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 .
Status of the claims
The argument received on June 15, 9 2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are amended. Claims 3 and 6 are cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 15, 9 2026 with respect to the claim rejection of claims 1 , 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 15, 9 2026 with respect to the claim rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 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 1-2 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:
measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object;
measuring second measurement data on the acceleration or the angular velocity via a second sensor device provided at the measurement object, the second sensor device having a measurement range larger than a measurement range of the first sensor device;
obtaining, as a DC analogous value, an average value of the second measurement data measured during a period before a measurement time point of the first measurement data;
setting a first range such that the DC analogous value is a center of the first range;
estimating a clipping target range of the first measurement data, the clipping target range having a value that is smaller than a lower limit value of the first range and having a value that is larger than an upper limit value of the first range;
generating clipped measurement data by:
maintaining the first measurement data when the first measurement data is within the first range;
setting the first measurement data to the lower limit value when the first measurement data is smaller than the lower limit value; and
setting the first measurement data to the upper limit value when the first measurement data is larger than the upper limit value;
generating output data based on time-series data including the clipped measurement data; and
outputting the output 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 “obtaining, as a DC analogous value, an average value of the second measurement data measured during a period before a measurement time point of the first measurement data range (see paras. [0023], [0028]-[0029], [0037])” and “estimating a clipping target range of the first measurement data, the clipping target range having a value that is smaller than a lower limit value of the first range and having a value that is larger than an upper limit value of the first range (see para. [0021]-[0028],[0031]-[0032], [0038]-[0039], [0050]-[0053]),” as drafted are mathematical calculations. Further, the limitation of “setting a first range such that the DC analogous value is a center of the first range” and “maintaining the first measurement data when the first measurement data is within the first range, setting the first measurement data to the lower limit value when the first measurement data is smaller than the lower limit value, and setting the first measurement data to the upper limit value when the first measurement data is larger than the upper limit value (see para. [0047])” are mental processes (observation/evaluation/judgment) based on mathematical calculation regarding measurement data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical concepts and/ human mind, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” or “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 5.
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); measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object; measuring second measurement data on the acceleration or the angular velocity via a second sensor device provided at the measurement object, the second sensor device having a measurement range larger than a measurement range of the first sensor device; generating clipped measurement data; generating output data based on time-series data including the clipped measurement data; and outputting the output data to an external device; and
In Claim 5: an inertial measurement device (preamble); measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object; measuring second measurement data on the acceleration or the angular velocity via a second sensor device provided at the measurement object, the second sensor device having a measurement range larger than a measurement range of the first sensor device; generating clipped measurement data; generating output data based on time-series data including the clipped measurement data; and outputting the output data to an external device.
The additional elements such as a first sensor device, a sensor device, and an inertial measurement device are recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical or mental process addressed above (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional element of “a measurement method” are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)). Further, note that the additional element of “measuring first measurement data on an acceleration or an angular velocity via a first sensor device provided at a measurement object” and “measuring second measurement data on the acceleration or the angular velocity via a second sensor device provided at the measurement object” are insignificant (data gathering) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional element of “generating clipped measurement data,” “generating clipped measurement data; generating output data based on time-series data including the clipped measurement data” and “outputting the output data to an external device” are insignificant (post-solution) extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely “notifying” a result (i.e., generating output data and outputting the output 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)). Further, the additional element of “the second sensor device having a measurement range larger than a measurement range of the first sensor device” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant prior art based on the prior art of record (see para. [0014] of Kazama (US 2008/0034867 A1); paras. [0007], [0010]-[0013], [0044], [0066] of Kitazaki (US 2008/0000295 A1). Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to estimate a clipping target range of the first measurement data and generate clipped measurement data. Therefore, the claims have no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, 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)). This is just a processor running mathematical and/or mental processes. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of claim 5. Therefore, the independent claims 1 and 5 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 2
The additional element of “the first range is from a value that is obtained by subtracting a predetermined value from the DC analogous value to a value that is obtained by adding the predetermined value to the DC analogous value” is mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 4
The additional element of “the measurement range of the second sensor device is larger than the measurement range of the first sensor device such that the second measurement data is less affected by asymmetric clipping than the first measurement data” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant prior art based on the prior art of record (see para. [0014] of Kazama (US 2008/0034867 A1); paras. [0007], [0010]-[0013], [0044], [0066] of Kitazaki (US 2008/0000295 A1)). Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
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 5 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”) in view of Kazama et al. (US 2008/0034867 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kazama” and Marukawa (JPH05256660 A, hereinafter referred to as “Marukawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto teaches a measurement method comprising:
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);
measuring second measurement data on the acceleration or the angular velocity via a second sensor device provided at the measurement object (page 3, line 24: the sensor device includes a three-axis acceleration sensor, a three-axis gyro sensor);
obtaining an average value of the second measurement data measured during a period before a measurement time point of the first measurement data (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 );
setting a first range such that the DC analogous value is a center of the first range (page 3, line 21-22: see above; page 15, lines 5-7: see above, note that the above feature of “maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of each feature waveform” in page 3, lines 21-22 reads on “analogous value is the center of the range in the waveform having maximum and minimum values”);
estimating a clipping target range of the first measurement data, the clipping target range having a value that is smaller than a lower limit value of the first range and having a value that is larger than an upper limit value of the first range (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);
generating clipped measurement data ( page 3, line 21-22: operation segment clipping operation unit 512),
measurement data (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); and
outputting the output data to an external device (page 12, lines 19-21: see above).
Fujimoto does not specifically teach an DC analogous value based on an average value, the second sensor device having a measurement range larger than a measurement range of the first sensor device, maintaining the first measurement data when the first measurement data is within the first range, setting the first measurement data to the lower limit value when the first measurement data is smaller than the lower limit value, and setting the first measurement data to the upper limit value when the first measurement data is larger than the upper limit 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 DC analogous value based on an average value such as is described in HSU into Fujimoto, in order to measure axial acceleration values of the linear acceleration sensor for a continuous period of time, and a gyroscope that is also used to measure angular 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."
Fujimoto and HSU do not specially teaches the second sensor device having a measurement range larger than a measurement range of the first sensor device.
However, Kazama teaches the second sensor device having a measurement range larger than a measurement range of the first sensor device (para. [0014]: An object of the present invention provides at allow cost a small-sized multi-range three-axis acceleration sensor device with high precision, in which a plurality of sensor elements with different acceleration measurement ranges are formed in a chip and do not have axial deviation among them).
Fujimoto and Kazama are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of acceleration sensor for acceleration detection. 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 second sensor device such as is described in Kazama into Fujimoto, in order to provide at allow cost a small-sized multi-range three-axis acceleration sensor device with high precision (Kazama, para. [0014]).
Fujimoto, HSU, and Kazama do not specifically teach maintaining the first measurement data when the first measurement data is within the first range, setting the first measurement data to the lower limit value when the first measurement data is smaller than the lower limit value, and setting the first measurement data to the upper limit value when the first measurement data is larger than the upper limit value.
However, Marukawa teaches that maintaining the first measurement data when the first measurement data is within the first range, setting the first measurement data to the lower limit value when the first measurement data is smaller than the lower limit value, and setting the first measurement data to the upper limit value when the first measurement data is larger than the upper limit value (page 2, lines 25-36: setting a limit value converted into a measurement value corresponding to a physical quantity that limits a predetermined allowable range, and measurement data; page 6, lines 36-38: the conversion value Y Is the upper limit value, lower limit value Y , Y of the physical quantity allowable value, and the upper limit value, lower limit value X max min m , X measured value conversion allowable value closest to). Since Marukawa teaches setting a limit value converted into a measurement value corresponding to a physical quantity (see page 2, lines 25-36). Therefore, above-described claimed feature would be an obvious variation of such method. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fujimoto to set a limited values converted into a measurement value in order to provide a measurement data monitoring processing method.
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto in view of HSU, Kazama, and Marukawa teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Fujimoto and HSU teaches the first range is from a value that is obtained by subtracting a predetermined value from the DC analogous value to a value that is obtained by adding the predetermined value to the DC analogous value. Since Fujimoto teaches a maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of each feature waveform in each divided section (see parage 3, lines 21-22) and HSU teaches that a DC 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 (see para. [0060]). Therefore, the claimed feature of the first range is from a value that is obtained by subtracting a predetermined value from the DC analogous value to a value that is obtained by adding the predetermined value to the DC analogous value would be an obvious variation of such method. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fujimoto to obtain the first range in order to use analogous average value in HSU.
Further, 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 analogous value based on an average value such as is described in HSU into Fujimoto, in order to measure axial acceleration values of the linear acceleration sensor for a continuous period of time, and a gyroscope that is also used to measure angular 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."
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of HSU, Kazama, Marukawa, and Frey et al. (US 2009/0308159 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Frey”).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto in view of HSU, Kazama, and Marukawa teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Fujimoto teaches clipping (page 15, lines 5-7: clipping operation unit 512). Kazama teaches the measurement range of the second sensor device is larger than the measurement range of the first sensor device such that the second measurement data is less affected para. [0014]: an object of the present invention provides at allow cost a small-sized multi-range three-axis acceleration sensor device with high precision, in which a plurality of sensor elements with different acceleration measurement ranges are formed in a chip and do not have axial deviation among them)
Fujimoto and Kazama are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of acceleration sensor for acceleration detection. 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 second sensor device such as is described in Kazama into Fujimoto, in order to provide at allow cost a small-sized multi-range three-axis acceleration sensor device with high precision (Kazama, para. [0014]).
Fujimoto, HSU, Kazama, and Marukawa do not specifically teach asymmetric clipping.
However, Frey teaches asymmetric clipping (para. [0006]: asymmetrical clipping takes place; para. [0007] the asymmetrical clipping process).
Fujimoto and Frey are both considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the similar filed of acceleration 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 asymmetric clipping such as is described in Frey into Fujimoto, in order to have a rotating mass in the form of a balancing rocker, which has an asymmetrical geometry (Frey, para. [0001]).
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 an inertial measurement device (Fig. 13) taught by Fujimoto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita (US 2010/0191494 A1) teaches that a sensor output correcting device includes: a sensor element for detecting a variation in an object to be measured, and for outputting this variation as a signal; an A/D converter for converting the analog signal outputted from the sensor element into a digital signal; a zero reference value calculating unit for calculating a zero reference value which is a drift amount of the sensor element from the signal outputted from the sensor element; a zero point correcting unit for correcting a zero point of the signal outputted from the A/D converter on the basis of the zero reference value calculated by the zero criterion calculating unit.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5618. 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
Prosecution Insights