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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claims 1, recites “determining interim rotation matrices for rotation of the first digital sensor values; and determine a calibration matrix based on the interim rotation matrices.” The plain meaning of these limitations would require mathematical calculations involving linear algebra (e.g. matrix rotations and multiplication) as discussed in eqns. 2-6 and [0039]-[0056] of the pending specification. Therefore, these limitations are directed toward mathematical concepts such as formulas, equations or calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). See example 47, claim 2 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Claim 1 further recites generic magnetic sensors for performing routine data collection, and analog-to-digital converter and a digital circuit which amount to generic/conventional computer components. Therefore, the additional limitations amount well-understood, routine, conventional activity by to merely reciting insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) performed using generic sensors and generic/conventional signal processing components which fail to tie the claims to a particular machine or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to magnetic sensors (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): The magnetic sensors, ADC, and digital circuit are well-understood, routine, and conventional components in the field used to perform insignificant extra-solution activity such as routine data gathering and signal processing using general-purpose computer components which do not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-9 are further directed to the judicial exception by reciting additional details of the calculations including steps like multiplying, correcting, and further routine data gathering which fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “apply a rotation correction to digital sensor values from the ADC to determine rotation-corrected sensor values determine an angle based on the rotation-corrected sensor values.” These limitations are directed to a judicial exception for similar reasons as outlined for claim 1 above. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations reciting magnetic sensors, ADC, and digital circuit are well-understood, routine, and conventional components in the field used to perform insignificant extra-solution activity such as routine data gathering and signal processing using general-purpose computer components which do not add significantly more than the judicial exception, for similar reasons as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 11-14 are further directed to the judicial exception by reciting additional details of the calculations including steps of multiplying, correcting, and further routine data gathering which fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites a method, comprising “determining interim rotation matrices for rotation of the sensor values; and determining a calibration matrix based on the interim rotation matrices.” These limitations are directed to a judicial exception for similar reasons as outlined for claim 1 above. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation “obtaining values from magnetic sensors” amounts to routine data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 16 recites, “obtaining values from the magnetic sensors includes obtaining values from first, second, and third orthogonally-arranged magnetic sensors”, which amounts to routine data gathering using routine, conventional, and well-known components which fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 is further directed to the judicial exception by reciting additional details of the calculations including multiplying matrices which fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18 recites, “A method, comprising: applying a rotation correction to values from magnetic sensors to determine rotation-corrected sensor values; and determining an angle based on the rotation-corrected sensor values.” All limitations in the body of the claim are directed to a judicial exception of mathematical calculations as the plain meaning of these limitations would require mathematical calculations involving linear algebra (e.g. matrix rotations and multiplication) as discussed in eqns. 2-6 and [0039]-[0056] of the pending specification. Therefore, these limitations are directed toward mathematical concepts such as formulas, equations or calculations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). See example 47, claim 2 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The claim recites no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception and, therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 19 and 20 are further directed toward the judicial exception and fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 recites, “determining interim rotation matrices for rotation of the first values; determining a calibration matrix based on the interim rotation matrices; applying the calibration matrix to second values from the magnetic sensors to determine rotation-corrected sensor values; and determining an angle based on the rotation-corrected sensor values.” These limitations are directed to a judicial exception for similar reasons as outlined for claim 1 above. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitation “obtaining first values from magnetic sensors” amounts to routine data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 22 recites limitation directed toward additional routine data gathering which fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
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) 1-4, 7-8, 10-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0037205 (Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an integrated circuit (IC) (sensor device 1100 of Fig. 11), comprising:
a first magnetic sensor; a second magnetic sensor; a third magnetic sensor (a 3D Hall sensor comprises three orthogonal Hall elements 20A, 20B, 20C; see Fig. 11; see [0063]);
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) having an input coupled to the first, second, and third magnetic sensors, and having an output (ADC 22 has an input connected to the Hall elements 20A-C and an output connected to memory 24; see Fig. 11); and
a digital circuit having an input coupled to the output of the ADC (memory 24 and angle calculation circuit 26 are coupled to the output of a ADC 22 and would be understood to be digital circuits since the received an output from an analog-to-digital circuit; see Fig. 11), the digital circuit configured to:
obtain first digital sensor values from the ADC (the ADC 22 receives measurement values
p
→
0,
p
→
1,
p
→
2 from sensors 20A-C and converts them to digital signal values where are stored in memory 24 and provided to calculation unit 26; see Fig. 11; see [0064]);
determine interim rotation matrices for rotation of the first digital sensor values (the calculation unit 26 receives digital measurement values
p
→
0,
p
→
1,
p
→
2 then determines orthonormal basis vectors and determines scaling matrix S (eqn. (9)), rotation matrix R (eqn. (10)), and transformation matrix M (eqn. 5) as outlined in [0037]-[0047]); and
determine a calibration matrix based on the interim rotation matrices (a compensation matrix is determined as defined in eqn. (1) and [0028]-[0029], wherein the calibration matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to determine the calibration matrix by multiplying together the interim rotation matrices (the compensation matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to determine the interim rotation matrices by: determining a direction normal to a constellation of the digital sensor values (orthonormal basis vectors are determined as illustrated in Fig. 4B); determining a first interim rotation matrix to rotate the constellation about a first axis to produce a first rotated constellation (a first rotation is performed using a transformation M which rotates the measured ellipse from a 3D space to a 2D space as shown in Fig. 4C); and determining a second interim rotation matrix to rotate the first rotated constellation about a second axis to produce a second rotated constellation (a second rotation is performed using rotation matrix R which rotates the matrix with respect to one of the coordinate axes; see [0043]).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to determine the calibration matrix by multiplying the first interim rotation matrix by the second interim rotation matrix (the compensation matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to correct second digital sensor values using the calibration matrix (The compensation matrix of equation (11) may be calculated once during the described calibration process and may then be used for calculating the rotation angle of the magnet 2 according to equation (1) in real-time during an operation of the sensor device 4; see [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to correct the second digital sensors values by multiplying the second digital sensor values by the calibration matrix (the correction is performed by multiplying the measured values by the compensation matrix; see [0028]-[002], and [0047] and eqn. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches an integrated circuit (IC) (sensor device 1100 of Fig. 11), comprising:
magnetic sensors (a 3D Hall sensor comprises three orthogonal Hall elements 20A, 20B, 20C; see Fig. 11; see [0063]);
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) having an input coupled to the magnetic sensors, and having an output; and
a digital circuit having an input coupled to the output of the ADC (ADC 22 has an input connected to the Hall elements 20A-C and an output connected to memory 24; see Fig. 11), the digital circuit configured to:
apply a rotation correction to digital sensor values from the ADC to determine rotation-corrected sensor values (the calculation unit applies a compensation matrix to correct measured values BX, BY, BZ to generate corrected values COS and SIN; see Fig. 1); and
determine an angle based on the rotation-corrected sensor values (the angle is determined based on the compensated values SIN and COS; see [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to apply the rotation correction to the digital sensor values by applying a matrix to the digital sensor values (see the compensation matrix of eqn. 1 and [0028]-[002], and [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to apply the rotation correction to the digital sensor values by multiplying the digital sensor values by a correction matrix (see eqn. 1 and [0028]-[002], and [0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Park further teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to determine the rotation correction by: obtaining first digital sensor values from the ADC; determining interim rotation matrices for rotation of the first digital sensor values; and determining a calibration matrix based on the interim rotation matrices (a calibration process is performed by obtaining at least three arbitrary angle positions, the calculation unit 26 receives digital measurement values
p
→
0,
p
→
1,
p
→
2 then determines orthonormal basis vectors and determines scaling matrix S (eqn. (9)), rotation matrix R (eqn. (10)), and transformation matrix M (eqn. 5) as outlined in [0037]-[0047] and a compensation matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Park further teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to determine the calibration matrix by multiplying the interim rotation matrices together to compute the calibration matrix (a compensation matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches a method (a calibration process; see [0033]), comprising:
obtaining values from magnetic sensors (a calibration process is performed by obtaining at least three arbitrary angle positions, the calculation unit 26 receives digital measurement values
p
→
0,
p
→
1,
p
→
2 from Hall elements 20A, 20B, 20C; see [0033]);
determining interim rotation matrices for rotation of the sensor values (the calculation unit 26 receives digital measurement values
p
→
0,
p
→
1,
p
→
2 then determines orthonormal basis vectors and determines scaling matrix S (eqn. (9)), rotation matrix R (eqn. (10)), and transformation matrix M (eqn. 5) as outlined in [0037]-[0047]); and
determining a calibration matrix based on the interim rotation matrices (a compensation matrix is determined as defined in eqn. (1) and [0028]-[0029], wherein the calibration matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 16, Park teaches wherein obtaining values from the magnetic sensors includes obtaining values from first, second, and third orthogonally-arranged magnetic sensors (a 3D Hall sensor comprises three orthogonal Hall elements 20A, 20B, 20C; see Fig. 11; see [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Park further teaches wherein determining the calibration matrix includes multiplying together the interim rotation matrices (the compensation matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches a method (a calibration process; see [0033]), comprising:
applying a rotation correction to values from magnetic sensors to determine rotation-corrected sensor values (the calculation unit applies a compensation matrix to correct measured values BX, BY, BZ to generate corrected values COS and SIN; see eqn. 1; see [0032], [0056]); and
determining an angle based on the rotation-corrected sensor values (the angle is determined based on the compensated values SIN and COS; see [0030], [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Park further teaches wherein applying the rotation correction to the values includes applying a matrix to the values (see the compensation matrix of eqn. 1 and [0028]-[002], and [0047]).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches wherein applying the rotation correction to the values includes multiplying the values by a calibration matrix (see eqn. 1 and [0028]-[002], and [0047]).
Regarding claim 21, Park teaches a method (a calibration process; see [0033]), comprising:
obtaining first values from magnetic sensors(a calibration process is performed by obtaining at least three arbitrary angle positions, the calculation unit 26 receives digital measurement values
p
→
0,
p
→
1,
p
→
2 from Hall elements 20A, 20B, 20C; see [0033]);
determining interim rotation matrices for rotation of the first values (the calculation unit 26 receives digital measurement values
p
→
0,
p
→
1,
p
→
2 then determines orthonormal basis vectors and determines scaling matrix S (eqn. (9)), rotation matrix R (eqn. (10)), and transformation matrix M (eqn. 5) as outlined in [0037]-[0047]);
determining a calibration matrix based on the interim rotation matrices (a compensation matrix is determined as defined in eqn. (1) and [0028]-[0029], wherein the calibration matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11); see [0046]-[0047]);
applying the calibration matrix to second values from the magnetic sensors to determine rotation-corrected sensor values (the calculation unit applies a compensation matrix to correct measured values BX, BY, BZ to generate corrected values COS and SIN; see eqn. 1; see [0032], [0056]); and
determining an angle based on the rotation-corrected sensor values (the angle is determined based on the compensated values SIN and COS; see [0030], [0056]).
Regarding claim 22, Park teaches wherein the first values include values from a first, second, and third magnetic sensor, and the second values includes values from two magnetic sensors of the first, second, and third magnetic sensors (a 3D Hall sensor comprises three orthogonal Hall elements 20A, 20B, 20C and compensation is performed using values BX and BY; see Fig. 11; see [0063]).
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0037205 (Park) in view of US 2020/0117283 (Senft).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches determine a scaling matrix to scale the third rotated constellation; and determine the calibration matrix based on the first interim rotation matrix, the second interim rotation matrix, and the scaling matrix (the calibration is determined based on scaling matrix S, rotation matrix R, and transformation matrix M).
Park fails to teach wherein the digital circuit is configured to: determine a third interim rotation matrix to rotate the second rotated constellation about one of the first and second axes to produce a third rotated constellation; determine the calibration matrix based on the first interim rotation matrix, the second interim rotation matrix, and the third interim rotation matrix.
Senft teaches wherein a third interim rotation matrix to rotate the second rotated constellation about one of the first and second axes to produce a third rotated constellation; determine the calibration matrix based on the first interim rotation matrix, the second interim rotation matrix, and the third interim rotation matrix (The relative position between two objects is characterized by six degrees of freedom including three rotational degrees of freedom and three translational degrees of freedom, wherein rotation about three rotational degrees of freedom may be expressed by three rotation matrices Rx, Ry, Rz, and the three translational degrees of freedom may be expressed by means of a translational matrix Txyz. The relative position is determined by multiplication of each matrix and, therefore, a transformation about two or more rotations may be represented by a single transformation. See [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of a rotational transformation comprising three rotational matrices into Park in order to rotate the ellipse into the X-Y plane, then further rotate the ellipse in the X-Y plane by an angle θ such that the lengths a and b of the two half axes of the ellipse are aligned with respect to one of the coordinate axes. Park shows in Fig. 4A wherein an ellipse is generated in 3D space along X, Y, and Z axes. Fig. 4B shows wherein the ellipse of Fig. 4A is represented by three orthonormal vectors b1, b2, and b3. Fig. 4C shows wherein the ellipse is rotated from 3D space to 2D space with the semi-major axis of the ellipse “a” aligned with the x-axis and the semi-minor axis of the ellipse “b” aligned with the y-axis. While Park teaches wherein the ellipse is rotated from a 3D space to a 2D space by means of transformation M, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that transformation M would reasonably require at least two rotations to transform the ellipse from the 3D space into a 2D space. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the ellipse from a 3D space into a 2D space by using performing a single transformation comprising two or more rotations, or by two separate rotations without requiring any undue experimentation or unexpected results since two rotations may be represented by a single transformation by multiplying the two rotation matrices together.
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to determine the calibration matrix by multiplying together the first interim rotation matrix, the second interim rotation matrix, the third interim rotation matrix, and the scaling matrix (the calibration matrix is determined from the matrix product of S∙R∙M as shown in eqn. (11), wherein it would be understood M may represent two separate rotations as explained in the rejection of Fig. 5; see [0046]-[0047])..
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0037205 (Park) in view of US 2022/0364891 (Hammerschidt).
Regarding claim 9, Park fails to teach wherein the digital circuit is configured to perform a least mean square (LMS) operation on a result of multiplying the second digital sensor values by the calibration matrix to map a planar circle to the result.
Hammerschmidt teaches wherein the digital circuit is configured to perform a least mean square (LMS) operation on a result of multiplying the second digital sensor values by the calibration matrix to map a planar circle to the result.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of performing a least-squares fit of a planar circle as taught in Hammerschmidt into Park in order to perform self-calibration by eliminating harmonic distortion, and correct for offset and amplitude errors to improve angle measurement accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858