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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are directed at methods and apparatus and therefore are directed at one of the four statutory categories
Step 2A prong 1
Prong 1 requires the Examiner to determine whether the claims recite an abstract idea that fall under one of the following four categories: a) mathematical concept, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, c) mental process, or d) other abstract ideas such as an idea of itself.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold below; the remaining limitations are "additional elements."
Specifically representative Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of aligning a sensor device to a magnetic target, comprising:
identifying values related to a magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target (does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity, see prong 2, 2B below in which this limitation is discussed);
determining a phase shift angle of the sensor device from a reference point based on the identified values (abstract; mathematical concepts, and/or mathematical calculations; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity);
determining a movement vector based on the determined phase shift angle (abstract; mathematical concepts, and/or mathematical calculations; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity); and
providing the movement vector for aligning the sensor device to the magnetic target (abstract; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity).
Specifically representative Claim 11 recites:
11. A sensor device, comprising:
a memory storing instructions (computer implementation of method); and
a controller that, when executing the instructions (computer implementation of method), is configured to:
identify values related to a magnetic field generated by a magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target (does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity, see prong 2, 2B below in which this limitation is discussed);
determine a phase shift angle of the sensor device from a reference point based on the identified values (abstract; mathematical concepts, and/or mathematical calculations; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity);
determine a movement vector based on the determined phase shift angle (abstract; mathematical concepts, and/or mathematical calculations; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity); and
provide the movement vector for aligning the sensor device to the magnetic target (abstract; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity).
Specifically representative Claim 19 recites:
19. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor (computer implementation of method), cause the processor to:
identify values related to a magnetic field generated by a magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target (does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity, see prong 2, 2B below in which this limitation is discussed);
determine a phase shift angle of a sensor device from a reference point based on the identified values (abstract; mathematical concepts, and/or mathematical calculations; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity);
determine a movement vector based on the determined phase shift angle (abstract; mathematical concepts, and/or mathematical calculations; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity); and
provide the movement vector for aligning a sensor device to the magnetic target (abstract; mental process, judgement by user; also does not add significantly more because this represents extrasolution activity).
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea because it is analogous to other ideas identified as abstract in court decisions. Examiner notes that were a positive recitation of the sensor alignment to be claimed, more search and consideration would be required.
See MPEP 2106.04(B) which has distilled some concepts that the courts have deemed ineligible. Each limitation above, where noted, is analogous to subject matter deemed an abstract idea in previous court decisions as mental processes that can be performed in the human mind (MPEP 2104.04(B)(iii).
The claims at issue can be summarized, where noted, as concepts that can be performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Notably, in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1147-49, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court disagreed, because it interpreted the claims as encompassing nothing other than pure mental steps (and thus falling within an abstract idea grouping) because the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation. The court held that the claims were directed to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes can be performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper.
See MPEP 2106.04(B) which has distilled some concepts that the courts have deemed ineligible. Each limitation above is analogous to subject matter deemed an abstract idea in previous court decisions as collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (MPEP 2104.04(B)(i) and collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (MPEP 2104.04(B)(ii).
The claims at issue can be summarized, where noted as merely mathematical concepts and calculations, as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group v. Alstrom, 2015-1778). Both cases are highly relevant and also very recent. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & TCorp., 550 U.S. 437,451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also the seminal case of Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, where the Supreme Court found that mere post-solution activity (such as the natural output of a mathematical algorithm) does not make the ineligible eligible. The CAFC has treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349;... In a similar vein, the Court has treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3dat 613;. . . And the Court has recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776F.3dat 1347.
Step 2A prong 2
Under prong 2 Examiner is to determine whether the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order to do this Examiner must identify whether there are additional elements and evaluate whether those additional elements individually and in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In this case, there are no additional elements aside from describing the gathered data. The only elements of Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 are directed towards gathering and manipulation of data and/or mental processes and no result is discussed. Without a result there can be no practical application of the algorithm of Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20.
Courts have determined that elements including sensors, processors and memory do not cause a Claim having an abstract idea to be directed at more than the abstract idea. For example. Courts have declined to find significantly more than an abstract idea in claims involving receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto.
LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Also, Courts have declined to find significantly more than an abstract idea in claims involving performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594,198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266,1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").
Furthermore, as stated above, the act of repair and maintenance is wholly unrelated to the abstract idea/algorithm. In Diehr, the abstract algorithm was tied into a practical application because the rubber that was manufactured had characteristics (the degree of cure) that was determined by the algorithm. In this case, the algorithm has no effect on the repair, aside from merely flagging the need for repair, much more analogous to the alarm limit in Flook.
Step 2B
In step 2B Examiner must determine whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner must do this consistent with the Berkheimer Memo.
The Berkheimer Memo describes "an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP’s noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
As mentioned above, there are no additional elements in 1-5, 7-8, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 aside from the recitation of the algorithm, performative mental processes, and the data gathered and manipulated.
As such, there are no additional elements to be considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, and therefore cannot make the claim as a whole significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Rather than being a particular limited application of the abstract idea which serves to improve a specific method or device, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
Stated simply, nothing in claims 1, 11, or 19 form a nexus between the method steps and the alignment of a sensor device to a target. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-14, 16, and 20 do not include any limitations to cause the claims to be directed at more than the abstract idea. Claims 6, 9-10, 15, 17-18, and 21-23 contain sufficient elements to create a nexus between the abstract idea and a practical use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ausserlechner USPG Pub. No.: US 2017/0328701.
Regarding Claim 11, Ausserlechner teaches a sensor device, comprising:
a memory storing instructions (see [0041]-[0043], [0050], and [0079); and
a controller that, when executing the instructions, is configured to:
identify values related to a magnetic field generated by a magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target (see figures 1 and 4, magnetic target discussed in [0074], and magnetic field signal identified from sensors and control system in [0075]-[0080]; note that although the reference does not explicitly recite a controller, or an analogous term, the functions recited in [0075]-[0080] must be done by some controller device and therefore one is implicit and/or inherent to the teaching of Ausserlechner);
determine a phase shift angle of the sensor device from a reference point based on the identified values (see [0080] for determination of phase shift from magnetic field values, as well as [0142], which goes into further detail);
determine a movement vector based on the determined phase shift angle (discussed in [0075]-[0081], in which vectors are assigned based on phase angle shifts); and
provide the movement vector for aligning the sensor device to the magnetic target (discussed in [0075]-[0085]).
Regarding Claim 1, the device as recited in claim 11 is specific to this method and thus it must perform the method. The method is intrinsic to the apparatus because the recited method steps will be performed during normal operation of the apparatus. Therefore, Claim 1 is also rejected.
Regarding Claim 19, the device as recited in claim 11 is specific to this non-transitory computer-readable medium and thus it must perform the non-transitory computer-readable medium. The non-transitory computer-readable medium is intrinsic to the apparatus because the recited steps of the non-transitory computer-readable medium will be performed during normal operation of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 2, Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying values related to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target over 360 degrees of rotation (see [0139]-[0141]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the values related to the magnetic field are identified based on signals generated by a Hall plate of the sensor device, the Hall plate being positioned perpendicular to an axis around which the magnetic target rotates (see [0029]-[0038] and figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the phase shift angle further comprises: determining phase shifts between the identified values and corresponding reference values (see [0075]-[0080] as well as [0142]); and calculating an average of the determined phase shifts as the determined phase shift angle (see [0075]-[0080] as well as [0142]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identified values comprise first identified values, further comprising: identifying second values related to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target after the sensor device has been moved along the movement vector (see [0075]-[0085] and [0140]-[0142]); and determining that the sensor device is aligned with the magnetic target based on the identified second values (see [0075]-[0085] and [0140]-[0142]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the movement vector is determined by calculating sine and cosine functions of the determined phase shift angle (see [0150]-[0153], which can be expressed in terms of sin and cosine to determine the phase shift angle).
Regarding Claim 8, Ausserlechner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a misalignment of the sensor device to the magnetic target causes at least some of the identified values to have values that are not zero (see [0075]-[0085] and [0140]-[0142]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ausserlechner teaches the sensor device of claim 11, wherein the controller, when executing the instructions, is further configured to identify values related to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target over 360 degrees of rotation (see [0139]-[0141]).
Regarding Claim 13, Ausserlechner teaches the sensor device of claim 11, further comprising a Hall plate, the Hall plate being positioned perpendicular to an axis around which the magnetic target rotates (see [0029]-[0038] and figure 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ausserlechner teaches the sensor device of claim 11, wherein determining the phase shift angle further comprises: determining phase shifts between each of the identified values and corresponding reference values (see [0075]-[0080] as well as [0142]); and calculating an average of the phase shifts as the determined phase shift angle (see [0075]-[0080] as well as [0142]).
Regarding Claim 15, Ausserlechner teaches the sensor device of claim 11, wherein the identified values comprise first identified values, and wherein the controller, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: identify second values related to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target after the sensor device has been moved along the movement vector (see [0075]-[0085] and [0140]-[0142]); and determine that the sensor device is aligned with the magnetic target based on the identified second values (see [0075]-[0085] and [0140]-[0142]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ausserlechner teaches the sensor device of claim 11, wherein the controller, when executing the instructions, is further configured to determine the movement vector by calculating sine and cosine functions of the determined phase shift angle (see [0150]-[0153], which can be expressed in terms of sin and cosine to determine the phase shift angle).
Regarding Claim 20, Ausserlechner teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to identify values related to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target over 360 degrees of rotation (see [0139]-[0141]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ausserlechner teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19, wherein the identified values comprise first identified values, and wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to: identify second values related to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target after the sensor device has been moved along the movement vector (see [0075]-[0085] and [0140]-[0142]); and determine that the sensor device is aligned to the magnetic target based on the identified second values (see [0075]-[0085] and [0140]-[0142]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 17-18, and 22-23 are 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.
RE Claim 9, 17, and 22, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “determining that the sensor device is aligned with the magnetic target based on the identified second values,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 10, 18, and 23, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “iteratively determining a distance to move the sensor device along the movement vector and identifying additional values related to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic target at rotation angles of the magnetic target after each time the sensor device is moved until the identified additional values indicate that the sensor device is aligned with the magnetic target,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights