DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, dated 10 March 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1’s limitation, “generating combined sensor data by combining the first sensor data and the rotated second sensor data,” Applicant, at page 7 of the Remarks, characterizes paragraph 0033 of YOUSSEF as disclosing
that "sensor fusion for SPU 106 gives the orientation of portion 124 and sensor fusion for SPU 108 gives the orientation of portion 126. By taking the difference in these orientations, an accurate estimation may be made for the absolute hinge angle". Paragraph 0033 makes clear that sensor fusion in paragraph 0033 means fusing the accelerometer and gyroscope data for SPU 106 and SPU 108, separately. In other words, SPU 106 has an accelerometer and gyroscope, whose data are fused. SPU 108 has an accelerometer and gyroscope, whose data are fused. Based on these two fused data, a hinge rotation angle is generated. Accordingly, the two different sets of fused data must correspond to the first and second sensor data of claim 1.
Applicant, at p. 8 of the Remarks, specifically argues that
Youssef does not describe generating combined sensor data by combining first sensor data and the rotated second sensor data. The Office Action appears to assert that the described sensor fusion of Youssef corresponds to the combining of claim 1. However, the sensor fusion of Youssef does not correspond to combining the sensor data from first and second sensors in different lids of the device. Instead, sensor fusion is described as combining the accelerometer and gyro data from a single lid sensor, for each lid separately. We believe that Youssef does not disclose "generating combined sensor data by combining the first sensor data and the rotated second sensor data", as set forth in claim 1.
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument to be unpersuasive for at least the following reasons.
At issue here is the proper interpretation of the terms “combined” and “combining.” The Examiner has interpreted the claim terms “combined” and “combining” in a manner prescribed by Office guidance: “[T]he meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.” MPEP § 2111.
In the absence of a specialized definition of combined/combination in the Applicant’s specification, the Examiner has interpreted the terms consistent with 1) their “ordinary and customary meaning[s],” and 2) “the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.” Thus, the disputed claim limitation does not require that any particular form (e.g., mathematical operation) of “combining” be performed.
YOUSSEF at para. 0033 discloses:
[S]ensor fusion for SPU 106 gives the orientation of portion 124 and sensor fusion for SPU 108 gives the orientation of portion 126. By taking the difference in these orientations, an accurate estimation may be made for the absolute hinge angle.
The Examiner finds that YOUSSEF’s description of the estimation of the absolute hinge angle—“[b]y taking the difference” between two sensor-derived orientations—discloses the claimed “generating combined sensor data by combining . . . .” The Examiner finds that—in the context of the required combining of sensor data—operations (e.g., subtraction) which use multiple inputs to generate an output constitute “combining.”
In due consideration of Applicant’s arguments, the grounds of rejection set forth in the non-final Office Action, dated 11 Dec. 2025, in which claims 1-9 and 11-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0027806 ("YOUSSEF"), claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over YOUSSEF in view of US 2022/0350373 ("CUI") are hereby MAINTAINED and this Action has been MADE FINAL.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights