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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 7 (and dependent claims 8-11) recite “An angle calculating method, comprising: providing a target point device comprising target point accelerations of a target point in axial directions; providing a reference point device comprising reference point accelerations of a reference point in the axial directions; converting the target point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a target point inclination angle of the target point in the corresponding axial direction according to an acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and a standard gravity; and converting the reference point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a reference point inclination angle of the reference point in the corresponding axial direction according to the acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and the standard gravity.”
Claims 7-11, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “providing a target point device comprising target point accelerations of a target point in axial directions; providing a reference point device comprising reference point accelerations of a reference point in the axial directions; converting the target point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a target point inclination angle of the target point in the corresponding axial direction according to an acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and a standard gravity; and converting the reference point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a reference point inclination angle of the reference point in the corresponding axial direction according to the acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and the standard gravity.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “providing a target point device comprising target point accelerations of a target point in axial directions; providing a reference point device comprising reference point accelerations of a reference point in the axial directions; converting the target point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a target point inclination angle of the target point in the corresponding axial direction according to an acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and a standard gravity; and converting the reference point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a reference point inclination angle of the reference point in the corresponding axial direction according to the acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and the standard gravity.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process and mathematical concept, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 1, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0079] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yin et al (CN 112697074 A).
Yin et al disclose the following claimed features:
Regarding claim 1, an angle calculating system (Figures 1-4), comprising: a target point device (3) configured to measure an inertia of a target point to obtain a target point data; a reference point device (6) configured to detect an inertia of a reference point to obtain a reference point data; and a terminal device (7), comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive the reference point data and the target point data; and a processing module connected to the receiving unit, wherein the processing module comprises an inclination angle converting unit configured to convert the target point data into a target point inclination angle of the target point and convert the reference point data into a reference point inclination angle of the reference point; wherein the target point data includes acceleration signals of the target point in axial directions, and the reference point data comprises acceleration signals of the reference point in the axial directions (paragraphs [0044]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 4, further comprising a central communication device (2) connected to the target point device (3), the reference point device (6) and the terminal device (7), wherein the central communication device is configured to receive the target point and the reference point data, and transmit the target point and the reference point data to the terminal device (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0044]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising a central communication device (2) connected to the target point device (3), the reference point device (6) and the terminal device (7), wherein the central communication device is configured to receive the target point and the reference point data, and transmit the target point and the reference point data to the terminal device (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0044]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the target point device (3) or the reference point device (6) is an accelerometer or a gyroscope or a combination thereof (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0044]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 7, an angle calculating method (Figures 1-4), comprising: providing a target point device (3) comprising target point accelerations of a target point in axial directions; providing a reference point device (6) comprising reference point accelerations of a reference point in the axial directions; converting the target point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a target point inclination angle of the target point in the corresponding axial direction according to an acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and a standard gravity; and converting the reference point acceleration in each of the axial directions into a reference point inclination angle of the reference point in the corresponding axial direction according to the acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane and the standard gravity (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0044]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the acceleration calculation equation for inclined plane is: θaxis=sin-1(Aaxisg0); wherein g.sub.0 stands for the standard gravity; wherein θ.sub.axis stands for the target point inclination angle or the reference point inclination angle in each of the axial directions; wherein A.sub.axis stands for the target point acceleration or the reference point acceleration in each of the axial directions (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0044]-[0077]).
Regarding claim 9, further comprising: providing a standard data comprising a standard acceleration of a plurality of axes on a standard horizontal plane; generating a calibration operator according to an error between the standard acceleration and the standard gravity; and applying the calibration operator to the target point data and the reference point data; wherein after the standard data is processed by the calibration operator, a sum of the standard accelerations of the axial directions is equal to the standard gravity (Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0044]-[0077]).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schauer et al (US 11,906,542) disclose a system for checking an inertial measurement unit of a vehicle, in particular a land vehicle, during driving includes the inertial measurement unit having: a first acceleration sensor configured to measure a translational acceleration along a first sensor axis and/or a first rate-of-rotation sensor configured to measure a rate of rotation about the first sensor axis and also a second acceleration sensor configured to measure a translational acceleration along a second sensor axis and/or a second rate-of-rotation sensor configured to measure a rate of rotation about the second sensor axis. A sensing device senses a movement of the vehicle in a first vehicle direction and/or about the first vehicle direction. Both the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis are tilted with respect to the first vehicle direction. Anderson (US 9,465,044) discloses a system and method that use an accelerometer and magnetometer to estimate an angular velocity in place of a gyroscope in 9-axis sensor fusion to estimate angular orientation. The final angular velocity estimate is constructed from two partially independent angular velocity estimates, one using only magnetometer measurements and the other using only accelerometer measurements. The unobservable portion of each partial angular velocity estimate is provided by a projection from a third complete estimate that uses both accelerometer and magnetometer data.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights