DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 6/29/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-18 are pending.
- Claims 1-5 and 7-11 have been amended.
- Claims 13-18 have been added.
Specification
The new Title has been received. The Objection to the Specification presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/1/2026 has been withdrawn.
The amendment to the Specification, paragraph 0076 presented in the response have been entered.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 2-5 and 7-11 overcome the issues noted in the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/1/2026. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 101 presented in the Non-Final Office Action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Below is a detailed response to the arguments presented:
- The Applicant argues Claim 1 is analogous to the eligible claims in USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 4 (Global Positioning System). See Remarks page 13 in the response.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the cited example provides guidance on how to treat a similar claim/application, every application is treated on its own merits. The examiner notes that the cited example doesn’t appear to align with the claims at issue. The claims in the instant application recite generic elements that are known in the art (sensors, signal processing unit). By contrast, the cited example recites a display that receives satellite data,
calculates pseudo-ranges, wirelessly transmits the calculated pseudo-ranges to the server,
receives location data from the server, and displays a visual representation of the received
calculated absolute position from the server. The programmed CPU acts in concert with the
recited features of the mobile device to enable the mobile device to determine and display its
absolute position through interaction with a remote server and multiple remote satellites. The interaction between components, calculations and functions in the components appear far more complex than those involved the device and method as claimed in the present application.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that in example 4, claim 1 was deemed patent eligible because of the presence of meaningful limitations placed upon the application of the claimed mathematical operations. The combination of elements imposes meaningful limits in that the mathematical operations are applied to improve an existing technology (global positioning) by improving the signal-acquisition sensitivity of the receiver to extend the usefulness of the technology into weak-signal environments and providing the location information for display on the mobile device. It is the totality of these features in claim 1 of example 4, especially when viewed in combination, that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
By contrast, besides the judicial exception (manipulation of data), the claims in the present application merely recite a plurality of N sensors and a signal processing unit. The elements are well known in the art, as noted by the applicant in the Specification, paragraph 0002. Thus, the presence of N sensors to output N-phase signals is thus considered, insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, because it merely gathers data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. Likewise, the recited signal processing unit is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data.
- The applicant argues that both claim 1 and example 4 acquire data from physical sensor that detect physical phenomena. The applicant argues that in both cases, the claims begin by acquiring data from physical sensors that detect real-world physical phenomena, not by receiving generic or abstract data. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As mentioned above, the examiner’s position is that in the cited example, the mobile device receives PN codes from GPS satellites, calculates pseudo-ranges and transmits the pseudo-ranges. This is different from what a conventional sensor or magnetic sensor does. A magnetic sensor as recited simply detects the presence or variation of nearby magnetic flux and provides a signal to the signal processing unit quantifying magnetic flux. There doesn’t appear to be a equivalence between the recited N sensors and the structural elements in the cited example.
Additionally, the examiner notes that in the cited example, the presence of computer components recited at a high level of generality are deemed to add no more to the claimed invention than the components that perform basic mathematical calculation functions routinely provided by a general computer. In the analysis, it is explained that limiting performance of the mathematical calculations to a general-purpose CPU, absent more, is not sufficient to transform the recited judicial exception into a patent-eligible invention. The examiner follows a similar rationale when indicating (see rejection under 35 USC 101 below) that the mere presence of N sensors and a signal processing unit do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
- The applicant argues that both claim 1 and example 4 apply mathematical operations to acquired sensor data to calculate a physical quantity. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, the examiner notes that a display that receives satellite data, calculates pseudo-ranges, wirelessly transmits the calculated pseudo-ranges to the server, receives location data from the server, and displays a visual representation of the received calculated absolute position from the server is not analogous to a signal processing unit that processes signals related to a rotating body. Moreover, the programmed CPU in example 4, acts in concert with the recited features of the mobile device to enable the mobile device to determine and display its absolute position through interaction with a remote server and multiple remote satellites. In the instant claim, there is no interaction by the signal processing unit with other elements in the system, besides receiving signals outputted by the N sensors.
- The applicant argues that the claims integrate the “alleged abstract idea” into a practical application by improving the technology of rotational position determination.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as recited do not recite a step of actively using the estimated mechanical angle to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor does it require the recited signal processing unit to use the estimated mechanical angle to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims only require the calculation and/or estimation of values using mathematical operations. The examiner suggests including a step or positive step of using the calculated values to positively control a rotating body such that it effects a transformation of the rotating body from a first state to a second state (such as that recited in newly added claim 18).
For the reasons noted above, the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC 101 is considered proper and maintained. The modified version of the rejection of claims 1-12 and newly presented claims 13-17 are necessitated by the amendments. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the following analysis is consistent with the procedures outlined on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? – Yes. The claim is directed to a device.
Step 2A, PRONG ONE: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or Natural Phenomenon? – Yes. The claim is directed to functions attributed to a signal processing unit, including steps for calculating N phase complex vector based on N phase signals, transforming the N phase complex vectors in to a first positive phase vector, calculating a second positive phase vector, transforming the second positive phase vector into a second N phase complex vector, and estimating a mechanical angle of a rotating body based on the phase signals provided by the second N phase complex vector. The processing, including: calculating of complex vectors, transforming of complex vectors into phase vectors, normalizing and transforming the phase vector into complex vectors, as well as estimation of mechanical angle, are performed with the aid of mathematical equations, as described in the Specification and listed for example, in claims 2-5. The limitations, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the processing from practically being performed in the mind, or using a pen and paper.
Moreover, the processing requires performing arithmetic calculations in order to for example, transform the signal from a complex vector into a phase a vector. This limitation therefore recites a mathematical calculation. Thus, the limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner notes that, regarding the recitation: “wherein the second N phase complex vector provides temperature-compensated phase signals”, the term “temperature-compensated” as recited, has the effect of a label or identifier to the phase signal. The claim doesn’t include a description of the “temperature-compensated phase signal” that differentiates it from any phase signal. Moreover, simply naming the phase signal “temperature-compensated” doesn’t add steps that go beyond the manipulation of signals and/or data. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the processing from practically being performed in the mind, or using a pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concept and/or mental process groupings in the 2019 PEG, and a law of nature), and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A, PRONG TWO: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No. The claim recites N sensors that output N phase signals according to a rotation angle of a rotating body. The claim also recites a signal processing unit that process the N phase signals.
The recited N sensors are recited in a manner that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The sensors are merely used to extract/provide a signal that is processed by the signal processing unit. Furthermore, the use of such sensors in rotational bodies is well known in the art, as disclosed in the Specification, paragraph 0002. Thus, the presence of N sensors to output N-phase signals is thus considered, insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, because it merely gathers data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. That is, it amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The recited signal processing unit is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The signal processing unit is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a “signal processing unit”) that it represents no more than the use of a generic computing device to perform the judicial exception. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a signal processing unit. The signal processing unit thus, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the signal processing unit does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Finally, the step of: “estimating a mechanical angle of the rotating body based on the temperature-compensated phase signals.” doesn’t integrated the judicial exception into a practical application insofar as the calculation result (estimation of mechanical angle) is simply the result of the manipulation of signals and not recited as actively controlling the rotating body or effecting a change in state of a device connected to the rotating body.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
- Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the recited N sensors are recited at a high level of generality. Such sensors are known in the art as explained in the Specification, paragraph 0002. The sensors as recited provide a mere gathering of data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. Likewise, regarding the recited signal processing unit, mere use of a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Consequently, the claim is deemed ineligible.
As to claims 2-5, the claim recites further steps describing the mathematical calculations and relationships related to the calculating and transforming steps recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concept and mental process groupings in the 2019 PEG, and a law of nature). Furthermore, the claim does not introduce steps that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, the claim doesn’t recite elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 6, the claim recites that each of the sensors “is a magnetic sensor”. However, the sensor is recited at a high level of generality and encompass generic sensors that are well known in the art (see for example, Specification paragraph 0002). Because the sensor as recited provide a mere gathering of data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. The same analysis applied to claim 1 applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Consequently, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7, the following analysis is consistent with the procedures outlined on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? – Yes. The claim is directed to a method.
Step 2A, PRONG ONE: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or Natural Phenomenon? – Yes. The claim is directed to method steps for calculating N phase complex vector based on N phase signals, transforming the N phase complex vectors in to a first positive phase vector, calculating a second positive phase vector, transforming the second positive phase vector into a second N phase complex vector, and estimating a mechanical angle of a rotating body based on the phase signals provided by the second N phase complex vector. The processing is performed with the aid of mathematical equations, as described in the Specification and listed for example, in claims 2-5.
The limitations, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the processing from practically being performed in the mind, or using a pen and paper. Moreover, the calculation, transformation and estimation are performed by executing arithmetic calculations in order to for example, transform the signal from a complex vector into a phase a vector. Thus, the limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
The examiner notes that, regarding the recitation: “wherein the second N phase complex vector provides temperature-compensated phase signals”, the term “temperature-compensated” as recited, has the effect of a label or identifier to the phase signal. The claim doesn’t include a description of the “temperature-compensated phase signal” that differentiates it from any phase signal. Moreover, simply naming the phase signal “temperature-compensated” doesn’t add steps that go beyond the manipulation of signals and/or data. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the processing from practically being performed in the mind, or using a pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concept and/or mental process groupings in the 2019 PEG, and a law of nature), and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A, PRONG TWO: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? – No. Although the claim recites N sensors that output phase signals that are processed through the recited method steps, it’s noted that the recited N sensors are presented in the preamble and the method itself doesn’t appear to necessitate the preamble for completeness. Moreover, using sensors that output signals according to the rotation of a rotating body is well known in the art. Rotational sensors are widely available in the art, as disclosed in the Specification, paragraph 0002. The outputting of the signals by the N sensors is thus considered, insignificant extra-solution activity because it merely gathers data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. Thus, the recited “N sensors that output N phase signals” appear to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
- Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? – No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim are recited in the preamble and do not appear to be needed in the body of the claim for completeness. Moreover, the recited N sensors are recited at a high level of generality. Such sensors are known in the art as explained in the Specification, paragraph 0002. The sensors as recited provide a mere gathering of data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Consequently, the claim is ineligible.
As to claim 8-11, 14, 17, the claim recites further steps describing the mathematical calculations and relationships related to the calculating and transforming steps recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical concept and mental process groupings in the 2019 PEG, and a law of nature). Furthermore, the claim does not introduce steps that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, the claim doesn’t recite elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 12, the claim recites the sensors “is a magnetic sensor”. The sensor is recited at a high level of generality. The use of magnetic sensors is known in the art. Because the sensor as recited provide a mere gathering of data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. The same analysis applied to claim 1 applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Consequently, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 13, similar to the analysis of claim 1 above, the use of N magnetic sensors that output signals according to the rotation of a rotating body is well known in the art. Rotational sensors are widely available in the art, as disclosed in the Specification, paragraph 0002. The outputting of the signals by the N sensors is thus considered, insignificant extra-solution activity because it merely gathers data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. Thus, the recited “N magnetic sensors that output N phase signals” appear to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
It’s noted that claim 13 doesn’t require the presence of a rotating body or a rotor shaft of a motor. The claim only requires the ability of the signal generation device to “face a sensor magnet that rotates in synchronization with the rotor shaft”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim describes an intended use of the signal generating device. The claim describes the use of the calculated/estimated mechanical angle for controlling a rotational position of a motor. The examiner notes that the recited use doesn’t appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application insofar as the claim doesn’t positively recite a device that “controls” the rotational position of the motor, it simply states that the calculated/estimated value “is used” for controlling a rotational position. The examiner suggests amending the claim so that the “controlling” is positively performed by the signal processing unit. For example, “The signal generation device according to claim 1, wherein the signal processing unit controls a rotational position of a motor using the estimated mechanical angle.”
Finally, the examiner notes that generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use doesn’t amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 16, similar to the analysis of claim 7 above, the use of N magnetic sensors that output signals according to the rotation of a rotating body is well known in the art. Rotational sensors are widely available in the art, as disclosed in the Specification, paragraph 0002. The outputting of the signals by the N sensors is thus considered, insignificant extra-solution activity because it merely gathers data for use in the calculation and transformation steps. Thus, the recited “N magnetic sensors that output N phase signals” appear to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
It’s noted that claim 16 doesn’t require the presence of a rotating body or a rotor shaft of a motor. The claim only requires the ability of the signal generation device to “face a sensor magnet that rotates in synchronization with the rotor shaft”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination a signal generation method including the step of controlling a rotational position of a motor based on the estimated mechanical angle, in combination with all other elements recited in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 11,733,260 by Koeck et al., directed to a sensor device provided with a magnetic field sensitive element being positioned in a magnetic field of a magnet. The electronic circuitry is configured to receive and process the sensing signal from the magnetic field sensitive element to generate an angle signal indicating the orientation angle of the magnetic field and an angular speed of the shaft. See figures 9A and 9B below:
PNG
media_image1.png
645
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 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 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights