DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification should include section CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq. section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2023 and 07/26/2024 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 3/20/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a first acceleration data from an accelerometer; calculating, by the processor, a change in velocity based on the first acceleration data, the change in velocity being calculated over a first period of time; and adjusting, by the processor, a timing sequence based on the change in velocity.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 8 is a system claim and claim 15 a device claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “calculating, by the processor, a change in velocity based on the first acceleration data, the change in velocity being calculated over a first period of time and adjusting, by the processor, a timing sequence based on the change in velocity.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8 and 15.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including receiving, by a processor, a first acceleration data from an accelerometer; (claims 1, 8, and 15) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “a processor” (claims 1, 8, and 15) however the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0034] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processors” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, and processing and other elements, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, it is unclear what the purpose of the adjusting is from the claims.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 8 and 15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 3, 12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear what the metes and bounds of “about” a time period and the term “nominal” would be.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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. 11. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trikha US 4,846,421.
With regards to claim 1, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a first acceleration data from an accelerometer; (Col. 2, lines 24-30)
calculating, by the processor, a change in velocity based on the first acceleration data, the change in velocity being calculated over a first period of time; (Col. 2, lines 40-49) and adjusting, by the processor, a timing sequence based on the change in velocity. (Col. 2, lines 31-35 & 50-57)
With regards to claim 2, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches determining, by the processor, that a switch has been actuated before adjusting the timing sequence. (bit motor logic 72 is interpreted as a switch; Col.6, lines 61-67)
With regards to claim 4, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches the first acceleration data includes time data. (figure 11) (Col. 8, lines 25-28)
With regards to claim 5, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches receiving, by the processor, a second acceleration data from the accelerometer in response to a switch not being actuated; storing, by the processor, the second acceleration data; and calculating, by the processor, the change in velocity based on the first acceleration data and the second acceleration data. (Col.2, lines 44-57)
With regards to claim 6, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches the timing sequence is an ejection sequence of an ejection seat in an aircraft. (figures 1-2)
With regards to claim 7, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches receiving, by the processor, a command from an ejection seat before receiving the first acceleration data. (Col. 2, lines 39-42)
With regards to claim 8, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches system, comprising:
an ejection seat; (figures 1-2)
an accelerometer coupled to the ejection seat; (44; figure 4) (54; Col. 6, lines 14-19)
a switch coupled to the ejection seat; (control logic; Col. 5, lines 60-63)
a processor; (Col. 3, lines 20) and
a memory operatively coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, (Col. 5, lines 57-60) cause the processor to:
store a first acceleration data received from the accelerometer; (Col. 2, lines 24-30)
calculate a change in velocity based at least in part on the first acceleration data, the change in velocity being calculated over a first time period; (Col. 2, lines 40-49)
determine a scalar value based at least in part on the change in velocity in response to a signal from the switch; (Col.6, lines 46-60) and adjust an ejection sequence of the ejection seat based on the scalar value. (Col. 2, lines 31-35 & 50-57)
With regards to claim 9, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches retrieve a nominal change in velocity; and determine the scalar value as a ratio of the change in velocity to the nominal change in velocity. (Col. 2, lines 50-57)
With regards to claim 10, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches determine the scalar value after calculating the change in velocity and before receiving the signal from the switch. (Col. 2, lines 23-42)
With regards to claim 13, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches determine that the scalar value does not exceed a predetermined upper threshold; and determine that the scalar value is not below a predetermined lower threshold. (limits of acceleration; Col. 6, lines 40-45)
With regards to claim15, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches ejection seat, comprising:
an accelerometer connected to the ejection seat; (54; Col. 6, lines 14-19)
a controller(Col.5, lines 12-15) configured to:
receive acceleration data from the accelerometer each first period of time; store the acceleration data; (needs stored acceleration data for comparison; Col. 2, lines 24-45)
calculate an average velocity based on the acceleration data; (Col. 2, lines 40-49)
determine a scalar value based on the average velocity;(trajectory; Col. 2, lines 24-30) and
adjust an ejection sequence based on the scalar value. (Col. 2, lines 31-35 & 50-57)
With regards to claim 17, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches determine the scalar value as a ratio of the average velocity to a predefined average velocity.
With regards to claim 18, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches the ejection sequence includes a first timing of deployment of a drogue parachute, a second timing of deployment of a main parachute, and a third timing of a separation of an occupant from the ejection seat. (Col.8, lines 23-35)
With regards to claim 19, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches a switch coupled to the ejection seat, wherein the controller is further configured to receive a signal from the switch before determining the scalar value, the signal indicating to the controller to use the scalar value based on the change in velocity. (Col. 7, lines 8-13)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
14. 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.
15. Claim(s) 12, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trikha US 4,846,421.
With regards to claim 12, 16 and 20, Trikha US 4,846,421 teaches the particular time periods are about 2 ms to about 10 ms, about 0.5 ms to about 20 ms, about 30 ms to about 50 ms.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McCumber et al. US 11,518,527 teaches an automatic ejection seat performance optimization based on detection of aircrew weight.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
18. 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.
19. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby 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.
20. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 24, 2026