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 .
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 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 significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“An angle detection method for detecting a mechanical angle of a rotation shaft, the angle detection method comprising: acquiring signals output from three magnetic sensors that detect a change in magnetic flux due to rotation of the rotation shaft as sensor signals, the three sensor signals having a phase difference of 120° in an electrical angle; extracting an intersection point at which two sensor signals among the three sensor signals intersect with each other and a zero-cross point at which each of the three sensor signals intersects with a reference signal level over one mechanical angle cycle; generating a linear function θ(Δx) representing a straight line connecting the intersection point and the zero-cross point adjacent to each other, where Δx is a length from a start point of the straight line to an any point on the straight line, and θ is a mechanical angle corresponding to an any point on the straight line; searching for, as a maximum error point, a point at which an error between a mechanical angle θ calculated based on the linear function θ(Δx) and a mechanical angle θe acquired from an encoder installed on the rotation shaft is a maximum value among points on the straight line, and acquiring a length from a start point of the straight line to the maximum error point as Δx1; calculating a first curve based on an origin, a vertex, and a first control point among points in a two-axis coordinate system with the Δx as a horizontal axis and the error as a vertical axis, where the origin is a point at which the Δx and the error are zero, the vertex is a point at which the Δx is the Δx1 and the error is the maximum value, and the first control point is a point at which the Δx is a value between zero and Δx1 and the error is the maximum value; correcting, based on the first curve, a mechanical angle θ calculated based on the linear function θ(Δx) for a point included between a start point of the straight line and the maximum error point among a plurality of points on the straight line; obtaining a maximum error between a mechanical angle θ corrected in the correcting and a mechanical angle θe as a first maximum error; performing returning to the calculating a predetermined number of times after changing a value of Δx of the first control point in a direction in which the first maximum error decreases; calculating a second curve based on the vertex, an end point, and a second control point among points in the two-axis coordinate system, where the end point is a point at which the Δx corresponds to a maximum length Δxm of the straight line and the error is zero, and the second control point is a point at which the Δx is a value between Δx1 and Δxm and the error is the maximum value; correcting, based on the second curve, a mechanical angle θ calculated based on the linear function θ(Δx) for a point included between an end point of the straight line and the maximum error point among a plurality of points on the straight line; obtaining a maximum error between a mechanical angle θ corrected in the correcting and the mechanical angle θe as a second maximum error; performing returning to the calculating a predetermined number of times after changing the value of Δx of the second control point in a direction in which the second maximum error decreases; storing a value of Δx of the first control point at which the first maximum error is minimized and a value of Δx of the second control point at which the second maximum error is minimized as learning values; and correcting the mechanical angle θ based on the learning values.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 5.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the above claims that recites a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: An angle detection method for detecting a mechanical angle of a rotation shaft, the angle detection method comprising: acquiring signals output from three magnetic sensors that detect a change in magnetic flux due to rotation of the rotation shaft as sensor signals, the three sensor signals having a phase difference of 120° in an electrical angle;
In Claim 5: An angle detection device that detects a mechanical angle of a rotation shaft, the angle detection device comprising: three magnetic sensors configured to detect a change in magnetic flux due to rotation of the rotation shaft; and a signal processing unit configured to process signals output from the three magnetic sensors, wherein the signal processing unit is configured to execute: acquiring signals output from three sensor signals as sensor signals, the three sensor signals having a phase difference of 120° in an electrical angle.
The additional elements in the preambles are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claims such as acquiring signals output from three magnetic sensors that detect a change in magnetic flux due to rotation of the rotation shaft as sensor signals, the three sensor signals having a phase difference of 120° in an electrical angle represent insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the (mental) analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Yamada, Fukumura, Hee, Tomohiko, Masaki).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4 and 6-8 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible without meaningful additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or additional elements that qualify for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
New claims 9-14 and 16-18 recite additional elements that are not meaningful to indicate a practical application. However, in Claim 15, the limitation of controlling a rotational position of a motor based on the corrected mechanical angle is a meaningful limitation that demonstrates a practical application/eligibility of the claim.
Closest Prior Art
Tomohiro Fukumura et al. (WO 2016104378) discloses an angle detection method for detecting a mechanical angle of a rotation shaft, the angle detection method comprising: acquiring signals output from three magnetic sensors that detect a change in magnetic flux due to rotation of the rotation shaft as sensor signals, the three sensor signals having a phase difference of 120° in an electrical angle; (A position estimation method including: a signal detection procedure in which N (where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3) sensors each detect a magnetic field corresponding to the position of a movable element and output a detection signal that is an electric signal and the phases of the detection signals are each offset by an angle arrived at by dividing 360° by N, Abstract; Conventionally, a position detection device for detecting the rotational position of the rotor of the motor with a magnetic sensor has been proposed … The phase is shifted by an angle obtained by dividing 360 degrees by N. When the number of such sensors is N (N is an integer of 3 or more), a magnetic field formed by a plurality of magnetic poles is detected, and a detection signal having a magnitude corresponding to the detected magnetic field strength. Is output. The N sensors are arranged such that the phases of the N detection signals are shifted by an angle of 360 degrees, p.2).
KAMAYA TOMOHIKO (JP 2015171223) discloses a phase detector in which detection accuracy of rotational phase can be enhanced while suppressing additional cost, compared with prior art. A phase detector includes an intersection phase detection circuit 10 for comparing each pair of signals of sensor signals U1, V1, W1 with each other, and generating and outputting intersection phase detection signals UV, VW, WU indicating the phase at the intersection of each pair of signals. In-phase level is adjusted for each of the sensor processing signals U1, V1, and W1 based on the detection result of the zero-crossing phase detection circuit 150.
SUK JUNG HEE et al. (KR 20130068050) discloses the first Hall sensor 20, the second Hall sensor 21, and the third Hall sensor 22 are disposed at equal intervals on the stator of the motor. In this embodiment, three Hall sensors are arranged at 120 degree intervals. When a magnetic field is applied to the Hall sensor in a vertical direction, an electric potential perpendicular to the magnetic field direction is generated. Accordingly, as the rotor 10 rotates, the first hall sensor 20, the second hall sensor 21, and the third hall sensor 22 output a square wave pulse signal having a phase difference of 60 degrees.
HIROYUKI YAMADA et al. (WO 2016158186) discloses three magnetic sensors S are respectively disposed between three of the three groups. Therefore, since the mechanical angle between the three magnetic sensors S is 120 degrees, the floating posture of the rotating impeller 10 can be easily calculated. The timing of flowing current through the nine coils 20 is calculated based on the output signal of any one of the three magnetic sensors S. The rotation angle estimator 48 shown in FIG. 19 includes a multiplication processing unit and uses at least one output signal of the magnetic sensor, for example, with reference to the zero cross position of the magnetic sensor output signal.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-18 are distinguished over prior art of records for the following reasons:
With regards to Claim 1 and 5, the claims differ from the closest prior art, Fukumura, Tomohiko, Hee, and Yamada, either singularly or in combination, because they fail to anticipate or render obvious generating a linear function θ(Δx) representing a straight line connecting the intersection point and the zero-cross point adjacent to each other, where Δx is a length from a start point of the straight line to an any point on the straight line, and θ is a mechanical angle corresponding to an any point on the straight line; searching for, as a maximum error point, a point at which an error between a mechanical angle θ calculated based on the linear function θ(Δx) and a mechanical angle θe acquired from an encoder installed on the rotation shaft is a maximum value among points on the straight line, and acquiring a length from a start point of the straight line to the maximum error point as Δx1; calculating a first curve based on an origin, a vertex, and a first control point among points in a two-axis coordinate system with the Δx as a horizontal axis and the error as a vertical axis, where the origin is a point at which the Δx and the error are zero, the vertex is a point at which the Δx is the Δx1 and the error is the maximum value, and the first control point is a point at which the Δx is a value between zero and Δx1 and the error is the maximum value; correcting, based on the first curve, a mechanical angle θ calculated based on the linear function θ(Δx) for a point included between a start point of the straight line and the maximum error point among a plurality of points on the straight line; obtaining a maximum error between a mechanical angle θ corrected in the correcting and a mechanical angle θe as a first maximum error; performing returning to the calculating a predetermined number of times after changing a value of Δx of the first control point in a direction in which the first maximum error decreases; calculating a second curve based on the vertex, an end point, and a second control point among points in the two-axis coordinate system, where the end point is a point at which the Δx corresponds to a maximum length Δxm of the straight line and the error is zero, and the second control point is a point at which the Δx is a value between Δx1 and Δxm and the error is the maximum value; correcting, based on the second curve, a mechanical angle θ calculated based on the linear function θ(Δx) for a point included between an end point of the straight line and the maximum error point among a plurality of points on the straight line; obtaining a maximum error between a mechanical angle θ corrected in the correcting and the mechanical angle θe as a second maximum error; performing returning to the calculating a predetermined number of times after changing the value of Δx of the second control point in a direction in which the second maximum error decreases; storing a value of Δx of the first control point at which the first maximum error is minimized and a value of Δx of the second control point at which the second maximum error is minimized as learning values; and correcting the mechanical angle θ based on the learning values.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (pp. 8-11): Claim 1 Is Analogous to the Eligible Claims in USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 4 (Global Positioning System) …Both Claim 1 and Example 4 Acquire Data From Physical Sensors That Detect Physical Phenomena…Both Claim 1 and Example 4 Apply Mathematical Operations to Acquired Sensor Data to Calculate a Physical Quantity…Both Claim 1 and Example 4 Use Mathematical Results to Improve the Accuracy of a Physical Measurement…Both Claim 1 and Example 4 Produce an Improved Output Tied to a Physical System…
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the similarity arguments. The eligibility in Example 4 is based on Step 2B: (a recited combination of additional elements correspond to significantly more”). However, the claims in the instant application (except Claim 15) do not recite such combination of additional elements. The additional elements in the instant application are limited to mere data gathering that is well understood/conventional in the art (see further response to Step 2B argument).
The claims are similar to Flook.
The Applicant argues (pp.11-12): The Claims Integrate the Alleged Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application by Improving the Technology of Rotational Position Determination…The improvement is not merely an improvement to the abstract idea but an improvement to the technology of rotational position determination.
The improvement in angle detection algorithm of a rotating shaft is not a qualified improvement and it does not improve the technology as rotating position determination belongs to the abstract idea. As discussed in the Specification [0001]: “The present invention relates to an angle detection method …”.
The Applicant argues (p.13): The Sensor Signal Acquisition Is Not Mere Data Gathering.
The argument is centered on similarity to Example 4 which the Examiner does not find persuasive as discussed above. The data collected by magnetic sensors are “a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception” as discussed in MPEP.
The Applicant argues (pp.13-14):The Step 2B Analysis of the Examiner Lacks Required Evidentiary Support … Even if the claims were found to be directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, the Step 2B analysis is deficient. The Examiner has alleged that the additional elements are "well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record (Yamada, Fukumura, Hee,Tomohiko, Masaki)." However, this conclusory statement fails to satisfy the evidentiary requirements established by Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018)…
The Examiner disagrees as references of record disclose the additional elements in claims. For example, Masaki, Yamada, Fukumura, Islam, etc. disclose collecting angle information output from the three magnetic sensors shifted by 120 degrees.
With regards to new (dependent) claims, for example,
Yamada and Hee discloses “the rotation shaft is a rotor shaft of a motor, and the three magnetic sensors detect a change in magnetic flux generated by a sensor magnet attached to the rotor shaft and rotating in synchronization with the rotor shaft” (Claims 9, 12);
Fukumura, Hee, and Tomohiko discloses controlling rotational potion of a motor using mechanical angle (Claim 16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KUWAHARA MASAKI (WO 2018016145) discloses a rotation angle detector that comprises at least one magnetic sensor group that comprises three magnetic sensors (3) that are disposed along the circumferential direction of the multipolar magnet ring (2) and output angle information having electrical angle phases separated by 120° phase difference intervals in accordance with the rotation of the multipolar magnet ring (2), and a calculation unit (4) for calculating the rotation angle of the multipolar magnet ring (2) on the basis of the angle information output from the three magnetic sensors (3) that compose a single magnetic sensor group.
Mohammad S. Islam (US 20060087316) discloses a position extraction algorithm may be employed using the output from the sensors to detect the position of the rotor shaft.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights