CTNF 18/310,979 CTNF 82016 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/26 has been entered. Response to Arguments Allowable Subject Matter For clarification, claim 6 would be allowable if placed into independent form with an additional amendment overcoming the instant 101 rejections . Currently, the instant claims do not overcome the current 101 rejections. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The claim limitation invokes the 112(f) interpretation because under the broadest and most reasonable interpretation and based on applicant’s file specification, see [0028-0029], a calculation unit or “processor” is a generic computer component require special computer programming to accomplish the claimed functions. The instant claim 10 thereby invokes 112(f) because the calculation unit/processor, itself, is not sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions, as these functions require additional programming. An off-the-shelf processor does not have a structural ability to perform the claimed functions without special programming, i.e. the sufficient structure for performing that function. The claimed functions of “determine an indicator based on the first sensor data, wherein the indicator indicates a probability of a presence of a movement of interest of the bike” , “ determine a weighting factor based on the second sensor data”; “weight the indicator by the weighting factory”, and “detect whether the movement of interest is given based on the weighted indicator” requires special programming with corresponding structure for performing the claimed function found in [0028-0029]. In light of MPEP 2181(II)(B), the claimed functions, discussed above, are outside the co-extensive features of a generically claimed computer component, i.e. processor; thereby requiring special programming to perform the claimed function of calculating. 112 Rejections Applicant amended “calculation unit” to “processor” to avoid a 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. The specification does not disclose a “processor” or define it as equivalence with the disclosed “calculation unit”, or corresponding structure/algorithm linked to the claimed function for the substitute term “processor”. Accordingly, the amendment dated 1/2/2026 introduces 112(a) new matter issues and renders the claim indefinite under 112(b). To the extent applicant argues the “processor” merely replaces the nonce computer term of “a calculation unit” performing algorithmic functions, the claim still lacks adequate support of corresponding structure. With respect to applicant’s argument that the calculation unit 4 having processing unit 5 and 6 that process sensor data would imply and inherently support the amendment to include the processor to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosed calculation unit and its subunits define a particular computing architecture, not a simply a generic, interchangeable piece of structure. Replacing calculation unit, disclosed to have processing units 5 and 6, with a generic and undefined “processor” introduces indefiniteness while broadening the scope beyond what’s clearly disclosed in the specification. Without adequate disclosure of how a generic processor is subdivided into sub processing units, the recited “processor” becomes unsupported and therefore not an equivalent structure. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded. 101 Rejection The examiner disagrees that the claims are not directed towards an abstract idea. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. Therefore, in light of applicant’s instant application, see paragraphs [0024], the determined indicator is calculated using a covariance matrix; the determination of the weighting factor uses disclosed weighting functions, see para [0035]; and lastly, the detecting whether the movement of interest is given using the calculated weight factor via a simple mathematic comparison against a threshold. Therefore, as supported by applicant’s filed specification, the identified abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are more than mere “involves” or “based on” limitation, as the specification explicitly defines these mathematical operations being used to determine the claimed indicator, weight factors and movement detection. Applicant alleges that the claims are an improvement on the technology of detecting false theft, however the claim isn’t directed towards the alleged improvement, but rather the detection of motion. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Further, the argued limitations regarding using the indicator as a probability of a presence of motion, weighted by a weight function are some of the abstract concepts identified by the examiner in Step 2A. In Step 2B, it cannot be the abstract concepts themselves that improve a technology or technical field but rather the additional elements or extra solution activities such that the claims themselves amount to significantly more than the abstract concept. Applicant argues the claimed structure is analogous to example 45, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike example 45, there is no real-world action that effects the bike based on the determined motion, like in example 45. The bike isn’t disabled, the sensors are not improved upon and the processor is merely acting as a tool. Therefore, the result has no impact to the additional elements of the claim, including the bike itself. Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more, like in example 45. 103 Rejection Applicant argues Sanchez fails to teach determining an indicator that indicates a probability of a presence of the particular movement of interest: a pushing or carrying of the bike away from a parked location. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The disclosed sensor of Sanchez detects movement by collecting angular velocity. Fig. 2 depicts the algorithmic process, as performed by a processor, which receives the raw data from the sensor and determines when a value crosses a threshold, s218. Therefore, the disclosure, as a whole, teaches the claimed limitations. With respect to what the movement represents, i.e. a pushing or carrying of the bike away from a parked location, the claim does not define how this indicator structurally distinguishes between being pushed or carried away or how the method/device determines a parked location. Further, the amendments directed towards the indicator indicating the bike being pushes for carries from a parked location is an intended result of what the data means and not a structural configuration that distinguishes the claimed invention over the prior art. In response to applicant’s arguments directed towards Akella failing to disclose that the weighting factor is applied to an indicator of a probability, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In the abstract, Akella teaches weighting factors for each of the accelerations may also be determined based on the probabilities. Therefore, the combination, as a whole teaches the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claim 10 is 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. The claim has been amended to recite “a processor”. However, the term “processor” lacks support in the instant specification. The specification discloses a “calculation unit” comprised of a first sensor processing unit, a second sensor data processing unit, a weighting unit, and a decision unit; see para. [0028-0029]. Therefore, it is unclear what structure constitutes the newly recited “processor” and how it is configured to perform the claimed functions, i.e. determining an indicator, determining a weight factor, detecting movement, and sending a notification, which are disclosed as being performed by separate “units” of a calculation unit and not a processor. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10 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. As discussed above, amended claim 10 now recites 'a processor configured to'. However, the specification, particularly paragraphs [0028]-[0029], does not provide sufficient support for this amendment. The specification discloses a “calculation unit” composed of specific “units”, rather than a generic processor. Therefore, it is unclear how an undisclosed processor is configured to perform these steps, as the specification attributes these actions to a calculation unit. To advance prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as reciting the originally disclosed 'control unit', consistent with the specification. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: A processor/calculation unit in claim 10, which corresponding structure found in [0028-0029]. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites: determining an indicator based on the first sensor data, wherein the indicator indicates a probability of a presence of a movement of interest of the bike, determining a weighting factor based on the second sensor data; weighting the indicator by the weighting factor; and detecting the movement of interest is given based on the weighted indicator ; which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s filed specification in para. [0024] discloses the determined indicator is calculated by a covariance matrix, the determination of the weighting factor uses a disclosed weighting function, see para [0035] and lastly, the detecting whether the movement of interest is given based on the calculated weight factor is performed via a simple mathematic comparison against a threshold. Therefore, as supported by applicant’s filed specification, the identified abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element bike merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the bike itself. MPEP 2106.05(h) The additional element first and second sensors integrated thereon, as generically recited, merely read as additional elements performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gather; as these sensors are merely feeding the abstract idea the needed data to perform the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g) The claimed “sending a notification to a user in response to the movement of interest being detected” does not improve the other additional element sensors or bike. Therefore, the claimed notification does not meaningfully limit the claim, as it fails to recite details of a how solution to a problem is accomplished and merely amounts to an instruction to apply the exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) Lastly, what the indicator’s represent, i.e. carried or pushed from a parked location mere link the abstract idea to a field of use, as there is not real-world action that amounts from the determined indicators and what they represent. Therefore, the limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bike and the sensors, as generically claimed, merely link the abstract idea while the sensors feed the needed data to perform the abstract idea. Neither the result or notification of the abstract idea does anything to improve the bike, sensors, indicators, or the data collected, and therefore fails to amount to significantly more. Claim 2, 3, 11, and 12 further define the sensors without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed sensor are well-known sensors collecting data in a conventional manner. Claims 4-7 further define the calculated weight factoring without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 8 and 13 further define a step of high-pass filtering and/or low-pass filtering of the second data, which further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize high or low pass filtering to involve mathematics because they involve transfer functions, differential equations FFT and convolution, all of which are core mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 9 and 14 further define subjecting the temporal curve to a bias correction when determining the envelope which further defines the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as evidenced by para. [0033]. Therefore, the claim fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 10 recites: determine an indicator based on the first sensor data, wherein the indicator indicates a probability of a presence of a movement of interest of the bike, determine a weighting factor based on the second sensor data; weighting the indicator by the weighting factor; and detect whether the movement of interest is given based on the weighted indicator ; which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s filed specification in para. [0024] discloses the determined indicator is based on a calculated covariance matrix, the determination of the weighting factor being based on a disclosed weighting function, see para [0035] and lastly, the detecting whether the movement of interest is given based on the calculated weight factor being based on a simple mathematic comparison against a threshold. Therefore, as supported by applicant’s filed specification, the identified abstract idea falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element bike merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the bike itself. MPEP 2106.05(h) The additional element first and second sensors integrated thereon, as generically recited, merely read as additional elements performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gather; as these sensors are merely feeding the abstract idea the needed data to perform the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g) The claimed “sending a notification to a user in response to the movement of interest being detected” does not improve the other additional element sensors or bike. Therefore, the claimed notification does not meaningfully limit the claim, as it fails to recite details of a how solution to a problem is accomplished and merely amounts to an instruction to apply the exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) Lastly, what the indicator’s represent, i.e. carried or pushed from a parked location mere link the abstract idea to a field of use, as there is not real-world action that amounts from the determined indicators and what they represent. Therefore, the limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bike and the sensors, as generically claimed, merely link the abstract idea while the sensors feed the needed data to perform the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve the bike, sensor or the data collected, therefore the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez (10,643,441) in view of Akella et al. (10,816,987) . With respect to claim 1, Sanchez teaches in Fig. 1A-1D a method for detecting a movement (via motion sensors; abstract) of interest of a bike (116) having a first sensor (i.e. a gyroscope; Col. 8 lines 10-16) and a second sensor (335a) integrated thereon (as Sanchez teaches a tracker 118 having gyroscopic and acceleration sensors, and the tracker being integrated on the bike through a screw, Col. 5 lines 29-32), the method comprising: sensing first sensor data (for example, angular velocity via the gyroscopic sensor) by way of the first sensor (gyroscopic sensor; Col. 8 lines 10-16) of the bike (116); determining an indicator (i.e. determining a value of from an angular velocity motion data; insofar as how “determining” is structurally defined) based on the first sensor data (gyroscopic sensor; Col. 8 lines 10-16), wherein the indicator (i.e. value) indicates a probability of a presence of a movement of interest of the bike, the movement of interest being a pushing or a carrying of the bike away from a parked location of the bike (as earlier in the disclosure in Col. 5, lines 57–63, Sanchez discusses a scenario where received signal indicates an unauthorized person, e.g., a thief, is carrying the asset away from the user's location; Sanchez later teaches in Col. 8 line 62 to Col. 9 lines 5, if a value from the sensed data exceeds a specific threshold, it indicates a high probability that the bike is in motion. This value indicates a probability the asset is moving away from the user; hence, Sanchez teaches the scenario the received signal indicates an unauthorized person, such as a thief, is attempting to carry the asset away from a location, beyond a location of the user; therefore, insofar as what is structurally defined for the method, the taught indicator indicates that a thief is pushing or carrying away the asset from a parked location of the asset relative to the user insofar as how the claim has defined structure for determining a parked location); sensing second sensor data by way of the second sensor of the bike (as the acceleration sensor sense acceleration data, Col. 8 lines 10-16), wherein the second sensor data describes a strength of a movement of the bike (as based on the sensed acceleration data, if the data is above a threshold, it describes a strength of the movement of the bike, Col. 8 line 62 to Col. 9 line 5); detecting whether the movement of interest is given based on the indicator (as based on the determined threshold crossing, the method determines the movement is of interest); and sending a notification (i.e. an alert) to a user in response to the movement of interest being detected (Col. 9 lines 6-18). Sanchez remains silent regarding determining a weighting factor based on the second sensor data; and weighting the indicator by the weighting factor. Akella et al. teaches a similar determination of a weighting factor based on sensor data (s316); and weighting the indicator by the weighting factor (as s316 applies the weight factor to the sensor data; Col. 19 line 63 to Col. 20 line 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Sanchez to include the data processing step of applying a weight factor to the sensor data, as taught in Akella et al. because such a modification improves the accuracy of that data, Col. 2 lines 61-66, thereby improving the theft detection in Sanchez. With respect to claim 2, Sanchez as modified teaches the method wherein the second sensor (335a) is an accelerometer, Col. 13 lines 33-35. With respect to claim 3, Sanchez as modified teaches the method wherein the first sensor is a gyroscopic sensor (Col. 8 lines 10-16). With respect to claim 4, Sanchez, as modified by Akella et al. teaches the method wherein the weighting factor (as taught in Akella et al.) is a factor that increases with increasing strength of the movement and decreases with decreasing strength of the movement (as Akella et al. teaches the weight factors increase when there is a higher probability of a collision with an object, like a bike, thereby reading on when the strength of the movement of the object increases, so does the weight factor and when the strength of the movement decreases, so does the weight based on the probability of collision, Col. 10 lines 20-37). With respect to claim 5, Sanchez, as modified by Akella et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 1, but remains silent regarding the weighting factor is determined from the second sensor data (i.e. the acceleration data) such that it falls within a range of values between 0 and 1. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A). In this instance, a person having ordinary skill in the art has the capability to perform the engineering calculations to optimize the range taught in the prior art, see Akella, Col. 20, lines 3-7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weighting factor range from 1 to 10 as taught by Akella to the claimed 0 and 1 range because such a modification provides a universal standardized way to represent the relative importance of the different items. With respect to claim 10, Sanchez teaches in an apparatus Fig. 1A-1D for detecting a movement (via motion sensors; abstract) of interest of a bike (116), the apparatus being integrated onto the bike (as Sanchez teaches a tracker 118 having gyroscopic and acceleration sensors, and the tracker being integrated on the bike through a screw, Col. 5 lines 29-32), the apparatus comprising: a first sensor (i.e. a gyroscope; Col. 8 lines 10-16) configured to sense first sensor data (i.e. angular velocity); a second sensor (335a) configured to sense second sensor data (i.e. acceleration data), wherein the second sensor data describes a strength of a movement of the bike, the movement of interest being a pushing or a carrying of the bike away from a parked location of the bike (as earlier in the disclosure in Col. 5, L. 57–63, Sanchez discusses a scenario where received signals indicate an unauthorized person, e.g., a thief, is carrying the asset away from the user's location; Sanchez later teaches in Col. 8 line 62 to Col. 9 lines 5, if sensed data exceeds a specific threshold, it indicates a high probability that the bike is in motion, as the value of that data is compared to thresholds to indicate a probability of movement. This rapid rate of change suggests the asset is moving away from the user; hence, Sanchez teaches the scenario the sensed signals indicating an unauthorized person, such as a thief, is attempting to carry the asset away from a location, beyond a location of the user; therefore, insofar as what is structurally defined, the taught indicator indicates that a thief is pushing or carrying away the asset from a parked location of the asset relative to the user insofar as how the claim has defined structure for determining a parked location); and a “processor/calculation unit” (as taught in the abstract of Sanchez and as best understood by the examiner; see above 112(a) and (b) rejections above) configured to: determine an indicator based on the first sensor data (i.e. angular velocity motion data), wherein the indicator indicates a probability of a presence of a movement of interest of the bike (as Sanchez teaches in Col. 8 line 62 to Col. 9 lines 5, if the indicator indicates the motion data is above a threshold, there is a high probability the bike is in motion), detect whether the movement of interest is given based on the indicator (as based on the determined threshold crossing, the method determines the movement is of interest); and send a notification (i.e. an alert) to a user in response to the movement of interest being detected (Col. 9 lines 6-18). Sanchez remains silent regarding the processor determine(s) a weighting factor based on the second sensor data; and weight(s) the indicator by the weighting factor. Akella et al. teaches a similar determination of a weighting factor based on sensor data (s316); and weighting the indicator by the weighting factor (as s316 applies the weight factor to the sensor data; Col. 19 line 63 to Col. 20 line 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Sanchez to include the data processing step of applying a weight factor to sensor data, as taught in Akella et al. because such a modification improves the accuracy of that data, Col. 2 lines 61-66, thereby improving the theft detection in Sanchez. With respect to claim 11, Sanchez as modified by Akella et al. teaches the method, wherein the accelerometer is configured to sense an existing acceleration along multiple axes (Sanchez teaches the accelerometer senses acceleration data in response to the bike falling over, which indirectly teaches sensing an existing acceleration along multiple axes, which is a specific event requiring sensing in a multi-axis, Col. 13 lines 33-38). With respect to claim 12, Sanchez remains silent regarding the gyroscopic sensor is configured to sense an existing rotation along multiple axes of rotation. Akella teaches a gyroscope sensor configured to sense an existing rotation along multiple axes (as Akella et al. teaches sensing pitch, roll and yaw; Col. 8 lines 15-42). Because both Sanchez and Akella teaches gyroscopic sensors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to substitute the senor is Sanchez with the multi-axis gyroscopic sensor of Akella to achieve the predictable results of sensing motion. Further, such a modification increases the sensitivity of detecting motion, thereby improving the theft detection in Sanchez . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-9, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims with amendments to overcome the 101 rejection. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lim et al. (2010/0161545) which teaches using weighting factors to combined sensor data to create characteristic values for each sensor. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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. /MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 2 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 3 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 4 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 5 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 6 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 7 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 8 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 9 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 10 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 11 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 12 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 13 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 14 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 15 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 16 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 17 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 18 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 19 Art Unit: 2853 Application/Control Number: 18/310,979 Page 20 Art Unit: 2853
Prosecution Insights