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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a typo in the limitation “calibrated accelerometer data an orientation”. A possible correction would read - - calibrated accelerometer data and orientation - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5, 8, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the limitation “an AI algorithm module” in line 3 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the disclosure as originally filed lacks description of the AI algorithm and its training including details such as the type and number of nodes or layers, the types or forms of inputs, whether the process is supervised or unsupervised, and the like, and therefore does not meet the requirements for written description of computer implemented functional language. See MPEM 2161.01 (I).
Claims 5 and 8 depend from claim 4 and claim 15 depends from claim 14 and inherit this issue therefrom.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “is used to train the AI algorithm module” in line 2 was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the disclosure as originally filed lacks description of the AI algorithm and its training including details such as the type and number of nodes or layers, the types or forms of inputs, whether the process is supervised or unsupervised, and the like, and therefore does not meet the requirements for written description of computer implemented functional language. See MPEM 2161.01 (I).
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the AI algorithm module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 depends from claim 11 which does not establish antecedent basis for an AI algorithm module. Claim 14 does establish antecedent basis for an AI algorithm module but claim 18 does not directly or indirectly depend from claim 14. A possible correction would amend claim 18 to depend from claim 14.
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 1-10 are directed to a computer-implemented method for sensor calibration, which is considered to be a process. Claims 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer storage medium that stores a program thereon that causes a computer to execute a process, which is considered to be a composition of matter. Therefore, claims 1-20 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for sensor calibration comprising “receiving raw accelerometer data, raw gyroscope data, and raw magnetometer data;
performing sensor calibration at an inertial measurement unit using the raw accelerometer data, the raw gyroscope data, and the raw magnetometer data;
outputting a plurality of calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit;
transmitting the plurality of calibrated parameters to a sensor fusion module, wherein the sensor fusion module computes calibrated accelerometer data an orientation; and
transmitting calibrated accelerometer data and orientation to a gravity removal module, wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0026]-[0043], teaches the calibration, computing, and calculation to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the receiving, outputting, transmitting could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements of the structure of “an inertial measurement unit”, “a sensor fusion module”, and “a gravity removal module”. The additional elements of the inertial measurement unit, the sensor fusion module, and the gravity removal module are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the inertial measurement unit is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The inertial measurement unit limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensor fusion module and the gravity removal module are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent 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. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “an inertial measurement unit”, “a sensor fusion module”, and “a gravity removal module” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the inertial measurement unit, the sensor fusion module, and the gravity removal module are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the inertial measurement unit is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The inertial measurement unit limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensor fusion module and the gravity removal module are recited at such a high level of generality 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. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-3, 7, and 9 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 4 recites the further additional element of “an AI algorithm module”. The AI algorithm module is recited at such a high level of generality 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. The AI algorithm module in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 4 is not eligible.
Claims 5 and 8 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 4 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 4 above.
Claim 6 recites the further abstract ideas of “comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters; and updating the plurality of calibration parameters at an external calibration updater located at a wearable device prior their transmittal to the sensor fusion module” which are considered to be mental processes and mathematical concepts analogous to those above, and recites the further additional elements of “an external calibration updater located at a wearable device”. The external calibration device and the wearable device are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 10 recites the further additional elements of “a Bluetooth Module” and “a second computer”. The Bluetooth module and the second computer are recited at such a high level of generality 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. The Bluetooth module and the second computer in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer storage medium that stores a program thereon that causes a computer to execute a process comprising “ receiving raw accelerometer data, raw gyroscope data, and raw magnetometer data;
performing sensor calibration at an inertial measurement unit using the raw accelerometer data, the raw gyroscope data, and the raw magnetometer data;
outputting a plurality of calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit;
transmitting the plurality of calibrated parameters to a sensor fusion module, wherein the sensor fusion module computes calibrated accelerometer data and an orientation; and
transmitting calibrated accelerometer and orientation to a gravity removal module, wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0026]-[0043], teaches the calibration, computing, and calculation to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the receiving, outputting, transmitting could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 11 further recites the additional elements of the structure of “a computer”, “an inertial measurement unit”, “a sensor fusion module”, and “a gravity removal module”. The additional elements of the computer, the inertial measurement unit, the sensor fusion module, and the gravity removal module are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the inertial measurement unit is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The inertial measurement unit limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer, sensor fusion module, and the gravity removal module are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent 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. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “a computer”, “an inertial measurement unit”, “a sensor fusion module”, and “a gravity removal module” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the inertial measurement unit, the computer, the sensor fusion module, and the gravity removal module are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the inertial measurement unit is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The inertial measurement unit limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer, the sensor fusion module, and the gravity removal module are recited at such a high level of generality 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. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible.
Claims 12-13, 17, and 19 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 11 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 11 above.
Claim 14 recites the further additional element of “an AI algorithm module”. The AI algorithm module is recited at such a high level of generality 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. The AI algorithm module in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 14 is not eligible.
Claims 15 and 18 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 14 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 14 above.
Claim 16 recites the further abstract ideas of “comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters; and updating the plurality of calibration parameters at an external calibration updater located at a wearable device prior their transmittal to the sensor fusion module” which are considered to be mental processes and mathematical concepts analogous to those above, and recites the further additional elements of “an external calibration updater located at a wearable device”. The external calibration device and the wearable device are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 16 is not eligible.
Claim 20 recites the further additional elements of “a Bluetooth Module” and “a second computer”. The Bluetooth module and the second computer are recited at such a high level of generality 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. The Bluetooth module and the second computer in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 20 is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US PGPub 2019/0385339 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US PGPub 2020/0088761 A1).
As to claim 1, Zhao et al. teaches a computer-implemented method for sensor calibration (paragraph [0024]) comprising:
receiving raw accelerometer data, raw gyroscope data, and raw magnetometer data (paragraph [0090]);
performing sensor calibration at an inertial measurement unit using the raw accelerometer data, the raw gyroscope data, and the raw magnetometer data (figure 5 and paragraph [0099]);
outputting a plurality of calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit (step 510 in figure 5; paragraph [0099], outputting results);
transmitting the plurality of calibrated parameters to a sensor fusion module (630; paragraph [0110]), wherein the sensor fusion module computes calibrated accelerometer data an orientation (paragraphs [0123]-[0125]).
Zhao et al. does not explicitly teach transmitting calibrated accelerometer data and orientation to a gravity removal module, wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data.
Anderson et al. teaches transmitting calibrated accelerometer data and orientation to a gravity removal module (paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0042]-[0044], where the calibration module 135 receives the data from the accelerometer and then processes it accounting for gravity removal module), wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data (paragraphs [0038] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. to have transmitting calibrated accelerometer data and orientation to a gravity removal module, wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data as taught by Anderson et al. because it allows accounting for the gravity through condition changes of the error parameters using gravity (paragraphs [0042] and [0038]) with predictable results.
As to claim 2, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) wherein there are up to thirty-six calibration parameters (paragraphs [0090], [0094]-[0095] and paragraph [0122], where it is considered that there is a combination of the sensors that have thirty-six calibration parameters or less).
As to claim 3, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) wherein the calibration is dynamically performed (dynamic sensing data in paragraph [0231], and continuous calibration in paragraph [0153]).
As to claim 4, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) further comprising transmitting calibrated accelerometer data, calibrated magnetometer data, and calibrated gyroscope data from the sensor fusion module to an AI algorithm module (paragraphs [0083], [0090], and [0222], where the transmitted calibrated data can be used for further directions, including in the artificial intelligence control of the vehicle).
As to claim 6, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated), further comprising: updating the plurality of calibration parameters at an external calibration updater located at a wearable device prior their transmittal to the sensor fusion module (paragraphs [0099] and [0236]).
Zhao et al. as modified does not explicitly teach comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters.
Anderson et al. further teaches comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. to have comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters as taught by Anderson et al. because it allows the collection of the best data set (paragraph [0058]) with predictable results.
As to claim 7, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) wherein the sensor fusion module is used to determine acceleration due to gravity that is projected onto x, y, and z axes (paragraphs [0096]-[0097] and figures 1-3).
As to claim 9, Zhao et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 1, except wherein historical calibration data is used to update bias and sensitivity parameters.
Anderson et al. teaches wherein historical calibration data is used to update bias and sensitivity parameters (paragraphs [0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. as modified to further have wherein historical calibration data is used to update bias and sensitivity parameters as taught by Anderson et al. because it allows the speed of calculation of the calibration to be sped (paragraph [0066]) with predictable results.
As to claim 11, Zhao et al. teaches a non-transitory computer storage medium that stores a program thereon that causes a computer to execute a process (paragraphs [0024], [0249], and [0252]) comprising:
receiving raw accelerometer data, raw gyroscope data, and raw magnetometer data (paragraph [0090]);
performing sensor calibration at an inertial measurement unit using the raw accelerometer data, the raw gyroscope data, and the raw magnetometer data (figure 5 and paragraph [0099]);
outputting a plurality of calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit (step 510 in figure 5; paragraph [0099], outputting results);
transmitting the plurality of calibrated parameters to a sensor fusion module (630; paragraph [0110]), wherein the sensor fusion module computes calibrated accelerometer data and orientation (paragraphs [0123]-[0125]).
Zhao et al. does not explicitly teach transmitting calibrated accelerometer data and orientation to a gravity removal module, wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data.
Anderson et al. teaches transmitting calibrated accelerometer data and orientation to a gravity removal module (paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0042]-[0044], where the calibration module 135 receives the data from the accelerometer and then processes it accounting for gravity removal module), wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data (paragraphs [0038] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. to have transmitting calibrated accelerometer data and orientation to a gravity removal module, wherein the gravity removal module calculates corrected linear acceleration data as taught by Anderson et al. because it allows accounting for the gravity through condition changes of the error parameters using gravity (paragraphs [0042] and [0038]) with predictable results.
As to claim 12, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) wherein there are up to thirty-six calibration parameters (paragraphs [0090], [0094]-[0095] and paragraph [0122], where it is considered that there is a combination of the sensors that have thirty-six calibration parameters or less).
As to claim 13, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) wherein the calibration is dynamically performed (dynamic sensing data in paragraph [0231], and continuous calibration in paragraph [0153]).
As to claim 14, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) further comprising transmitting calibrated accelerometer data, calibrated magnetometer data, and calibrated gyroscope data from the sensor fusion module to an AI algorithm module (paragraphs [0083], [0090], and [0222], where the transmitted calibrated data can be used for further directions, including in the artificial intelligence control of the vehicle).
As to claim 16, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated), further comprising: updating the plurality of calibration parameters at an external calibration updater located at a wearable device prior their transmittal to the sensor fusion module (paragraphs [0099] and [0236]).
Zhao et al. as modified does not explicitly teach comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters.
Anderson et al. further teaches comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. to have comparing a plurality of previously calculated calibration parameters from the inertial measurement unit to the plurality of calibration parameters as taught by Anderson et al. because it allows the collection of the best data set (paragraph [0058]) with predictable results.
As to claim 17, Zhao et al. as modified teaches (citations to Zhao et al. unless otherwise indicated) wherein the sensor fusion module is used to determine acceleration due to gravity that is projected onto x, y, and z axes (paragraphs [0096]-[0097] and figures 1-3).
As to claim 19, Zhao et al. as modified teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as noted above for claim 11, except wherein historical calibration data is used to update bias and sensitivity parameters.
Anderson et al. teaches wherein historical calibration data is used to update bias and sensitivity parameters (paragraphs [0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. as modified to further have wherein historical calibration data is used to update bias and sensitivity parameters as taught by Anderson et al. because it allows the speed of calculation of the calibration to be sped (paragraph [0066]) with predictable results.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US PGPub 2019/0385339 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US PGPub 2020/0088761 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Nichols et al. (US PGPub 20200271689 A1).
As to claim 10, Zhao et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 1, except further comprising transmitting the corrected linear acceleration data to a Bluetooth Module for delivery to a second computer.
Nichols et al. teaches transmitting the corrected linear acceleration data to a Bluetooth Module for delivery to a second computer (paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. to have transmitting the corrected linear acceleration data to a Bluetooth Module for delivery to a second computer as taught by Nichols et al. because it allows the communication between units with a well known communication scheme (paragraph [0053]), with predictable results.
As to claim 20, Zhao et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention, as noted above for claim 11, except further comprising transmitting the corrected linear acceleration data to a Bluetooth Module for delivery to a second computer.
Nichols et al. teaches transmitting the corrected linear acceleration data to a Bluetooth Module for delivery to a second computer (paragraphs [0061]-[0062] and [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhao et al. to have transmitting the corrected linear acceleration data to a Bluetooth Module for delivery to a second computer as taught by Nichols et al. because it allows the communication between units with a well known communication scheme (paragraph [0053]), with predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson et al. (9,891,245), Czompo (US PGPub 2013/0144550 A1), and Speranzon et al. (US PGPub 2020/0311514 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853