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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 18 January 2024 and 19 January 2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “A mounting angle detection method for detecting a mounting angle of an acceleration sensor that has at least a first detection axis and a second detection axis orthogonal to each other and is disposed on a vehicle such that a yaw mounting angle between a vehicle reference axis that is either a vehicle front-rear direction axis or a vehicle width direction axis and a virtual line set between the first detection axis and the second detection axis is ±15 degrees or less, the method comprising: acquiring, from the acceleration sensor, an acceleration in a direction of the first detection axis and an acceleration in a direction of the second detection axis in a state where acceleration in the vehicle width direction is generated in the vehicle and low acceleration or low deceleration is generated in the vehicle front-rear direction; and calculating the yaw mounting angle from an angle calculation formula that calculates the yaw mounting angle from an acceleration in the direction of the first detection axis and an acceleration in the direction of the second detection axis and the acceleration in the direction of the first detection axis and the acceleration in the direction of the second detection axis acquired, the angle calculation formula being derived by assuming a state where acceleration in the vehicle width direction is generated in the vehicle and no acceleration is generated in the vehicle front-rear direction and by using a fact that a tan value of the yaw mounting angle is approximated to the yaw mounting angle.”
Claim 6, in view of the claim limitations, recites the abstract idea of “acquiring, from the acceleration sensor, an acceleration in a direction of the first detection axis and an acceleration in a direction of the second detection axis in a state where acceleration in the vehicle width direction is generated in the vehicle and low acceleration or low deceleration is generated in the vehicle front-rear direction; and calculating the yaw mounting angle from an angle calculation formula that calculates the yaw mounting angle from an acceleration in the direction of the first detection axis and an acceleration in the direction of the second detection axis and the acceleration in the direction of the first detection axis and the acceleration in the direction of the second detection axis acquired, the angle calculation formula being derived by assuming a state where acceleration in the vehicle width direction is generated in the vehicle and no acceleration is generated in the vehicle front-rear direction and by using a fact that a tan value of the yaw mounting angle is approximated to the yaw mounting angle.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “acquiring, from the acceleration sensor, an acceleration in a direction of the first detection axis and an acceleration in a direction of the second detection axis in a state where acceleration in the vehicle width direction is generated in the vehicle and low acceleration or low deceleration is generated in the vehicle front-rear direction; and calculating the yaw mounting angle from an angle calculation formula that calculates the yaw mounting angle from an acceleration in the direction of the first detection axis and an acceleration in the direction of the second detection axis and the acceleration in the direction of the first detection axis and the acceleration in the direction of the second detection axis acquired, the angle calculation formula being derived by assuming a state where acceleration in the vehicle width direction is generated in the vehicle and no acceleration is generated in the vehicle front-rear direction and by using a fact that a tan value of the yaw mounting angle is approximated to the yaw mounting angle.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical concept, and thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 1, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-5 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0078]-[0082] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-5 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schauer et al (US 11,906,542) disclose an inertial measurement unit having: a first acceleration sensor configured to measure a translational acceleration along a first sensor axis and/or a first rate-of-rotation sensor configured to measure a rate of rotation about the first sensor axis and also a second acceleration sensor configured to measure a translational acceleration along a second sensor axis and/or a second rate-of-rotation sensor configured to measure a rate of rotation about the second sensor axis. A sensing device senses a movement of the vehicle in a first vehicle direction and/or about the first vehicle direction. Both the first sensor axis and the second sensor axis are tilted with respect to the first vehicle direction. Chen et al (US 11,885,620) disclose an inertia detection device that includes one set of gyro sensors for detecting an angular velocity of a detection target object along a same direction, the gyro sensors arranged in a same physical quantity range, in which sensor movement is detectable as a same physical quantity. When an abnormality affecting an output signal of one of the gyro sensors is caused, based on an observation that a difference of magnitudes of the output signals from normal and abnormal gyro sensors is different from a difference of magnitudes of the output signals from two normal gyro sensors, such an abnormality of one of the gyro sensors is determinable by a comparison between the output signals, without using an estimated value thereof. Kobayashi et al (US 8,256,265) disclose an apparatus for inspecting a sensor module including at least one held sensor in a housing having a plurality of outer surfaces. The held sensor detects acceleration or angular velocity. The apparatus includes a holding unit that has an apparatus-side surface and holds the housing in a state where one of the outer surfaces of the housing serving as a housing-side surface contacts the apparatus-side surface, a driving unit that moves the holding unit, a first obtaining unit that, in a state where the housing-side surface contacts the apparatus-side surface, obtains an output from the held sensor, at least one reference sensor that has a detection axis and is provided such that a direction of the detection axis matches a direction of a reference axis of the held sensor, and a second obtaining unit that obtains an output from the reference sensor.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights