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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The amendment received on January 14, 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 10, and 13 are amended. Claims 14-17 are newly added. Thus, claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed January 14, 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On the page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[B]ased on the above, (i) the claims recite a practical application that improves technology by making it easier to manufacture devices that determine their position and/or orientation using a first and a second inertial sensor without requiring a predetermined movement profile, and (ii)
the claims are not directed to any recited judicial exception.”
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. Applicant has not, respectfully, demonstrated with evidence why the abstract idea itself would amount to more than 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. Therefore, 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: 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)). Further, the claimed feature of “at least two inertial sensors in a device, or (ii) at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor” and “operating the device using the position and/or the orientation of the device” in amended claim 1 does not include any 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 (Luinge (US 20110028865), Newzella (EP3428580B1), Masad (US 2019/0277655 A1)). For example, Luinge, Newzella, and Masad teach feature of “at least two inertial sensors in a device, or (ii) at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor” and “operating the device based on the determined position and/or the orientation of the device, wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are fixedly arranged relative to one another, such that there is no relative movement between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor (see paras. [0006], [0010]-[0011], [0027], [0086], [0089] of Luinge; Figs. 1-2, page 7, lines 10-11 and page 8, lines 10-18 of Newzella; Fig. 1and paras. [0002], [0021], [0044], [0060], [0074]-[0075] of Masad). Further, merely “receiving” a data is nothing more than gathering data. There is established case law to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, receiving steps are also recited by the above described prior art such as Luinge, Newzella, and Masad.
Applicant’s amendments filed January 14, 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On the page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[B]ased on the above, it is respectfully submitted that those skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claims 1 and 13, the claim limitation of “using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device” lack proper written description. Examiner notes that no description related to the claim limitation related to examples, equations and/or exploration how to acquire “using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device” is disclosed in the instant application. The Examiner further notes that applicant explains, in para. [0033], that for example, iterative estimation methods are capable of estimating the orientation of the two inertial sensors IMU A and IMU B (first inertial sensor and second inertial sensor) relative to one another based on this Jacobi matrix. However, Applicant does not reasonably demonstrate possession such that ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner that Applicant implements or otherwise achieves this claim feature. Applicant states the results but not what they are in possession of to achieve the results. Merely stating that using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device does not reasonably demonstrate possession of the claim features. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
Applicant’s amendments filed August 26, 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the claim limitation of “using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device” lack proper written description. Examiner notes that no description related to the claim limitation related to examples, equations and/or exploration how to acquire “using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device” is disclosed in the instant application. The Examiner further notes that applicant explains, in para. [0033], that for example, iterative estimation methods are capable of estimating the orientation of the two inertial sensors IMU A and IMU B (first inertial sensor and second inertial sensor) relative to one another based on this Jacobi matrix. However, these features do not reasonably identify the limitation of “using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device.” As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
Dependent claims 2-12 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-13 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:
A method for determining a relative orientation of (i) at least two inertial sensors in a device, or (ii) at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor, the method comprising:
receiving first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a first inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device;
simultaneously to receiving the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data, receiving second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a second inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device;
time-synchronizing the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor and the second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the second inertial sensor so that the time-synchronized raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor and of the second inertial sensor are generated; and
calculating relative orientation angles in three spatial directions between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor with the time-synchronized raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data without having to move the device according to a predetermined motion profile;
using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device; and
operating the device based on the determined position and/or the orientation of the device,
wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are fixedly arranged relative to one another, such that there is no relative movement between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor.
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 (method).
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.
For example, the limitations of “determining the orientation of (i) at least two inertial sensors in a device or (ii) at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor, to one another (see paras. [0024]-[0041]),” “time-synchronizing the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor and the second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the second inertial sensor so that the time-synchronized raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor and of the second inertial sensor are generated (see para. [0022])” and “calculating relative orientation angles in three spatial directions between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor with the time-synchronized raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data without having to move the device according to a predetermined motion profile (see paras. [0034] and [0036]),” and “using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device (see paras. [0034] and [0036])” are mathematical calculations.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 10 and 13.
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. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. 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: (i) at least two inertial sensors in a device, or (ii) at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor; steps of “receiving first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a first inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device” and “simultaneously to receiving the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data, receiving second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a second inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device” and “operating the device based on the determined position and/or the orientation of the device, wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are fixedly arranged relative to one another, such that there is no relative movement between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor”; and
In Claim 10: (i) at least two inertial sensors in a device, or (ii) at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor; steps of “receiving first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a first inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device” and “simultaneously to receiving the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data, receiving second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a second inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device”; and
In Claim 13: a device (preamble); a first inertial sensor; a second inertial sensor fixedly arranged relative to the first inertial sensor, such that there is no relative movement between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor; steps of “receiving first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a first inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device” and “simultaneously to receiving the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data, receiving second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a second inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device”.
The additional elements such as a device, a first inertial sensor, and a second inertial sensor are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the addition elements of “receiving first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a first inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device” and “simultaneously to receiving the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data, receiving second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a second inertial sensor in three directions during regular operation of the device” are pre-solution activity (gathering data), insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 (Luinge (US 20110028865), Newzella (EP3428580B1), and Masad (US 2019/0277655 A1)). For example, Luinge, Newzella, and Masad teach the additional element of “(i) at least two inertial sensors in a device, or (ii) at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor” and “operating the device based on the determined position and/or the orientation of the device, wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are fixedly arranged relative to one another, such that there is no relative movement between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor” (see paras. [0006], [0010]-[0011], [0027], [0086], [0089] of Luinge; Figs. 1-2, page 7, lines 10-11 and page 8, lines 10-18 of Newzella; Fig. 1 and paras. [0002], [0021], [0044], [0060], [0074]-[0075] of Masad). Further, merely “receiving” a data is nothing more than gathering data. There is established case law to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, receiving steps are also recited by the above described prior art such as Luinge , Newzella, and Masad.
Regarding claim 2
The additional element of “the device is a finished device, and the regular operation of the device is the use of the finished device in a test operation performed individually for each individual device” is pre-solution activity, insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The abstract method needs the inertial sensor data as input for the abstract mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 3-9,
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 3-10. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claim 1.
Regarding claim 11
The additional elements of “the receiving of the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data includes receiving rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor in three rotation directions, and
the receiving of the second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data includes receiving the rotation rate data of the second inertial sensor in three rotation directions” are pre-solution activity (gathering data), insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 12
The additional elements of “receiving third raw acceleration data from at least one third inertial sensor arranged in the device, wherein the time-synchronizing further includes synchronizing the third raw acceleration data with the first and second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data, and wherein the calculating of the relative orientation angles further includes calculating relative orientation angles in three spatial directions between the first inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor and between the second inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor based on the further raw acceleration data” are pre-solution activity (gathering data), insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 14,
The additional elements of “during the time-synchronizing, either the first raw acceleration data or the second raw acceleration data is time-shifted according to the time shift parameter to achieve synchronization of the first and second raw acceleration data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (para. [0058] of Masad (US 2019/0277655); para. [0006] of Babu (US 2021/0080259 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 elements of “the first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data are collected during a randomly occurring trip of the device” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (para. [0067] of Masad (US 2019/0277655); para. [0009], [0045], [0054], [0056] of Cordova (US 2019/0041423 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 16,
The additional elements of “the first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data are collected during a predetermined test drive of the device” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (para. [0074] of Masad (US 2019/0277655); paras. [0048], [0078] of Cordova (US 2019/0041423 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 17,
The additional elements of “the device is a mobile phone, a smartwatch, a fitness tracker, or a vehicle” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (paras. [0002], [0005], [0082] of Cordova (US 2019/0041423 A1); para. [0030] of Cordova (US 2019/0055325 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.
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 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontz et al. (US 2013/0160543 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Kontz”) in view of Luinge et al. (US 2011/0028865 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Luinge”).
Regarding claim 1, Kontz teaches a method for determining an orientation of at least two inertial sensors in a device or between at least two devices that each have at least one inertial sensor, to one another (para. [0015]: IMUs 110 and 120, described in greater detail below, may include one or more sensors, e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers, gyroscopes, etc., to measure data used for determining an orientation, velocity, rotational velocity, acceleration, etc., of machine 10), the method comprising:
receiving first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a first inertial sensor (para. [0029]: memory 333 may include an IMU error detection program enabling error detector 330 to receive first acceleration data and first rotational rate data from the first inertial measurement unit and second acceleration data and second rotational rate data from the second inertial measurement unit and determine whether an error has occurred using the first and second acceleration data, the first and second rotational rate data, 0) in three directions during regular operation of the device (para. [0047]: After IMUs 110 and 120 are initialized, error detector 330 may begin receiving measurement data from first IMU 110 and second IMU 120 (step 420). For example, error detector 330 may receive acceleration data along the x-, y-, and z-axes from each of IMUs 110 and 120, and may receive rotational rate data about an axis from each of IMUs 110 and 120);
simultaneously to receiving the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data, receiving second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data from a second inertial sensor (para. [0029]: memory 333 may include an IMU error detection program enabling error detector 330 to receive first acceleration data and first rotational rate data from the first inertial measurement unit and second acceleration data and second rotational rate data from the second inertial measurement unit and determine whether an error has occurred using the first and second acceleration data, the first and second rotational rate data, 0) in three directions during regular operation of the device (para. [0047]: After IMUs 110 and 120 are initialized, error detector 330 may begin receiving measurement data from first IMU 110 and second IMU 120 (step 420). For example, error detector 330 may receive acceleration data along the x-, y-, and z-axes from each of IMUs 110 and 120, and may receive rotational rate data about an axis from each of IMUs 110 and 120);
time-synchronizing the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor and the second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the second inertial sensor so that the time-synchronized raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor and of the second inertial sensor are generated (para. [0029]: memory 333 may include an IMU error detection program enabling error detector 330 to receive first acceleration data and first rotational rate data from the first inertial measurement unit and second acceleration data and second rotational rate data from the second inertial measurement unit and determine whether an error has occurred using the first and second acceleration data, the first and second rotational rate data, 0); and
receiving certain value in three spatial directions (para. [0047]: receive acceleration data along the x-, y-, and z-axes from each of IMUs 110 and 120) between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor with the time-synchronized raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data (para. [0029]: memory 333 may include an IMU error detection program enabling error detector 330 to receive first acceleration data and first rotational rate data from the first inertial measurement unit and second acceleration data and second rotational rate data from the second inertial measurement unit and determine whether an error has occurred using the first and second acceleration data, the first and second rotational rate data, 0).
Kontz does not specifically teach calculating relative orientation angles without having to move the device according to a predetermined motion profile, using the calculated relative orientation angles to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device, and operating the device based on the determined position and/or the orientation of the device, wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are fixedly arranged relative to one another, such that there is no relative movement between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor.
However, Luinge teaches calculating relative orientation angles without having to move the device according to a predetermined motion profile (para. [0086]: using the relation of the Kinematic Coupling, the algorithm is able to supply the relative orientation between the two segments without using any assumptions on the local magnetic field during movements; para. [0089]: the relative orientation between the two segments can only be determined, note that the above feature of “the relation of the Kinematic Coupling” reads on “motion profile”), using the calculated relative orientation angles (paras. [0086], [0089]: see above) to determine a position and/or an orientation of the device (para. [0010]: It is an object of the invention to provide a system, in which positions and orientations of an object composed of parts linked by joints; paras. [0090]-[0096]); and
operating the device (Fig. 2, device and para. [0010]: see above) based on the determined position and/or the orientation of the device (paras. [0010], [0086], [0089]: see above) ,
wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor are fixedly arranged relative to one another, such that there is no relative movement between the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor (paras. [0026]-[0027]: The following initial assumptions are made: rA en rB, the joint expressed in the sensor frame A and B, respectively, are fixed).
Kontz and Luinge are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 relative orientation angles such as is described in Luinge into Kontz, in order to provide a system, in which positions and orientations of an object composed of parts linked by joints, and in particular the positions and orientations of the object parts relative to one another (Luinge, para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Kontz teaches that the device is a finished device, and the regular operation of the device is the use of the finished device in a test operation performed individually for each individual device (para. [0046]: error detector 330 may calibrate the outputs received from first and second rotational rate sensors 114 and 124 to be zero, to account for any possible, note that the above feature of “calibrate” reads on “a test operation”).
Regarding claim 3, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Kontz teaches that the regular operation of the device is an operating phase of the device shortly after the regular initial start-up of the device by an end user (para. [0046] error detector 330 may calibrate the outputs received from first and second rotational rate sensors 114 and 124 to be zero, to account for any possible measurement bias. Error detector 330 may also calibrate first and second x-, y-, and z-axis accelerometers 111-113 and 121-123, note that the above feature of “calibrate” reads on “initial start-up”).
Regarding claim 4, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Kontz teaches that the regular operation of the device is any operating phase of the device during operation of the device in its intended use (para. [0045]: the disclosed error detection system may thus allow for accurate detection of IMU errors, even during certain braking scenarios such as four-wheel lock, when a wheel speed measurement does not reflect the true motion of the vehicle, and hence, using a wheel speed sensor to detect IMU errors would return false-positives, note that the above feature of “certain braking scenarios” reads on “is any operating phase of the device”).
Regarding claim 11, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1. In addition, Kontz teaches that:
the receiving of the first raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data includes receiving rotation rate data of the first inertial sensor in three rotation directions (para. [0046]: error detector 330 may initialize one or more sensors in IMUs 110 and 120 when machine 100 is stopped; para. [0047]: After IMUs 110 and 120 are initialized, error detector 330 may begin receiving measurement data from first IMU 110 and second IMU 120 (step 420). For example, error detector 330 may receive acceleration data along the x-, y-, and z-axes from each of IMUs 110 and 120, and may receive rotational rate data about an axis from each of IMUs 110 and 120 ), and
the receiving of the second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data includes receiving the rotation rate data of the second inertial sensor in three rotation directions (para. [0047]: After IMUs 110 and 120 are initialized, error detector 330 may begin receiving measurement data from first IMU 110 and second IMU 120 (step 420). For example, error detector 330 may receive acceleration data along the x-, y-, and z-axes from each of IMUs 110 and 120, and may receive rotational rate data about an axis from each of IMUs 110 and 120).
Claims 7-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontz in view of Luinge further in view of Babu et al. (US 2021/0080259 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Babu”).
Regarding claim 7, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teach that the calculation of the relative orientation angles includes using an iterative Gauss-Newton estimator (GN estimator) to calculate the relative orientation angles.
However, Babu teaches that the calculation of the relative orientation angles includes using an iterative Gauss-Newton estimator (GN estimator) to calculate the relative orientation angles (para. [0054]: the relative orientation between two consecutive exteroceptive sensor estimates, Δq(n), may be compared with the corresponding relative orientation, Δq′(n), generated by the pre-integration block 230 over a number of IMU sample; para. [0073]: Equation (26) represents a least square minimization problem that can be solved using Gauss Netwon or Lavenberg Marquert optimization techniques).
Kontz and Babu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 calculation of the relative orientation angles such as is described in Babu into Kontz, in order to allow tracking position and orientation of a device to include predicting a first tracking state of the device using measurements from an sensor sampled at a first rate and generate a second tracking state of the device using measurements from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sampled at a second rate that is asynchronous to the first rate (Babu, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teach that the calculation of the relative orientation angles includes using an iterative Levenberg-Marquardt estimator (LM estimator) to calculate the relative orientation angles.
However, Babu teaches that the calculation of the relative orientation angles includes using an iterative Levenberg-Marquardt estimator (LM estimator) to calculate the relative orientation angles (para. [0054]: The relative orientation between two consecutive exteroceptive sensor estimates, Δq(n), may be compared with the corresponding relative orientation, Δq′(n), generated by the pre-integration block 230 over a number of IMU sample; para. [0073]: Equation (26) represents a least square minimization problem that can be solved using Gauss Netwon or Lavenberg Marquert optimization techniques).
Kontz and Babu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 relative orientation angles such as is described in Babu into Kontz, in order to allow tracking position and orientation of a device to include predicting a first tracking state of the device using measurements from an sensor sampled at a first rate and generate a second tracking state of the device using measurements from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sampled at a second rate that is asynchronous to the first rate (Babu, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Kontz teaches that the time synchronizing of the first and second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data takes place via a time parameter, which the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor respectively receive via an associated receiver (para. [0029]: memory 333 may include an IMU error detection program enabling error detector 330 to receive first acceleration data and first rotational rate data from the first inertial measurement unit and second acceleration data and second rotational rate data from the second inertial measurement unit and determine whether an error has occurred using the first and second acceleration data, the first and second rotational rate data, 0; para. [0047]: the measurement data received by error detector 330 from IMUs 110 and 120 may include continuous time signals and/or may include discrete time signals received at certain time intervals).
Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teach a GNSS time parameter and an associated GNSS receiver.
However, Babu teaches a GNSS time parameter and an associated GNSS receiver (para. [0025]: the tracking system 100 may include an. exteroceptive sensor 104. The exteroceptive sensor 104 may be a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a LIDAR, a camera, and/or a sonar sensor).
Kontz and Babu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 GNSS time parameter and an associated GNSS receiver such as is described in Babu into Kontz, in order to allow tracking position and orientation of a device to include predicting a first tracking state of the device using measurements from an sensor sampled at a first rate and generate a second tracking state of the device using measurements from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sampled at a second rate that is asynchronous to the first rate (Babu, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1. In addition, Kontz teaches further comprising:
receiving third raw acceleration data from at least one third inertial sensor arranged in the device (para. [0046]: Fig. 2B, 111-113 and 121-123 accelerometers, Fig. 2B, 114 and 124 rotational rate sensors),
wherein the time-synchronizing further includes synchronizing the third raw acceleration data with the first and second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data (para. [0047]: After IMUs 110 and 120 are initialized, error detector 330 may begin receiving measurement data from first IMU 110 and second IMU 120 (step 420). For example, error detector 330 may receive acceleration data along the x-, y-, and z-axes from each of IMUs 110 and 120, and may receive rotational rate data about an axis from each of IMUs 110 and 120) and three spatial directions (para. [0047]: error detector 330 may receive acceleration data along the x-, y-, and z-axes from each of IMUs 110 and 120, and may receive rotational rate data about an axis from each of IMUs).
Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teaches that the calculating of the relative orientation angles further includes calculating relative orientation angles in spatial directions between the first inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor and between the second inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor based on the further raw acceleration data.
However, Babu teaches that the calculating of the relative orientation angles further includes calculating relative orientation angles in spatial directions between the first inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor and between the second inertial sensor and the third inertial sensor based on the further raw acceleration data (para. [0053]: the exteroceptive sensor state estimation block 210 may contain orientation data (qe) from which the relative orientation between two consecutive exteroceptive sensor estimates (Δq(n)) is derived; para. [0054]: The relative orientation between two consecutive exteroceptive sensor estimates, Δq(n), may be compared with the corresponding relative orientation, Δq′(n), generated by the pre-integration block 230 over a number of IMU samples).
Kontz and Babu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 of the relative orientation angles such as is described in Babu into Kontz, in order to allow tracking position and orientation of a device to include predicting a first tracking state of the device using measurements from an sensor sampled at a first rate and generate a second tracking state of the device using measurements from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sampled at a second rate that is asynchronous to the first rate (Babu, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, it is device type claim and has similar limitation as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rational as of claim 1 above. The additional elements of a first inertial sensor (Fig. 2B, 111-113), a second inertial sensor (Fig. 2B, 121-123), and controller (paras. [0026]-[0027]) taught by Kontz.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontz in view of Luinge further in view of Shroff et al. (US 2009/0265104 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Shroff”).
Regarding claim 10, it is 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. The additional elements that the time synchronizing includes processing the first and second raw acceleration data and/or rotation rate data (para. [0029]: memory 333 may include an IMU error detection program enabling error detector 330 to receive first acceleration data and first rotational rate data from the first inertial measurement unit and second acceleration data and second rotational rate data from the second inertial measurement unit and determine whether an error has occurred using the first and second acceleration data, the first and second rotational rate data, 0; para. [0047]: the measurement data received by error detector 330 from IMUs 110 and 120 may include continuous time signals and/or may include discrete time signals received at certain time intervals) taught by Kontz.
Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teach an auto-correlation function to output a time shift parameter.
However, Shroff teaches an auto-correlation function to output a time shift parameter (para. [0071]: The autocorrelation function unit may provide any suitable versions of the signal time shifted by any desired amounts (e.g., prompt, early, late, etc).
Kontz and Shroff are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 auto-correlation function such as is described in Shroff into Kontz, in order to provide highly accurate geolocation information (e.g., position, kinematics, orientation, and time (Shroff, para. [0010]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontz in view of Luinge and Shroff and Masad et al. (US 2019/0277655 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Masad”) (cited in IDS dated June 25, 2025).
Regarding 14, Kontz in view of Luinge and Shroff teaches all the limitation of claim 10.
Kontz, Luinge, and Shroff do not specifically teach that during the time-synchronizing, either the first raw acceleration data or the second raw acceleration data is time-shifted according to the time shift parameter to achieve synchronization of the first and second raw acceleration data.
However, Masad teaches that during the time-synchronizing, either the first raw acceleration data or the second raw acceleration data is time-shifted according to the time shift parameter to achieve synchronization of the first and second raw acceleration data (Fig. 1; para. [0031]: processing engine 702 collects, calibrates, synchronizes; para. [0058]: processing engine time-wise synchronizes the outputs of the sensors, notes that the above feature of “time-shift” is inherent functional property of achieving time-synchronization”).
Kontz and Masad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 time-synchronizing such as is described in Masad into Kontz, in order to provide an in-use self-calibrating inertial measurement system and method for minimizing errors of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated with calibration and synchronization parameters (Masad, para. [0018]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontz et al. (US 2013/0160543 A1,” hereinafter referred to as “Kontz”) in view of Luinge et al. (US 2011/0028865 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Luinge”) further in view of Masad.
Regarding claim 15, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teach that the first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data are collected during a randomly occurring trip of the device.
However, Masad teaches that the first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data are collected during a randomly occurring trip of the device (para. [0067]: The inertial sensors are configured and operative to sample at least one of acceleration and angular velocity of at least one sensor cluster with respect to each axis in a plurality of axes of a reference frame (e.g., element 722, FIG. 1), and for producing individual outputs associated with the movement, where each inertial sensor has its respective operating dynamic range and characteristic sensor response, note that the above feature of “inertial sensors associated with the movement, where each inertial sensor has its respective operating dynamic range” reads on “ during a randomly occurring trip of the device”).
Kontz and Masad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data collection such as is described in Masad into Kontz, in order to provide an in-use self-calibrating inertial measurement system and method for minimizing errors of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated with calibration and synchronization parameters (Masad, para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 16, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teach that the first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data are collected during a predetermined test drive of the device.
However, Masad teaches that the first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data are collected during a predetermined test drive of the device (para. [0074]: INS system 700 may be employed for testing structural integrity and vibrations of a structure by simultaneously utilizing several sensor clusters (e.g., a plurality of sensor cluster 704).
Kontz and Masad are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 first raw acceleration data and the second raw acceleration data collection such as is described in Masad into Kontz, in order to provide an in-use self-calibrating inertial measurement system and method for minimizing errors of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated with calibration and synchronization parameters (Masad, para. [0018]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontz in view of Luinge further in view of Cordova et al. (US 2019/0041423 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Cordova”).
Regarding claim 17, Kontz in view of Luinge teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Kontz and Luinge do not specifically teach that the device is a mobile phone, a smartwatch, a fitness tracker, or a vehicle.
However, Cordova teaches that the device is a mobile phone, a smartwatch, a fitness tracker, or a vehicle (para. [0002]: mobile phones, para. [0005]-[0006]: vehicle; para. [0082]: a smart watch, fitness tracker, and/or other similar devices)
Kontz and Cordova are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of system using inertial measurements. 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 device such as is described in Cordova into Kontz, in order to allow a classifier to analyze movement information received by mobile device sensors (Cordova, para. [0012]).
Examiner Note:
Although there are no prior art rejections for Claims 5 and 6, the Examiner cannot comment on their allowability until all the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 and objections are satisfactorily addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raij et al. (US 2020/0226738 A1) teaches a wearable visualization system that includes a wearable visualization device. The wearable visualization device includes a housing. A display couples to the housing that displays an image for a user. A camera couples to the housing and captures the image.
Smoot et al. (US 2020/0088758 A1) teaches a system configured for stabilizing or balancing objects in an upright state. The system includes a motion system with an upper support surface for receiving an object that is positionable in a vertical state.
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