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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 02/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-21 are still pending.
3. Applicant's amendments to claims are accepted because do not introduce new matter pursuant to MPEP 2163.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph (pre-AIA ) have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
III. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph (pre-AIA ) have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
IV. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
7. Page-8, the Applicant(s) argues that “Claim 2 does not recite mental calculations/steps. Rather, it recites the component contributions of the "magnetic field signal" during the first and second phases of operations. As explained in the Specification: … A skilled artisan would interpret the claims as such in light of the specification”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, and MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application.
Argument in support to response to number 7 above.
2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, I. TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY, First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 ... See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP §2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories … Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception, I. JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS, Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection … In addition to the terms "laws of nature," "natural phenomena," and "abstract ideas," judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including "physical phenomena," "products of nature," "scientific principles," "systems that depend on human intelligence alone," "disembodied concepts," "mental processes," and "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas." It should be noted that there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions, and that many of the concepts identified by the courts as exceptions can fall under several exceptions. For example, mathematical formulas are considered to be a judicial exception as they express a scientific truth, but have been labelled by the courts as both abstract ideas and laws of nature.
2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings,
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas … C. Mathematical calculations, A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recite a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation …
III. MENTAL PROCESSES
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea … Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions … C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer … 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 … Another example is Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in Fair Warning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69 … but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) … A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception … Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: … • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); … The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) through (h) for the list of considerations that are evaluated at Step 2B. Although most of these considerations overlap (i.e., they are evaluated in both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B), Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. Additional elements that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity may integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application.
It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point"). … Conversely, the presence of a non-physical or intangible additional element does not doom the claims, because tangibility is not necessary for eligibility under the Alice/Mayo test. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("that the improvement is not defined by reference to ‘physical’ components does not doom the claims"). See also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016), (holding that a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters) was eligible because it improved an existing technological process).
In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c), and 2106.05(f). For example, I Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 1978), the Supreme Court noted that the "patent application does not purport to explain how to select the appropriate margin of safety, the weighting factor, or any of the other variables" in the claimed mathematical formula, "[n]or does it purport to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 195. The Court found this failure to explain any specifics of how to use the claimed formula informative when deciding that the additional elements in the claim were insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible. 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197.
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. A judicial exception includes but is not limited to “mental process”, which that could be performed with the help of pen and paper despite claiming that such a process is performed by a computer, and “mathematical concepts” defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations that include but not limited to arithmetic operation, mathematical methods and/or performing mathematical operations regardless the claim use the word “calculating” or not when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Regarding step 2A Prong One, in the instant application, the dependent claim 2 recites the limitation(s) “… a magnitude of the magnetic field signal is defined by a sum of the magnetic field component and the offset component … the magnitude of the magnetic field is defined by a difference of the magnetic field component and the offset component” (hereinafter collectively mentioned as the “Abstract-Idea”), which are directed to a judicial exception that falls into the categories of mathematical algorithms and formulas because summing and the difference involve arithmetic mathematical calculations and/or equations in light of the specifications despite the fact that the word “calculation” is not present, which could also be performed with the help of a general computer, which is not a particular machine. Furthermore, said limitations also could fall into mental-steps because defining a magnitude using addition and subtraction could be performed with the help of pen and paper.
Regarding step 2A, Prong Two, the other elements of the claims related to the sensor, sensing elements, modulation circuit, amplifier and sample and hold circuits with their respective functionalities are not particular machines in which the Abstract-Idea is integrated but simply routine structure and previously known to the fluid monitoring industry, which are used for the routine data gathering of the necessary information/measurements in order to execute the Abstract-Idea, which are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, which do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception/Abstract-Idea. In addition, the element relative to performing signal conditioning in a current domain is not either a practical application because it is a routine and well-understood activities and structure. Therefore, at step 2A Prong Two, it is determined that the Abstract-Idea is not implemented into a practical application.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Abstract-Idea involves mathematical algorithms, equations and/or formulas and is not implemented into a practical application.
8. Pages 7-8, the Applicant(s) argues that “Moreover, as detailed by the specification at paragraph [0137], the ability to automatically detect when a fluid change event has occurred results in a more accurate assessment of the state of the fluid during its period of use … as required by claim 1 is an inventive concept that provides unique advantages over the prior art. … Applicant respectfully disagrees with this analysis. As detailed in the arguments to the rejections under Post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and§ 103, the subject matter of claim 1 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art. As such, the subject matter of claim 1 is significantly more than "extra solution activity.”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, and MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, and 2106.05(b) III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE; 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
8.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The aforesaid steps are to be evaluated by the Examiner with regards to whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Regarding to the First-Step, the specification by the Applicant(s) does not appear to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any technological improvements except for instructions well known instructions to perform the functions/methods. Furthermore, it does not appear to set forth an indication of improvement that includes a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional, or identifies technical improvements over the prior art as established by the courts and set forth in the MPEP.
Regarding to the Second-Step, the full scope of the claim does not contain an improvement(s) to neither the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology or technical field with sufficient details that could be recognized by one ordinary skilled in the art.
Furthermore, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, however, the instant claims only include instructions to perform the method with routine devices pertinent to the industry and nothing more. Furthermore, the claim neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification.
Furthermore, by evaluating the full scope of the claim under BRI as a whole, the Examiner concludes that the claims have not-enough particular details to be considered an improvement to a particular practical application.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer and data gathering.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention neither contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
8.2. Argument in support to response to number 8 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, or, if the additional elements.
With regards to the particularity of a machine, the instant application does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims a sensor with a high degree of generality. For example, the sensor includes the Structure that are routine components for all sensors.
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity, the instant application, claim 1 simply recites the additional claim elements “A sensor for performing signal conditioning in a current domain, the sensor comprising: one or more sensing elements configured provide a magnetic field signal having a magnetic field component that varies in response to a magnetic field and an offset component contributed by the one or more sensing elements; a modulation circuit having an input coupled to receive the magnetic field signal and an output to provide a modulated signal, the modulation circuit configured to modulate the magnetic field component of the magnetic field signal at a modulation frequency; an amplifier having an input coupled to receive the modulated signal and an output to provide an amplified modulated signal, the amplified modulated signal having a magnetic field component that varies in response to the magnetic field, a first offset component contributed by the one or more sensing elements, and a second offset component contributed by the amplifier, said components determining a current of the amplified modulated signal; and a sample and hold circuit having an input to receive the amplified modulated signal and an output to provide a conditioned signal having a current that varies in response to the magnetic field signal and having substantially zero offset contribution from the one or more sensing elements and from the amplifier” and claim 2 simply recite the additional claim elements “in a first phase of operation … in a second phase of operation” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the sensors. This is supported by the prior art used to reject and prior art of record (see the rejection below).
Therefore, the claim 1 and 21 simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to the Structure for the sensor, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the Structure of sensors that is performed using well well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element or combination of elements fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
V. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 as being unpatentable have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
10. Pages 8-9, the Applicant(s) argues that “Applicant herein amends claim 1 to recite "A sensor for performing signal conditioning in a current domain." This amendment further clarifies that the amplified signal is a current-modulated signal, and that the conditioning of the signal to remove the offset components is carried out in the current domain”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees pursuant to the MPEP 2111.02, II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE.
Argument in support to response number 10 above.
MPEP 2111.02 Effect of the Preamble
II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE,
“The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use ...
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation")” ...
During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 MPEP § 2112.02 ...
See also Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785 ("[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.…Without such reliance, however, a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention." Consequently, "preamble language merelyextolling benefits or features of the claimed invention does not limit the claim scope without clear reliance on those benefits or features as patentably significant."). ...
Compare Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294-96, 70 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(holding that the preamble of a patent claim directed to a "hand-held punch pliers for simultaneously punching and connecting overlapping sheet metal" was not a limitation of the claim because (i) the body of the claim described a "structurally complete invention" without the preamble, and (ii)statements in prosecution history referring to "punching and connecting" function of invention did not constitute "clear reliance" on the preamble needed to make the preamble a limitation).
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the case law, the determination of whether the preamble is limitation or simply a mere statements of purpose or use is based upon the definition of a structurally complete invention in the claim body and its intended use provides no significance to the structure and process of making. In other words, a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.
In the instant case, the amendments of the preamble relative to “... for performing signal conditioning in a current domain, the sensor ...” do not provide significant definition to the structure in the body claim. For example, the sensor, sensing elements, modulation circuit, amplifier and sample and hold circuits as claimed (hereinafter mentioned as the “Structure”) will preserve the same structure and perform their functions in the same way regardless, therefore, they are simply a mere statement of purpose or use (See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Furthermore, the deletion of said amendment to the preamble does not affect said Structure of the body of the claim (See also Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 289 F.3d at 808-09, 62 USPQ2d at 1785). Moreover, there is no “clear reliance” that said amendments to the preamble are necessary to complete the Structure as sets forth in independent claims.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that said amendments to the preambles do not constitute a limitation.
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.
11. Claim 2-11 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.
12 Claim 2 is directed to “… a magnitude of the magnetic field signal is defined by a sum of the magnetic field component and the offset component; and … the magnitude of the magnetic field is defined by a difference of the magnetic field component and the offset component”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements of dependent claim 2 “in a first phase of operation … in a second phase of operation” and the additional element(s) of independent claim 1 “A sensor for performing signal conditioning in a current domain comprising: one or more sensing elements configured provide a magnetic field signal having a magnetic field component that varies in response to a magnetic field and an offset component contributed by the one or more sensing elements; a modulation circuit having an input coupled to receive the magnetic field signal and an output to provide a modulated signal, the modulation circuit configured to modulate the magnetic field component of the magnetic field signal at a modulation frequency; an amplifier having an input coupled to receive the modulated signal and an output to provide an amplified modulated signal, the amplified modulated signal having a magnetic field component that varies in response to the magnetic field, a first offset component contributed by the one or more sensing elements, and a second offset component contributed by the amplifier, said components determining a current of the amplified modulated signal; and a sample and hold circuit having an input to receive the amplified modulated signal and an output to provide a conditioned signal having a current that varies in response to the magnetic field signal and having substantially zero offset contribution from the one or more sensing elements and from the amplifier” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 2 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
12.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 2 is directed to a sensor as set forth in claim 1, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
12.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 2 recites: … a magnitude of the magnetic field signal is defined by a sum of the magnetic field component and the offset component; and … the magnitude of the magnetic field is defined by a difference of the magnetic field component and the offset component, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
12.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 2 nor independent claim 1 claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of industries including but not limited to calibration of magnetic sensors, current sensors, as automobile, medical devices, all different industries related to detecting the position of an object, hydrocarbons, mineral exploration, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration into a practical application because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
12.3. 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): dependent claim 2 recites the additional element(s) “in a first phase of operation … in a second phase of operation”, and independent claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A sensor for performing signal conditioning in a current domain comprising: one or more sensing elements configured provide a magnetic field signal having a magnetic field component that varies in response to a magnetic field and an offset component contributed by the one or more sensing elements; a modulation circuit having an input coupled to receive the magnetic field signal and an output to provide a modulated signal, the modulation circuit configured to modulate the magnetic field component of the magnetic field signal at a modulation frequency; an amplifier having an input coupled to receive the modulated signal and an output to provide an amplified modulated signal, the amplified modulated signal having a magnetic field component that varies in response to the magnetic field, a first offset component contributed by the one or more sensing elements, and a second offset component contributed by the amplifier, said components determining a current of the amplified modulated signal; and a sample and hold circuit having an input to receive the amplified modulated signal and an output to provide a conditioned signal having a current that varies in response to the magnetic field signal and having substantially zero offset contribution from the one or more sensing elements and from the amplifier”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
13. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein: in the first phase of operation, a magnitude of the modulated signal is substantially equal to the magnitude of the magnetic field signal; and in the second phase of operation, the magnitude of the modulated signal is substantially equal to a negative of the magnitude of the magnetic field signal”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 4 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the sample and hold circuit comprises a plurality of switches operated according to one or more clock signals”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein at least one of the one or more clock signals alternates between two different phases of the plurality of phases”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
16. Claim 6 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the sample and hold circuit comprises a plurality of memory devices each controllably connected to the amplifier output via one or more of the plurality of switches”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “wherein different ones of the plurality of memory devices are arranged to sample and hold the amplified modulated signal during different phases of operation”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
18. Claim 8 depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the plurality of memory devices includes a plurality of transistors”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
19. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the plurality of transistors includes one or more metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSTFETs)”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
20. Claim 10 depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the plurality of transistors includes at least six transistors arranged to form at least two current mirrors”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
21. Claim 11 depends on claim 7 that depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure described above in said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the sample and hold circuit comprises a node connected to outputs of one or more memory devices arranged to sample and hold the amplified modulated signal during a first phase of operation and to outputs of one or more memory devices arranged to sample and hold the amplified modulated signal during a second phase of operation”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Examiner’s Note
22. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
23. Claim(s) 1, 12, 13, 19 and 21 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Monreal et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0094055 hereinafter mentioned “Monreal”, which was submitted via IDS).
As per claim 1, Monreal in the embodiment of Fig. 4 discloses:
A sensor for performing signal conditioning in a current domain (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use) comprising:
one or more sensing elements configured provide a magnetic field signal (Fig. 4, see the switched Hall plate 50 with its signal 114. Also see [0066]) having a magnetic field component that varies in response to a magnetic field (see [0066]-[0067]. The magnetic signal component VH. Furthermore, it is a normal physical phenomenon that the value of any magnetic signal with its components, outputted by a sensor, varies depending upon the intensity of the magnetic field; therefore, it is implicit) and an offset component (see [0066]-[0067]. The Hall offset signal component Vop) contributed by the one or more sensing elements (Fig. 4, see the switched Hall plate 50. Also see [0066]);
a modulation circuit having an input coupled to receive the magnetic field signal and an output to provide a modulated signal (Fig. 4, see the modulation-circuit/switch 130 with its output signal 132. Also see [0069]), the modulation circuit configured to modulate the magnetic field component of the magnetic field signal at a modulation frequency (see [0069]);
an amplifier (Fig. 4, see the amplifier 138. Also see [0071]) having an input coupled to receive the modulated signal and an output to provide an amplified modulated signal, the amplified modulated signal having a magnetic field component (Fig. 4, see the amplified signal 116 containing a demodulated magnetic signal component and a modulated offset signal component, as shown in FIG. 4C. Also see [0072]) that varies in response to the magnetic field (it is a normal physical phenomenon that the value of any magnetic signal with its components, outputted by a sensor, varies depending upon the intensity of the magnetic field; therefore, it is implicit), a first offset component contributed by the one or more sensing elements (see [0072]. The hall offset voltage), and a second offset component contributed by the amplifier (see [0069]. The amplifier offset signal component Voa), said components determining a current of the amplified modulated signal (Fig. 4, the current of the amplified signal 116 containing a demodulated magnetic signal component and a modulated offset signal component, as shown in FIG. 4C. Also see [0072]); and
a sample and hold circuit (Fig. 4, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 of Fig. 7 that is/are included in the selective filter 150. Also see [0094]) having an input to receive the amplified modulated signal (Fig. 4, the current of the amplified signal 116, as shown in FIG. 4C. Also see [0072]) and an output to provide a conditioned signal (Fig. 4, see the sensor output signal 118 that has been amplified-filtered, thus, conditioned. Also see [0066]) having a current that varies in response to the magnetic field signal (it is a normal physical phenomenon that the value of any magnetic signal with its components, outputted by a sensor, varies depending upon the intensity of the magnetic field; therefore, it is implicit) and having substantially zero offset contribution from the one or more sensing elements and from the amplifier (see [0112]. The removal of undesirable Hall and applier offset signal components is at least substantially zero and/or complete removal of said offset components).
As per claim 12, Monreal discloses the sensor of claim 1 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein the one or more sensing elements comprise one or more Hall effect elements (Fig. 4, see the switched Hall plate 50 with its signal 114. Also see [0066]).
As per claim 13, Monreal discloses the sensor of claim 12 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein the one or more Hall effect elements (Fig. 4, see the switched Hall plate 50 with its signal 114. Also see [0066]) are provided as one or more spinning Hall plates (see [0006]).
As per claim 19, Monreal discloses the sensor of claim 1 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein the modulated signal is a voltage domain signal (Fig. 4, see the modulation-circuit/switch 130 with its output signal 132 of Fig. 4B. Also see [0069]) and the amplified signal is a current domain signal (Fig. 4, see the amplified signal 116 containing a demodulated magnetic signal component and a modulated offset signal component, as shown in FIG. 4C. Furthermore, any signal, as amplified signal 116, between electronic components requires a current. Also see [0072]).
As per claim 21, Monreal in the embodiment of Fig. 4 discloses:
A sensor for performing signal conditioning in a current domain (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use) comprising:
one or more sensing elements configured to generate a magnetic field signal (Fig. 4, see the switched Hall plate 50 with its signal 114. Also see [0066]) having a magnetic field component that varies in response to a magnetic field (see [0066]-[0067]. The magnetic signal component VH. Furthermore, it is a normal physical phenomenon that the value of any magnetic signal with its components, outputted by a sensor, varies depending upon the intensity of the magnetic field; therefore, it is implicit) and an offset component (see [0066]-[0067]. The Hall offset signal component Vop) contributed by the one or more sensing elements (Fig. 4, see the switched Hall plate 50. Also see [0066]);
a modulation circuit configured to modulate the magnetic field component of the magnetic field signal at a modulation frequency to provide a modulated signal (Fig. 4, see the modulation-circuit/switch 130 with its output signal 132. Also see [0069]);
an amplifier (Fig. 4, see the amplifier 138. Also see [0071]) configured to receive the modulated signal (Fig. 4, see the modulation-circuit/switch 130 with its output signal 132. Also see [0069]) and provide an amplified modulated signal (Fig. 4, see the amplified signal 116 containing a demodulated magnetic signal component and a modulated offset signal component, as shown in FIG. 4C. Also see [0072]) having a current responsive to at least the magnetic field and the offset contributed by the one or more sensing elements (it is a normal physical phenomenon that the value of any current be responsive to the intensity of the magnetic field and offset component; therefore, it is implicit); and
a sample and hold circuit (Fig. 4, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 of Fig. 7 that is/are included in the selective filter 150. Also see [0094]) configured to receive the amplified modulated signal (Fig. 4, the current of the amplified signal 116, as shown in FIG. 4C. Also see [0072]) and provide a conditioned signal (Fig. 4, see the sensor output signal 118 that has been amplified-filtered, thus, conditioned. Also see [0066]) having a current that varies in response to the magnetic field signal (it is a normal physical phenomenon that the value of any magnetic signal with its components, outputted by a sensor, varies depending upon the intensity of the magnetic field; therefore, it is implicit) and having substantially zero offset contribution from the one or more sensing elements and from the amplifier (see [0112]. The removal of undesirable Hall and applier offset signal components is at least substantially zero and/or complete removal of said offset components).
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 of this title, 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.
24. Claim(s) 2-7, 11, 15 and 16 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monreal in view of ARIYAMA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0040687 hereinafter mentioned as “Ariyama”).
As per claim 2, Monreal discloses the sensor of claim 1 as described above.
Monreal further discloses that said sensor is configured to operate in a plurality of phases (Fig. 4, see the plurality of phases defined by each of the components), wherein:
in a first phase of operation, a magnitude of the magnetic field signal is defined by a sum of the magnetic field component and the offset component (Fig. 4, see the summing node 126. Also see [0069], [0066] and/or claim-8).
Moreal does not explicitly disclose that in said second phase of operation
the magnitude of the magnetic field is defined by a difference of the magnetic field component and the offset component.
However, Ariyama further discloses that
the magnitude of the magnetic field is defined by a difference of the magnetic field component and the offset component (see [0110]. The magnetic field intensity/magnitude is defined by removing/subtracting the offset components from the signal component derived from the magnetic field and its components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “the magnitude of the magnetic field is defined by a difference of the magnetic field component and the offset component” disclosed by Ariyama into Monreal, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by detecting the magnetic field intensity with high precision and at a high speed (Ariyama, Paragraph [0110] and [0029]).
Furthermore, Monreal states that “It is felt therefore that these embodiments should not be limited to disclosed embodiments” (Monreal, Paragraph [0117]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 2 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
in the first phase of operation, a magnitude of the modulated signal is substantially equal to the magnitude of the magnetic field signal (Monreal, Fig. 4, see the modulation-circuit/switch 130 with its output signal 132, which does not change the magnitude of signal 114, therefore, both signal have substantially equal magnitude. Also see [0069]); and
in the second phase of operation, the magnitude of the modulated signal is substantially equal to a negative of the magnitude of the magnetic field signal (Monreal, Fig. 4, see the modulation-circuit/switch 130 with its output signal 132 being substantially equal to the magnitude of the signal 114, which could have a negative magnitude depending on the magnetic field detected. Also see [0069]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 2 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein the sample and hold circuit comprises a plurality of switches operated according to one or more clock signals (Fig. 7, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 that is/are included in the selective filter 150 of Fig. 4, and clock signals 406 and 412. Also see [0094] and [0097]).
As per claim 5, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 4 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein at least one of the one or more clock signals alternates between two different phases of the plurality of phases (Fig. 7, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 that is/are included in the selective filter 150 of Fig. 4, and clock signals 406 and 412 that alternate between phase angles. Also see [0094] and [0097]).
As per claim 6, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 4 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein the sample and hold circuit comprises a plurality of memory devices (Fig. 4, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 are elementary analog memory devices and act as temporary storage device. Also see [0094]) each controllably connected to the amplifier output (Fig. 4, see the amplifier 138. Also see [0071]) via one or more of the plurality of switches (Fig. 4, see the cross-coupled switches 140. Also see [0071]-[0072]).
As per claim 7, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 6 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein different ones of the plurality of memory devices are arranged to sample and hold (Fig. 4, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 are elementary analog memory devices and act as temporary storage device. Also see [0094]) the amplified modulated signal (Fig. 4, see the amplified signal 116 containing a demodulated magnetic signal component and a modulated offset signal component, as shown in FIG. 4C. Also see [0072]) during different phases of operation (Fig. 7, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 that is/are included in the selective filter 150 of Fig. 4, and clock signals 406 and 412 that alternate between phase angles. Also see [0094] and [0097]).
As per claim 11, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 7 as described above.
Monreal further discloses:
wherein the sample and hold circuit comprises a node (Fig. 7, see the averaging network 410 that could be considered a node. Also see [0094] and [0097]) connected to outputs of one or more memory devices arranged to sample and hold the amplified modulated signal during a first phase of operation and to outputs of one or more memory devices arranged to sample and hold the amplified modulated signal during a second phase of operation (Fig. 7, the first sample and hold circuit 404 and a second sample or hold circuit 408 that is/are included in the selective filter 150 of Fig. 4, and clock signals 406 and 412 that alternate between phase angles. Also see [0094] and [0097]).
As per claim 15, Monreal discloses the sensor of claim 1 as described above but does not explicitly disclose:
a comparator having an input coupled to receive the conditioned signal and an output to provide a comparator signal responsive to a comparison of the conditioned signal to a threshold value.
However, Ariyama further discloses:
a comparator having an input coupled to receive the conditioned signal and an output to provide a comparator signal responsive to a comparison of the conditioned signal to a threshold value (Also see [0027], [0082] and [0110]-[0111]. The reference voltage of Ariyama is the threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “the comparator having an input coupled to receive the conditioned signal and an output to provide a comparator signal responsive to a comparison of the conditioned signal to a threshold value” disclosed by Ariyama into Monreal, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by detecting the magnetic field intensity with high precision and at a high speed while removing all offset components (Ariyama, Paragraph [0110] and [0029]).
As per claim 16, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 15 as described above.
Ariyama, with the obious motivation set forth above in claim-15, further discloses that the threshold value is zero (Also see [0111]. Since the value of the reference/threshold voltage of Ariyama may be set arbitrarily by the reference voltage circuit, zero could be one of those values).
25. Claim(s) 8-10 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monreal in view of Ariyama, and further in view of Pavan Ashokrao Kale, et.al., (Title: Improved Sample and Hold Circuit using MOSFET, 2014, hereinafter mentioned as “Kale”).
As per claim 8, the combination of Monreal and Ariyama discloses the sensor of claim 6 with the plurality of memory devices as described above but does not that include a plurality of transistors.
However, Kale further discloses:
a memory devices includes a plurality of transistors (Fig. 7, see the modified proposed sample and hold circuit with a plurality of transistors. Also see IV. PROPOSED CIRCUIT, page-915).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to “the plurality of transistors” disclosed by Kale into Monreal in view of Ariyama, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by providing of low distortion sample and hold circuit using gate-to-source voltage of the MOSFET independent of input voltage, thus, enabling to perform at high speed while reducing power consumption (Kale, abstract, Page-913).
As per claim 9, the combination of Monreal, Ariyama and Kale discloses the sensor of claim 8.
Kale, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-8, further discloses
wherein the plurality of transistors includes one or more metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors MOSTFETs (Fig. 7, see the modified proposed sample and hold circuit with a plurality of transistors. Also see, Abstract, title and IV. PROPOSED CIRCUIT, page-915).
As per claim 10, the combination of Monreal, Ariyama and Kale discloses the sensor of claim 8.
Kale, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-8, further discloses at least two current mirrors (Fig. 7, see the the transistors CM1-CM2 forming first current mirror and CM3-CM4 forming the second mirror. Also see, Abstract, title and IV. PROPOSED CIRCUIT, page-915).
Kale does not explicitly disclose that said at least two current mirrors are includes at least six transistors.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find an obvious choice to try implementing said at least two current mirrors including at least six transistors to form current mirrors using three transistors each with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the mirror circuit configuration designed by providing a more constant current source or sink with a much more accurate input to output current gain.
26. Claim(s) 14 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monreal.
As per claim 14, Monreal discloses the sensor of claim 1 as described above.
Monreal discloses the magnetic field signal, the modulated signal, the amplified modulated signal, and the conditioned signal with traces for transmitting data as described above but does not explicitly disclose that are all differential signals.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find an obvious choice to try implementing said the magnetic field signal, the modulated signal, the amplified modulated signal, and the conditioned signal being all differential signals with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the data transmission by a high data rate, electromagnetic interference and ground noise immunity, power-saving properties, and precise timing and logic rates.
27. Claim(s) 20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monreal in view of Znojemsky et al. (Patent No.: US 11,463,053 hereinafter mentioned as “Znojemsky”).
As per claim 20, Monreal discloses the sensor of claim 14 with the amplifier as described above but does not explicitly that it is an operational transconductance amplifier.
However, Znojemsky further discloses:
the amplifier is an operational transconductance amplifier (see column 5, lines 56-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “operational transconductance amplifier” disclosed by Znojemsky into Monreal, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by providing of low distortion sample and hold circuit using gate-to-source voltage of the MOSFET independent of input voltage, thus, enabling to perform at high speed while reducing power consumption (Kale, abstract, Page-913).
Allowable Subject Matter
28. Claim(s) 17-18 are/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.
29. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the objection:
30. Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
a switch point circuit coupled between the sample and hold circuit and the comparator, the switch point circuit configured to generate a switch point signal and combine the switch point signal with the conditioned signal.
31. Claim(s) 18 further limits and also depends on claim 17, therefore, it would also be allowable.
32. Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, data processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
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 ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights