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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 2/28/2023. Since the initial filing, claim 1-9 have been cancelled, claims 10-29 have been added and no claims have been amended. Thus, claims 10-29 are pending in the application.
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 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 10, the claim is a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations the recite and abstract idea: acquiring, via processing circuitry, an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations; performing, via the processing circuitry, gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration; calculating, via the processing circuitry, a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating, via the processing circuitry, a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity; and extracting from the distance, via the processing circuitry, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recited additional element of processing circuitry and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 10 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
In regards to claim 11-17, these claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus do not make the abstract idea any less abstract) (claim 12 and 13 introduce extracting data points, calculating a coefficient and correcting initial data with the coefficient; claim 14 and 15 introduce correcting data; claim 16 and 17 introduce acquiring data, calculating a coefficient and correcting data using the coefficient) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
[Step 1]
In regards to claim 18, the claim is a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquiring an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the first information processing device; performing gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration; calculating a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity; extracting, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points; and transmitting the acceleration, the velocity, and the distance or the moving distance from the first information processing device to the second information processing device (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of information processing devices and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 19, the claim is a device with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquire an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the information processing device, perform gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration, calculate a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing, calculate a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity, and extract, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculate a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of a processing device and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 20, the claim is a device with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquire an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the information processing device, perform gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration, calculate a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing, calculate a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity, extract, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculate a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points, and transmit the acceleration, the velocity, and the distance or the moving distance to a second information processing device, the second information processing device communicably connected to the information processing device.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of processing circuitry and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 21, the claim is a device with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquiring an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations; performing gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration; calculating a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity; and extracting, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of a computer with a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198) and Freeman (US 2016/0120469; paragraph 102).
In regards to claims 22-29, these claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus do not make the abstract idea any less abstract) (claim 23 and 24 introduce extracting data points, calculating a coefficient and correcting initial data with the coefficient; claim 25 and 26 introduce correcting data; claim 27 and 28 introduce acquiring data, calculating a coefficient and correcting data using the coefficient) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qi (CN 106619038).
In regards to claim 10, Qi discloses a moving distance calculation method comprising: acquiring, via processing circuitry (measuring circuit 2), an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations (3-axis acceleration sensor 23 sends acceleration data to microcontroller 22 of measuring circuit 2, page 4 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 1); performing, via the processing circuitry, gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration (page 5 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 2); calculating, via the processing circuitry, a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating, via the processing circuitry, a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity (integrating to achieve displacement from acceleration must pass through velocity, page 6 paragraph 4-5); and extracting from the distance, via the processing circuitry, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points (page 6 paragraph 5).
In regards to claim 11, Qi discloses the method of claim 10 and Qi further discloses wherein the gravity correction value is a prescribed value (page 6 paragraph 1-2).
In regards to claim 18, Qi discloses a moving distance calculation method used in an information processing system having a first information processing device put on an arm of a user (measuring circuit in finger ring 4, page 2 paragraph 4-6) and a second information processing device communicably connected to the first information processing device (page 3 paragraph 1), the method comprising: acquiring an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the first information processing device (3-axis acceleration sensor 23 sends acceleration data to microcontroller 22 of measuring circuit 2, page 4 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 1); performing gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration (page 5 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 2); calculating a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity (integrating to achieve displacement from acceleration must pass through velocity, page 6 paragraph 4-5); extracting, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points (page 6 paragraph 5); and transmitting the acceleration, the velocity, and the distance or the moving distance from the first information processing device to the second information processing device (page 5 paragraph 2).
In regards to claim 19, Qi discloses an information processing device comprising processing circuitry (measuring circuit 2) configured to: acquire an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the information processing device (3-axis acceleration sensor 23 sends acceleration data to microcontroller 22 of measuring circuit 2, page 4 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 1), perform gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration (page 5 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 2), calculate a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing, calculate a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity (integrating to achieve displacement from acceleration must pass through velocity, page 6 paragraph 4-5), and extract, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculate a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points (page 6 paragraph 5).
In regards to claim 20, Qi discloses an information processing device comprising processing circuitry (measuring circuit 2) configured to: acquire an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the information processing device (3-axis acceleration sensor 23 sends acceleration data to microcontroller 22 of measuring circuit 2, page 4 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 1), perform gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration (page 5 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 2), calculate a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing, calculate a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity (integrating to achieve displacement from acceleration must pass through velocity, page 6 paragraph 4-5), extract, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculate a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points (page 6 paragraph 5), and transmit the acceleration, the velocity, and the distance or the moving distance to a second information processing device, the second information processing device communicably connected to the information processing device (page 5 paragraph 2).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 21, 22 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi (CN 106619038) in view of Giacometti (US 2019/0374429).
In regards to claim 21, Qi discloses a method comprising: acquiring an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations (3-axis acceleration sensor 23 sends acceleration data to microcontroller 22 of measuring circuit 2, page 4 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 1); performing gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration (page 5 final paragraph and page 6 paragraph 2); calculating a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity (integrating to achieve displacement from acceleration must pass through velocity, page 6 paragraph 4-5); and extracting, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points (page 6 paragraph 5).
While Qi discloses data storage (page 3 paragraph 1), it does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method.
However, Giacometti teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method (paragraph 349).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qi to have a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method as taught by Giacometti as this is a known means in the art for storing and providing instructions.
In regard to claim 22, Qi in view of Giacometti teaches the medium of claim 21 and Qi further discloses wherein the gravity correction value is a prescribed value (page 6 paragraph 2).
In regards to claim 29, Qi in view of Giacometti teaches the method of claim 21 and Qi further discloses the method further comprising transmitting the acceleration, the velocity, and the distance or the moving distance to an information processing device (page 5 paragraph 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785