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 . The rejections from the Office Action of 10/7/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
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 1-5, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical and/or mental activity algorithm for determining whether accelerometer/gyroscope data indicates a device has remained on a stationary surface (i.e., through use of simple thresholds).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying device and/or sensors is realized through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited accelerometer/gyroscope is needed to perform the algorithm using a general-purpose computer. The recited processor and instructions amount to the recitation of a general-purpose computer for implementing the algorithm and do not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). The step of “stopping the processing” amounts to merely concluding the performance of the algorithm and does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself; doing so would have naturally reduced power consumption.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivolta et al. (US 20200132717 A1)[hereinafter “Rivolta”] and Xu et al. (US 20160091952 A1)[hereinafter “Xu”].
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Rivolta discloses a method comprising:
generating, by a first motion sensor of a device, first sensor data over an acquisition time window [Paragraph [0007] – “generating, by an accelerometer of an electronic device, first sensor data over an acquisition time window”];
generating first process data by processing the first sensor data [Paragraph [0007] – “determining, by a first feature detection circuit, at least one first orientation-independent feature for the acquisition time window based on the first sensor data”] to determine whether or not the device is located on a stationary surface [Paragraph [0007] – “to determine whether or not the electronic device is located on a stationary surface based on the at least one first orientation-independent feature and the at least one second orientation-independent feature.”]; and
determining whether or not the device is in a stable state based on the first process data, the stable state being indicative of whether the device has remained on a stationary surface or not for a first predefined time [Paragraph [0040] – “At step 212 of method 200, the mean-cross value and the variance of the norms within the acquisition time window W.sub.i is provided to the classifying circuit 106. As such, the classifying circuit 106 is run after the acquisition time window W.sub.i ends and after the mean-cross value and the variance of the norms within the acquisition time window W.sub.i are determined by the appropriate detection circuit. It is once again noted that the mean-cross value and the variance of the norms within the acquisition time window W.sub.i are the orientation-independent features that are used to determine whether or not the electronic device 101 is located on a stationary or stable surface.”Paragraph [0044] – “In a similar manner, it can be observed from FIGS. 4A and 4B that the mean-cross values 404 obtained by method 200 when the electronic device 101 is located on a stationary or stable surface (e.g. when on a table) is greater than the mean-cross values 408 obtained by method 200 when the electronic device 101 is not located on a stationary or stable surface (e.g. when on a human lap).”].
Rivolta fails to disclose stopping the processing of the first sensor data to reduce power consumption of the device in response to determining that the device has been in the stable state for a second predefined time.
However, Xu discloses stopping the processing of the sensor data (i.e., counting footsteps) in response to determining that the device has been in the stable state for a second predefined time to reduce power consumption [See Fig. 3 and Paragraph [0072] – “If the user still is more than 3 minutes, the user is only occasionally activities and is into the sleep mode 31. Then the wearable equipment switches to the sleep mode 31 and maintains the ability to switch to the fake sleep mode 32 at any time.”Sensor data processing (footstep counting) is not performed when the device is moved from the fake sleep mode to the sleep mode, see Paragraph [0068] – “the sampling frequency of the sleep mode 31 is lower, the power consumption is saved but the motion footsteps cannot be monitored.”]. It would have been obvious to put the device to sleep when it is not in use (in a stationary state) and to keep it asleep relative to a second threshold amount of non-use in order to conserve operating power.
Regarding Claim 11, Rivolta disclose a device comprising: a first motion sensor [Paragraph [0007] – “generating, by an accelerometer of an electronic device, first sensor data over an acquisition time window”] and a processor [Paragraph [0063] – “Those of skill in the art will further appreciate that the various illustrative logical blocks, modules, circuits, and algorithms described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented as electronic hardware, instructions stored in memory or in another computer-readable medium and executed by a processor or other processing device, or combinations of both. The devices and processing systems described herein may be employed in any circuit, hardware component, integrated circuit (IC), or IC chip, as examples.”].
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the combination would disclose, in response to determining that the device has been in the stable state for the second predefined time [See Fig. 3 of Xu, re-entering sleep mode after 3 minutes], generating, by the first motion sensor, additional first sensor data over subsequent acquisition time windows [Paragraph [0069] of Xu – “When the user is in the sleep state, the accumulated motion time for the user under the low sampling frequency is monitored (at this time only for monitoring, but the footsteps cannot be calculated). When the time is over 60 seconds, the wearable equipment is into the fake sleep mode 32.”].
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination would disclose, in response to determining that the additional first sensor data exceeds a predefined threshold [Paragraph [0015] of Xu – “A current mode is confirmed to be a sleep mode. A motion amplitude of a motion state is detected for judging whether the motion amplitude is greater than a first predetermined threshold, and is switched to a fake sleep mode if it is.”Paragraph [0069] of Xu – “When the user is in the sleep state, the accumulated motion time for the user under the low sampling frequency is monitored (at this time only for monitoring, but the footsteps cannot be calculated). When the time is over 60 seconds, the wearable equipment is into the fake sleep mode 32.”], generating the first process data by processing the additional first sensor data [Paragraph [0070] – “B. the sampling frequency of the fake sleep mode 32 is same as that of the motion mode 33”Paragraph [0048] – “In the fake mode, the wearable equipment still detects the sleep state and the accumulated footsteps. Specifically, the high sampling frequency is executed for detecting the accumulated footsteps and the sleep state, and the high sampling frequency is greater than above the low sampling frequency.”] to determine whether or not the device is located on the stationary surface [Determination of the device being in a stationary state while on a stationary surface per Rivolta as a period of non-use in order to conserve operating power].
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Rivolta discloses generating, by a second motion sensor of the device, second sensor data over the acquisition time window [Paragraph [0007] – “generating, by a gyroscope of the electronic device, second sensor data over the acquisition time window”];
wherein determining whether or not the device is located on the stationary surface [Paragraph [0007] – “to determine whether or not the electronic device is located on a stationary surface based on the at least one first orientation-independent feature and the at least one second orientation-independent feature.”] comprises generating second process data by processing the second sensor data [Paragraph [0007] – “determining, by a second feature detection circuit, at least one second orientation-independent feature for the acquisition time window based on the second sensor data”]; and
determining whether or not the device is in a stable state comprises determining based on the first process data and the second process data [Paragraph [0007] – “to determine whether or not the electronic device is located on a stationary surface based on the at least one first orientation-independent feature and the at least one second orientation-independent feature.”].
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Rivolta discloses that the first motion sensor comprises an accelerometer [Paragraph [0007] – “generating, by an accelerometer of an electronic device, first sensor data over an acquisition time window”] and the second motion sensor comprises a gyroscope [Paragraph [0007] – “generating, by a gyroscope of the electronic device, second sensor data over the acquisition time window”].
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Rivolta discloses that the first motion sensor comprises an accelerometer [Paragraph [0007] – “generating, by an accelerometer of an electronic device, first sensor data over an acquisition time window”].
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rivolta et al. (US 20200132717 A1)[hereinafter “Rivolta”], Xu et al. (US 20160091952 A1)[hereinafter “Xu”], and Xu (US 20230094615 A1)[hereinafter “Xu 2”].
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Rivolta fails to disclose, in response to determining that the device has remained on the stationary surface for a second predefined time, generating a first control signal to turn off the second motion sensor.
However, Xu 2 discloses turning off gyroscopes when a device is put into a sleep state [See Fig. 6 and Paragraph [0070] – “FIG. 6 is a flow-chart diagram of a method 600 that identifies a wake-up motion based on signals provided by the accelerometers 302 and 432 of two IMUs 232 and 234, respectively, according to an embodiment. Operation 602 executes when the mobile device 100 enters a sleep state. This operation powers-on the accelerometers of the 302 and 432 and powers-off the gyroscopes 304 and 434. As described above, the gyroscopes 304 and 434 consume approximately ten times the power of the accelerometers 302 and 432.”]. It would have been obvious to turn off the gyroscopes when the device is in a stationary state in order to conserve operating power.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the combination would disclose that the first predefined time is greater than the second predefined time [See Fig. 3 and corresponding text of Xu, the use of a shorter amount of time (the 3 minute and/or 60s periods) to ascertain whether to put the device into a sleep state after motion is detected over a longer period of time (per the ordinary motion mode)].
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination would disclose, in response to determining that additional first sensor data exceeds a predefined threshold [Paragraph [0015] of Xu – “A current mode is confirmed to be a sleep mode. A motion amplitude of a motion state is detected for judging whether the motion amplitude is greater than a first predetermined threshold, and is switched to a fake sleep mode if it is.”], generating a second control signal to turn on the second motion sensor [Fig. 6 of Xu 2 – Step 612, “Wake-up Mobile Device; Turn On Gyroscopes”].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination would disclose turning on the second motion sensor in response to receiving the second control signal [Fig. 6 of Xu 2 – Step 612, “Wake-up Mobile Device; Turn On Gyroscopes”];
generating, by the second motion sensor, additional second sensor data over subsequent acquisition time windows; and generating the second process data by processing the additional second sensor data [Paragraph [0041] of Rivolta – “Consequently, each acquisition time windows W.sub.i in FIG. 4A has a respective mean-cross value MC.sub.A,i associated with the first motion sensor 102 (e.g. accelerometer) and a respective mean-cross value MC.sub.G,i associated with the second motion sensor 108 (e.g. gyroscope).”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
393
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
81
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The step in Claim 1 of “stopping the processing” amounts to merely concluding the performance of the algorithm and does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
800
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Stopping processing at the end of processing (as recited in Claim 1) is not a technologically sophisticated thing to do and does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Doing so would have naturally reduced power consumption.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
576
863
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xu discloses that after 3 minutes, the device is put into sleep mode [Paragraph [0072] – “If the user still is more than 3 minutes, the user is only occasionally activities and is into the sleep mode 31. Then the wearable equipment switches to the sleep mode 31 and maintains the ability to switch to the fake sleep mode 32 at any time.”See Fig. 3, “stop 3 min” flows to “sleep mode.”]. Putting the device into motion mode is taught when movement is present [See Fig. 3, “movement 3 min” flows to “motion mode.”]. It would have been obvious to put the device to sleep when it is not in use (in a stationary state) and to keep it asleep relative to a second threshold amount of non-use in order to conserve operating power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20240345619 A1 – ON-TABLE AND OFF-TABLE DETECTION FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES
US 20160018879 A1 – POWER-SAVING METHOD AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRONIC DEVICE
US 20140288870 A1 – INLINE CALIBRATION OF MOTION SENSOR
US 20110313723 A1 – APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR SAVING POWER IN PORTABLE TERMINAL
US 20110239026 A1 – POWER EFFICIENT WAY OF OPERATING MOTION SENSORS
US 20060020177 A1 – Apparatus And Method For Measuring Quantity Of Physical Exercise Using Acceleration Sensor
Chowdhury, Development of a Low-Power Microcontroller-Based Wrist-Worn Device With Resource-Constrained Activity Detection Algorithm, IEEE, 2020
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights