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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The amendment received on December 11, 2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 12-14 are amended. Claim 15 is newly added. Thus, claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed December 11, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since Applicant’s argument relies on previously rejection, Applicant’s argument with respect to previous rejection are addressed as follows:
On the page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[A]pplicant submits that the presently recited claims, taken as a whole, recite significant claim elements that cannot be satisfied by mental steps or processes, are not merely abstract ideas as defined by case law, and the claimed subject matter relates to a specific improvement in a computer-related technology including technical structural elements. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are determined to broadly relate to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, there are sufficient recitations of claim elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea itself.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has argued that the abstract idea itself is significant. However, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)).
Applicant’s amendments filed December 11, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising including:
circuitry configured to
determine, based on each position of a plurality of positions of a user measured at a predetermined time interval between measurements, whether or not the user is linearly moving,
detect a movement amount and a movement direction of a linear movement of the user during each predetermined time interval,
detect an amount of change in an orientation of the user during each predetermined time interval,
calculate, in a case where the circuitry determines that the user is linearly moving, the orientation of the user at each position where the user is determined to be linearly moving based on the detected amount of change in the orientation of the user, and
control a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user,
wherein the user is determined to be linearly moving when the movement amount of the user over each predetermined time interval is equal to or more than a threshold distance value, and
wherein the orientation of the user is calculated at each position where the user is determined to be linearly movinq usinq an integrated value of an angular velocity of each change in the orientation of the user detected over a set number of prior predetermined time intervals.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the limitation of “determine, based on each position of a plurality of positions of a user measured at a predetermined time interval between measurements, whether or not the user is linearly moving (see Fig. 6 and para. [0037]: linear movement detection unit)” is mental process (evaluation/judgment) based on mathematical calculations because each position of a plurality of positions of a user measured at a predetermined time interval between measurements is mathematical expression. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C).
Further, “detect a movement amount and a movement direction of a linear movement of the user during each predetermined time interval (see para. [0043]: difference between current position is movement amount; para. [0046]: calculating movement direction),” “detect an amount of change in an orientation of the user during each predetermined time interval (see paras. [0019]: calculates the amount of change in the orientation of the mobile terminal 50, para.[0034]: the rotational movement detection unit 32 calculates an integrated value of the angular velocity)” are mathematical calculations. Further, the limitation of “calculate, in a case where the circuitry determines that the user is linearly moving, the orientation of the user at each position where the user is determined to be linearly moving based on the detected amount of change in the orientation of the user (see paras. [0035]-[0037]: linear moving detection unit and para. [0034]-[0036]: orientation calculation unit ),” “wherein the user is determined to be linearly moving when the movement amount of the user over each predetermined time interval is equal to or more than a threshold distance value (see paras. [0035]-[0036]: linear moving detection unit; paras. [0048]-[0050]: threshold value or distance) and “wherein the orientation of the user is calculated at each position where the user is determined to be linearly moving using an integrated value of an angular velocity of each change in the orientation of the user detected over a set number of prior predetermined time intervals (see para. [0035]: orientation calculation unit)” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 13 and 14.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: an information processing device (preamble); circuitry; control a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user,
In Claim 13: an information processing method, executed by a computer (preamble); controlling a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user; and
In Claim 14: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by computer causes the computer to execute a method (preamble); controlling a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user.
The additional elements such as circuitry, an information processing device, an information processing method, executed by a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable medium in claims 1, 13, and 14 are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, note that step of controlling a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user is insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Hida, Samset (WO 2007131177), Fontius (US 2004/0145585)). For example, Hida, Samset, and Fontius teach controlling a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user is insignificant extra-solution activity (para. [0029] of Hida; para. [0025] of Samset; para. [0067] of Fontius). The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-8,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards mathematical calculations. The explanation for the rejection of Claim 1 therefore is incorporated herein and applied to Claims 2-8. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claim 1.
Regarding claim 9,
The additional element of “amounts of change in the position and the orientation of the user are measured by a mobile terminal carried by the user” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 2, lines 11-13 and page 3, lines 12-13 of Hida; page 2, line 34 -page 3, line 5 of Xiao (CN109618055 B)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10,
The additional element of “the position of the user is measured at least by at least one sensor, the at least one sensor including a magnetic sensor” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 5, lines 36-37 of Hida; page 2, lines 24-25 of Kim (KR 101808095 B1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 11,
The additional element of “the position of the user is measured based on an output of the magnetic sensor along with at least one of an output of an acceleration sensor or an output of a gyro sensor” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 5, lines 36-39 of Hida; paras. [0037], [0042] of Kourogi (US 2011/0105957 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 12,
The additional element of “the amount of change in the orientation of the user is measured at least by integrating the output of the gyro sensor to calculate the integrated value” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 5, lines 36-38 of Hida; para. [0028] of Lokshin (US 2012/0116716 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15,
The additional element of “the number of predetermined time intervals used to calculate the integrated value is set according to a determined type of behavior of the user” is mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C).
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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hida et al. (JP 5569099 B2, hereinafter referred to as “Hida”) (cited in IDS dated January 24, 2023) further in view of Ben-Asher et al. (WO 2017/191631 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Ben”) further in view of Imamura et al. (US 2020/0333473 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Imamura”).
Regarding claim 1, Hida teaches an information processing device including:
determine based on each position of a plurality of positions of a user measured (Fig. 4a exhibits each position of a plurality of positions of a user) at a predetermined time interval between measurements (Fig. 4b exhibits predetermined time interval between measurements);
circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) configured to
detect a movement amount (page 3, lines 12-13: link information, straight travel distance) and a movement direction (page 3, lines 12-13: a change amount of the azimuth) of a linear movement of the user (page 2, lines 11-13: A link information calculation unit that calculates link information including information on the straight travel distance of the user based on a determination result by the unit, and the determination unit is a change amount of the azimuth acquired by the azimuth acquisition unit; page 3, lines 12-13: the moving shape calculation unit 24 uses the link information (linear movement distance) and the absolute position of the portable terminal 100 detected intermittently by the absolute position detection unit 30, for example. Is calculated) during each predetermined time interval (Fig. 4b exhibits each predetermined time interval);
control a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user (page 5, lines 40-41: the display screen 60 displays various information under instructions from the control unit 20. The display screen 60 displays, for example, information on the route traveled by the user holding the portable portable terminal 100, note that the above feature of “the display screen 60 displays, for example, information on the route traveled by the user holding the portable portable terminal 100” reads on “a display to provide a visualization according to the measured position and the calculated orientation of the user); and
detect an amount of change in an orientation of the user (Figs. 4a and 4b exhibits detecting an amount of change in an orientation of the user; page 6, lines 17-18: FIG. 4A is a diagram illustrating changes in the orientation of the portable terminal 100 with arrows when the user holding the portable terminal 100 is walking in a straight line; FIG. 4B is a diagram in which the user goes straight ahead. It is a figure which shows the time change of the geomagnetism detected by the geomagnetic information detection part when it is doing) during each predetermined time interval (Fig. 4b exhibits each predetermined time interval); and
wherein the orientation of the user is calculated at each position where the user is determined to be linearly moving (page 6, lines 17-18: FIG. 4A is a diagram illustrating changes in the orientation of the portable portable terminal 100 with arrows when the user holding the portable portable terminal 100 is walking in a straight line, note that the above feature of “straight line” reads on “linearly moving”) using an integrated value of an angular velocity of each change in the orientation of the user detected over a set number of prior predetermined time intervals (page 15, lines 30-33: instead of the geomagnetic information detection unit 40, an angular velocity sensor capable of detecting the angular velocity (angular velocity around three axes) of the portable portable terminal 100 is provide, note that).
Hida does not specifically teach determining, whether or not the user is linearly moving and case where the circuitry determines that the user is linearly moving.
However, Ben teaches determining, whether or not the user is linearly moving (page 3, lines 14-16: the user's frame of reference also undergoes changes, for example in response to a change in the direction of linear' motion of the user) and case where the circuitry determines that the user is linearly moving (page 3, lines 14-16: see above).
Hida and Ben are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of head tracking in a non-static environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the determining, whether or not the user is linearly moving and case where the circuitry determines that the user is linearly moving such as are described in Ben into Hida, in order to provide a method and system of head tracking for use in a non-static environment (Ben, page 2, lines 24-26).
Hida and Ben do not specifically teach calculating, in a case where the circuitry determines that the user is moving, the orientation of the user at each position where the user is determined to be moving based on the detected amount of change in the orientation of the user, wherein the user is determined to be moving when the movement amount of the user over the predetermined time interval is equal to or more than a threshold distance value.
However, Imamura teaches calculating, in a case where the circuitry determines that the user is moving, the orientation of the user at each position where the user is determined to be moving based on the detected amount of change in the orientation of the user, wherein the user is determined to be moving when the movement amount of the user overpara. [0029]: the moving determination value Tr indicates the number of times of determination required for the control unit 1 to determine that the state has transitioned to the running state. For example, when the number of times that the user's moving speed V is determined to be equal to or more than the moving speed threshold Vr has reached the moving determination value Tr, it is determined that the state has transitioned to the running state, note that above feature of “when the number of times that the user's moving speed V is determined to be equal to or more than the moving speed threshold Vr has reached the moving determination value Tr,” reads on “threshold distance value” because distance can be expressed as the product of time and speed).
Hida and Imamura are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of user’s moving state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculating the orientation of the user such as is described in Imamura into Hida, in order to calculate a moving speed for each predetermined unit time t (at predetermined time intervals) (Imamura, para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Hida teaches that the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) calculates the orientation of the user by adding the detected amount of change (page 4, line 43- page 5, line 1: FIG. 4B is a diagram in which the user goes straight ahead. It is a figure which shows the time change of the geomagnetism detected by the geomagnetic information detection part when it is doing) in the orientation of the user (page 4, line 42-43: FIG. 4A is a diagram showing the azimuth indicated by the portable terminal when the user holding the portable terminal is walking; page 6, lines 17-18: FIG. 4A is a diagram illustrating changes in the orientation of the portable terminal 100 with arrows when the user holding the portable terminal 100 is walking in a straight line) and the movement direction of the linear movement at a previous position during a period from the previous position where the user is determined to be linearly moving to a current position (Figs. 4a and 4b; page 6, lines 17-18; see above; page 4, line 42-43: see above; page 4, line 43- page 5, line 1: see above).
Regarding claim 3, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Hida teaches that the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) determines that the user has linearly moved on condition that an amount of change in the position of the user continuously exceeds the threshold distance value (page 6, lines 40-43: when the user goes straight ahead, the geomagnetism changes in a zigzag manner at the walking timing (timing to move one foot forward). However, the threshold value B is set so that the amount of change here does not exceed the threshold value B; page 13, lines 5-10: walking distance, note that the above feature of “threshold value B” in page 6, lines 40-43 and “walking distance” in page 13, lines 5-10 reads on “threshold distance”), for a predetermined number of times (page 6, lines 40-43: threshold A) and each position detected for the predetermined number of times are all included in a predetermined area (Figs. 8a and 8b) (page 6, lines 40-43: When the user walks in an arc as shown in FIG. 8 (a), the amount of change in geomagnetism exceeds the threshold B as shown in FIG. 8 (b) within the time threshold A range described in FIG. However, the amount of change gradually increases even after the range of the threshold A is exceeded. In such a case, the determination unit 34 determines that the user has moved in an arc shape).
Regarding claim 4, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Hida teaches that the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) is further configured to set a shape of the predetermined area (page 2, lines 43-33: the movement shape calculation unit 24 calculates the movement shape of the portable terminal 100 based on the link information calculated by the link information calculation unit 36, the detection result by the absolute position detection unit 30).
Regarding claim 5, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Hida teaches that the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) calculates the orientation of the user based on the position of the user in a case where it is not determined that the user is linearly moving (page 2, lines 11-13; see claim 1 above; page 3, lines 12-13: see claim 1 above; page 5, lines 2-3: FIG. 6A is a diagram schematically illustrating a state in which a user passes a vicinity of a disturbance factor that causes a disturbance to the geomagnetic information detection unit 40 while walking; page 6, lines 38-39: when the geomagnetism changes as shown in FIG. 7B within the range of the threshold D (second interval) shorter than the threshold A of FIG. The waveform is treated as noise, and the user determines that the vehicle is going straight ahead, note that the above feature of “ a vicinity of a disturbance factor” in page 5, lines 2-3 and “noise” in page 6, lines 38-39 reads on “it is not determined that the user is linearly moving”).
Regarding claim 6, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Hida teaches further including: the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) is further configured to learn whether the user has linearly moved based on the position of the user measured at the predetermined time interval (page 3, lines 12-13: the moving shape calculation unit 24 uses the link information (linear movement distance) and the absolute position of the portable terminal 100 detected intermittently by the absolute position detection unit 30, for example. Is calculated),
wherein the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) determines, using a learning result of the learning unit and based on the position of the user measured at the predetermined time interval (page 3, lines 12-13: the moving shape calculation unit 24 uses the link information (linear movement distance) and the absolute position of the portable terminal 100 detected intermittently by the absolute position detection unit 30, for example. Is calculated, note that the above feature of “detected intermittently by the absolute position detection unit 30” reads on “the position of the user measured at a predetermined time interval”),
whether or not the user is linearly moving and detects the movement amount and the movement direction of the linear movement of the user (page 5, lines 2-3: FIG. 6A is a diagram schematically illustrating a state in which a user passes a vicinity of a disturbance factor that causes a disturbance to the geomagnetic information detection unit 40 while walking; page 6, lines 38-39: when the geomagnetism changes as shown in FIG. 7B within the range of the threshold D (second interval) shorter than the threshold A of FIG. The waveform is treated as noise, and the user determines that the vehicle is going straight ahead, note that the above feature of “ a vicinity of a disturbance factor” in page 5, lines 2-3 and “noise” in page 6, lines 38-39 reads on “whether or not the user is linearly moving and detects the movement amount and the movement direction of the linear movement of the user).
Regarding claim 7, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Hida teaches that the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) determines that the user stops between the amount of change in the position of the user is equal to or less than the threshold distance value (page 6, lines 40-43: when the user goes straight ahead, the geomagnetism changes in a zigzag manner at the walking timing (timing to move one foot forward). However, the threshold value B is set so that the amount of change here does not exceed the threshold value B, note that above feature of “amount of change here does not exceed the threshold value B” reads on “the user stops between the amount of change in the position of the user is equal to or less than the threshold distance value”) and amounts of change in the detected amount of change of the orientation of the user at the two positions (page 15, lines 32-33: the amount of change in the orientation are detected from the detected value of the angular velocity sensor) are equal to or less than threshold rotational value (page 7, line 29: a rotation matrix for rotating around the Z axis by the rotation angle θ necessary for the bending operation; page 6, lines 40-43: when the user goes straight ahead, the geomagnetism changes in a zigzag manner at the walking timing (timing to move one foot forward). However, the threshold value B is set so that the amount of change here does not exceed the threshold value B, note that above feature of “amount of change here does not exceed the threshold value B” and “zigzag manner at the walking timing” in page 6, lines 40-43 and “a rotation matrix for rotating” in page 7, lines 29” reads on “amounts of change in the detected amount of change of the orientation of the user at the two positions are equal to or less than threshold rotational value”).
Regarding claim 8, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 7, in addition, Hida teaches that the circuitry (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU) determines whether or not the user has linearly moved based on the position of the user measured at a predetermined time interval before and after the two positions (page 3, lines 12-13: the moving shape calculation unit 24 uses the link information (linear movement distance) and the absolute position of the portable terminal 100 detected intermittently by the absolute position detection unit 30, for example. Is calculated; page 2, lines 11-13; see claim 1 above; page 3, lines 12-13: see claim 1 above; page 5, lines 2-3: FIG. 6A is a diagram schematically illustrating a state in which a user passes a vicinity of a disturbance factor that causes a disturbance to the geomagnetic information detection unit 40 while walking; page 6, lines 38-39: when the geomagnetism changes as shown in FIG. 7B within the range of the threshold D (second interval) shorter than the threshold A of FIG. The waveform is treated as noise, and the user determines that the vehicle is going straight ahead, note that the above feature of “ a vicinity of a disturbance factor” in page 5, lines 2-3 and “noise” in page 6, lines 38-39 reads on “it is not determined that the user is linearly moving”).
in a case where it is determined that the user stops between the two positions (page 3, lines 12-13: see claim 1 above; page 13, lines 5-10: walking speed of l) (page 13, lines 5-10: FIG. 31 shows a third example of the θ calculation method. In the example shown in FIG. 31, the theta n-1 as an angle theta, store S and the distance lss m road direction to the nearest point (Ss m) of the m, the furthest point (Se of the store S m Using the distance lse m in the road direction to m ), the following definition is made. while walking while walking the walking distance l , when it can be determined that l is traveling straight on the road in front of n-1 n the store (for example, walking speed of l Is greater than α, while the walking speed of l is less than or equal to α), among all θ n-1 n n-1 satisfying the following equations (16) and (17), note that the above feature of “the walking speed of l is less than or equal to α” in page 13, lines 5-10 reads on “user stops between the two positions”).
Regarding claim 9, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Hida teaches that amounts of change in the position and the orientation of the user are measured by a mobile terminal carried by the user (page 3, lines 12-13: the moving shape calculation unit 24 uses the link information (linear movement distance) and the absolute position of the portable terminal 100 detected intermittently by the absolute position detection unit 30, for example. Is calculated).
Regarding claim 10, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Hida teaches that the position of the user is measured at least by at least one sensor, the at least one sensor including a magnetic sensor (page 5, lines 36-39: the geomagnetic information detector 40 is also called an orientation sensor, and is a geomagnetic sensor capable of detecting geomagnetism on a three-axis coordinate system, that is, a magnetic orientation sensor. Instead of the geomagnetic sensor, a gyro sensor (a sensor that detects an angular velocity around three axes (X, Y, Z axes)) may be used. The acceleration information detection unit 50 is, for example, a sensor that detects acceleration in three-axis directions (X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis directions).
Regarding claim 11, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Hida teaches that the position of the user is measured based on an output of the magnetic sensor along with at least of one of an output of an acceleration sensor, and an output of a gyro sensor (page 5, lines 36-39: The geomagnetic information detector 40 is also called an orientation sensor, and is a geomagnetic sensor capable of detecting geomagnetism on a three-axis coordinate system, that is, a magnetic orientation sensor. Instead of the geomagnetic sensor, a gyro sensor (a sensor that detects an angular velocity around three axes (X, Y, Z axes)) may be used. The acceleration information detection unit 50 is, for example, a sensor that detects acceleration in three-axis directions (X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis directions)).
Regarding claim 12, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 11, in addition, Hida teaches that the amount of change in the orientation of the user is measured at least by integrating the output of the gyro sensor to calculate the integrated value (page 5, lines 36-38: The geomagnetic information detector 40 is also called an orientation sensor, and is a geomagnetic sensor capable of detecting geomagnetism on a three-axis coordinate system, that is, a magnetic orientation sensor. Instead of the geomagnetic sensor, a gyro sensor (a sensor that detects an angular velocity around three axes (X, Y, Z axes)) may be used, note that gyro sensor apply a mathematical process (integration) to calculate the orientation or angle over time).
Regarding claim 13, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of claim 1 above, Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, it is a non-transitory computer program product type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above, Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium (page 2, lines 24-27: control unit includes a CPU), taught by Hida.
Regarding claim 15, Hida in view of Ben and Imamura teaches all the limitation of claim 10, in addition, Hida teaches that the number of predetermined time intervals used to calculate the integrated value is set according to a determined type of behavior of the user (page 6, lines 27-35: when the geomagnetism starts to change and the time threshold A (first interval) elapses, the determining unit 34 is judged to have changed direction, that is, bent… when the geomagnetism changes as shown in FIG. 6B within the range of the threshold C (second interval) shorter than the threshold A in FIG. The determination unit 34 determines that the user remains straight ahead).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858