein the first input value or the first set of input values of step c), and the second input value or the second set of input values of step d) are derived from the same numerical values as those stored in the first and second data register”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
7. Claim 4 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. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the angle calculator comprises a divider and an arctangent calculator; and wherein step c) comprises: calculating the first input value by dividing the first digital signal by the second digital signal, and providing the first input value to the arctangent calculator for calculating the first angle value; and wherein step d) comprises: calculating the second input value by dividing the second digital signal by the first digital signal, and providing the second input value to the arctangent calculator for calculating the second angle value; and wherein step e) comprises: testing whether a sum of the first angle value and the second angle value is substantially equal to a first or a second predefined constant within a predefined tolerance margin”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
8. Claim 5 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. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein step e) comprises: testing if said sum is substantially equal to +90° in case a sign of the first digital sensor value and a sign of the second digital sensor value are equal; and testing if said sum is substantially equal to -90° in case the sign of the first digital sensor value and the sign of the second digital sensor value are different”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
10. Claim 6 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. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the angle calculator comprises a divider and an arctangent calculator; and wherein step c) comprises: calculating the first input value IN1 by dividing the first digital signal by the second digital signal, and providing the first input value IN1 to the arctangent calculator for calculating the first angle value (a); and wherein the method further comprises a step of testing whether an absolute value of the first input value IN1 is smaller than 1.0, and if an outcome of this test is false, skipping steps d) to step f), and if the outcome of this test is true, calculating in step d) the second input value IN2 in accordance with the formula 1N2=2*IN1/(1-1N1*IN1), and testing in step e) whether the first angle value is substantially equal to the second angle value divided by 2.0”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
11. Claim 7 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. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 7 includes elements “wherein the angle calculator comprises a divider and an arctangent calculator; and wherein step c) comprises: calculating the first input value IN1 by dividing the first digital signal by the second digital signal, and providing the first input value IN1 to the arctangent calculator for calculating the first angle value; and wherein step d) comprises: calculating the second input value IN2 in accordance with the formula IN2= (sqrt(IN1*IN1+1)-1)/IN1, and testing in step e) whether the first angle value is substantially equal to the second angle value” which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
12. Claim 8 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. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 8 includes elements “wherein the angle calculator comprises a divider and an arctangent calculator; and wherein step c) comprises: calculating the first input value IN1 as N times the first digital signal, or as N times the second digital signal, or as N times the first digital signal divided by the second digital signal, and providing the first input value IN1 to the arctangent calculator for calculating the first angle value, wherein N is a predefined number; and wherein step d) comprises: calculating the second input value IN2 in accordance with the formula 1N2= (sqrt(N*N*1N1*IN1+1)-1)/ (N*1N1), and testing in step e) whether the first angle value is substantially equal to 2.0 times the second angle value” which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 10 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. Claim 10 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 10 includes elements “wherein the first group comprises at least four horizontal Hall elements located on a virtual circle having a centre, and wherein the second group comprises at least two magnetic sensor elements arranged substantially at the centre of said virtual circle; and wherein the angle calculator comprises a divider and an arctangent calculator; and wherein step c) comprises: calculating the first input value by dividing the first digital signal by the second digital signal, and providing the first input value to the arctangent calculator for calculating the first angle value; and wherein step d) comprises: calculating the second input value by dividing the third digital signal by the fourth digital signal, and providing the second input value to the arctangent calculator for calculating the second angle value; and wherein step g) comprises: testing if the sum of the first angle value and said predefined angular offset is substantially equal to the second angle value, or wherein step g) comprises: testing if the sum of the first angle and the second angle value is substantially equal to a first or a second predefined constant” which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 11 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. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 11 includes elements “wherein step g) comprises: testing if the sum of the first angle and the second angle value minus the predefined angular offset is substantially equal to +900 or substantially equal to -90°” which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 12 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. Claim 12 depends on claim 9, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 12 includes additional elements “one or more of the following features: i) wherein the second group of sensor elements comprises two vertical Hall elements oriented with their axis of maximum sensitivity in orthogonal directions; ii) wherein the first group of sensor elements comprises four horizontal Hall elements arranged near an edge of an integrated magnetic concentrator (IMC), angularly spaced apart by multiples of 90°; iii) wherein the first group of sensor elements comprises four horizontal Hall elements arranged on the virtual circle, and spaced apart by multiples of 900; iv) wherein the predefined angular offset is equal to 00 or is equal to 900 or is equal to 45°” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because US 2012/0074972 A1 discloses one or more of the following features: i) wherein the second group of sensor elements comprises two vertical Hall elements oriented with their axis of maximum sensitivity in orthogonal directions; ii) wherein the first group of sensor elements comprises four horizontal Hall elements arranged near an edge of an integrated magnetic concentrator (IMC), angularly spaced apart by multiples of 90°; iii) wherein the first group of sensor elements comprises four horizontal Hall elements arranged on the virtual circle, and spaced apart by multiples of 900; iv) wherein the predefined angular offset is equal to 00 or is equal to 900 or is equal to 45°.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by REIDL et al. (Pub NO. US 2018/0188071 A1; hereinafter Reidl).
Regarding Claim 1, Reidl teaches a method of testing an angle calculator implemented in a magnetic position sensor device that comprises at least a first and a second magnetic sensor element and a single angle calculator (See [0022]-[0062]), the method comprising the steps of:
a) obtaining a first signal provided by at least the first magnetic sensor element (obtaining signal from first magnetic sensor element 108 in Fig. 1; See [0028]), and obtaining a second signal provided by at least the second magnetic sensor element (obtaining second signal from second magnetic sensor element 110 in Fig. 1; See [0028]);
b) amplifying and digitizing the first signal to obtain a first digital signal, and amplifying and digitizing the second signal to obtain a second digital signal (See [0033], [0049]);
c) deriving a first input value or a first set of input values from said first and second digital signal (See [0031]-[0062]), and applying this first input value or this first set of input values to the angle calculator, and obtaining a first angle value from the angle calculator (See [0026]-[0028], [0045]);
d) deriving a second input value or a second set of input values from said first and second digital signal (See [0031]-[0062]), and applying this second input value or this second set of input values to the angle calculator, and obtaining a second angle value from the angle calculator (See [0026]-[0028], [0045]), wherein the first and second input value or the first set and the second set of input values have a first predefined mathematical relationship (mechanical angle is predefined mathematical value in Fig. 9; See [0060]-[0062]);
e) performing a consistency test of the first angle value and the second angle value based on a second predefined mathematical relationship (PWM output in fig. 9 is second predefined mathematical value; See [0045]-[0062]), associated with the first predefined relationship (PWM is related to Mechanical angle in Fig. 9);
f) detecting an error of the single angle calculator based on an outcome of the consistency test (See [0052]-[0053], [0060]).
Regarding Claim 2, Reidl teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the angle calculator is configured to estimate or to determine an arctangent function with one argument (See [0050], [0052]) or an arctangent function with two arguments.
Regarding Claim 3, Reidl teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein step b) further comprises: storing the first digital signal in a first data register, and storing the second digital signal in a second data register (See [0017]-[0018]); and wherein the first input value or the first set of input values of step c) (See [0017]-[0018]), and the second input value or the second set of input values of step d) are derived from the same numerical values as those stored in the first and second data register (See [0017]-[0018]).
Regarding Claim 13, Reidl teaches a magnetic sensor device comprising: a single angle calculator (See [0028]); at least two magnetic sensor elements (108, 110 in Fig. 1; See [0028]) or at least two groups of magnetic sensor elements; a processing circuit (112, 114 in fig. 1; See [0023]) configured for performing a method according to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reidl in view of KIM et al. (Pub ON. US 2022/0289267 A1; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding Claim 14, Reidl teaches a magnetic position sensor system comprising: a magnetic sensor device (108, 110 in Fig. 1; See [0028]) according to claim 13;
Reidl is silent about a permanent magnet movably mounted relative to the sensor device.
Kim teaches regarding angle calculation a permanent magnet movably mounted relative to the sensor device (See [0008]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Reidl by using a permanent magnet movably mounted relative to the sensor device, as taught by Kim in order to detect position (Kim; abstract).
Note: Claims 4-8 and 9-12 are not rejected by any prior arts but stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rasboring et al. (Pub NO. US 2012/0074972 A1) discloses Sensor Self-Diagnostics Using Multiple Signal Paths.
AUSSERLECHNER et al. (Pub NO. US 2014/0210458 A1) discloses Systems and Methods for Offset Reduction.
Keefover et al. (Pub NO. US 2005/0077893 A1) discloses Single Sensing Multiple Output.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights