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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) (submitted on September 23, 2024; January 13, 2025; and May 15, 2026) are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
According to MPEP 2112.02: Process Claims, it is noted that “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device” (emphasis added). It is also noted in that same MPEP section that “The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out” (emphasis added). Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley's structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
With regard to claims 12-22 these claims present a method according to the magnetic sensor device of claims 1-11. Therefore, the argument made against claims 1-11 also applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 14-20. In addition, it is clearly seen that claims 1-11 are process claims which present a process of using the system as claimed in claims 12-22 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham et al. (US 9,245,547 B1) in view of Schippmann (DE 10236722 A1).
Latham et al. teaches a magnetic sensor having enhanced linearization comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
434
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
556
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 12, a magnetic sensor device (FIG. 1, magnetic field sensor 10) comprising: a magnetic field sensing element (FIG. 1, magnetic field sensing element 12) to generate an output signal; a signal processing module (FIG. 1, signal processing module 16) coupled to the magnetic field sensing element (FIG. 1, magnetic field sensing element 12), the signal processing module (FIG. 1, signal processing module 16) including a linearization circuit (FIG. 1, linearization module 18) for linearizing the output signal generated by the magnetic field sensing element (FIG. 1, magnetic field sensing element 12); and an output module to receive the linearized signal from the linearization module and provide a device output signal (For more details, please read: Abstract; from column 1, line 26 to column 4, line 25; and column 5, lines 38-51).
Latham et al. teaches all as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach the following feature:
An analog translinear circuit for linearizing the output signal.
Schippmann teaches an analogue measurement converter for linearization and generation of non-linear transfer characteristic curves comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
798
862
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 1 and 12, a linearization circuit (FIG. 1, linearization unit including summing node 5, voltage source Un , amplifier 6n, linearization cell 7n) having an analog translinear circuit for linearizing the output signal (Abstract; paragraphs: [0003], [0013], [0025], [0027] and [0033]; and claims 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic sensor having enhanced linearization of Latham et al. to utilize an analog translinear circuit for linearizing the output signal as taught by Schippmann since Schippmann teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide an additive analog linearization process in which the characteristic curve correction takes place so that with the help of bipolar translinear circuits specific nonlinear correction voltages from the measurement signal are generated, which are then added to the measurement signal, so that the curvilinear ones generated by the translinear circuits voltage curves the curvatures counteract the measurement signal, with which an approximately linear transmission behavior between the measurement and the output variable as disclosed in the paragraph [0013].
With regard to claims 2 and 13, Latham et al. teaches the magnetic field sensing element (FIG. 1, magnetic field sensing element 12) comprises a magnetoresistive (MR) element (For more details, please read: Abstract; from column 1, line 26 to column 4, line 25; and column 5, lines 38-51).
With regard to claims 3 and 14, Latham et al. teaches the linearization circuit (FIG. 1, linearization module 18) to apply a third order Taylor expansion term to the output signal (Abstract), and Schippmann teaches the analog translinear circuit for linearizing the output signal (Abstract; and paragraphs: [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the magnetic sensor having enhanced linearization of Latham et al. to utilize an analog translinear circuit comprising a cube circuit since such an arrangement is beneficial to solve the linearization problem of the third order component.
With regard to claims 4 and 15, it is well-known that a single-quadrant (or unipolar) cube circuit is a component in analog computation that cubes a signal [(y = x3)] while strictly accepting inputs of one polarity (positive). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the magnetic sensor having enhanced linearization of Latham et al. to utilize a cube circuit comprising a single quadrant cube circuit since such an arrangement is beneficial to offer several distinct advantages in signal processing for: its maximum simplicity as unipolar configurations require fewer components compared to complex four-quadrant networks; its high efficiency by operating only in a single quadrant, these circuits dissipate less power; a reduced cost since simpler topologies require fewer active elements, fewer matched transistor pairs, and less complex biasing, bringing down overall manufacturing and design costs; and its lower noise and higher precision because the circuit does not have to cross zero-volts or switch between polarities, it avoids crossover distortion. This yields higher dynamic precision within its functional range.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham et al. in view of Schippmann as applied to claims 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Serrano et al. (WO 2022/144621 A1).
Latham et al. in view of Schippmann teaches all as discussed above in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 12-15 including the linearization circuit (FIG. 1, linearization module 18) having an analog translinear circuit for linearizing the output signal (Schippmann: Abstract; and paragraph: [0013]), but it does not explicitly teach the following feature:
First and second polarity switches, wherein the first polarity switch is coupled to an input of the translinear circuit and the second polarity switch is coupled to an output of the translinear circuit.
Serrano et al. teaches a correction method for correcting an output signal provided by a magnetoresistive sensor comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
620
1220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 5 and 16, first and second polarity switches (“two inverters (one to invert polarity of Vout and another one to invert polarity of Vout,AMU)”, wherein the first polarity switch (FIG. 26, left inverter) is coupled to an input of the translinear circuit (FIG. 26, AMU 14) and the second polarity switch (FIG. 26, right inverter) is coupled to an output of the translinear circuit (FIG. 26, AMU 14) (Abstract; paragraphs: [0074]-[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the magnetic sensor having enhanced linearization of Latham et al. to use two polarity switches connected to an input and output of the translinear circuit as taught by Serrano et al. since Serrano et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to correct an output voltage signal provided by a magnetoresistive sensor as disclosed in the Abstract and in the paragraph [0081].
Claims 6-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham et al. in view of Schippmann as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sundararajan et al. (NPL: “Enhancing sensor linearity through the translinear circuit implementation of piecewise and neural network models”).
Latham et al. in view of Schippmann teaches all as discussed above in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 12-15 including the linearization circuit (FIG. 1, linearization module 18) having an analog translinear circuit for linearizing the output signal (Schippmann: Abstract; and paragraph: [0013]), but it does not explicitly teach the following features:
A translinear circuit comprises a loop of transistors.
The transistors comprise bipolar transistors.
The transistors comprise MOS transistors configured in weak inversion.
Sundararajan et al. teaches a translinear based analog circuit to realize neural networks and piecewise regression models for the purpose of linearizing the selected sensors comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
298
630
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 6 and 17, a translinear circuit comprises a loop of transistors (Figure 1; Abstract; and pages 206-207 and 214).
With regard to claims 7 and 18, the transistors comprise bipolar transistors (Figure 1; Abstract; and pages 206-207 and 214).
With regard to claims 8 and 19, the transistors comprise MOS transistors configured in weak inversion (Figure 1; Abstract; and pages 206-207 and 214).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the magnetic sensor having enhanced linearization of Latham et al. to implement a loop of bipolar or MOS transistors in the translinear circuit as taught by Sundararajan et al. since Sundararajan et al. teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to provide a substantial reduction in full-scale error. Such an implementation can significantly increase the improvement in linearity, ranging from 60% to 80%, for the selected sensors. Furthermore, the proposed implementation excels not only in linearity but also in terms of both response speed and power consumption as disclosed in the Abstract.
Claims 9-11 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latham et al. in view of Schippmann as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sundararajan et al. (NPL: “BJT Based Translinear Implementation of an Evolutionary Optimised Non-Linear Function for Sensor Linearisation”), hereinafter Sundararajan et al.’ BJT.
Latham et al. in view of Schippmann teaches all as discussed above in the rejection of claims 1-4 and 12-15 including the linearization circuit (FIG. 1, linearization module 18) having an analog translinear circuit for linearizing the output signal (Schippmann: Abstract; and paragraph: [0013]), but it does not explicitly teach the following features:
A current reference coupled to the translinear circuit for setting a level of linearization of the output signal.
The reference current generates a bias current that is programmable to control the level of linearization of the output signal.
A programmable mirroring factor M for controlling the level of linearization of the output signal.
Sundararajan et al.’ BJT teaches a translinear based analog circuit to realize neural networks and piecewise regression models for the purpose of linearizing the selected sensors comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
566
1226
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to claims 9 and 20, a current reference (Figure 3, Io and Ip: “ must be appropriately chosen”) coupled to the translinear circuit for setting a level of linearization of the output signal (“scaling the linearized output”) (Figure 3; Abstract; Section 2.1, left column; Section 2.3; Section 3.1; and Section 5.).
With regard to claims 10 and 21, the reference current (Figure 3, Io and Ip: “ must be appropriately chosen”) generates a bias current that is programmable to control the level of linearization of the output signal (Figure 3; Abstract; Section 2.1, left column; Section 2.3; Section 3.1; and Section 5.).
With regard to claims 11 and 22, a programmable mirroring factor M (scaling constant “M”) for controlling the level of linearization of the output signal (Figure 3; Abstract; Section 2.1, left column; Section 2.3; Section 3.1; and Section 5.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the magnetic sensor having enhanced linearization of Latham et al. to use reference current coupled to the translinear circuit to control the level of linearization of the output signal as taught by Sundararajan et al.’ BJT since Sundararajan et al.’ BJT teaches that such an arrangement is beneficial to improve sensor characteristics by overcoming power consumption and response time limitations implemented for sensor linearisation using a translinear circuit as disclosed in the ABSTRACT.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is invited to the followings whose inventions disclose similar devices.
Deak et al. (US 9,341,686 B2) teaches a single-package power meter.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2170. The examiner can normally be reached MON-THURS (7:00 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, LEE E. RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/HOAI-AN D. NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights