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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the claim eligibility have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-4 as set forth below in this Office Action.
Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.2):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Office determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines.
In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that the pending claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 21-30 are directed to an abstract idea of calibrating and combining outputs from a plurality of MEMS sensors without reciting any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Specifically, under Step 2A - Prong 1, Examiner identified that the “heart”, e.g. “the bolded portion” (see section 4 below for details) of representative claim 1, recites a judicial exception (math + mental) because each or the combination of the claim limitations in that portion sets forth or describes mathematical relationships and calculations using words. Under Step 2A - Prong 2, Examiner analyzed each of the remaining limitations, i.e. “additional elements”, individually and in combination, and determined that the claim as a whole, including “the additional elements”, fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations of representative claim 1 are all recited at a high level of generality. They encompass processes of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea and/or generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, while the mention of the generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of a computer is insignificant since it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself. The claim does not recite any specificity required to transform the claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it. As such, Examiner affirmed that none of the additional limitations is qualified to be “significantly more”, such that it improves the functioning of a computer or the relevant technology by using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. That is, the claim as a whole does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, nor does it apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, Examiner evaluated the additional elements again to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept under Step 2B. With the BRI to the claim, Examiner conclude that the additional elements such as “a plurality of micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) sensors, each of the plurality of MEMS sensor having an output” and “blending instructions for blending the outputs of the plurality of MEMS sensors” “to create a blended output for the inertial measurement unit”, etc., either individually or in combination, are all well-understood, routine, conventional in the art (see discussion of the prior art cited in the previous Office Action). They do not provide any inventive concept or reflect a qualified improvement (see MPEP 2106.05). Under the BRI to the claim, it is deemed that the focus of Applicant’s invention is an algorithm of mathematically calibrating and combining outputs from a plurality of MEMS sensors to yield respective combined outputs, while the remaining claim limitations regarding the concept and mathematical implementation of combining/fusing the outputs of a plurality of MEMS sensors to create a blended IMU output is well-known in the art. At most, the pending claims recite an improved mathematical algorithm, which is an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG, and an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
It is held that simply setting forth advantages (i.e. benefits) of use without providing any rational/evidence to how/why the claimed elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception could be treated as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)), but not qualified for an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The key is to show that the claim goes beyond just performing a calculation and provides a practical application or significant improvement through the use of that calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
The rest of the Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim eligibility are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by the rejection under 35 USC 101 as set forth below in the previous Office Action, thus are deemed unpersuasive as well.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 in reference to the amended claims are deemed persuasive. The corresponding rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 21-30 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.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 21-30 are directed to an abstract idea of calibrating and combining outputs from a plurality of MEMS sensors to yield respective combined outputs.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
An inertial measurement unit comprising:
a plurality of micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) sensors, each of the plurality of MEMS sensor having an output;
a memory for storing calibration coefficients separately for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors, static blending weights for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors, and data blending instructions for blending the outputs of the plurality of MEMS sensors; and
a processor, coupled to the memory and the plurality of MEMS sensors, configured to execute the data blending instructions to apply the calibration coefficients separately to each of the plurality of MEMS sensors and to apply the static blending weights to the outputs of the plurality of MEMS sensors to create a blended output for the inertial measurement unit,
wherein the static blending weights are calculated based on data for a plurality of test parameters for the plurality of MEMS sensors gathered during testing of the plurality of MEMS sensors, the plurality of test parameters including at least one or more of bias instability, angle random walk, bias repeatability, and noise for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors;
wherein a harmonic mean of the data for each of the plurality of test parameters is calculated using the data for the plurality of MEMS sensors;
wherein a weight for each of the plurality of test parameters for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors is calculated by dividing a value of each of the plurality of test parameters for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors by the harmonic mean for a corresponding one of the plurality of test parameters; and
wherein the static blending weight for one of the plurality of MEMS sensors is calculated by combining the weight for each of the plurality of test parameters for that one of the plurality of MEMS sensors.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the bolded portion encompasses mathematical relationships/concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation and/or calculation, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. That is, other than reciting “a processor coupled to the memory and the plurality of MEMS sensors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the bolded portion from practically being performed in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, but for the “processor” language, “apply the calibration coefficients separately to each of the plurality of MEMS sensors” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally or manually formulating an arithmetic relationship between the digital sensor signals and the calibration coefficients to calculate/generate a calibrated output for each of the plurality of sensors.
As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 falls within a combination of the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Process” Groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Step 2A - Prong 2 asks if the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 includes the additional limitations “a plurality of micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) sensors”, “a memory for storing …” and “gathered during testing of the plurality of MEMS sensors, the plurality of test parameters including at least one or more of bias instability, angle random walk, bias repeatability, and noise for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors”. Under the BRI, it is deemed that all the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. None of them is qualified for being “significantly more” because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea to transform the claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it. At most, the recite additional elements only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In particular, gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea represents merely an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
As to the computer-related elements, according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2B evaluates whether the additional elements amount to an inventive concept?
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is deemed that the “heart” of the representative claim 1 is directed to an algorithm of mathematically calibrating and combining outputs from a plurality of MEMS sensors to yield respective combined outputs. Under its BRI, the claimed algorithm falls within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of the Abstract Ideas.
As discussed above in Step 2A, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited additional elements such as “a plurality of micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) sensors, each of the plurality of MEMS sensor having an output” and “blending instructions for blending the outputs of the plurality of MEMS sensors” “to create a blended output for the inertial measurement unit”, either individually or in combination, are all considered well-understood, routine, conventional in the art (see discussion of the prior art cited in the previous Office Action). They do not provide any inventive concept or reflect a qualified improvement. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-4, 7 and 21 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significantly more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
In particular, claims 2 and 3 recite: wherein the plurality of MEMS sensor comprise a first group of MEMS sensors that is oriented at an angle to at least one other group of MEMS sensors; and wherein the plurality of MEMS sensors each comprise a three-axis gyroscope and a three-axis accelerometer. Under the BRI, it is deemed that these additional limitations are not qualified for being “significantly more” to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. At most, they only generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, features such as a plurality of MEMS sensor comprising a first group of MEMS sensors that is oriented at an angle to at least one other group of MEMS sensors and a plurality of MEMS sensors each comprise a three-axis gyroscope and a three-axis accelerometer are all considered well-understood, routine, conventional in the art. They do not amount to an inventive concept or reflect a qualified improvement.
Claims 8-9, 11-12, 14 and 22-30 are rejected for the same reason as for claims 1-4, 7 and 21 set forth above in this Office Action.
In particular, claims 9 and 14 recite: testing a plurality of independent MEMS sensors to evaluate each of the plurality of MEMS sensors based on data for a plurality of test parameters, including at least one or more of bias instability, angle random walk, bias repeatability, and noise for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors, and separately calibrating each of the plurality of independent MEMS sensors. Under the BRI, these additional limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activities because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea. At most, they only link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, these generally recited additional limitations do not amount to an inventive concept. It has been held that generally attach well-understood, routine, conventional extra-solution activities to a judicial exception do not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 21-30 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Note
5. While there are related references that discuss calibrating and combining outputs from a plurality of MEMS sensors using blending weights, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including:
wherein the static blending weights are calculated based on data for a plurality of test parameters for the plurality of MEMS sensors gathered during testing of the plurality of MEMS sensors, the plurality of test parameters including at least one or more of bias instability, angle random walk, bias repeatability, and noise for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors; wherein a harmonic mean of the data for each of the plurality of test parameters is calculated using the data for the plurality of MEMS sensors; wherein a weight for each of the plurality of test parameters for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors is calculated by dividing a value of each of the plurality of test parameters for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors by the harmonic mean for a corresponding one of the plurality of test parameters; and wherein the static blending weight for one of the plurality of MEMS sensors is calculated by combining the weight for each of the plurality of test parameters for that one of the plurality of MEMS sensors (as recited in independent claim 1);
wherein the static blending weights for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors are calculated based on a geometric mean of data for a plurality of test parameters for the plurality of MEMS sensors gathered during testing of the plurality of MEMS sensors, the plurality of test parameters including at least one or more of bias instability, angle random walk, bias repeatability, and noise for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors; wherein the geometric mean of the data for the plurality of test parameters is calculated separately for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors using the data for the test parameters for that MEMS sensor; wherein a harmonic mean is created using the geometric mean from each of the plurality of MEMS sensors; and wherein the static blending weight for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors is calculated by dividing the geometric mean of the MEMS sensor by the harmonic mean (as recited in independent claim 8);
calculating a weight for each of the plurality of test parameters for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors by dividing a value of each of the plurality of test parameters for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors by the harmonic mean for a corresponding one of the plurality of test parameters, wherein the plurality of test parameters including at least one or more of bias instability, angle random walk, bias repeatability, and noise for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors: and calculating the static blending weight for one of the plurality of MEMS sensors by combining the weight for each of the plurality of test parameters for that one of the plurality of MEMS sensors (as recited in independent claim 9);
calculating a geometric mean from the data for the plurality of test parameters for each one of the plurality of independent MEMS sensors using the data for the plurality of test parameters for that MEMS sensor; calculating a harmonic mean using the geometric mean from each of the plurality of independent MEMS sensors; and calculating the static blending weight for each one of the plurality of independent MEMS sensors by dividing the geometric mean of that one of the plurality of independent MEMS sensors by the harmonic mean of the plurality of independent MEMS sensor, wherein the plurality of test parameters including at least one or more of bias instability, angle random walk, bias repeatability, and noise for each of the plurality of MEMS sensors (as recited in independent claim 14).
It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in claim 1, 8, 9 or 14, that would make the pending claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14, and 21-30 distinguish over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857