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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The argument received on February, 9 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 5-6 are amended. Thus, claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February, 9 2026 with respect to the rejection respect to claims 1-2 and 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the Applicant’s arguments are related to current rejection, Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows:
On the page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[T]his processing chain is intimately linked to real sensor behavior and improves the fidelity of the measurement output of the first sensor device. Therefore, a practical application integrated into the operation of an actual inertial sensing system.”
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 claims do 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 (Fujimoto (JP 2019103609 A), HSU (US 2022/0026209 A1)).
Applicant’s arguments filed February, 9 2026 with respect to the rejection with respect to claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, since the rejection below relies on previously cited prior art, Applicant’s arguments with respect to HSU are addressed as follows:
On the page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “[A]pplicant respectfully submits that paragraph [0060] of Hsu describes that the average value (the alleged DC analogous value) is the constant, e.g., the gravity value G, to be excluded. Thus, it appears that although Hsu may obtain an equivalent value of the DC analogous value, the alleged DC analogous value is excluded, not used as effective values for calculation/estimation. Therefore, the combination of Fujimoto and Hsu does not disclose or suggest at least the following claimed features of amended claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. HSU teaches, in para. [0060], that an average calculation can be performed on the measurement values being processed with multiple mapping processes, and an average value is calculated, the average value is the constant. Fujimoto and HSU are both considered to be pertinent art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of a linear acceleration sensor and an operating method. 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 an DCan obviousness rejection, the Examiner is not required to incorporate all features of HSU into Fujimoto. Rather, Examiner believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing HSU, would be motivated to modify Fujimoto to incorporate feature of calculating the DC analogous value based on an average value, since feature of calculating the DC analogous value based on an average value provides the advantageous feature of measuring measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a sensor device. See MPEP 2145 III, which notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
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 1-2 and 4-6 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 measurement method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object;
an obtaining step of obtaining a DC analogous value based on an average value of the first measurement data that is within a first range;
an estimation step of estimating a clipping target range that is outside data of a second range in which the DC analogous value is a center of the second range with respect to the first measurement data;
a processing step of clipping the clipping target range with respect to the first measurement data to generate clipped data in order to reduce a vibration rectification error of the first sensor device; and
an output step of outputting the clipped data to an external device.
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 (process).
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 “an obtaining step of obtaining a DC analogous value based on an average value of the first measurement data that is within a first range (see paras. [0023], [0028]-[0029])” and “an estimation step of estimating a clipping target range that is outside data of a second range in which the DC analogous value is a center of the second range with respect to the first measurement data (see para. [0022]-[0024],[0031]-[0032]),” and “a processing step of clipping the clipping target range with respect to the first measurement data to generate clipped data in order to reduce a vibration rectification error of the first sensor device (see para. [0038]-[0039])” as drafted are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical concepts, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 5-6.
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, 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: a measurement method (preamble); a first sensor device; a measurement step of measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object;
In Claim 5: a sensor device (preamble); sensor element provided on a measurement target, the sensor element beinq configured to measure first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity; and
In Claim 6: an inertial measurement device (preamble); sensor element provided on a measurement target, the sensor element beinq configured to measure first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity.
The additional elements such as measurement method, a first sensor device, a sensor device, and an inertial measurement device are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, note that the additional element of “a measurement step of measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object” and “sensor element provided on a measurement target, the sensor element beinq configured to measure first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity” are insignificant (data gathering) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The step of an output step of outputting the clipped data to an external device is insignificant (post-solution) extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
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 prior art of record (Fujimoto (JP 2019103609 A) and HSU (US 2022/0026209 A1)). For example, Fujimoto and HSU teach a measurement step of measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object (page 3, line 24, page 3, line 49, page 7, lines 47-48, and page 8, line 3 of Fujimoto; paras. [0024] and [0029] of HSU). Further, merely “outputting” the result (i.e. clipped data to an external device) is nothing more than outputting a signal or displaying result. There is established case law (electric power group for example) to prove that such a feature is insufficient extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, independent claims 1, 5, and 6 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2
The additional element of “in the estimation step, the DC analogous value is obtained based on a DC component of second measurement data measured before a measurement time point of the first measurement data via the first sensor device” is mental processes based on mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 4
The additional element of “in the estimation step, the range is estimated based on a DC component of third measurement data measured before a measurement time point of the first measurement data via a second sensor device having a measurement range larger than that of the first sensor device” is mathematical calculations.
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, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (JP 2019103609 A, hereinafter referred to as “Fujimoto”) in view of HSU (US 2022/0026209 A1, hereinafter referred to as “HSU”).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a measurement method comprising:
a measurement step of measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object (page 3, line 24: the sensor device includes a three-axis acceleration sensor, a three-axis gyro sensor);
an obtaining step of obtaining a page 3, line 21-22: the representative value in each divided section is any one of a maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of each feature waveform in each divided section);
an estimation step of estimating a clipping target range that is outside data of a second range in which the page 3, line 21-22: the representative value in each divided section is any one of a maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of each feature waveform in each divided section; page 15, lines 5-7: the estimation model and the estimation result may be stored in different storage devices. The portion of the wearable device 51-1 excluding the sensor device 11 may have a known configuration provided with a processor, a memory, and the like, and in this case, the processor is an operation segment clipping operation unit 512, note that the feature of “average value of each feature waveform” reads on “analogous value is the center of the range in the waveform having maximum and minimum values”);
a processing step of clipping the clipping target range with respect to the first measurement data to generate clipped data in order to reduce a vibration rectification error of the first sensor device (page 15, lines 5-7: the estimation model and the estimation result may be stored in different storage devices. The portion of the wearable device 51-1 excluding the sensor device 11 may have a known configuration provided with a processor, a memory, and the like, and in this case, the processor is an operation segment clipping operation unit 512); and
an output step of outputting the clipped data to an external device (page 12, lines 19-21: The estimated data history database 22 is stored in a storage device such as the memory 102, for example. The information presentation device 24 can be formed by the display device 104).
Fujimoto does not specifically teach an DC analogous value based on an average value.“
However, HSU teaches a DC analogous value based on an average value (para. [0060]: an average calculation can be performed on the measurement values being processed with multiple mapping processes, and an average value is calculated, the average value is the constant, e.g., the gravity value G, to be excluded. note that the above feature of “an average calculation can be performed on the measurement values” and “the average value is the constant” in para. [0060] reads on “a DC analogous value based on an average value”).
Fujimoto and HSU are both considered to be pertinent art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of a linear acceleration sensor and an operating method. 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 an DCangular velocities of the linear acceleration sensor (HSU, para. [0008]). When combining reference to support an obviousness rejection, the Examiner is not required to incorporate all features of HSU into Fujimoto. Rather, Examiner believes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reviewing HSU, would be motivated to modify Fujimoto to incorporate feature of calculating the DC analogous value based on an average value, since feature of calculating the DC analogous value based on an average value provides the advantageous feature of measuring measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a sensor device. See MPEP 2145 III, which notes that “the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto in view of HSU teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Fujimoto teaches that in the estimation step, the value is obtained based on a component of second measurement data measured before a measurement time point of the first measurement data via the first sensor device (page 6, lines 43-45: the estimation model of the work, compared for each sensor, and estimating means for estimating the operating state of the measurement target based on a result of comparison, the operating state estimation device equipped with is provided, note that the above feature of “the compared for each sensor” and “based on a result of comparison” reads on “before a measurement time point of the first measurement data via the first sensor device”).
Fujimoto does not specifically teach that an DC analogous value is obtained.
However, HSU teaches that an DC analogous value is obtained (para. [0060]: an average calculation can be performed on the measurement values being processed with multiple mapping processes, and an average value is calculated, the average value is the constant, e.g., the gravity value G, to be excluded. note that the above feature of “an average calculation can be performed on the measurement values” and “the average value is the constant” in para. [0060] reads on “a DC analogous value based on an average value”).
Fujimoto and HSU are both considered to be pertinent art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of a linear acceleration sensor and an operating method. 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 an DC
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto in view of HSU teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Fujimoto teaches that in the estimation step, the range is estimated based on a component of third measurement data measured before a measurement time point of the first measurement data via a second sensor device having a measurement range larger than that of the first sensor device (page 6, lines 43-45: the estimation model of the work, compared for each sensor, and estimating means for estimating the operating state of the measurement target based on a result of comparison, the operating state estimation device equipped with is provided, note that the above feature of “the compared for each sensor” and “based on a result of comparison” reads on “before a measurement time point of the first measurement data via the first sensor device”).
Fujimoto does not specifically teach an DC analogous value is obtained.
However, HSU teaches an DC analogous value is obtained (para. [0060]: an average calculation can be performed on the measurement values being processed with multiple mapping processes, and an average value is calculated, the average value is the constant, e.g., the gravity value G, to be excluded. note that the above feature of “an average calculation can be performed on the measurement values” and “the average value is the constant” in para. [0060] reads on “a DC analogous value based on an average value”).
Fujimoto and HSU are both considered to be pertinent art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of a linear acceleration sensor and an operating method. 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 an DC
Regarding claim 5, it is a device type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above. The additional elements of a sensor device provided on a measurement target, the sensor element being configured to measure first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity (page 3, line 24: the sensor device includes a three-axis acceleration sensor, a three-axis gyro sensor) taught by Fujimoto.
Regarding claim 6, it is a device type claim and has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above. The additional elements of a sensor device provided on a measurement target, the sensor element being configured to measure first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity (page 3, line 24: the sensor device includes a three-axis acceleration sensor, a three-axis gyro sensor) taught by Fujimoto.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of HSU and Tei et al. (US 2005/0116769 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Tei”).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto in view of HSU teaches all the limitation of claim 1. Fujimoto and HSU do not specifically teach that the first sensor device includes a sensor element, a first amplifier configured to amplify a signal from the sensor element, and a second amplifier configured to amplify a signal from the sensor element with an amplification factor smaller than that of the first amplifier, the first measurement data is obtained by amplifying the signal from the sensor element by the first amplifier, and the second measurement data is obtained by amplifying the signal from the sensor element by the second amplifier.
However, Tei teaches the first sensor device includes a sensor element, a first amplifier (Fig. 3, 12) configured to amplify a signal from the sensor element (Fig. 3, 3a-3n), and
a second amplifier (Fig. 3, 19) configured to amplify a signal from the sensor element with an amplification factor smaller than that of the first amplifier (Fig. 3, 12), the first measurement data is obtained by amplifying the signal from the sensor element (Fig. 3, 3a-3n) by the first amplifier (Fig. 3, 1) (para. [0041]: Accordingly the amplification factor of each normal phase amplification device that consists of the operational amplifier 12 and 19 becomes variable by changing the resistance value; para. [0042]: supposing that the switching element 4n is selected to be on and the amplification factors of the operational amplifier 12, 19 according to the output level of the sensor element in corresponding to the switching element 4n, note that the above feature of “operational amplifier 12 and 19 becomes variable by changing the resistance value” in para. [0041] and “amplification factors of the operational amplifier 12, 19 according to the output level of the sensor element” in para. [0042] reads on “an amplification factor smaller than that of the first amplifier”), and
the second measurement data is obtained by amplifying the signal from the sensor element (Fig. 3, 3a-3n) by the second amplifier (Fig. 3, 19).
Fujimoto and Tei are both considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of detecting signal provided by the sensor. 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 and second sensor devices and the first and second amplifiers such as are described in Tei into Fujimoto, in order to amplify an output signal of the sensor element by an operational amplifier relates to an amplification device of a small detection signal having sensor elements (Tei, para. [0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kusuda (JP 6340858B2) teaches that a power conditioner capable of detecting an abnormality in a DC component current detector is provided. A power conditioner according to an embodiment of the present invention includes, for example, an inverter, a current detection unit, a direct current component detection unit, and a control unit.
Tajima et al. (WO 2013175620A1) teaches that the present invention is to provide a power conversion device capable of controlling output current normally without the saturation of ACCT even if an abnormal surge is added to a commercial system. The power conversion device comprises: an output current detector for detecting the output current from an inverter; an output current DC component detector for detecting the DC component of the output current from the inverter.
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 Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858