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.
Specification Objections
1. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
1.1. the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “N” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
1.2. the abbreviation/acronym/term/symbol/variable “n” should be spelled out on its first appearance.
1.3. the “vector D” should be defined to what it represents on its first appearance.
Appropriate correction is required. The examiner appreciates the assistance of the Applicant(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claim(s) 1-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically:
2.1. Claim 1 recites the abbreviations/acronyms/terms/symbols/variables “N” and “n” at steps b and c of the claim, respectively, but they’re neither defined by the claims nor defined by the specifications, which makes unclear to determine their meanings. Said abbreviations/acronyms/terms/symbols/variables need to be defined within parenthesis immediately after the same.
2.2. Furthermore, claims 2-23 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim-1.
2.3. Claim 3 recites the limitation “in particular using an NMR teslameter” (line 3) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.4. Claim 4 recites the limitation “in particular numerically” (line 4) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.5. Claim 4 further recites the limitation “vector D” (line 2) and neither the claims nor the specifications define what said vector represents, which makes the claim unclear. Said vector needs to be defined.
2.6. Claim 5 recites the limitation “in particular using an NMR teslameter” (line 4) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.7. Claim 5 further recites the limitation “in particular with the x-, y- and z-axes of the sensor parallel to the Y-, Z-, and X-axes,” (step c) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.8. Claim 5 further recites the limitation “in particular with the x-, y- and z-axes of the sensor parallel to the Y-, Z-, and X-axes,” (steps c and d) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.9. Furthermore, claims 6-7, 18, 19-23 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim-5.
2.10. Claim 8 recites the limitations “the first magnetic sensor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
2.11. Furthermore, claims 9-11, 14-17 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim-8.
2.12. Claim 9 recites the limitation “in particular analytically” (line 5-6) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.13. Furthermore, claims 16 and 17 are also rejected because they further limit and depend on claim-9.
2.14. Claim 11 recites the limitation “in particular analytically” (line 43) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.15. Claim 12 recites the limitation “in particular a rectangular cuboid” (line 8) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.16. Furthermore, claims 13 is also rejected because it further limits and depends on claim-12.
2.17. Claim 13 recites the limitation “optionally mounting a third magnetic sensor on the rigid body …” (line 4) is indefinite because the word “optionally” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.18. Claim 14 recites the limitation “and preferably the second and/or third sensors” (line 4) is indefinite because the word “preferably” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.19. Claim 15 recites the limitation “in particular with respect to a natural, coordinate system …” (line 2-3) is indefinite because the word “particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.20. Claim 15 further recites the limitation “… and preferably enclosed in the package comprising the first sensor” (line 5) is indefinite because the word “preferably” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.21. Claim 18 recites the limitations “the first magnetic sensor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
2.22. Claim 18 further recites the limitation “in particular a rectangular cuboid” (at step iii) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.23. Claim 19 recites the limitation “in particular analytically” (at step d) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.24. Claim 20 recites the limitation “in particular analytically” (at step b) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.25. Claim 21 recites the limitations “the first magnetic sensor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
2.26. Claim 21 further recites the limitation “in particular a flat surface” (at step i) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.27. Claim 21 further recites the limitation “the rigid body preferably has and/or defines a surface corresponding to a cuboid” (at step iii) is indefinite because the word “preferably” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.28. Claim 21 further recites the limitation “in particular a rectangular cuboid” (at step iii) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.29. Claim 21 further recites the limitation “optionally mounting a third magnetic sensor on the rigid body …” (at step k) is indefinite because the word “optionally” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.30. Claim 21 further recites the limitation “in particular with respect to a natural” (at step m) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.31. Claim 21 further recites the limitation “… and preferably enclosed in the package comprising the first sensor” (step m) is indefinite because the word “preferably” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.32. Claim 22 recites the limitation “in particular using an NMR teslameter” (line 3) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.33. Claim 22 further recites the limitation “in particular analytically” (line 6) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
2.34. Claim 23 further recites the limitation “in particular analytically” (line 4) is indefinite because the phrase “in particular” makes it unclear to determine whether said limitation is intended to be part of the scope of the claim or not.
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.
3. Claim 1-23 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.
4. Claim 1 is directed to:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above limitations involve mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a general purpose processor.
The additional elements relative to:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
4.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a method for calibrating a magnetic sensor and/or a calibrating magnet, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
4.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
4.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not 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 technologies including but not limited to calibration of magnetic sensors, current sensors, 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 of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
4.3. 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): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) relative to
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, 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 made of record below, and on the IDS and the prior art references used in the International Written Opinion PCT/EP2022/072389, which was submitted via IDS). 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).
5. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
Furthermore, claim 2 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 involve 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.
6. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
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 involve 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.
7. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
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 involve 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.
8. Claim 5 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) that 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 involve 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.
9. Claim 6 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
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 involve 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.
10. Claim 7 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) that 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 involve 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.
11. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) that 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 involve 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.
12. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) that 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.
13. Claim 10 depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 is further recites the element(s) that 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 involve 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 11 depends on claim 10 that depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
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 involve 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 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) that 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 12 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 involve 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 13 depends on claim 12 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) that 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 13 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 involve 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 14 depends on claim 10 that depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) that 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 14 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 involve 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 15 depends on claim 14 that depends on claim 10 that depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) that 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 15 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 involve 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 16 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) that 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 16 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 involve 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 17 that depends on claim 16 depends on claim 9 that depends on claim 8 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) that 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 17 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 involve 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 18 depends on claim 6 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 is further recites the element(s) that 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 18 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 involve 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.
22. Claim 19 depends on claim 18 depends on claim 6 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
Furthermore, claim 19 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 involve 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.
23. Claim 20 depends on claim 18 depends on claim 6 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
Furthermore, claim 20 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 involve 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.
24. Claim 21 depends on claim 7 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 21 is further recites the element(s) that 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 21 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 involve 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.
25. Claim 22 depends on claim 21 depends on claim 7 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 22 is further recites the element(s) that 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 22 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 involve 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.
26. Claim 23 depends on claim 21 depends on claim 7 depends on claim 5 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 23 is further recites the element(s) that are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers.
Furthermore, claim 23 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 involve 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
27. 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 § 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.
28. Claim(s) 1 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blagojevic et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0120406 hereinafter mentioned as “Blagojevic”, which was submitted via IDS) in view of VISSIERE et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0233053 hereinafter mentioned as “Vissiere”).
As per claim 1, Blagojevic discloses:
A method for calibrating a magnetic sensor and/or a calibrating magnet, said sensor, when
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see [0082], [0085]-[0087])
the method comprising the steps of
a. measuring a first output voltage V1 for a first orientation of the magnetic sensor relative to the magnetic field (see [0077]-[0078]);
b. rotating the magnetic sensor relative to the magnetic field to assume N-1 further orientations (see [0076]-[0079]);
c. for each further orientation, measuring one further output voltage Vn, with n Є {2; ... ; N} (see [0076]-[0081]); and
d. solving a system of N equations Vn = V0 +
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
· (see [0084]-[0087]).
Blagojevic does not explicitly disclose defining each of said rotations with a rotation matrix
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
However, Vissiere further discloses:
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(see [0020]-[0087] and [0141]-[0142]).
d. solving a system of N equations Vn = V0 +
PNG
media_image9.png
22
158
media_image9.png
Greyscale
for one or more of Vo, Sx, Sy, Sz, Bx, By, and/or Bz (After adding the rotation matrix of Vissiere into Blagojevic, the system equation is available. In simple words, the system equation above is taught by the combination of Vissiere and Blagojevic ).
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 defining each of said rotations of Blagojevic with the“rotation matrix
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
” disclosed by Vissiere, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by providing precise measurements of the magnetic field (Vissiere, Paragraph [0020]) while also determining error terms concerning the change in the location and in the orientation of the magnetometer (Vissiere, Paragraph [0022]) in order to calibrate the magnetometer(s) (Vissiere, Paragraph [0013]).
Furthermore, Blagojevic states that “it would be apparent to those skilled in the art having the benefit of this disclosure that many more modifications than mentioned above are possible without departing from the inventive concepts” (Blagojevic, Paragraph [0093]).
Furthermore, Vissiere states that “Modifications remain possible, notably from the point of view of the constitution of various technical characteristics or substitution of technical equivalents, without all the same going beyond the protection domain of the invention” (Vissiere, Paragraph [0152]).
29. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Guo (Pub. No.: US 2017/0090003) teaches “Systems, methods, and computer-readable media for efficiently testing sensor assemblies are provided. A test station may be operative to test a three-axis magnetometer sensor assembly by holding the assembly at each one of three test orientations with respect to an electromagnet axis” (Abstract).
b) Johnson (Patent No.: US 7,019,522) teaches tesla meters (Fig. 8) and “an apparatus for measuring the magnetic field strength between the magnet arrays of an insertion device in an X-ray generating system comprising a magnetic field strength sensor that produces an output signal, three stages for positioning the sensor along the X, Y and Z axes of the insertion device, means for controlling positions of the stages and information storage means for reading the output signal operably connected to the sensor. The apparatus eliminates the need for a dedicated measurement facility by mounting guide means for the long (Z-)axis directly to the insertion device” (Abstract).
Conclusion
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 Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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